Sitting of 5 August 1890

QUESTIONS.

  THE PUBLIC VACCINATOR AT DENABY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a Government Inspector was recently sent down to inquire into certain charges made against Mr. Rowland Hills, the public vaccinator at Denaby, Yorkshire; whether it was proved to the satisfaction of the Inspector that Mr. Hills had made an arrangement with a man to vaccinate babies, to charge for the same, and then to give the parents unsigned certificates, which were subsequently signed by Mr. Hills, and presented to the Doncaster Guardians, when they were again charged for,' as though the vaccination had been free; and what further action the Local Government Board intend to take in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): One of the Medical Inspectors of the Local Government Board has recently made inquiries into alleged irregularities in the performance of public vaccination in the Doncaster Union. There appears to bo no doubt that Mr. Hills, the public vaccinator, had made an arrangement by which children were vaccinated by a Mr. Smith, an unqualified medical practitioner. The certificates of vaccination were filled in with the usual particulars by Mr. Smith, who vaccinated the children, and were then submitted by him to Mr. Hills, who, after signing them, as having himself performed the vaccination, forwarded the certificates to the Vaccination Offices. In some of these
  1890
  cases, although the vaccination fees were charged to the Guardians, payment was made to Mr. Smith by the parents. The Board have communicated with the Guardians, and requested them immediately to determine the contract with Mr. Hills, and have informed them that it will devolve upon them to consider what action they will take with regard to the cases in which they have been improperly charged with the vaccination fees.

  EAST INDIAN CIVIL SERVANTS.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the House will have an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Committee on the grievances of East Indian Civil Servants before any action is taken upon it; if it was intended that the Committee should report not only on the existence or non-existence of real grievances, but also on the specific remedies to be applied; whether the Government or the Under Secretary personally are pledged to the approval of the Report by the circumstance of the Under Secretary moving it in Committee, or whether he merely acted ministerially to carry out the resolutions of the Committee; and whether, if it is desired to take any action, either in the direction of conceding the recommendations of the Committee, or submitting those recommendations for the consideration of the Government in India, anything more can be done than to lay those recommendations before the Council of India in Downing Street, and to leave it to the majority of that Council to decide on a matter affecting the finances, of India, and especially payments from the Home Treasury, in accordance with the power vested in them by the Indian Councils Act?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The reply to paragraphs one and three of the question is—No, and to the second and fourth—Yes.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET AND THE INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now fix the date for the Indian Budget Statement; and whether, in view of the fact that the Indian Councils Bill affects more than

  1891
  200,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects, and that repeated undertakings have been given for its ample discussion at an early period of the Session, he will arrange that the Second Reading be taken with as little delay as possible?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I join in the expression of regret which I understand this question is intended to convey, that it has not been possible to take the Indian Budget at an earlier period in the course of the present Session. But that is due, I am afraid, to the fact that the House has debated other questions at very considerable length. In regard to the Indian Councils Bill there can be no doubt that it is a very important measure, affecting a large number of Her Majesty's subject. I also acknowledge that I have given repeated undertakings to the hon. Member that, as far as was in my power, an opportunity should be afforded for the consideration of the measure. It has not been possible to redeem those pledges. I deeply regret the fact, and I am afraid that it will not be possible to afford an adequate opportunity for the discussion of the Bill this Session. The hon. Member will see that I am unable at present to appoint a day for the Indian Budget Statement. As soon as we have got through the other business it will be taken.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: In consequence of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given in reference to the Indian Councils Bill, and the decided implication that it will be impossible to proceed with it in the course of the present Session, may I ask that it may be taken early in the next Session? I know that there are many Members, who, during the last two months, have specially intimated their intentions of taking part in the Debates upon it. It is quite certain that whenever it is taken there must be a long Debate on the Second Reading, seeing the number of Amendments which stand upon the Paper, and the avowed intention of raising in Committee the question of the elective principle.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it will be better, under the circumstances, that I should say at once that the Government will not proceed with the Bill this Session.

  WORCESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.
  MR. LABOITCHERE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether the Charity Commissioners have decided that nothing can be done in the direction of the amalgamation of the two ancient Grammar Schools at Worcester; and whether he is aware that there is no room for two efficient schools of the kind in the same town?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Royal Free Grammar School in Worcester could not legally be amalgamated with the Cathedral School without the consent of the governing body of the latter, the former being an open, and the latter a denominational, endowment. The Commissioners are aware that there is not room for two co-ordinate schools of the same classical type in the city. They propose, therefore, to provide that the Royal Free Grammar School shall give a practical, modern education, at a low cost.

  THE CONGO FREE STATE.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the General Congo Treaty of Berlin, 1885, the Congo Free State undertook that merchandise imported into that country should remain free from import or transit dues; whether, in violation of that undertaking, transit duties and an export duty of 5 per cent. are now levied on all exported goods; and whether, when the Brussels Act comes into force, if ever, the Congo Free State will be at liberty to raise both import and export duties; and, if so, to what percentage?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN"AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): 1. The Congo Free State was a party to the provisions of the Berlin Act. 2. We are not aware that the Congo Free State levies transit dues. The Congo Act allows export dues. 3. As to import dues, the maximum under the Brussels Act will be 10 per cent. ad valorem, except as regards spirits, which will be subject to special regulations. They were sanctioned by the Brussels Conference, chiefly in order to enable the State to undertake the measures designed to extirpate the Slave Trade.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States of America only consented to recognise the Congo Free State on the condition that merchandise imported to that territory should remain free of Import and Transit Duties; whether the Brussels Act can be enforced according to International Law without the consent of the United States; whether at the Brussels Conference the American Envoy opposed the proposition that the Congo Free State should be permitted to levy Import Duties, and declared the Conference incompetent to modify the Berlin Treaty of 1885; and whether the United States has since given its adhesion to the Brussels Act, authorising the establishment of Import and Transit Duties by the Congo State?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: (1) Yes. (2) Not as far as regards United States citizens. (3) The United States Government, at the commencement of the deliberations, raised objections to the levy of duties by the Congo State. (4) But subsequently signed a declaration relinquishing the right of the United States to the free entry of American merchandise into the Congo State, on the same conditions and within the same limits as those specified in the declaration signed by the Signatory Powers of the Berlin Act. This provisional declaration is eventually to be supplemented by a Treaty.
  MR. O'KELLY: Under the present Act will the Congo Free State be at liberty to levy both Import and Export Duties?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes. The Congo Free State will have the same liberty to impose Export Duties as it has now.
  MR. O'KELLY: Will it be competent for America to send in merchandise without paying Import Duties?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: My previous answer explains that point. If the American Government accedes to the Brussels Act, American merchandise will pay the same duties as that of other Powers.

  THE BANSTEAD ASYLUM.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his
  1894
  attention has been drawn to the following passage in the last Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners in Lunacy (Appendix C, page 215), with reference to the Banstead Asylum—
  "Applicants for discharge were also a legion during our visit. On this point we could only refer them to the Committee (having ourselves no power in the matter), and were then too often answered that they never had an opportunity of speaking to the Committee. Doubtless this answer is beyond the truth, but we fear that the changes incident to recent legislation have interfered with the regular visitation of the wards by the Asylum Committee;"
  and whether, in view of this serious testimony, he will consider the desirability of taking away the duty of visiting the asylums in the county of London from the London County Council, and restoring it to the Justices, or of handing it over to the Metropolitan Asylums Board?
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been drawn to the passage referred to in the Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy with reference to the Banstead Asylum. I have been in communication with the London County Council on the subject, and the Chairman of the Asylums Committee of the Council, who is also chairman of the Banstead Asylum Sub-Committee, states as follows:—
  "The date of the Report in question is October 26th, 1889. The County Council took over the Asylums in the previous July. Therefore, these were early times to report on. I have been on the Banstead Committee of Management without a break for 10 years, formerly as a Justice, latterly as a County Councillor; and have been at every fortnightly meeting in all those years, except, perhaps, three or four. I am sure the County Councillors have visited the wards and interviewed the patients more frequently and more thoroughly than the Justices did. There has never been a break in the regular statutory visitation; and every fortnight some of the Committee inspect some of the wards and interview some inmates."
  I see no ground for proposing that the duty of visiting the Asylums in the County of London should be taken away from the London County Council.

  CUSTOMS OUTPORT CLERKS.
  SIR HORACE DAVEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a Memorial has recently been forwarded from a large number of the Customs outport second-class clerks, praying for compensation for loss of prospects, and for re-arrange-

  1895
  ment of promotion, and whether the Board have declined to grant the prayer of the memorialists; whether the Treasury contemplate any immediate improvement in the position of these clerks, on the lines of the recent improvement in that of the Second Division of the Civil Service; whether a further reduction in the number of the first-class outport clerks is contemplated, and whether the vacancies in the list of clerks rising to £300 are intended to be filled up; whether it is intended to apply the seven hours system to the clerks as a body; and, if so, on what terms; and whether he will include the alleged grievances of these clerks in the inquiry which it is understood he is conducting in the matter of the outdoor branches of the Customs Service?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): A Petition has been received from a number of Customs outport second-class clerks, and has been refused by the Board as unreasonable. No reduction in the number of Customs first-class outport clerks is contemplated, but, of course, no pledge can be given that the existing number shall be rigidly maintained. No vacancies in the list of clerks rising to £300 at present exist. It is not intended to apply the seven hours system to these clerks as a body, but clerks accept promotion to the first-class on the understanding that they are liable for the seven hours. I regret that I cannot extend the inquiry I have undertaken in the case of the outdoor branches so as to include these clerks.

  THE GRENADIER GUARDS.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consent to place upon the Table of the House copies of the Minutes of the Courts Martial on the men of the Grenadier Guards, recently quartered at Wellington Barracks; and will he further consider the advisability of securing to soldiers similar publicity of trial as that of civilians in Magisterial Courts, and which, by the publicity of their proceedings, aid in diminishing crime?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOE WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): To produce the proceedings of these Courts Martial would not be to
  1896
  the benefit of the Public Service. I may, however, inform the hon. Member that perfect publicity of trial is secured to soldiers, as all Courts Martial are open Courts to which the public has free access.
  In reply to a futher question by Mr. GOURLEY,
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid: I would venture to suggest that the House of Commons is not the proper place for discussing these proceedings.

  TREATIES OF COMMERCE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can inform the House which of the Treaties of Commerce now existing with foreign nations expire in 1892, upon 12 months' notice on either side; whether any of the existing Treaties lapse without notice being given; if the Departmental Committee now examining the Treaties at the Board of Trade, is taking evidence upon the wishes of the commercial communities of the United Kingdom and of the colonies; and if their Report will be laid before Parliament, and opportunity be afforded for discussing it prior to any action being taken, and before the time at which notice to terminate, either wholly or in part, must be given?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Commercial Treaties with Bulgaria, France, Italy, Montenegro, Portugal, and Spain, are terminable at various dates in 1892, upon 12 months' notice on either side, and if no such notices are given, will thereafter be terminable at 12 months' notice at any time. None of the existing Treaties lapse without notice. The Treaties Committee will, doubtless, consult the commercial bodies of this country respecting the wishes of British trade, but it is not proposed to extend their inquiries over the whole British Empire. It is not intended to depart from the course heretofore adopted in regard to the Executive having the charge and responsibility of commercial negotiations.

  JEWS IN RUSSIA.
  MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if anything can be done

  1897
  to influence the Emperor of Russia in favour of the Jews in his Empire, now threatened with severe affliction?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: These proceedings, which, if they are rightly reported to us, are deeply to be lamented, concern the internal affairs of the Russian Empire, and do not admit of any interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

  MALTA.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, since the General Election in September, 1889, the Council of Government in Malta met for the first time on the 29th January, 1890, when little or nothing was done; whether it was kept closed from 29th January to 14th May; whether, just as it had got into working order, its sittings were again brought to an abrupt termination on 25th June; and whether, as; there is before the Council of Government at the present time a Motion for an Address to Her Majesty which, among other prayers, contains one for removing from the Civil List the sum of £1,000, out of which all the expenses incurred by Sir Lintorn Simmons and his suite have been ordered to be paid, he can state when it is intended that the Council of Government shall be summoned for the discussion of this Motion, and for the despatch of the business of the island?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The statement in the first paragraph of the question is correct. The delay was caused by the change of Governors owing to the death of Sir H. Torrens. The answer to the second paragraph is, Yes. The Council was adjourned on the 25th of June, after passing several important Estimates, ordinances and useful measures. It was adjourned earlier than the Governor had anticipated on account of the three un-official Members of the Executive Council sending in their resignation which has been accepted. It is hoped that others will shortly be appointed fairly representing the majority of the Council of Government, which will meet again after vacation in October next.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies
  1898
  whether the decrees of the Council of Trent have been promulgated in the Island of Malta; and, if so, by whom, at what date, and under what circumstances?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I would refer the hon. Member to what was said by the Secretary of State in another place, on the 24th ultimo, namely:—
  "The Legal Authorities in Malta have advised that it was duly promulgated there, that it was accepted by the Civil Authorities, and that it has ever since continued to be the Civil Law of the island. We have no information as to the date and circumstances of the promulgation."
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has received a letter from Mr. Savona, bearing date 12th July, 1890, on the Constitution of Malta, and the recent proceedings in the Council of Government of that island; and, if, so, whether he can state what answer, if any, has been returned to the letter in question?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no knowledge of any such letter.
  MR. SUMMERS: I am prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman a copy.

  COMPOSITIONS FOR SHIPS.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the names of the compositions which have been used in the Navy for the first time since the date of Commander Pitt's appointment at the Admiralty; whether the experts on the late Committee or the technical Dockyard Officers have been consulted as to the efficacy of Commander Pitt's instructions for guidance in the application of compositions to the bottoms of Her Majesty's ships, and as to the applicability of these instructions to the various compositions in use in the Navy; and whether any manufacturers who supply compositions to the Admiralty have been consulted by Commander Pitt with reference to these instructions; and, if so, what firms or agents?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Apart from the compositions which have been applied experimentally, Rahtjen's composition is the one which has been adopted for the use of the Navy since the Committee made their Report. This composition was at the time under

  1899
  trial. The answer to the second question is "No," the Admiralty being fully able to deal with the matter themselves. The reply to the third question is "Yes," namely, the Maritime and General Improvement Company:—Messrs. Peacock and Buchan, and the Suter, Hartmann, and Rahtjen's Composition Company.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board have agreed with the London and North Western Railway Company as to the classification and Schedule to be embodied in a Provisional Order and reported upon to Parliament; and, if so, whether such Report will be made by the Board during the present Session; and whether, in the event of disagreement with the Company, the Board will determine the classification and Schedule which they are of opinion ought to be adopted, and report thereupon to Parliament before the expiration of the present Session, or if they intend to postpone such Report till Parliament meets in November?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Board of Trade have not been able to agree with the London and North Western Railway Company as to the classification and Schedule to be made applicable to them. Consequently, the Board of Trade will take the course provided for by Sub-section 6 of Section 24, and will make their Report to Parliament before the end of the present Session.

  STAMP FRAUDS.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether' his attention has been called to the recent conviction, at the Central Criminal Court, of two men, named Falvey and Foskett, for stamp frauds, to the rider to the jury's verdict in the case, and to the observations of the Judge when sentencing the prisoners; whether it is a fact that there has been considerable laxity in the proper custody of the stamping dies in the Department of the Chief Superintendent of Dies at Somerset House, and who are the superior Revenue Officers primarily responsible for this neglect of duty; whether it is known how long the fraudulent practices in question have been carried on; whether there is any
  1900
  truth in the rumour that, owing to the circulation of fraudulent stamps upon the Stock Exchange for some time past, the State has lost several thousands of pounds of Stamp Duty; and whether any absolute knowledge on this head has been arrived at by the Treasury, and has that Department made any special and independent inquiry into the matter, or does it propose to do so?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): In the absence of my right hon. Friend I will answer the question. The Board of Inland Revenue are not prepared to admit that considerable laxity in the proper custody of dies in their Stamping Department exists. These dies are kept strictly as laid down by the regulations for which they are responsible, but on the rider to the Jury's verdict, in the case of "The Queen v. Falrey and Foskitt," being brought to their notice, the Board themselves, with the assistance of their solicitor, commenced a searching inquiry, which is still proceeding, with a view of ascertaining, if possible, the person or persons responsible for the fraud, and of making, if found desirable, stricter regulations as to the custody of the dies. There is no reason to believe that these frauds have been going on for any length of time, and the evidence disclosed at the Police Court and at the trial only pointed to the fraudulent use of dies on three dates in March of this year. There is no reason to give credit to any rumour that the State has lost several thousands of pounds of Stamp Duties. The facts have not yet been sent officially to the Treasury, pending the inquiry by the Board of Inland Revenue, but they will be reported on as soon as that inquiry is completed.

  SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true that the Sugar Convention Bill has passed the French Chambers; and what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to fulfil the international engagement made by this country?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Bill which has been passed by the French Chambers is not the Sugar Convention Bill, but one of domestic policy, designed to recoup

  1901
  the State for the great profits which the sugar refiners are said to have been making by the existing system. As regards the second paragraph of the question, the time for the ratification of the Convention expired on the 1st of August.

  WESTMINSTER HALL.
  MR. DE LISLE: I beg-to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the decay of the new stone-work on the west side of Westminster Hall?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The new stone-work of the new buildings on the west side of Westminster Hall has been carefully examined, and, with the exception of two or three small stones, which are evidently soft, there is no decay. Some interesting stones which were taken from the old buttresses have, however, been raised in corresponding positions in the new buttresses and these, having been covered up in the old buildings for many years are, now that they are again exposed to the atmosphere, showing signs of decay on the surface, but this, after a time, will probably cease to a great extent. With respect, however, to the new stone-work which has been used as a facing to the main wall in the interior of the Hall, I regret to say that, from some reason which cannot at present be explained, certain patches of the work are undoubtedly decaying on the surface, and, strange to say, in the same places as the decay had principally occurred in the old stonework before the repairs were effected. The architect, Mr. Pearson, is at present quite unable to account for this mysterious decay, and assures me that the stone selected for the work (Ketton) is the best for the London atmosphere, and this opinion would appear to be borne out by its standing well on the outside of the building. It is believed that there must be some peculiarity in the mortar of those parts of the old wall where the decay is taking place, and I intend to have the matter thoroughly investigated at once, with a view of ascertaining the cause, if possible.

  THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty
  1902
  what information he has as to the firing of the heavy guns of H.M.S. Hero and Inflexible (the most powerful ships of the squadron which actually fired their heavy guns) during the present manœuvres on Friday last; whether it supports the account in the Times, of 4th August, that—
  "One of the turret guns of the Hero could not be fired during the greater part of the practice;"
  that at the conclusion of her independent firing on Friday the Inflexible reported that—
  "The guns could not be run in, and that it was therefore necessary to take the pistons out, which could not be safely done at sea. If the operation had been real warfare instead of peaceable target practice half the heavy armament of these two powerful ships would have been disabled early in the action, not by the fire of the enemy but by their own inherent defects."
  MR. GOURLEY: I also beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is correct that, during the heavy gun practice off the Scilly Islands on Friday last, two of the four 80-ton guns on board the Inflexible were for a considerable time disabled by accidents to their hydraulic gear, and that, on Saturday, one of the 44-ton guns of the Hero was disabled from the same cause; and whether, in consequence of these (and similar accidents during the Manœuvres of last year), Her Majesty's Government will consent to the appointment of a Departmental or Select Committee, to inquire into the whole system of gunnery in connection with the Navy, and more especially for the purpose of ascertaining whether the proposals for arming the ironclads now building under the Naval Defence Act, with big guns, are the most suitable for Naval warfare?
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I also wish to ask the noble Lord whether it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that at heavy gun target practice off the Scilly Isles, on Friday last, two of the four 80-ton guns on board the Inflexible, and one of the two 44-ton guns on board the Hero became totally disabled; and will he inform the House who is responsible for the defective construction of these guns?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No reports have as yet been received at the Admiralty of failure in the hydraulic arrange-

  1903
  ments for working the heavy guns of the Inflexible and Hero. As regards the Inflexible, all the 80-ton guns were in continuous use for 10 consecutive hours at the bombardment of Alexandria, firing the maximum charges of powder the whole time, and there was not the slightest failure of any sort whatever at any time in any of the hydraulic arrangements during the whole period of the action in question. As regards the Hero, her heavy guns have been continuously used for instruction during the last two years in the training of seamen gunners at Portsmouth, and during the whole of that period there has been no failure in the hydraulic arrangements for working the heavy guns. I have full confidence in my gunnery advisers and the Board of Admiralty are thoroughly satisfied as to the efficiency and system of working heavy guns in the Navy, and there is, therefore, no intention of appointing a Committee to inquire into the subject.

  THE NEW MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now state the result of the official inquiry as to the jamming and other defects in the new magazine rifle, mentioned in the Times report of the recent practice at Bisley?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have not yet received a Report, and I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone the question.

  THE PAPAL COURT OF ROME.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during the last Administration of the late Sir Robert Peel, and subsequently, the British Government was diplomatically represented at the Papal Court of Rome by a functionary, who, although nominally attached to the British Legation of Tuscany, was, in fact, accredited to the Pope of Rome?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: At the time referred to, and subsequently, an Attaché to the British Mission in Tuscany resided at Rome, and was in confidential communication with the Papal Government. But he was not accredited to the Holy See.

  REPORTS, POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS).
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in the "Reports, Police (Counties and Boroughs)" for 1889, the tables on pages 118 and 119 do not give the population according to the Census of 1871, so as to be uniform with the similar tables on pages 222, 223, 318, and 319, and that the table on pages 318 and 319 entirely omits the population in the case of about 31 boroughs; whether he will consent to a re-issue of the three tables, so as to make them uniform and complete; and whether he will take steps to prevent a repetition of these omissions?
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The three tables were prepared by the Inspectors, and it is true there is some slight want of uniformity in them. I will give instructions, so that hereafter this may be remedied. The 31 boroughs have not been omitted, but having, in pursuance of the Local Government Act, been merged in counties, their figures are included in the County Returns.

  CHURCH AND POOR'S LAND, DEFFORD.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith whether he is aware that in the new scheme for the administration of the Church and Poor's land of the township of Defford, in the County of Worcester, the Charity Commissioners have stipulated that the three representative Trustees shall have a ratal qualification of not less than £15, whereby all members of the working classes of the district, and also any other person occupying a house without land attached, will be entirely excluded from the administration of the charity; whether he is aware that instead of the share of the poor in the fund being distributed in coal, as hitherto, it is intended that this shall only take place after a preference has been shown by subscriptions to dispensary, infirmary, hospital, convalescent home, and provident clubs, a method of distribution which is generally objected to by the people of the country districts; and whether the Commissioners intend to take any action in the matter?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: According to the original Trusts of the endowment of the Church and Poor's Land of Defford, the Trustees are to be "landowners of Defford, which are of the best, largest, and ablest estates there," and the Commissioners consider that their proposal fairly represents the original qualification. The provisions for the application of income, which are inserted in the draft scheme, are those in general use in schemes for dole charities; they were approved by a Select Committee in 1884; they do not give preference to any one of the several alternate modes of application suggested, of which distribution in coal and other articles in kind is one.

  ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has entered into negotiations with France respecting Madagascar; and, if so, whether they will give the House an opportunity of pronouncing a judgment before concluding a Treaty on the subject?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question until Thursday. I think I shall then be able to give him a more satisfactory answer than I could give him to-day.

  ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the case that Sections 1 and 2 of Article III. of the Anglo-German Agreement define the boundaries of the Cape Colony and the German Territories; whether the Cape Government have been consulted as to these boundaries; and whether it is the intention of the Government to consult the Cape Ministry as to the further delimitation of the Cape Territory at Walfisch Bay, before offering a settlement, or going to arbitration, as defined in Clause 2 of Article III. of the Anglo-German Agreement?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: As this question only appeared on the Paper to-day I must also ask the hon. Member to postpone it. Perhaps before question time is over I may be able to answer it, but I cannot at this moment.
  Subsequently,
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid: Section 1 of Article 3 speaks of the Orange River as a boundary. As this made no change in the status quo, there was no question on which consultation was required by the Cape Government. The remainder of the section and the 2nd section do not define the boundaries of the Cape Colony; the contiguous territories belong to the Crown Protectorate of Bechuanaland, and to Khama's country, which is under Imperial protection. As regards Walfisch Bay, Her Majesty's Government have complete knowledge of the question in dispute, as stated on behalf of the Cape and on behalf of Germany. They would give the Cape Government every opportunity of strengthening their case before going to arbitration.
  DR. CLARK: Was the right hon. Gentleman mistaken yesterday when he said that the Cape Colony would not be considered because its interests were not affected? As its interests are affected, will he carry out his pledge of May 19, that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to ascertain and give due aonsideration to the opinion of the colonies before the question is finally settled?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have nothing to add to the very full answer I have given to the hon. Member.

  P.C. MARR.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a police constable named Marr, who, at the Manchester Assizes in December, 1888, was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, being at the same time severely censured by the Judge for having perjured himself, has since his release been re-admitted into the Force, and is at the present time serving in the D Division of the Manchester City Police, or is on the probation list, with the view of being reinstated in the Police Force; and whether he can make any representations to the Police Authority in Manchester on the subject?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; it is the fact that this man is on the probation list in consequence of there being a strong feeling among the Local Authorities that he was not guilty of the

  1907
  offence of which he was accused. It is not the fact, as alleged, that he was severely censured by the learned Judge.

  ERZEROUM.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any further information as to the five prisoners incarcerated in the prison of Erzeroum for a full twelvemonth, namely, Bedros Athamian and four others, and as to the five prisoners imprisoned for the last three years in the gaol of Erzingian, namely, Ohannes Kaladjian, Boghos Berberian, Nichan K. Artzruni d'Eguin, Nichan Akevnian, and an Armenian priest of Seghert; whether he is aware that their only offence was having a patriotic song, written in pencil, in their wallets, which they had not published in any way, as is necessary for conviction according to Turkish law; and whether Moussa Bey has been brought to a second trial, as was reported was to be done; and, if so, what stage has the trial reached?
  SIR J. FERGESSON: The Grand Vizier denies that there are any Christian Armenians either at Erzeroum or at Erzingian who have been kept in prison any length of time without trial. Moussa Bey has not yet been put on his trial again, but he has not been allowed to leave Constantinople.

  LIBEL ACTION AT MANCHESTER ASSIZES.
  MR. SCHWANN: I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the report of a libel action tried at the recent Manchester Assizes before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, wherein it was stated that the police had handed over to the plaintiffs in the case a petition against a house which it was alleged or suspected was used for immoral purposes, and if it is customary to treat such communications as privileged; and whether the police exceeded their duty in handing the document to the tenants of the house in question, upon which letter the case was based; but I will postpone it until another day.

  OUTRAGES IN MACEDONIA.
  MR. LEVESON GOWER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary
  1908
  of State for Foreign Affairs whether British Consuls in the Ottoman dominions enjoy the right or are granted permission to visit State prisons; whether, in that event, they ever do so; whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any Consular Reports upon the condition of Turkish prisons; and, should no such Reports be in existence, whether the Government will direct Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople to request the Porte to give British Consuls facilities to test the accuracy of recent statements as to the horrible state of the prison in Uskup, and the habitual use of torture there and in other prisons of Macedonia?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am now able to reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Stoke on the 31st July, that inquiries have been made with regard to the reports appearing in the Daily News of the 29th of July; that the manager of the Salonica Railway emphatically contradicts those statements, and states that 10 months ago two Albanian women were run down and killed by an engine, and that, in consequence, some of their relatives a week afterwards fired on a train, but did no injury, and that there has been no repetition of any such outrage. It appears, therefore, that the information furnished by the Daily News correspondent that the stoker and three Mussulman passengers were killed is not correct. Her Majesty's Government have received the further information that the correspondent—a German gentleman named Weitz—who was expelled from Servia last winter for inventing sensational news, did not visit Pristina, as represented by him, but only went to Nievsovitz, and returned the same day to Uskup.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Fnreign Affairs whether it is the fact, as stated by the Daily News correspondent at Erivan, in the issue of the 4th instant, that Martini-Henry rifles have been distributed by orders from Constantinople to the Kurds of Moosh, Bitlis, Van, Bayazid, and Alashgerd; whether the Turkish troops, in obedience to their instructions, shoot down any Armenians found in possession of firearms; whether the arming of Mussulmans and dis-

  1909
  armament of the Christians in Bulgaria immediately preceded and occasioned the massacres in that country in 1876; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to warn the Porte of the probable consequences of similar action in Armenia?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have received no information of the statements mentioned in the first and second paragraphs. As to the third, full particulars of the events of 1876 in Bulgaria will be found in the Blue Book presented to Parliament at the time. There might be much said for and against such a statement. As to the fourth paragraph, I have already stated that I must decline to give any particulars as to communication which Her Majesty's Government may consider it expedient to make to the Porte.

  THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of the Trade if, having regard to the unanimity of the Select Committee upon Merchandise Marks as to the desirablity of the public prosecution either on the part of the Board of Trade or of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs, in respect of offences against "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," and to the improbability of the House offering any serious opposition to the carrying out of such recommendation, he can introduce and pass a short Bill to that effect should legislative sanction be necessary?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing the Report to which my hon. Friend refers, which has not yet been circulated, I am not in a position to give an answer to the question; but when I have done so, it will be my duty to consider, in conjunction with other Departments of the Government, what course should be adopted. I am not sure that legislation would be necessary, but there would be no time to undertake it during the present Session.

  THE VATICAN.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during the last Administration of the late Sir Robert Peel and subsequently, the British Government was diplomatically repre-
  1910
  sented at the Papal Court of Rome by a functionary who, although nominally attached to the British Legation of Tuscany, was in, fact accredited to the Pope of Rome?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: At the time referred to, and subsequently, an Attaché to the British Mission in Tuscany resided at Rome, and was in confidential communication with the Papal Government; but he was not accredited to the Holy See.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there are any Papers in the Foreign Office relating to the Special Mission of the Duke of Norfolk to the Vatican in 1887; and, if there are, whether they can be laid before Parliament?
  MR. W. H. SMITH; There are some Despatches in the case of the Mission of the Duke of Norfolk, and if it is desired they could be produced, but they are purely formal; there is nothing of a political character in them.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there are any Papers in the Foreigh Office relating to the Mission of Sir George Errington to the Vatican, and, if there are, whether they can be laid before Parliament?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There is an extensive correspondence reaching from 1881 to 1885 in the Foreign Office relating to Sir George Errington's communications with the Vatican, which were left for future Secretaries of State in accordance with the undertaking given by Mr. Gladstone in 1883. As many of them relate to individuals, or to questions affecting Foreign States, they would require careful examination before any decision could be taken as to the possibility of presenting them to Parliament.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR,: Were there not two Missions of the Duke of Norfolk to Rome?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Duke of Norfolk did go twice: whether there were two Missions I cannot say.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Were there not two separate charges against the public moneys?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think not.
  MR. DILLON: If the right hon. Gentleman produces any Papers to the House in connection with the Duke of Norfolk Mission, will he produce all

  1911
  with regard to Sir George Errington? I would remind him that when the matter was before the House recently he undertook, at the request of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) to look into the correspondence of previous Missions as well, and to consider whether they could not be brought before the House at the same time.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is perfectly accurate to say that I did undertake to consider whether I could produce a sort of narrative of the communications that had passed between successive Governments through the medium of gentlemen at Rome and the Vatican. That is a matter that will involve considerable labour and some time, and, therefore, I am not able to give any decision at present.
  MR. DILLON: Do we understand that the matter will be considered at a future time?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly.
  MR. SEXTON: With regard to the ambiguous reply of the right hon. Gentleman as to the Mission of the Duke of Norfolk, I wish to ask if he was sent to Rome twice, and received different instructions on each occasion?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman will see that I am not prepared to answer questions of this kind off-hand. I can simply answer the question on the Paper of which I have had notice.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have answered the question already. On one occasion on which the Duke of Norfolk went to Rome he had no Mission whatever from Her Majesty's Government, and the second time it was on a purely formal and complimentary Mission.
  MR. O'KELLT: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to produce that portion of the correspondence relating exclusively to Ireland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware that any portion of the correspondence relates exclusively to Ireland, and, therefore, can give no undertaking of the kind.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Sir G. Errington's negotiations with the Vatican from 1881 to 1885 were such as to constitute his proceedings there a Mission in the ordinary sense of the word.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My hon. Friend will see that this is a question which is more a matter of opinion than a matter of fact. Sir G. Errington did not occupy the position of an accredited Ambassador or Minister to the Holy See, but, undoubtedly, he was the medium for making communications between the Government of Great Britain and the Holy See.
  MR. SUMMERS: Did Mr. Errington receive any appointment or any remuneration for his services?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe he was made a Baronet afterwards.

  CARDINAL MANNING.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a letter which appeared in the Morning Post of 14th July, from the Secretary to the Royal Commission appointed by the; late Government in 1884 on the Housing of the Working Classes, in which the writer says that—
  "Cardinal Manning was accorded his precedence on that Commission not as a matter of courtesy, but as a personage of princely rank;"
  whether this accordance of precedence was in conformity with a precedent created in the grant of a Charter for the Royal University in Ireland by the Government in 1880; whether the concession of such precedence on a Commission appointed under the Royal Sign Manual now confers such rank and precedence upon Dr. Manning, and would confer them upon any other Cardinal appointed by the Pope to a see in Great Britain or Ireland; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to prevent in future such precedence being accorded over the highest representatives of the Protestant Churches?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no official knowledge of what took place in 1884 under the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, and no responsibility in respect to it. As Her Majesty's Government do not at present contemplate the appointment of any Cardinal upon any Royal Commission, it does not seem necessary to make any provisions with respect to the precedence which would be accorded to a Cardinal in such a case. The point raised in the second and third paragraphs of the hon.

  1913
  Member's question is a purely legal point, which I cannot undertake to answer.

  IRELAND—CASE OF MR. MCCURTIN.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an inquiry under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act has been instituted in the town of Tipperary; and, if so, for what purpose; and whether Mr. McCurtin was summoned to give evidence on the 29th July, and on his refusing to be sworn was committed to gaol for a week, and was taken handcuffed through the town on his way to the gaol; and, if so, for what reason handcuffs were used?
  MR- JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when Mr. William M'Curtin was being conveyed to Clonmel Gaol on the 29th ultimo, he was handcuffed by the police; what was Mr. William M'Curtin's offence, was he a first-class misdemeanant, and is it usual to put handcuffs on such prisoners; and what was the offence of Morgan Hayes, lately sent to prison from Tippsrary, was he a first-class misdemeanant, and was he handcuffed to a prisoner who had several times been convicted of robbery?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): With the permission of the House I shall now also reply to the two questions of the hon. Member for South Tipperary on the same subject. The inquiry referred to is not one under the statute mentioned; but is the ordinary Magisterial investigation constituted and authorised in indictable cases by the Petty Sessions Act, Section 9, Sub-section 2. The questions asked witnesses are being confined to the subject-matter of the inquiry. M'Curtin was, under the powers contained in that Act, committed in custody for eight days. Handcuffs were used as a crowd was observed to be collecting, and an attempted rescue was apprehended. A man named Morgan Hayes was sent to prison for seven days, with hard labour, in default of paying a fine of 10s. for an assault on a constable when on duty. He was handcuffed to a man who was convicted at the same Court of a minor offence. No record can
  1914
  be found of any recent convictions against that prisoner of the nature indicated in the question.
  MR. DILLON: Why were these gross indignities inflicted upon persons accused of trifling offences?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In one of the cases there was a charge of throwing an explosive.
  MR. DILLON: The only charge against Mr. M'Curtin was that he refused to be sworn, and was sent to gaol for seven days as a first-class misdemeanant.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The charge before the Magistrate was throwing an explosive, and Mr. M'Curtin refused to give evidence. In other words, he refused to assist in the administration of justice.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state any fact in justification for the belief that a rescue was apprehended?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Such matters must be left to the judgment of the police, who, of course, must act at the moment.

  POST OFFICE SICK PAY.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether full pay during sick leave has recently been granted to officers of the Post Office in England and Scotland; and whether the measure is to apply also to Ireland; and, if so, why the Belfast office has not been included in the new scheme?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): Yes, Sir; the new rule granting full pay during sick leave applies to Ireland, and it is already in operation at Belfast.

  LICENCES IN MONAGHAN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain what special circumstances influenced His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to interfere to procure a licence for Charles Mitchell, of Shantonagh, County Monaghan, in opposition to the wishes of the inhabitants of the locality, the clergy of various denominations, and the landlord of the townland, and the repeated refusals of the Magistrates and the County Court

  1915
  Judge to grant such licence; whether he can give the name and denomination of the clergyman who is alleged to favour the granting of a licence to Mitchell, and give the number of Mitchell's customers, in addition to the inhabitants of the police barrack, the only house within a considerable distance of the licensed house, who are said to be anxious for drinking facilities; whether it is a fact that two of the three Resident Magistrates who attended the Castleblayney Licensing Sessions on the 20th July, reside outside the County Monaghan; and, if so, where do they reside; can he explain why they attended the Castleblayney Licensing Sessions; whether Mitchell's temporary retail licence will in the meantime be renewed; and whether he will advise the Lord Lieutenant not to give Mitchell any further help, either by the aid of Resident Magistrates, or by the use of His Excellency's influence with the Board of Inland Revenue, to establish what the inhabitants of Shantonagh regard as a source of demoralisation in their midst against their declared wish?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: (1 and 2) Charles Mitchell has held for some years a spirit-grocer's and beer-retailer's licence. The granting of a temporary publican's licence to Mitchell, pending the decision to be come to on his application to Quarter Sessions, was recommended by the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of his discretion. The application to Quarter Sessions has not been opposed by the inhabitants of the locality. Two clergymen are opposed to it, and one, the Reverend Mr. Knox, a Presbyterian, favours it. I am informed that the number of Mitchell's customers in favour of the licence could not be readily ascertained, but that the great majority undoubtedly are so. (3) One of the Resident Magistrates referred to is a Magistrate for the County Monaghan, and had been acting for some months in the Castleblayney district. He lives at Armagh. The other who is likewise a Magistrate for the County Monaghan is Resident Magistrate for the greater portion of the sub-district in which the licensed premises are situated. He lives at Virginia, County Cavan. (4) They attended as Resident Magistrates connected with the Quarter Sessions district. (5) The temporary licence has
  1916
  been renewed until the hearing of the application at the Annual (October) Licensing Sessions.

  REVISION COURT, MONAGHAN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great inconvenience and loss is caused to the inhabitants of portions of the Emyvale district of the North Monaghan Parliamentary Division who have to travel a distance of 18 miles to attend the Revision Court held in Monaghan; and whether, as Emyvale is a Petty Sessions district, with a population of about 9,000, he will cause a Revision Court to be held there?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I fear I cannot add anything to the reply given to a similar question on this subject asked by the hon. Member on 6th September, 1886. Since that date no new circumstances have come under the notice of the Government tending to alter the decision then come to. The decision then arrived at was stated by the then Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes, Dublin University), who said—
  "The places for holding Revision Courts are not determined by the Revising Barristers, but by the Lord Lieutenant in Council. In selecting the places the convenience of the electors and the suitability of the accommodation are carefully considered, regard also being had to the fact that every additional Court imposes an additional charge on the ratepayers. Careful inquiry was recently made as to the expediency of holding Revision Sessions at Emyvale and Scotstown. It appeared, however, that Monaghan, which, is the market town of these districts, was probably the most convenient place for a large proportion of the voters residing therein; and as regards those at a greater distance, the Revising Barrister, by taking their cases first, was able to dispose of them on the first day of the Sessions. In any case, it is too late to make any change before the next Revision."

  EVICTIONS ON BLASKET ISLANDS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Sheriff is bound to find means of conveyance for himself and his men when he is going on eviction duty, or to seize under a decree; and, if so, on what ground ships of Her Majesty's Navy are placed at the disposal of the Sheriff and his officers when going to evict tenants, or to seize for rent, on islands off the coast of Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Sheriff, under ordinary circumstances, is bound to find the means of conveyance for himself and his assistants to effect evictions; but where the forces of the Crown are requisitioned to secure the carrying out of the law in cases where the opposition to the evictions would otherwise render its enforcement impossible, the Government have decided that the Sheriff may be afforded accommodation in Her Majesty's ships for himself and assistants, with the protecting police force when they have to proceed by sea, the Sheriff, as already explained, paying the expenses of subsistence for his party.
  MR. DILLON: As this is a very important question, I wish to ask the Home Secretary if it is true that the gunboat Britomart took away from Blasket Islands the property of the fishermen; and whether Her Majesty's Government have determined not only to assist in carrying out evictions, but also to despoil the fishermen of their property?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid that I must have notice of the question.

  CASTLE ISLAND, CORK.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether four policemen have been stationed for more than a year on Castle Island, off the West Coast of Cork; for what purpose are they stationed there; whether it is a fact that these policemen dig potatoes for the emergency men in charge of Mr. Mullasmion's evicted farm, row these emergency men into Schull, and do other work for them; and whether he can state how much it costs to maintain these four policemen?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that three policemen have been stationed on Castle Island since the 17th April, 1889. The strength was increased to four men in April, 1890. They are stationed there for the protection of Mullasmion's two caretakers and a neighbouring farmer who paid his rent, and on whose property outrage has been committed. The police do not dig potatoes for the emergency men. Having to accompany the caretakers to and from the island, they assist in rowing the boat in which all are conveyed. The police do not work
  1918
  for these caretakers. Approximate cost, since the formation of the protection post, £235.

  DEATH THROUGH NEGLECT.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the death of Bridget Hoban, of Coolarn, Ballinatimon Union, County Mayo; if he is aware that the death has been caused through the neglect of the officials of the Union; that when the husband of the woman went to the doctor with an order to attend the wife on the 2nd of July, the doctor told him to go to hell; and if he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot find that there is any Union in Ireland of the name mentioned. If the hon. Member will renew the question, stating the correct name of the Union and the name of the Medical Officer against whom the allegation has been brought, the necessary inquiries shall be made.

  COLLEGE OF SCIENCE IN DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, notwithstanding the intimation conveyed in Mr. Ward Hunt's letter to Mr. Corry, of the 11th January 1867, namely, that the Treasury concurred in the arrangements proposed for placing and maintaining the College of Science in Dublin in a state of efficiency, the proposed arrangements have never since been made, although continual applications to that effect have been received from the Dean and Council of the College; whether the last memorial in December, 1889, of the Dean and Council on the subject correctly represented that the development of the College renders it urgently necessary to extend the buildings so as to relieve the congested condition of the laboratories and library, and to meet the requirements of the yearly increasing number of students; that new chemical and metallurgical laboratories and a new lecture room are required; that the attendance of students in the college is limited by the insufficiency of the present accommodation; and that the work of professors and students is interfered with, and rendered difficult by

  1919
  overcrowding, want of proper ventilation, bad lighting, and by the grave structural defects and general unsuitability of the buildings; and whether steps will now be taken to make such extensions and improvements as the health of the staff and students, and the interests of the College, urgently require.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I am most anxious to see the College of Science developed and made thoroughly effective, which cannot be the case so long as the difficulties referred to in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question exist, and I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject.

  IRISH WITNESSES EXPENSES.
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, although John Moonan, of Drogheda, was allowed 10s. expenses by the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Caraher, for attending as a witness at the Diogheda Quarter Sessions on the 22nd April last, and Mr. Thomas Brady, Drogheda, Moonan's employer, was allowed the same amount for similar attendance, Sergeant Harbourne, of Drogheda, gotcash order for these sessions, and paid Mr. Brady his expenses, but converted Moonan's 10s. to his own use; and whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the allegation that Sergeant Harbourne converted Moonan's expense allowance to his own use is without foundation. The Sergeant handed both cash orders to Mr. Brady.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland where informa tion can be found showing the extent to which the recommendations of the Royal Irish Constabulary Committee of Inquiry of 1888 have been acted upon?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As stated in reply to a question put by the hon. Member on August 6, 1889, the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry of 1883, to which it is assumed the present question refers, were dealt with
  1920
  partly by the statute 46 & 47 Vic. c 14, and partly by Departmental regulations. As then stated, the hon. Member can have a Return on the subject if he will put the necessary notice down on the Paper.

  MR. JASPER TULLEY.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Jasper Tulley, Editor of the Roscommon Herald, now a prisoner in Tullamore Prison, is suffering from diarrhoea; that he is still sleeping on a plank bed; that he is stripped naked for a portion of each day; and that his life is in danger; and whether he can take any steps to secure an alteration of the treatment of this prisoner?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not yet received a special Report on this question, but the allegations therein contained appear from another Report I have received to be unfounded. If, however, the hon. Member will repeat the question I shall obtain further information.
  DR. FITZGERALD: Since a similar question was answered yesterday, I telegraphed to Tullamore for information, and I have received a telegram in reply stating that the facts are true. I will put a further question on Monday.

  GRANTS UNDER THE EDUCATION CODES.
  COLONEL LLOYD ANSTRUTHER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is correct, as stated in a letter to the Times by the Rector of Baylham, Suffolk, that it is the intention of the Department to withhold the £10 grant under Article 105 from schools which already obtain a special grant under Article 104?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The letter from which the Rector of Baylham quotes was, I regret to say, due to a misapprehension on the part of an officer of the Department, and I am glad of this opportunity of again stating that the grant of £10, under Article 105 and Section 2 of the Code Act, 1890, will be in addition to any special grant obtained under Act 104 and Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876.

  MR. SWINBURNE AND THE CZAR.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given the right hon. Gentleman private notice. It is whether his attention has been called to a poem by Mr. Algernon Charles Swinburne in the current number of the Fortnightly Review, containing a direct incitement to the assassination of the Czar; whether any representation relative to this publication has been made to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of Russia, and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to prosecute Mr. A. C. Swinburne or the publisher or printer of the Fortnightly Review for this gross incitement to assassination of the Sovereign of a friendly nation. Perhaps I may be permitted to read an extract. It says—
  "Night brings but one red star—tyrannicide!" —
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This House has no control over a poet's opinions.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: This question is an illustration of the inconvenience of asking questions without putting a notice on the Paper. I received private notice from the hon. Member about a quarter of an hour ago that he would ask the question. I inquired of my right hon. Colleagues near me whether they had seen, or read, or heard of the publication, and I could not find that any of them had. A question of this consequence ought to have been placed on the Paper in the ordinary way if it was necessary to ask it.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I will put it on the Paper.

  LORD DARTMOUTH AND MR. HANBURY—PRIVILEGE.
  MR. HANBURY: I wish to ask, with your permission, Sir, and the permission of the House, to make a statement on a matter of privilege, which need not form a subject of full discussion. It may be within the knowledge of some Members of the House that in the course of last week a letter was published in the Times signed "Dartmouth, Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire." In that letter, as it appeared to me, Lord Dartmouth presumed to pass a censure upon me as a Magistrate of Staffordshire in his capacity
  1922
  of Lord Lieutenant, in connection with a subject in no way relating to any Magisterial duty, but for a speech actually made in my place in this House. On the next day Lord Dartmouth, on seeing his letter in print, somewhat hurriedly it seems, wrote another letter to the Times, explaining his first letter and conveying what purported to be his real meaning. I feel sure that this was a generous attempt to remedy the first error, bur, unfortunately, it seems to have failed still more to express clearly what was really meant. The error admitted as to the first letter unfortunately characterised the second also. I therefore thought it my duty to send Lord Dartmouth the following' telegram:—
  "Expect letter from me to-morrow. Yours to-day makes case worse."
  Thereupon that same evening I despatched a letter to Lord Dartmouth, expressed in decided and perhaps vigorous language, which I do not know that it is necessary, so far as relates to Lord Dartmouth, to make public, in view of what I think the thoroughly satisfactory explanation which I am now enabled to read to the House. My letter reached Lord Dartmouth on Sunday morning, and on Monday morning I received the following letter:—
  "Patshull House, Wolverhampton, Aug. 3.
  "Dear Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt this morning of your letter of yesterday, and, in the first place, to express my regret at having given you cause to complain of want of proper consideration on my part for not communicating to you my intention to comment on your speech with reference to the action of the officers of the Guards in not returning the salutes of their men—in a letter to the Times. I, therefore, consider it my duty to offer you my apologies for this omission. Next I have, very decidedly, to assure you that I have no intention to pass any official censure as Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire upon your action in Parliament, my sole object having been in alluding to my official position to emphasise my protest against that action, and I consider that I was protesting against your censure of the officers in my first letter. This really is all I have to say by way of explanation on this part of the matter, having had no wish whatever to question your privilege as a Member of the House of Commons. With regard to my second letter to the Times, published yesterday, I desire to explain that it was the result of a comment made to me personally that I had seemed in my (first) letter to express my regret that you were a Magistrate for Staffordshire, and this being entirely contrary to my meaning, I thought it right to supplement my first letter by my second. I go on

  1923
  to ask you to read the enclosed letter which I yesterday prepared to send to the Times, hut did not post, thinking that after your telegram I had, on the whole, better wait for the letter from you which you led me to expect, but I do not now intend to despatch that letter, although I will ask you to return it at your convenience. No doubt you will gather from it that, under no pressure whatever, I repudiated any intention to pass any official censure upon you, and I have further to add that I claim no right as Lord Lieutenant to censure any Magistrate for speech or conduct, public or private, being well aware that it is not in my power to do so. This will, I hope, satisfy you that I never thought of interfering with your privileges, either as a Member of Parliament or a Magistrate. Merely adding that my private opinions upon the subjects as to which I wrote my letter to the Times of the 30th of July remain unaltered,
  I beg to remain, dear Sir, faithfully yours,
  DARTMOUTH."
  "Robert W. Hanbury, Esq., M.P."
  "P.S.—I should, I think, add that, having consulted no one on the subject of writing my protest to the Times, I am solely responsible for the letters which have appeared with my signature. DARTMOUTH."
  I was doubtful as to the exact meaning of that Inst paragraph, and I received the following explanation of it:—
  "Regret to find myself again misunderstood; never intended to express regret at your being a Magistrate for Staffordshire, which I do not feel privately. DARTMOUTH."
  That is a very full and very complete explanation, and in its completeness it is certainly most honourable to Lord Dartmouth. It is honourable, I maintain, to make a frank admission even of mistakes much greater than this; and I feel sure that the House will be perfectly ready to receive and to accept with equal frankness so full an admission. With regard to myself and my humble share in the matter, I may say that my sole desire has been to fulfil what is almost my first and highest duty—to see that this House suffers no injury or disrespect from any action or neglect of mine as a Member. I hop?, therefore, the House will consider that I acted rightly in firmly, but, I hope, courteously, requiring a complete recognition of its undoubted rights.

  PRISON CLERKS.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is a fact that the Lords of the Treasury have for some time past been expecting to receive proposals from the Home Office as to the status of clerks in Her Majesty's
  1924
  Prisons; and whether they have also been endeavouring to obtain a Report from the Departmental Committee appointed no less than four years ago?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Treasury has now received the papers referred to by the hon. Member.

  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to ask what the intention of the Government is with regard to the Savings Banks Bill in view of the opposition which has developed against it?
  MR. STOREY: As the First Lord of the Treasury appeared to complain of my action with reference to this Bill, I may say that I have received communications from several large Savings Banks suggesting a series of Amendments. One of my correspondents says—
  "You are accused of obstruction in this matter, but the Bill requires careful consideration in Committee."
  I am acting in conformity with the view thus expressed.
  MR. LENG: May I ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury is aware that the unexpected withdrawal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Clause 11, as it appeared in the original draft of the Bill, has caused the greatest dissatisfaction among the best class of Savings Banks, and that there is a strong desire among them that the Bill should be maturely considered in another Session of Parliament?
  MR. HOWELL: Was this Bill introduced for the purpose of dealing with the actuaries, secretaries, and officers of the banks, and to safeguard the interests of depositors?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I believe that the great majority of Members on this side of the House are sincerely anxious to pass the Bill into law this Session.
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not received communications from large Savings Banks in Edinburgh and Glasgow which are opposed to some details of the measure, but which are, on the whole, satisfied with the Amendments which the Government have introduced?
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Do the Government propose to deal differently with Ireland in respect of Savings Banks?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not know whether any other hon. Gentleman wishes to put a question to me. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) appears to complain of the tone which I have used in making some observations on a previous occasion with reference to this Bill. If I used stronger language than was just in the circumstances, I am sorry for it. The Government really thought that this was a Bill which might have been received by the House with favour, as it was intended to secure and safeguard the interests of depositors. In securing the interests of depositors, they were also securing the interests of the officers of the banks, who were identified with the depositors, because it is obvious that if the bank were unsuccessful the officers associated with it must share in the failure also. Communications have reached the Government from Scotland, and I have now before me a letter from a Glasgow Savings Bank which states that, with the slight alterations which the Government propose, the Bill would satisfy the Trustees, and they hope that it will pass the House.
  MR. STOREY: What is the date?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The 2nd of August. I do not doubt that there is a considerable opposition to the measure on the part of some hon. Members, and the Government are aware of it. Those hon. Members believe that the interests of the banks are affected by the measure. I stated last week that the Government could not force the measure through against a serious and protracted opposition at this period of the Session. If hon. Members who oppose the measure are still of opinion that they must protract the discussion and debate the measure in Committee, then the Government cannot ask the House to prolong its sitting. I regret this, but I still entertain the hope that hon. Members may, on re-considering the subject, find it to be possible to withdraw their opposition. The Government did intend to extend the benefit of the Bill to Ireland, but it was stated the other day that if it was objected to by the Irish Members it would not be so extended. It is a matter for the Irish Members themselves; if they desire to have the Bill, it will be extended to Ireland. I think that three or four months' delay in passing the
  1926
  measure would do harm, but if hon. Members feel it to be their duty to persist in opposing the Bill the Government have no alternative but to withdraw it for the present Session.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: If there is to be one law for England and another for Ireland the Irish Members will oppose it.
  MR. STOREY: May I explain that I have received a letter from a Glasgow Savings Bank, urging that Clause 11 should be struck out, and other letters from different parts of the country pressing for Amendments in all directions.
  MR. CHILDERS: I do not think the answer of the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject of the Savings Banks Bill was quite conclusive. It appeared to leave open the possibility of the Bill being proceeded with. I have, with an hon. Friend on this side of the House, taken pains to ascertain the facts, and I have found that from the Opposition side of the House there is practically only one gentleman who has put Amendments on the Paper, the greater part of the opposition to the Bill coming from hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side, who are more or less within reach of persuasion, and in these circumstances I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision, the Bill being one of the very greatest importance. The other Amendments which come from this side, save those of the single Member to whom I have referred, are only two in all, involve no principle, and could be disposed of in 10 minutes.
  MR. STOREY: It is an extraordinary proceeding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to assume that because Amendments stand in the name of one gentleman therefore the opposition is by one gentleman. There are a number of——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is becoming a Debate. There is no question before the House.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I would ask whether it would be possible to have the Amendments considered by the Standing Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In answer to the question addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I can assure him that the Government are most anxious to see the Bill passed into land.

  1927
  I am afraid, however, the opposition to the measure is more extensive than he appears to imagine. As far as my hon. Friends behind me are concerned, I am quite prepared to say on their behalf that they will withdraw their Amendments if it will in the slightest degree insure the passing of the Bill. I will make one further attempt this evening in order to ascertain whether, without protracted Debate, it will be possible to carry the Bill. If I am unsuccessful I shall deeply regret it, but the only course then will be to withdraw the Bill for the present Session.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask whether it was by the direction or with the sanction of the Government that the Collector General of Rates of Dublin, an officer of the Lord Lieutenant, appeared before the Committee of the House of Lords to-day in opposition to the insertion in the Dublin Corporation Bill of clauses drawn up by the Government themselves, and

  COPYRIGHT IN THE COLONIES.
  Return ordered—
  "For the years 1879 and 1880, 1881 and 1882, 1S83 and 1884, and 1885 and 1886, of all Moneys received by the Treasury in each Colony that has passed an Ordinance protecting Copyright Proprietors, under the Act 10 and 11 Vic. c. 95, supplemented by the Act 39 and 40 Vic. c. 36, ss. 42, 44, and 102, in the following form:—

  Colonies in which the Duties have been collected.

  Names of Copyright Proprietors on whose behalf the Duties have been collected.

  Antigua.

  Bahamas.

  Barbados.

  Bermuda.

  British Guiana.

  Canada.

  Cape of Good Hope.

  Grenada.

  Jamaica.

  Mauritius.

  Natal.

  Nevis.

  Newfoundland.

  St. Christopher.

  St. Lucia.

  St. Vincent.

  Trinidad.

  Total amount received.

  —(Mr. William Cavendish Bentinck.)

MESSAGE TO THE LORDS.

  METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS, &c.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House, a Copy of the Report, &c. of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Hos-
  in consequence of which the clauses have been thrown out?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not, of course, know what happens in the Committees of the House of Lords, but in this instance I have heard with very great regret that the Committee of the House of Lords have thrown out clauses which the Government desired to see introduced into the Bill. Certainly no official of the Government has appeared before the Committee against the proposals of the Government.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Collector General of Rates of Dublin gave evidence against the clauses?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What was extracted from him in cross-examination I do not know.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask whether the Government intend to move in the House of Lords to re-insert the clauses in the Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall have to consider that question.
  pitals, &c, with the Proceedings of the Committee and Minutes of Evidence.— (Mr. Ritchie.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Customs Consolidation Act (1876) Amendment Bill, with an Amendment.
MOTION.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and shall not he interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House. —(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am not surprised at this Motion being made on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury, for after the attacks the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly made on the Rules of the House, nothing that he can do in this direction forms, in my mind, subject for surprise. Of late, the First Lord of the Treasury and many of his Colleagues have been girding at us as though we were responsible for the terrible state into which public business had fallen. [Ministerial Cheers.] I thought that would elicit the usual cheer from hon. Members opposite, and as hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to endorse that view, it will be necessary to throw a little daylight on the question who is really responsible. I suppose that even hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit that this Session has been wasted. ["No, no!"] Well, I was curious to know that, because I follow with great interest the speeches hon. Gentlemen deliver up and down the country. One day I read in their speeches that owing to us on this side of the House the Session has been entirely wasted, and then, next day, I read a speech from another hon. Gentleman on the opposite side, to the effect that there never has been such a wonderful Session, and that the Ministry has covered itself with honour. ["Name!"] Who says this? Why, all of you. [Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Gentlemen are anxious that the Session should end at a reasonable time, they will do well not to cry out "Divide!" and so try to prevent hon. Gentlemen on the Radical side from speaking, for we intend to do our duty, and, for my part, when hon. Gentlemen opposite cry" Divide!" it only leads me to believe that I am doing my duty, and makes me feel that I ought to do my duty still more fully. Unquestionably the Session has been wasted. Not even the ordinary business has been
  1930
  taken in reasonable time, and the question is, whose fault is it? I should say that it is the fault of Her Majesty's Ministers. They have frequently been accused of it, even by their own followers and their own organs in the Press, which charge them with having muddled the business of the House. What have they done? They have announced certain Bills in the Queen's Speech, they have brought them in, and there seems to have been a sort of rivalry amongst them, each Member of the Government wishing to bring forward his own measure before that of his Colleague. The Chancellor of the Exchequer entered the lists, and suddenly came forward with the Compensation Bill, but everything failed to pass. There was a considerable amount of discussion on all the Government Bills on both sides of the House, and after wasting a great number of days on them Ministers withdrew them. There is only one advantage to the country that has been gained by the present Session. At the commencement of the Session Ministers were going about the country and really persuading some people that although their politics were not sound they were good men of business. I think the bottom has been entirely knocked out of that illusion. I do not think that even their own supporters regard them as good men of business at this moment. We are told that we are responsible for what has happened, and that the failure of the business of the Session is due to our obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham the other day said that Ministers had done a great deal of good, but had been prevented from passing many of their excellent Bills owing to inveterate, professed, and avowed obstruction. I am perfectly ready to admit that when Bills are brought into this House which, practically, are raids on the public Treasury, it is the duty of Members on this side of the House to offer them a most strenuous opposition. It is their duty, when the forms of the House are used again and again to crush out discussion on this side, that we should use on our own part all the forms of the House in order to have discussion. But, Sir, as a matter of fact, there has been no obstruction this Session, for the simple reason that there has been no need of obstruction. All that is needed is to leave right

  1931
  hon. Gentlemen alone. Ministers have obstructed each other, and they are themselves responsible for the failure of legislation. We have at present one Bill before us—the Police Bill—and the First Lord of the Treasury complains that there has been obstruction in regard to that, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby pointed out in the early days of the Bill that if it were referred to a Standing Committee it would have to be fully discussed on Report when it came down to the House. They have put the Bill off to the last days of the Session, and now they complain of that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, with great prescience and knowledge of the House, foretold would take place. We may put aside the Police Bill, which will pass to-day or tomorrow, and there will then be no measure of a controversial character before us. But what is more important is that only one-half of the Estimates have been carried, although that is the primary business of the House. In order to be fairly discussed they ought to be brought in at a fair and reasonable time. Last year the Government put off the Estimates to the end of the Session, and when complaint was made of this the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself that this Session the Estimates should be brought forward at an early period, and that certain Votes which are usually put down at the fag-end of the Estimates should be taken first. Has that pledge been kept? Most unquestionably it has not been kept. We have reached, now the last dying days of the Session, and we are still left with one-half of the Estimates undisposed of, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, not satisfied with having placed them in the position of being scamped, now insists on their being taken at a late hour of night when the Debates cannot be reported, and when hon. Members who wish to express their views will be met with cries of "Divide, divide!" That is adding insult to injury. On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman ask for this? On the ground that hon. Members are fatigued; and he asks us to adjourn shortly, because we are going to meet again in November. Well, we never asked the right hon. Gentleman to call a meeting of the House in November, and the proposal was not received with
  1932
  rapture even by hon. Members opposite-Why is it proposed to meet in November? In order that we may adjourn next year somewhere about the beginning of July. We are asked, in fact, to sit up all night now in order that we may adjourn early in July, 1891, instead of in August. I trust the government of the country will be in other hands in July next, and it will not be for the present Ministry to decide how long we are to sit. No Ministry has ever fallen so low as this one. They have done absolutely nothing. They are condemned by their own organs, and there is almost a mutiny amongst their own followers. Really, when I see them sitting there struggling against their followers and opposed by everybody, I do feel a sort of pity for them. Obstruction has not been necessary, but, for the sake of argument, I will assume that there has been obstruction, and that they have been prevented by it from carrying out their plans. Then, I say, I am rejoiced to think that it has been so useful. When I think of the Irish Land Purchase Bill, the Tithes Bill, and the Compensation Bill, I am thankful that hon. Gentlemen opposite have so good an opinion of us as to imagine it is owing to our action that such excellent results have been obtained. If you say the Session has been a failure owing to us, it appears that our tactics have been successful. The country is utterly sick of the present Parliament, and regards it as thoroughly played out. The Liberal portion of the constituencies look to us on these Benches to prevent as much mischief as we possibly can, but what they aspire to is a General Election. Surely the Government are not going to—I may say—throw pearls before swine—to throw legislation before those who will not pass it. I have been asked when there will be a General Election, and I have said not while the present Government can prevent it. They "lag superfluous" on that Bench, and they will continue to lag there superfluous. I say that Estimates ought not to be relegated to the end of the Session, and then discussed after midnight. I shall divide against the Motion, as a protest against the mode in which Ministers conduct business, and against the way in which they put off the Estimates till the last days of the Session, and then try and

  1933
  force them through in a more rapid way than is absolutely necessary.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Whatever be the intention of this Motion its effect will be to punish the Scotch Members. I suppose the discussion on the English Police Bill will finish at 12 o'clock to-night, and then the Government propose to start the Scotch Police Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, no.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The difficulty in which the House is placed in regard to these two Bills is owing entirely, in my judgment, to the rejection last Saturday of the Motion made to send the two Bills to the same Committee, so that they might be considered side by side, the measures being to a large extent identical. If this course had been accepted, probably by this time we should have been two-thirds through both of them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) said on Saturday he had made inquiry among the Scotch Members and found that four out of five of them desired the immediate passing of the Scotch Police Bill. I have made inquiries, and I find that the statement made by the Scotch Members was not that they desired the Bill to pass this Session, but that if it came on at all it should be immediately after the English Bill. That was not the statement made on Saturday.
  MR. CHILDERS: That was the statement I made on Saturday.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Then it had no relevance to the appeal I made to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CHILDERS: I stated three times that we were asked to ascertain whether it was the wish of the Scotch Members that the Scotch Bill should follow the English Bill or whether Scotch Supply should come first. The answer from the great majority of Scotch Members sitting on this side was that the Scotch Police Bill should come first. I doubt whether at the outside eight Members were of a different opinion.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am glad of the explanation. I did not gather that from what was said on Saturday. I hope that the appeal made on Saturday may be renewed now with more success than it met with then. The Amendment of
  1934
  my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of stating his views on the subject. I do trust, having regard to the entire absence of consideration of this Bill by the Scotch people, that the First Lord of the Treasury, in order to facilitate the progress of business in this House, will provide for the suspension of this Bill. The First Lord has conferred many favours on Scotch Members, and I hope he will add another to the favours he has bestowed upon them.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I do not rise to answer the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, and I think he can have little confidence in what he himself said, seeing that he has left the House; but I have been in the House for a good many years, and have never known a Session when it has not been said by 'somebody that it had been wasted through the fault of the Government. I entirely approve the proposal to suspend the Standing Order for the rest of the Session, and I wish I could induce my right hon. Friend to carry his Motion still further, so as to get rid of the Standing Order altogether, because I am satisfied that such hard and fast rules do not conduce to the efficient transaction of business. As to the Scotch Members they have taken up a great deal of time, far more than their fair share I remember Lord Sherbrooke, then Mr. Lowe, saying "Confound these Scotch Members. I really think there ought to be one Scotch Member with 60 votes." If an arrangement of that kind could be made, there is no doubt that business would be got through with much greater despatch. I urge upon the First Lord of the Treasury that he should consider seriously whether next Session he could not do something to amend the blunder that had been perpetrated in establishing this hard and fast 12 o'clock rule. It might, for example, be made for a later hour than 12, or, at all events, not allowing it to stand exactly as it is at present.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has thrown much light on the subject, or done anything to conciliate Members sitting on this side of the House. I will say a word or two on

  1935
  this proposal, which I look upon as one for the convenience of the House. But, first, with regard to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee. The opinion of a great number of the Scotch Members was this: that if the Government intended to proceed with the Scotch Police Bill, it would be convenient that it should be proceeded with immediately after the English Bill. That opinion was expressed to the First Lord of the Treasury, who received and acted upon it in perfect good faith and courtesy. Now, I will say a word or two on the question whether the present proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is justified or not. There is a very dangerous tendency on the part of leading men of the Party opposite to lay the blame for the disasters of the Session on this side of the House. Against that I must emphatically protest. I hold that the Government when they bring forward an important Bill are bound to pass that Bill or to go out. A very great number of days, I think 25, have been spent over the financial proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what has been most disputed in those proposals has been dropped in consequence of the opposition from this side of the House. No Government that I can remember has ever dropped the principal, the only great Bill of a Session, without going out or dissolving. ["What about the Compensation for Disturbance Bill?"] That was the House of Lords. I do not see why we should be alarmed at the proposal of the leader of the House, for no Bill to which hon. Gentle men are strongly and keenly opposed will be more likely to pass in consequence of the adoption of the Motion. If the Government have, mismanaged business, why should the House of Commons be punished, and it will be punishing the House of Commons not to permit this latitude in respect of the transaction of business, for if it is not allowed the Session must be prolonged. But I think that the Government ought to give a pledge that the power which they obtain will be used reasonably. The House, it should be remembered, meets now at 3 o'clock in the day, and it is a serious matter to sit very far into the night. Very important business, like the Scotch Police Bill, ought not to be taken at such a time as will necessitate
  1936
  any large part of the discussion being continued after 12 o'clock. If there is that honourable understanding, though I can understand hon. Members voting against the proposal for various reasons, I trust on this occasion they will vote in favour of that which is for the convenience of the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I think it will be convenient to hon. Members that this question should be decided without much further debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asks me to give an undertaking that we shall use this power reasonably. I may at once say that the Government have no intention of using the power unreasonably. It must be obvious to the House that considerations of convenience demand that during these remaining days, or weeks, or perhaps months, of the Session we should at least have power to proceed after 12 o'clock with reasonable Bills to which no section of the House objects, but to which individual Members may object on the ground that to consider them would be to make progress with public business. It is most undesirable that at this period of the Session it should be in the power of hon. Members to terminate a discussion at 12 o'clock without finishing the business the House had entered upon. The House is very well aware that on many occasions questions have been fully discussed and were really ripe for decision by the House when that hour arrived, and so fresh debates arose when the House met the next day. I trust, therefore, that the House, taking into consideration the convenience of the House and the advancement of public business, will consent to the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule. With regard to the Scotch Police Bill, the hon. Member for Dundee assumed that we should bring in that Bill after 12 o'clock. I admit at once that it would be an outrage to ask the House to go into Committee for the first time on the Scotch Bill after 12 o'clock, and I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have supposed that we could be guilty of such an outrage. It might be possible to ask the House to complete that Bill after 12 o'clock with a view to making progress with the business of the House, but we should not think of asking

  1937
  the House to begin the Bill after 12 o'clock. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a conversation that took place on Saturday with regard to the Scotch Bill, and to some observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh with regard to the Bill. I have taken steps to ascertain what was the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the subject, and I was assured by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Bridgeton and Edinburgh that it was the main desire of the Scotch Members that the Scotch Bill should follow the English Bill. I did not realise the contingency which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton has suggested now. I put a reasonable interpretation on the information which was conveyed to me, and that interpretation was that the great majority of Scotch Members did desire that the Bill should be dealt with in the course of the present Session, and should follow the English Bill; and I think I only attribute a plain meaning to the English language when I attribute that meaning to the information I received. We have had from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton a speech which I have heard before. The hon. Gentleman expressed that extreme sensitiveness which belongs to his nature, lest anyone should malign him and suggest that he is the author of obstruction in this House. The hon. Gentleman seemed anxious that the people in the country should not attribute to him that he is capable of carrying into practice those declarations which he occasionally makes from his place in the House when he assures us that he will render to the Government every possible opposition and make use of every form of the House in order to defeat their measures—because, even if they are good measures, they proceed from a bad Government. Well, Sir, the hon. Gentleman reminds me of the old proverb, Qui s'excuse s'accuse. I have no doubt that his apologia will be read in the country, and will produce the conviction that it is "Truth," and the hon. Member will be able to pose, not only as a hero, but possibly as a martyr in the discharge of his duties, and in the protection he will give to the country against the iniquities of Her Majesty's Government, and the necessity he finds for exercising a watchful care over their
  1938
  doings. The hon. Gentleman attributes to me and my Colleagues on this Bench differences which he has created in his own imagination. All that has been done has been done as the act or the Cabinet and of the Government as a whole, and the hallucination under which the hon. Gentleman labours with regard to my right hon. Friend who usually sits on my right and my right hon. Friend who usually sits on my left, is only to be attributed to the disordered imagination which extreme conscientiousness occasionally produces. I would now venture to appeal to the House not to carry this Debate any further. I do not propose to avail myself of the opportunity of entering into a defence of the Government for its proceeding, during the Session. I believe that even those who differ from the Government are not desirous of hearing our defence, but are much more desirous of making progress with public business. When we have occasion to make our defence, I have no doubt that it will be received by this House as it deserves. I trust that the House will now consent to proceed with the business before it, and, in conclusion, I would remind the House that even the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has himself admitte d that there are no Bills of a controversial character now before the House.
  DR. CLARK: I regret that at the fag-end of a long Session you are about to suspend the Standing Orders, the result of which will be that the Scotch business in Supply will be taken, as has been the case for two or three years past, at 3 o'clock in the morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark desires to bring forward the notorious Wishart case on an Amendment for the reduction of the salary of the Lord Advocate; then, again, the Crofters Commission Board will have to be discussed, and something must be said regarding the re-construction of the Scotch Fishery Board. There are also upon the Paper three Scotch Bills, the Police (Scotland) Bill, the Factors Bill, and the Education of Blind and Deaf Mute Children Bill; the latter being a very peculiar Bill, introducing in Scotland a principle applying the public funds in a manner which is entirely new. We are asking when the annual massacre is to take place, and yet, at this moment, the

  1939
  Government are proposing to consider Bills of a highly controversial character in Scotland, and determining to carry them at whatever hour they may be reached in the morning. We are unable to believe the promises of the right hon. Gentleman. Formerly, when he told us he would do certain things, we expected them to be done, but we have found that year after year his promises are only made to be broken, and that the Government practically refuse to take Scotch business until they can do so by suspending the Standing Orders. The fact is that the Government are treating us with contempt, and I am afraid are teaching my colleagues to be a source of trouble to them, as the result will probably be that they will adopt the tactics which have been so successful in the case of the Irish Members. The Irish Debates are now over, and most of the Irish Members are going about the country enjoying themselves. Scotland, however, has to wait till the very end of the Session to find that its measures have still to be passed.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I should like to ask the Government whether they propose to extend this Rule to private Members' Bills which have passed the House of Lords and come back to this House?
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member for Caithness has said that Scotch measures were not considered last year until the extreme end of the Session. I would remind the House that is not the case, some of the Scotch Estimates were taken before the Whitsuntide holidays, therefore it is not fair to blame the Government, as the hon. Member has done. I hope, however, that next year it will be found convenient to take the Scotch Estimates at a somewhat earlier period than this year has been found possible.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is reasonable to press forward the Youthful Offenders Bill at this period of the Session? This Bill is a new "Whipping" Bill of the most sweeping character. If it is retained on the Paper, the only result will be that Members will be kept until 2 or 3 in the morning, and the sense of grievance which they would feel would
  1940
  scarcely contribute to the rapid dispatch of public business.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not intend to begin the consideration of any contentious measure after 12 o'clock, and whether it is not his intention rather to make progress after 12 o'clock with certain measures that might be objected to by some individual Member? I hope myself that the Government will proceed with the Scotch Police Bill, and pass it into law. I do not think I was formally committed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, but I remember saying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton that I hoped the Government would shove along the Scotch with the English Bill. I only speak for myself, but I hope the Government will succeed in passing the Scotch Bill into law. The hon. Member for Caithness referred to the Bill for the education of the blind and deaf mute, and I am very sorry to hear that any Member of this House looks upon that as a contentious measure. It does not give us all we want, but those who are interested in this subject are anxious to make a start by getting this Bill through. I wish, further, to point out that the form of the present Motion is somewhat novel. Hitherto the suspension of the Standing Order has been moved with regard to some particular business, but this proposal is that Government business shall be taken at any hour, and I take it that means that the House might sit to any hour on Wednesday. Now, this might be drawn into a precedent, and hereafter used at an earlier period of the Session in a more drastic fashion than could be justified. I think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven to abolish the 12 o'clock Rule would be keenly resisted by hon. Members generally, and they would be exceedingly jealous of anything that might interfere' with the practical working of that rule. We are all willing that it should be suspended on special occasions for special purposes, but we strongly deprecate any graver interference with it. I think we are entitled to an explanation why the Motion is proposed in this form.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I am sorry the hon. Member for Caithness is not in his place; but I can assure the Lord Advocate, from all I can learn, that there is a very sincere desire that the Education of the Blind and Deaf Mute Bill should be passed, and I hope the hon. Member for Caithness will not continue his opposition. I should like to add, further, that there is something to be said for Scotch Members. The First Lord of the Treasury has admitted that it is fair that the Scotch Estimates should be taken at a reasonable time. We live at a considerable distance; we have to make our arrangements; yet I do think that the First Lord has rather taken Scotch Members into his own hands. At all events, I think Scotch Members ought to be defended by him against the rather insulting remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven. I can only account for it by the fact that the Member who made the observations was not considered worthy of notice. I do not think these remarks should be repeated, if you wish the assistance of Scotch Members in the conduct of Imperial affairs. All I can say is, that if such remarks are continued the Scotch people will become more and more of the view that they should be left to conduct their own affairs without the interference of the dominant vote of English Members.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Though I have Amendments down upon the Education of the Blind and Deaf Mute Bill, I regret very much that the hon. Member for Caithness regards it as a contentious Bill. I do not regard it as in any way contentious. Though it does not give nearly all that was recommended by the Royal Commission, yet it gives something, and I hope the Government are prepared to meet us by a reasonable concession, and to endeavour to pass the Bill. There is nothing of a partisan or sectarian character in the Bill, and it is one which both sides of the House desire.
  MR. CHANNING: I rise for the purpose of reminding the right hon. Gentleman that he forgot to refer to a substantial part of the observations of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) with reference to forwarding Supply. The Scotch Members have vindicated their claim to be able to
  1942
  take care of themselves. But as an English Member, I wish to put forward a plea on behalf of English taxpayers, who, after all, form the great majority of those who contribute to the taxes, that this question of Supply should be dealt with on a more rational basis than Her Majesty's Government have dealt with it hitherto. The Government is well aware that they have broken faith with us in not. bringing the Estimates on earlier, and in regarding that as a first duty. I should like to know how, in the interests of the English taxpayers, we are to adequately discuss these Estimates at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning at the fag end of the Session? I protest most emphatically against such proceedings, and I hope my hon. Friend will carry the matter to a Division, and that he will not hesitate to raise this question on every occasion he can until we have obtained a more rational method of dealing with Supply.
  MR. HUNTER: I cannot congratulate the Government on the particular moment they have selected for the suspension of the Rule. They have waited until the English Bill was practically through the House, and they have only begun this new system when Scotch business is coming before the House. The Government now ask us to sit until 2, 3, 4, or 5 o'clock in the morning; but if that is attempted, it will be resisted unanimously by Scotch Members. There is a special reason why the Scotch Police Bill should be considered at a reasonable time. Originally it was sent to a Committee composed of nine out of the 12 Scotch Tory Members and seven out of the 46 Scotch Liberal Members. The deliberations of a Committee of that kind in no degree correspond with the opinion of the Scotch people. The whole Bill was passed through the Committee in three days. The Report was taken under the protest of the minority. These circumstances alone constitute sufficient reason why the Bill should be discussed in this House. I do not want to make a double Division by moving the Amendment which I have upon the Paper, but I should like an assurance from the First Lord that it is not intended to press the discussion of the Scotch Police Bill at an early hour in the morning. If such a course were

  1943
  taken it would be doubly inexcusable, because unnecessary.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I can only speak again with the indulgenc of the House, but I wish to say that the Government has no desire to act unreasonably. We cannot enter into an engagement to report Progress at a certain fixed hour after 12 o'clock; but we wish to treat the House fairly and reasonably, and I do not think the hon. Member will have any reason to complain of the action of my Colleagues or myself in considering any reasonable objection. With reference to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warmington) with regard to Bills coming down amended from the House of Lords, it will be the duty of the Government to give the House an opportunity of considering those Amendments. With regard to the Deaf and Dumb Children (Scotland) Bill, I hope when it comes down from the House of Lords that we shall have the assistance of the great majority of the Scotch Members in passing it. There is, I am glad to say, no sectarian feeling involved.
  (5.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 50.—(Div. List, No. 232.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  (5.59.) POLICE BILL,.—(No. 392.)
  As amended, further considered.
  Amendments made.
  MR. ATHERLBY-JONES: The House will observe that the Pension Fund is to be made up from various sources, one of which is the deduction of 2½ per cent. per annum from the wages of the constables. Now, that percentage will be recognised by all hon. Members as perfectly illusory, for the purpose of forming a substantial contribution to the fund; indeed, for all practical purposes, there might as well be no such contribution at all. What I propose is, then, that instead of the contribution being 2½ per cent. it should be 5 per cent. I know it may possibly be argued by the right hon. Gentleman that this would constitute a heavy tax on the police; but when I compare the wages they received with those paid to men belonging to a similar class in life, I think the conclusion is justifiable that
  1944
  a deduction of 5 per cent. would not be excessive. For instance, in the Metropolis the constables start with wages of 24s. a week, and are supplied in addition with boots and clothing, while, in the event of a man being unmarried, he can have quarters, including fire and lighting, for the moderate sum of 1s. per week. Can it be said, then, that a deduction of 5 per cent. is too heavy? Further than that, I believe that, in the case of all-other pension funds established for the benefit of bodies of workmen, the deduction is higher than 2½ per cent. I again pray in aid of the case of the Scotch Bill, in which it is provided that the rate of deduction in the case of officers above the rank of sergeant shall be 7½ per cent. I trust the Home Secretary will leave this an open question, and that I shall be supported by hon. Members opposite instead of their giving the customary silent vote against propositions emanating from this side of the House.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 31, to leave out the words "two and a half," and insert the word "five."— (Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'two and a half' stand part of the Bill."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): If this question had appeared as res nova there would have been a good deal of force in the contention of the hon. Member, because 2½ per cent. may be called an infinitesimal percentage. It must be borne in mind, however, that the subject does not come before us as res nova. A series of Bills have been introduced by successive Governments, all of them containing a limit of 2½ per cent., and this, too, is the contribution enforced upon all the workmen employed by the great Railway Companies.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I will not press the Amendment, but will ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: We are always told that this Bill has been framed in the interests of the Public Service, and not merely of the police. In the Scotch Committee the majority insisted that officers above

  1945
  the rank of sergeant should pay 7½ per cent. instead of 2½ per cent. In the case of an officer, in all probability his contributions to the Pension Fund for the great part of his service have been based on a low rate of pay, whereas his pension is calculated on the higher salary received in the last few years. That is the ground on which the Scotch Committee varied the percentage, and the Amendment I am now proposing is somewhat of a compromise on the point. A question was also raised as to whether officers who had not contributed to the fund ought not to be subjected to a further deduction. The Government undertook to consider this, and I should like to know at what conclusion they have arrived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 33, after the word "deduction," to insert the words—
  "(b) Every officer above the rank of sergeant sums after the rate of five per cent, of his pay."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member will understand that the observations I made on the last Amendment apply equally to this.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: How about the question of deductions for non-contribution?
  MR. MATTHEWS: We have considered that point, but we think it hardly necessary to alter the Bill in that respect, as very few such cases exist. No doubt in some parts there was a mistaken notion that a Chief Constable was not a constable in the ordinarily accepted sense of the term, and, therefore, was not allowed to pay anything to the Superannuation Fund. I think it would be very hard to make this Bill retrospective in such cases.
  MR. CHILDERS: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I will not press my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment made.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have to move a new sub-section providing that in cases where a constable's pay has not been subject to deductions for the Pen-
  1946
  sion Fund, it shall be competent for the Police Authority to diminish the pension as they may deem reasonable under the circumstances, but to an extent not exceeding one-fifth of the pension to which the officer would otherwise be entitled. I hope the Home Secretary will explain how the matter stands. He has once or twice ridiculed the idea that the word "constable" required defining-, yet we have been told that in many counties the people were under the impression that a Chief Constable was not a constable, and that, therefore, his salary-was not subject to deductions for pension. We have been told that in all boroughs the Chief Constables have contributed to the Superannuation Fund, but that the mistaken idea prevailed in several counties, and that the cases of non-contribution are so very few that it is hardly worth while altering the provisions of the Bill so as to deal with them. I say that if officers who have not contributed are put on the same footing as those who have, it would be a great scandal. It is to obviate any harm arising from such a cause that I wish to move my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 7, at the end of Clause 15, to insert the words—
  "A constable has not been subjected to the deduction from his pay as above provided, as a contribution to the Pension Fund, for at least two-thirds of his whole service, the pension awarded to him shall be diminished to such an extent as to the Police Authority may seem reasonable under the circumstances, not exceeding one-fifth of the pension to which he would otherwise be entitled."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think the hon. Member is moving the Amendment in the wrong place. It more properly belongs to the section which applies to the cases of existing constables; and when we reach that part of the Bill, I shall be willing to accept a clause taken from Mr. Fowler's Bill, and which practically provides for the reduction of pension in these cases as suggested by the hon. Member.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: And will that apply to the Scotch Act?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The case of Scotland is very different. There no member

  1947
  of the force has had deductions made from his wages for pension purposes. It would be a real grievance if a man who had been in the force 14 years and not paid any deductions, should at the end of another year be entitled to a pension, while a man just entering would have to serve 15 years and pay a percentage the whole time before becoming entitled to a pension. The case of England is that everybody practically has had to contribute to the Superannuation Fund, with the exception of a few chief constables, who have not been allowed to do so.
  MR. CHILDERS: I think the clause taken from the Bill of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) is the best one that could have been framed to meet this difficulty.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to move the omission of Clause 26, which gives power to charge upon the Police Fund the expenses when the military are called in to assist the police. This clause was not discussed in the Grand Committee, and introduces an entirely new principle which exists nowhere except in Ireland. I admit that were the military called in to assist the police on the responsibility of the County Council or some representative body, it might be reasonable that the locality should pay for it; but soldiers are called in on the signature of two Magistrates at the request of the chief constable—not representative people at all. Let me give the House three instances of this: A little while ago the soldiers were called in to assist the police in some tithe distraint at Anglesey by two Magistrates at the request of the chief constable. It was altogether against the wishes of the people, although they were not called upon to pay the cost. This clause may throw the burden on them in the future. I do not think the police are ever likely to be called in to assist at distraints for tithes in the future, because any Member for the County Council who voted for such a thing would lose his seat at the next election. Then, quite recently, the military were called on to quell some disturbances at Northampton. Their intervention was quite unnecessary, and
  1948
  the people were very angry about it. They would have been still more angry had they been called upon to pay the cost. The third case I wish to allude to is that of London. I do not think that Londoners would be very pleased if some unwise Home Secretary called upon the military to help the police when not necessary, and then threw the cost on the rates. Here are three instances in which the enforcement of this clause would create dissatisfaction. This is an entirely new departure, and I do not believe that anyone but the Irish people would submit to these conditions being imposed upon them. I think we ought to take a Division on this clause so as to see what hon. Members endorse the application of this entirely new principle. I submit that the clause is unnecessary, and that it will only breed ill-feeling and friction, and there is no demand for it from any quarter. It is an entirely new departure, and I hope the Home Secretary will not think it necessary to retain the clause.
  Amendment proposed, to omit Clause 26.—(Captain Verney.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 26 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly correct in saying that this matter was not discussed in Grand Committee. No one raised an objection to the clause. I took this clause bodily from the Bill of my predecessor. I do not think the Bill of Mr. Hibbert contained the clause, but the Bill of 1883 did, and all the successive Bills did. I will not argue whether it was wise to call out the military in Anglesey or in some other places, but I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will dispute that there have been, and will be, occasions when it is necessary to call in the aid of the military. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is giving up the system of having small bodies of troops in given localities, and is adopting the plan of concentration. Consequently, in case of the military being called in to aid the civil power, there will be travelling expenses incurred by the troops summoned to assist, and I see, to my astonishment, that it is Welsh Members who

  1949
  oppose this clause. I suppose that, on account of the unhappy tithe dispute, which is really only a passing incident in the history of Wales, I know no part of the country in which it may be more necessary than in Wales to be able to call in the military, because in no part of the country are the police forces so small as in Wales, because of the absence of lawlessness and the peaceable demeanour of the people. On the other hand, in case of emergency, such as the Turnpike Riots some years ago, the police forces would not be sufficient to cope with the disturbance. I do not attach very great importance to the clause; but it seems to me only fair that if the military are called out by the civil power, it would be extremely inconvenient that the expense should be thrown on the War Office Vote. If, at the request of the Local Authority, military are sent over to any given place, surely it is proper that the Local Authority should pay the expense.
  MR. CHILDERS: I regret I cannot agree with the Home Secretary on this question. So far from thinking this a small matter, I am afraid it is a large one. I do not attach much importance to it as a question of expenditure; but I think the principle which would be established by this clause is of great moment. A similar clause was in the Scotch Bill of this Session, and the Scotch Committee struck it out without opposition. If I remember right, the Lord Advocate entirely concurred in the omission. The fact is, it is an entirely new principle. All naval and military expenditure is defrayed out of the Votes of Parliament, and it is only upon the Estimates that the action of the Naval and Military Authorities can be challenged. If we allow a small amount of the military expenditure to be defrayed by any authority which is in no way responsible to Parliament, we shall prevent the possibility of the action arising out of that expenditure being challenged. As the right hon. Gentleman says he does not attach much importance to the matter, I trust he will consent to the omission of the clause.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not share the constitutional scruples of my right hon. Friend, but inasmuch as my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate approved of the omission of the clause
  1950
  from the Scotch Bill, I will not press the clause.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to move the omission of Sub-section 9 of Clause 29. This sub-section enables any constable, be he high or low, to accept the new Bill while availing himself of the privileges of the old Act. It seems to me entirely inconsistent with the principles of justice and right that a man should be allowed to pick and choose. Under this Bill no service under the age of 21 years is to count for pension; but in the old Act there is no such provision. A large number of men have entered the Service at 18, 19, and 20. In the Metropolitan Police Force there are 2,886 of such men. The other day the Home Secretary said it would be unjust to deprive them of service. It seems to me it would be unjust to allow them to take advantage of the new Bill while retaining the privileges they have under the old Act. A man can retire after 25 years' service, so that it is possible a man may retire at 43 years of age. I think it is altogether dangerous to allow men to retire at 46— the prime of life—and certainly I protest against some men being allowed to retire earlier.
  Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 22, to leave out sub-section (9) of Clause 29.—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think the hon. Member really means to press this Amendment. It is clear that it would not be just, for no reason whatever, to deprive a man of any sort of service which he is now entitled to reckon towards pension.
  (6.47.) Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I propose to move the following Amendment:—
  "That the pension to a constable, on retirement without medical certificate, shall be according to the maximum scale provided by Part I of the First Schedule to this Act,"
  my object being to give Parliamentary sanction to the maximum scale. The Bill lays down a maximum and a minimum, and leaves it to the Local

  1951
  Authority to draw its scale anywhere between the two limits. As far as the Metropolitan Police is concerned, this House is really the Local Authority; and I ask, therefore, that this House, in its character of the Local Authority, shall do what the other Local Authorities throughout the country will do by resolution. The only legitimate alternative to the proposal I am submitting seems to be to leave it to the London County Council to fix the scale. I do not know whether that would be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman or even to the London County Council unless they took over the entire control of the police. I very much regret that this House should be really the Local Authority for the Metropolitan Police; but as long as it insists on occupying that position, it ought not to shrink from the responsibility and the duties of the office, and, therefore, I say we ought to do by Act of Parliament what the other Local Authorities would be able to do by resolution.
  Amendment proposed, in page 19, after line 42, after the word "follows," to insert the words—
  "The pension to a constable, on retirement without medical certificate, shall be according to the maximum scale provided by Part I. of the First Schedule to this Act."— (Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member is not strictly accurate in calling Parliament the Local Authority in the Metropolis. The Secretary of State is the Local Authority of the Metropolis, although he is responsible to Parliament. I cannot assent to this proposition, and I may say it was made in the Grand Committee and rejected by a large majority.
  MR. CAUSTON: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not able to accept this proposal. It is either intended or not that the Metropolitan Police should be allowed to retire as suggested by the Home Secretary in Committee. All we say is, that if they are to have that privilege, it should be put into the Bill.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: This is one of the difficulties that will continue to arise as long as the
  1952
  Metropolitan Police are under the control of the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman may technically be right, but we want to have the matter settled in such a way that the men will know exactly where they are. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will even now assent to the Amendment.
  MR. BAUMANN: I shall be obliged to vote for the Amendment, because it seems not altogether impossible that the future Police Authority for the Metropolis will be the London County Council, and I wish to protect the Metropolitan Police from the benevolent régime of that body.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: As a member of the County Council, I heartily endorse what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said. There are several Metropolitan Members on that side of the House. I am watching them with interest, and hope they will tell the House what their views are.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I do not know whether the hon. Member is watching me among the rest, but I am going to support the Amendment.
  (7,1.) The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 163.—(Div. List, No. 233.)
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 31, page 19, line 42, insert—
  "The Court of Quarter Sessions to which an application is to be made with respect to the decision as to the pension or allowance shall be the Court of Quarter Sessions for the county of London."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The next Amendment raises an important and interesting point, which, I admit, was discussed in Committee, but not, as I think, satisfactorily decided. The short point of the Amendment is this: Admitting that pensions should be paid to the Commissioners of Police on their salaries, I raise objection to the further proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to pay pensions also to these gentlemen on their emoluments. The House will feel that the word "emoluments" is one of vague significance, and that we ought to know what it is that is included. According to the right hon. Gentleman, it includes a grant of £300 to each Commissioner for house rent—the idea, I suppose, being

  1953
  that they should live near their work, and, therefore, where rent is high. But it does not seem reasonable that when a man ceases to be an officer and becomes a pensioner, he should calculate his pension so far as regards this £300 on the same scale as that on which he calculates his pension on his salary as a whole. But I have another point: If you admit the principle of paying a pension on emoluments in the case of superior officers, I contend that you are bound also to give the same to the subordinate officers and the rank and file of the Metropolitan Police, and to effect that purpose I have an Amendment lower down on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says these officers have a kind of legal right to receive pensions upon their emoluments, and he quotes the Metropolitan Police Staff Superannuation Act of 1875. I have that Act in my hand, and the word "emoluments," so far as I can see —and I have only glanced rapidly through the measure—never once occurs. The Home Secretary is empowered to make regulations respecting superannuation allowances on the like principle and conditions as were in force at the time of the passing of the Act in respect of persons in the Civil Service of the State. We were informed in the Committee that with regard to the Civil Service, the rule is that, in the case of emoluments of this kind and of an allowance for house-rent, the pension is not calculated on the whole of the allowance, but only on a proportionate part; and, therefore, I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman in the regulations which he has issued, or has professed to issue, under the authority of this Act, has not really been using the powers which are given to him. In the regulation the word "emoluments," I admit, does occur. It says—
  "To any person who shall have served a certain number of years such an allowance based on his annual salary and the emoluments of his office."
  I do think that the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the word "emoluments" into the regulation has exceeded the powers given to him by the Act of 1875; but however that may be, we are now making new regulations with the Commissioners of Police. We are giving them, in many respects, substantial ad-
  1954
  vantages which hitherto they have not possessed; and, that being the case, I hold that we are in a position to revise our contract. Under any circumstances, the House will see that we must have some definite statement as to what "emoluments" include. We are told that they mean house-rent, but I have an idea that they mean something else. On looking over the accounts, I see that the Commissioners are allowed £150 as expenses for visiting the dockyards. Is that an emolument which comes under the clause? At present, having followed as closely as I could all the explanations offered by the right hon. Gentleman, I am totally in the dark as to what these "emoluments" consist of. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 19, to leave out from the numbers"1875,"to the end of sub-section (4) of Clause 31.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MATTHEWS: This is a subject which was eminently fit for the consideration of the Standing Committee, but which is eminently unfit for the consideration of the House. It is a matter of such intricacy and complexity that I feel it is by no means easy for me to make myself intelligible. As the House is aware, the salaries originally attached to the offices of Chief Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners were in time recognised to be inadequate for the class of officers it was considered desirable to appoint, and to remedy this these officers were subsequently granted a "house allowance" of £300 a year. The salaries used to be £1,500 a year and £800 a year. The Home Secretary of the day shrank from asking for an increase of these salaries, which would have been the straightforward way of proceeding; and under the Metropolitan Police Staff Superannuation Act of 1875 it was provided that the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner should get their pensions, not only on their nominal salaries, but also on their house allowances.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: That was done by regulation; it is not in the Act.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Probably not; but the Act enabled the Home Secretary to make regulations corresponding to those made by the Treasury under the Civil Service Regulation Act. The pension is not allowed on any emolument beyond these house allowances. If the contention of the hon. Member is right, that these payments cannot be made under the Act of 1875, then they will not be made under this clause, for all the clause does is to preserve to these officers that which they are entitled to under the Act of 1875. This clause simply preserves to these officers that which they have got already under a complicated net-work of Acts for which my predecessors, and not I, are responsible. If the old status does not give the right to have this £300 a year for house allowances, it will not be conferred by this clause. It really requires a study of half a dozen Acts of Parliament to see how this clause applies, but it is quite clear that it only preserves existing rights.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: This is a very important question, and it looks to me very much as if a job was being perpetrated. The right hon. Gentleman says that previous Home Secretaries deceived Parliament. [Cries of "No!"] Yes; Parliament was deceived when it was induced to pay the policeman's rent.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not made the assertion the hon. Gentleman attributes to me, and I would beg the hon. Member not to impute to me what I have not said.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I think that is the reasonable construction of the right hon. Gentleman's words. He told the House it was desired to raise the salaries of these gentlemen, but Home Secretaries did not like blankly to ask for an increase of salary for them, and so they asked for rent. If that is not deceiving Parliament, I do not know what is. Well, I say it is unreasonable and unfair to impute to previous Home Secretaries that they deceived Parliament. It is well-known that rents are high in the Metropolis, and it was quite reasonable to give their rents to these high officers. Now, however, you are giving these men favourable terms, and you are going to let them have this privilege in addition. I say it is some-
  1956
  thing very like a job, and that this Amendment ought to be accepted.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: It now logically follows that the House should accept the Amendment which stands next in my name. It is that the annual pay of the constable shall be deemed to include the value of all lodgings supplied to him, if any. I may point out that a provision substantially identical with this was introduced into a similar Bill brought forward by the Liberal Government in 1882. As the former Bills have been constantly quoted, I think that is a very strong precedent to bring forward.
  Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 24, after the numbers"1875,"to insert the words—
  "The annual pay of a constable shall be deemed to include the value of all lodging, if any, supplied to him."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: There is no analogy whatever between the two kinds of allowance, and I do not think it logically follows that this Amendment should be agreed to. I have only asked the House to preserve a right already existing. If you are going to give a constable a right to a pension upon an allowance of this kind, you will, I think, be establishing a bad precedent. Question put, and negatived.
  Other Amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 1 postponed.
  Schedules 2, 3, and 4 agreed to.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I now move to re-commit the Bill in respect of Clause 29 and the 1st Schedule. Two hon. Members have Amendments to the same effect which involve some slight change, and I have expressed the intention of the Government to support them if they moved the Amendments. My own Amendments provide for a slight alteration of the scale, so as somewhat to increase the maximum after 25 years' service. The proposal was originally made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann) and rejected by the Committee. A number of Metropolitan Members on both sides of the House since told me that a slight

  1957
  increase in the scale for the Metropolitan Police would not in itself be onerous on the ratepayers, and would go far to satisfy the members of the force who look forward to obtaining the two-thirds pension at a somewhat earlier period than is now provided for. The whole of the evidence in the Blue Book tends to show that the Metropolitan policeman is worn out after 25 years' service or thereabouts, and it is on that principle that we allow him to retire after 25 years' service without a medal or certificate. I have placed Amendments on the Paper, which will make the scale progressive.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clause 29, and Schedule 1."— (Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The House must thoroughly understand what this means; it means a reversal of the decision of the Grand Committee, arrived at by an enormous majority. Up to a certain point the Home Secretary was able to carry that Committee with him, but there came a point when the Committee revolted against his proposals; the proposal he has placed on the Paper was submitted to the Standing Committee and rejected by 15 to 6. Again, this is a surrender to the agitation in the Metropolitan Police Force against which the Home Secretary hitherto struggled, and as we supposed, struggled manfully. This is the question on which Mr. Monro went out of office, and on which the Home Secretary was supported against Mr. Monro. It is true he has not, in so many words, conceded the two-thirds pension after 25 years; he effects a compromise in a way, as it were, to save his honour. He has come back to the old argument that constables are worn out after 25 years' service. But we must distinguish between constables in a technical S3nse and constables in a practical sense. It is true, men who walk the streets are worn out after 25 years, but the officers are not worn out after such service. It is the officers who were led by Mr. Monro, and who got up the agitation. The agitation was repudiated by the men. It was an agitation which we thought the Home Secretary was going strongly to resist; but it
  1958
  was an agitation to which he has now yielded. Before he left office Mr. Monro told the officers they were bound to win, and they practically have won.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I entirely disagree with the observations of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy as to the opinion of the Grand Committee on this subject. The concession of the Home Secretary is exceedingly generous, and one which will be readily accepted by the police. It will prove a great benefit to the whole of the Force, men as well as officers. I have an Amendment on the Paper giving two-thirds, but I shall not think of pressing it after the generous concession of the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: What the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has said with regard to what took place in Committee is quite correct, and I hope my right hon. Friend, in the new schedule, will adhere to the minimum rate placed in the Bill. It is very important, in country districts especially, that we should have an opportunity of stating what we believe to be a fair and reasonable and proper pension for the police. We should like to have the minimum retained, as it is, because in many places the minimum would be absolutely sufficient for all purposes.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I earnestly hope that the appeal of my hon. Friend will be accepted, but that is not quite enough. It is quite impossible that anyone who does not agree with the proposal of the Home Secretary, and who has any sort of responsibility in the House should pass this matter by without a word. I regarded the original proposal with the greatest apprehension. I consider it a most serious thing that a man should have an absolute right after 25 years' service to have any pension whatsoever, unless he is incapacitated. The Home Secretary by this alteration, which is contrary to the vote of the majority of the Committee, is showing too great a willingness to yield to the interests of the police, and in some cases too little thought for the interests of the ratepayers. Under the Scotch Bill, if a man retires at 25 years he will get, not two-thirds, but under one-half, 28–60ths, and he will not obtain two-thirds until he has actually served 34 years. Just think of the contrast

  1959
  between a policeman in Glasgow or Aberdeen and in London. My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir W. Barttelot) hopes the minimum will be kept up so that the Police Commissioners in the provinces may be enabled to apply a much lower standard for their police. I am afraid very great discontent will arise in these provincial forces, as I am afraid it may arise in the Scotch Forces. Have hon. Members considered what they are doing in giving a two-thirds pension after 25 years' service? Just imagine what would happen if a foreman in a Government establishment, who probably was harder worked than a police officer, could claim a pension of two-thirds of his salary after 25 years' service. Think what you will really do for the Police Force itself. The men of long service are the flower, the very backbone of the Force, and one effect of giving this pension will be that there will be very quick retirement, very quick promotion, and men will retire at the very top of their salaries. For these reasons I regard with dismay the change which the Home Secretary proposes, which, I must own, I regard with great apprehension.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill re-committed in respect of Clause 29 and Schedule 1.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 29.
  MR. LEAKE: The Amendment I propose affects areas in the county of Lancashire, in which the police are able to get better pensions than those granted under this Bill. Under these circumstances the police claim a little consideration at the hands of the Government. I do not think I could have a stronger argument to urge for this Amendment than that the Police Authority, representing not only the Quarter Sessions but the ratepayers, through the County Council, have unanimously asked for consideration.
  Amendment proposed Clause 29, page 18, line 42, after otherwise insert—
  "Provided that, if a constable who has been in the service of a Police Authority not less than 10 years before the passing of this Act accepts its provision, the Police Authority may
  1960
  increase the pension to which he shall be entitled under the provisions of this Act by an annual sum not exceeding the excess over such pension of a pension to which he may become entitled if he declines in writing to accept the provisions of this Act."—(Mr. Leake.)
  Question proposed "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I would suggest that the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire (Mr. Maclure) would carry out exactly the object the hon. Gentleman has in view, and do it rather more completely and effectually. In the first place it is important that a condition should be that the Police Authority have, under the existing law, been in the habit of granting higher pensions than those which this Bill gives. The hon. Member will observe that such a condition is contained in the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Maclure). The only reason for conceding such a point as this is that there have been reasonable expectations formed of a certain scale of pensions being granted, and that it is really hard to deprive existing constables of this expectation.
  MR. LEAKE: I am quite prepared to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment in preference to mine.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 29, page 19, line 29, after"Act"insert—
  "In the case of any existing constable to whom this Act applies, who has served not less than 10 years before the commencement of this Act in a Police Force in which the Police Authority have heretofore, under the provisions of former Acts, granted pensions of higher amount than authorised by the scale adopted by that Police Authority under the provisions of this Act, and who becomes entitled to a pension under this Act, then, notwithstanding anything in this Act, the pension may, if the Police Authority think fit, exceed the amount prescribed in the adopted scale, so as it does not exceed the amount which might have been granted if this Act had not passed."—(Mr. Maclure.)
  MR. CHILDERS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how this affects the rate of pensions now granted in such counties as Lancashire, for instance?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In Lancashire pensions are given under the 3rd and 4th Vict., which applies to all county forces. It provides a rough scale of retirement, upon medical certificate,

  1961
  under the age of 60, with, a pension of between two-thirds and one-half pay. I gather that very nearly two-thirds of the pay are allowed after 25 years' service, and strong representations having been made not to disturb existing arrangements, so far as the expectations of the men are concerned, who have been looking forward to their pensions during many years' service, I have assented to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Schedule 1.
  SIR. G. CAMPBELL: The object of the Amendment I have to propose is to make the minimum pension the same as is provided in the Scotch Bill. In other words, I would give a wider option to the Local Authority. The Home Secretary says the Bill gives a certain latitude to the Local Authority —who may fix the scale of their pensions within a certain maximum and minimum, and I propose that the minimum shall be such that the English counties shall not be compelled to give more than the burghs and counties in Scotland can give. 1 in no way affect the discretion of the counties to give more, all I propose is, that the authorities shall have power to adopt the Scotch scale if they see fit.
  Amendment proposed in Shedule 1, page 23, line 15, to leave out "two-sixtieths," and insert"one-sixtieth."— (Sir G. Campbell.)
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. MATTHEWS: In deference to a wish that has been expressed, I propose to change the maximum of the pension from 30–50ths to 31–50ths. Though I myself think it introduces a somewhat lopsided scale, altering the proportion between maximum and minimum thus, yet I believe this is desired, and will meet general acceptance.
  Amendment proposed in page 23, line 18, after the second word "thirty," to insert the word"one."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'one' be there inserted."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: It is well the ratepayers should realise the effect
  1962
  of this. I believe the moment the Bill passes, there will be a large exodus of men from the higher ranks of the Force, and especially in the Metropolitan Force, members of which, having business connections in London, will retire at a comparatively early age, and devote their energies to other pursuits. This will be followed by promotions, and again and again the same thing will take place, until the Service will become emasculated, and the ratepayers will suffer from heavy pension imposts. However, we have made our protest and can do no more. The Home Secretary is the master of many legions, and it is useless to argue.
  DR. CLARK: Will the right hon. Gentleman amend the Scotch Schedule in the same fashion, or is this to apply to the English Bill only? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the reasons for making the distinction?
  MR. MATTHEWS: We are not now discussing the Scotch Bill, nor have I charge of it.
  MR. CHILDERS: Is it not desirable to make some modification by which Local Authorities could adopt a scale between the maximum and minimum?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In the provincial forces the authorities may draw their scale of pensions anywhere they like between the extremes mentioned in the Bill.
  (8.15.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 117; Noes 41.—(Div. List, No. 234.)
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I have an Amendment which conies next, which follows the lines of the Scotch Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to accept it.
  Amendment proposed, in Schedule 1, Part 2, page 25, Scale D, line 12, after "shillings," to insert—
  "Or if there be no widow, an annual sum not exceeding five pounds as the police authority may determine."—(Mr. Howard Vincent.)
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, nor I confess can I quite follow it—
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I do not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other verbal Amendments (Mr. Matthews) agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to, as amended.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed. (8.35.)

POLICE (SCOTLAND) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 398.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. HUNTER: I beg to move the omission from the 1st Clause of the words "Not less than 25 years' approved service." Owing to fundamental alterations made in the Bill in Committee, there has been created a carious state of affairs. No man under the age of 60 years can obtain a pension; no man over the age of 30 can join the force, and, therefore, in order to get a pension a man must have at least 30 years' service. I think it would be far better to omit these words.
Amendment proposed, in Clause l, page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "Has completed not less than 25 years' approved service, and."—(Mr. Hunter.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed be left out, and stand part of the Clause."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. BOBERTSON,): If the hon. Member will look at a later section, he will see that this provision is introduced mainly in the interests of those already in the force.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move the omission of the words "twenty-five," and the substitution therefor of the word "thirty." I do so for this reason: No constable over the age of 25 can be admitted to the Force, and yet his pension will not become payable until he has reached the age of 55, so that between the maximum age of entering and the minimum age of retiring, there is an interval of 30 years. The effect of the pension will be to increase the number of old men in the Force, for those who are drawing towards the pension age will naturally remain in it until the pension is earned. I think it is desirable we should get as many young men in as possible.
1964
I think it would be highly inconvenient to establish by Act of Parliament the principle that 25 years' service is sufficient to qualify for a pension, when other provisions in the same Bill make it impossible for anyone to obtain a pension until he has served 30, and perhaps 34 years. To do so would be to create discontent in the Force. I think the words "25 years' approved service" should be withdrawn. The insertion of the words "thirty years" could not possibly be prejudicial to the men, and such an alteration would probably induce men about 21 years of age to enter the Force. It would also prove more satisfactory to the working classes who are opposed to pensions of this kind, if we insist that a pension shall only become payable after 30 years' service. In the Civil Service it is necessary for a man to serve more than 25 or 30 years in order to entitle him to a pension.
Amendment proposed in Clause 1, page 1, line 9, to leave out"25"and insert"30."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That '25' stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This question had been discussed by the hon. Member with great moderation, and I intend to follow the same course. When the scheme of superannuation is matured, the result will be that no policeman will come in after 25 years of age, and no policeman will go out with a pension till he is 55, so that we shall have 30 years' service. This is one of the first of the Amendments which touch upon the whole scale and rate of figures in the Bill. In the Select Committee certain modifications were moved on these figures, and all in the direction of a more economical system of pensions. I do not profess to be in complete personal agreement with all that has been done, but I am quite prepared to stand by what has been agreed upon by the Select Committee. The Bill had been very carefully considered. An admirable temper prevailed in the Committee, and we had the advantage of the presence of some Members specially conversant with the subject. Under these circumstances I am quite prepared to adopt the recommendations of the Committee, except on one point, which does not involve a serious amount of dissension.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am very glad to hear this announcement by the Lord Advocate, and I am sure it will very much facilitate business. The Scotch Committee have made the Bill as tolerable as possible, and we might go farther and fare worse. If the Government will accept the recommendations of the Scotch Committee, and not act as they did in the case of the English Bill, I shall be satisfied, although the majority of the members of that Committee are Conservatives, they showed some independence and——
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.
MR. ESSLEMONT: My hon. Friend has anticipated what I intended to say. I do think, as he had so much to talk about on the English Bill, he might have allowed us a little opportunity on this Bill. It did strike me that the effect of the clause as it now stands might prevent men joining the force until they were nearly 25 years of age, and I am anxious to get them in at a lower age. Still, after the announcement of the Lord Advocate, I hope the Scotch Members generally will accept the Bill without further discussion.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. CALDWELL: Inline 11, of page 1, I wish to insert the word "five" after "sixty." This refers to the age at which the constables of the higher rank become entitled to a pension. Very often they are as fit for duty at 65 as at any period of their life, and therefore I do not think it unreasonable to fix the limit at 65.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 1, page 1, line 11, after "sixty" to insert"five."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'five' be there inserted."
MR. CHILDERS: I hope my hon. Friend will not persist in this Amendment. Unfortunately, experience does not entirely bear out his suggestion as to their bodily strength at 65, and it is not desirable to retain men in the force at too advanced an age.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. CALDWELL: I now propose to move the omission of subsection (b.)
Amendment proposed in Clause 1, page 1, line 16, to leave out subsection (b).
Question, "That Sub-section (b) stand part of the Clause," put and agreed to.
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: There is an Amendment standing in my name, reducing from 20 to 15 years the period at which, if incapacitated, a constable shall be entitled, upon medical certificate, to retire and receive a pension, but after the intimation of the Lord Advocate, I am afraid it will be quite useless for me to press this and other Amendments I have put upon the Paper. I ought, perhaps, to apologise for having put down so many Amendments to a Scottish Bill, but so many of the Scottish Members were on the Select Committee that very few were left to place Amendments on the Paper contrary to the conclusions of the Committee. I have received letters from a large number of police officers in Scotland, calling attention to the very serious injury which may result from the difference between the conditions of superannuation in Scotland and in England, I do not intend to trouble the House by reading them. But I may point out that even now there is a considerable migration from the Scotch Police to the English Police, and the Government proposals will not tend to stop it. I will ask the Lord Advocate whether he cannot see his way, in any degree, to accept some of my Amendments, with the view of assimilating the superannuation in the two countries. I will simply formally move the first of my Amendments.
Amendment proposed in Clause 1, page 1, line 21, to leave out twenty and insert 15.
Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think my hon. Friend has taken a course which is most judicious and sensible in the Parliamentary situation in which he finds this Bill. My hon. Friend has stoutly maintained, both here and elsewhere, that the figures he proposed were really the proper and just figures in relation to the police, but I am bound to tell him that I view the matter rather from the general aspect in which it

1967
presents itself. We have already discussed the subject in Committee in a very fair and practical way. The Committee was fairly representative of all Scottish interests, and the conclusions they arrived at are embodied in the Bill as it now stands. I am not prepared now to go back on them. On the contrary, as I gather from the opinion of my hon. Friends, as well as that of hon. Gentlemen opposite, they are a fair and reasonable reward for the police. I concur in that opinion, and as regards the practical details, there is only one point upon which I shall ask the Committee to go back, and that is the question of 2½ instead of 7½ per cent. as the deduction in the case of superior officers.
MR. HUNTER: I also have an Amendment to increase the period to 25 years, but as I find on examination that, so far as the Pension Fund is concerned, there is extremely little difference between the limits of 20 and 25, I shall not move that Amendment. There can be no doubt that the weak point in this usuperannuation scheme is the medical certificate. If you give men a right to retire at a certain age, by some my sterous process, they can always get the necessary medical certificate. There is no doubt when a policeman reaches the retiring age, he will suddenly find that his constitution is not sufficiently strong for his work. If he retires just before he has completed 20 years' service he gets a gratuity of about £116, whereas the pension he is entitled to at the end of the 20 years is worth over£400, so of, course, he will strive hard to serve the full period.
Question put, and agreed to.
DR. CLARK: I think some reason should be given for the difference which is made by these Bills in the position of the Scottish constable as compared with the English constable. The work which the Scottish policeman has to perform in Glasgow, for instance, is far harder than in London. The Scottish criminal is of a worse type than the English criminal. He is, generally speaking, stronger physically, and defends himself more. The constables are in consequence assaulted more frequently, and have harder work altogether. Yet the English policeman is to be entitled to a pension at 46 years of age, while
1968
the Scottish policeman requires to be 55. As this might touch the rates, I shall not support the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent) in any of his Amendments. We must permit the Government to have for the same description of officials one class of legislation in England and another in Scotland, and repeat the old story of having privileges given to England and Ireland—those in the case of Ireland being of a special character—whilst Scotland is left alone.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to, with Amendments.
Clause 4.
MR. CALDWELL: I move the second Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved, Clause 4, page 3, line 34, at end, add
"But not less than 15 years' continuous approved service shall be in the force from which any pension is claimed."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot accept the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8.
MR. HUNTER: I move to leave out sub-section "c." This Amendment raises rather an interesting question as to the status of the police after they have obtained their pensions. Before the Select Committee a proposal was made by the hon. Member for Dundee practically to retain the pensioned men as a kind of reserve police, available for duty on Sundays and on special occasions. That proposal was negatived, and the question that now arises is whether, when a policeman has completed his time and obtained his pension, he should not be made a free and independent man. The sub-section provides that the pension shall be forfeited if the grantee refuses to give to the police all the information and assistance in his power for the detection of crime, apprehension of criminals, and suppression of disturbance of the public peace. The object of the clause is to retain the service of the pensioned police as auxiliaries. I do not

1969
entertain any strong objection to that, but I object to imposing such a penalty as the forfeiture of pension. I attach enormous importance to the security of the pensions, and one of the points in the Bill of which I most approve is that which makes pensions a matter of right, and makes them a matter of property rather than of grace or favour to be continued or discontinued according to the goodwill of the Local Authority for the time being. It strikes me that in London this subsection might operate very harshly and injuriously. Suppose, for example, a policeman who has served in the Police Force of Glasgow receives a pension and retires to his old home in the highlands, and supposing there occurs one of those disturbances which call for the intervention of the police, if the pensioned policeman does not do his utmost to suppress the disturbance under this sub-section, the Glasgow Authority may stop his pension. Surely such a pensioner would be placed in a very awkward and invidious position. In the first place he will have arrived at an age when it is supposed he is no longer fit for active service, and in the next place he is called upon to act in his own highland home amongst his friends. He is put in this dilemma, that he must either sacrifice the pension he has earned by long years of service or he must raise his hand as a volunteer auxiliary to assault and injure, perhaps his father or brother, or other near relative. It seems to me that under this Bill cases of very great hardship must arise between divided duty on the part of the pensioned constable, and I would ask the Government whether it is worth their while to retain a clause of this sort. It can be of extremely small utility to the Police Force, because the supposition is that these men are all incapable of acting as policemen. It may be said that in such a case as that I have referred to it would not be compulsory on the Authority in Glasgow to take away the man's pension, but the dread that it may be taken away, and the uncertainty of the position, are evils of the highest magnitude, not to be incurred without some adequate or sufficient reason of public utility. No such reason is forthcoming, and it seems to me that while on the one hand we
1970
ought, as I think the Committee upstairs did, carefully scrutinise the Bill to prevent charges being put on the ratepayers, on the other hand, we should give the policemen every conceivable security which is not inconsistent with the principles of economy. Financially, I think the clause is worth nothing, as no pension fund would be affected by its loss, and even at the tenth hour I would still appeal to the Committee to strike the clause out of the Bill, and to give to the pensioners that feeling of security which is worth more than money itself.
Amendment moved, in Clause 8, page 7, line 16, to leave out Sub-section (c.)."—(Mr. Hunter.)
Question proposed, "That Sub-section (c) stand part of the Clause."
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I must say that in all the discussions that took place on the English Bill, I thought that on the subsection dealing with the future employment of ex-policemen, the most difficult one for Members to make up their minds upon, looking at the important and conflicting arguments we heard. There is on the one side the danger that a very serious political power may be given over to a retired policeman, owing to these words, "the suppression of any disturbance of the public peace," but on the other hand, there is the serious consideration that in London you are making a reserve force of several thousand men—almost young men of between 41 and 50 years of age. Those of us who thought that the London police were over well treated in this respect were not very unwilling that these men—who are like officers on half-pay—should be called on to act in case of a disturbance, seeing that they will be as efficient as the ordinary police. But that consideration does not apply in the case of Scotland, where the men will be broken down in the knees and over 55 years of age, and very little use in a serious disturbance. The consideration, however, felt in England as to the danger to a retired policeman who might sympathise with some strong political or social movement applies equally to Scotland, particularly highlands. I shall be very glad if the Government will agree to omit the part of the sub-clause which deals with the suppression

1971
of disturbances of the public peace. I should certainly be very unwilling to vote for the omission of the previous lines, for I think that however a pensioned policeman is, he is bound as an ex-public servant to do all he can for the detection of crime and the apprehension of criminals.
MR. ESSLEMONT: This is one of the points on which I hope the Government will give way. I have been very much opposed to anything like making the Bill uniform with the English, measure, because I have felt that if, as some of my hon. Friends think should be the case, the Bill is levelled up to the English measure, it may be necessary also to level it down to that measure. I hope the Lord Advocate will not find himself bound by anything in the English Bill, and, as to this sub section, having had as wide an experience as most hon. Members of the police in Scotland, I believe that it will be of no practical value whatever. I think it will be open to grave abuse, and will cause great irritation, and I therefore trust it will be omitted.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I am unwilling to support any material alteration to the Bill as it stands, because in the Select Committee we gave the best consideration we could to it, and because, in spite of the reproaches sometimes uttered against Scotch Members, as to the time we take in discussing Bills, we bid fair to-night to despatch our business with more expedition than our English brethren have done. But I would venture to repeat a suggestion to the Government in regard to this sub-section which was made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I think it will be agreed that there is a great deal of force in the argument that a pensioned policeman should not be called upon to do police duty in a place where he had never served as a policeman. It would be clearly unfair that a constable enjoying a pension should be expected to act as a sort of spy over the Police Authorities in a different part of the country to that in which he had earned his pension. What I would suggest is that in addition to the omission of the words objected to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division these words should be added—
1972
"If the grantee refuses to give to the police all the information and assistance in his power within the police area of the force in which he has last served."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Committee considered the clause as a whole, and I think we were fairly unanimous in the solution we found for the difficulties we had to encounter. The subject was discussed in a very temperate and fair manner. In whose interests are these restrictions made? In the interests of the ratepayers. It is not likely that, say a Town Councillor of Glasgow, would strain a point against a man who had served for a long time in the police force and had had a pension awarded to him. I cannot imagine that anything but a liberal view would be taken of the clause. I shall, therefore, oppose any limitation of the kind suggested.
MR. HUNTER: It has been suggested by my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Trevelyan) that instead of attacking the whole clause I should limit the Amendment to the words, "for the suppression of any disturbance of the public peace." I accept that suggestion, and I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
DR. CLARK: I am against the principle of this clause, because I think that if a man has served till he is 58 or 60 years of age, and during the time of his service a certain proportion of his salary has been deducted he has an absolute right to his pension, and you ought not to impose these conditions any more than you ought in the case of an ex-Cabinet Minister, or an officer of the Army or Navy, or a Judge. I do not see why my hon. and learned Friend should withdraw any portion of his Amendment. We know that in the highlands, for instance, the Police Authority is not elected by the people, but to the extent of one-half consists of gentlemen who sit by right of property. There may be disturbances in the future as there have been in the past, and we know that the police sympathise with the people in their grievances. The complaint has been generally that whilst the local police sympathise with and assist the people, foreign police are sent in who adopt a very different attitude. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet us a little on this point, and we will assist

1973
him with the Bill as far as we possibly can.
MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I think a policeman has an absolute right to his pension after he has served for the allotted time. On this ground I object to the sub-section, and I also object to it because it will, if carried, produce a set of informers all over the country. I think it unfair to place a retired policeman in the position of an informer. The right hon. Gentleman says the Police Authorities of Glasgow would not strain this power against the police. That seems to me to be the strongest argument against the clause, because if it is to be of no effect it ought not to be in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HUNTER: I now beg to move the insertion of "and" after the word "crime," so as to enable me to propose the Amendment in its modified form.
Amendment proposed in page 7, line 17, after the word "crime," to insert the word "and."—(Mr. Hunter.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'and' be there inserted."
DR. CLARK: Might I ask whether, on this point, the Government will give way to us? I think it will very much facilitate business if they do.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This must be considered with regard to Scotland as a whole, and I think it is not unreasonable to exact that a retired policeman should not refuse to give any assistance he can to the police. I hope the House will not give effect to the notion that there is not likely to be fair play. I do not think there is any reason for striking out the words. All we want to prevent is the suggestion that the ratepayers or taxpayers are supporting a man who is really, by his conduct, adding to their burdens.
MR. FINLAY: I do not look on these words as imposing on the police any special duty. I regard it as the duty of every citizen to give to the police all the assistance in his power. The neglect of that duty on the part of a retired policeman would not, I think, be improperly punished by the withdrawal of his pension.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to divide on his Amendment.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I hope the Government will give way on the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) has pointed out most distinctly that an obligation lies on the retired policeman as on other citizens to do his duty. What is suggested by this sub-section is that a retired policeman should keep himself in reserve, so that if there are any particular duties to do, he may be called away from his ordinary employment to do them. For instance, a man might be sent to Fraserburgh or Netherhead during the fishing season to assist in keeping the public peace.
MR. CHILDERS: I have followed very carefully this Debate on what is a purely practical question. I put it to myself as an English Magistrate—supposing in the district where I live, there were a number of old policemen from 55 to 70 years of age living on their pensions, and it were necessary to take steps to suppress a disturbance of the public peace, should one naturally call upon the retired policemen? I think not. I think, however, we should require them to give all the assistance they could in the detection of crime, but not expect of them the physical burden of putting down disturbers of the peace who might be 30 years their juniors.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Considering the way we have met the Government they might very well give way to the feeling of the Scotch Members on this small point. When you come to the question of the disturbance of the public peace you touch political questions. The clause may be applied in election time, or in the case of Crofter disturbances.
MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government would be exceedingly glad to meet the wishes of the Scotch Members in the matter if it were possible to do so, but I am bound to point out that a similar provision has already been passed in the English Bill, and that to strike it out of this Bill would be to make a difference between England and Scotland, which is not desirable. I cannot think that any injury will result from the retention of the provisions. It

1975
will be in the power of the Police Authority to deal with each case that arose, and I do not believe that any injustice will under any circumstances be done by retaining the provision as it stands.
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: There are a great many differences between the Scotch and English Bills. There are differences, for instance, both in regard to age and scale of pensions. The similarity between the two Bills in this respect cannot, therefore, be cited against the Scotch Members.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I must say the reason the right hon. Gentleman gives for refusing the request of the Scotch Members is a very bad one. The very fact that this Bill is different in principle to the English Bill is surely a reason for making a difference in a matter of detail.
MR. HOZIER: This clause was carried by probably the largest majority obtained in the Committee, and the matter was thoroughly threshed out. There is no one who wishes to be fairer to the policemen than myself, but on the whole I think this clause is extremely fair.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: My opposition is to the principle of the Bill, and, therefore, I have not interfered with the details. I only rise now to remind the First Lord of the Treasury how the subsequent events have justified the Motion he made that both of these Bills should be referred to the same Committee. The First Lord of the Treasury has now excused himself from meeting the wishes of the Scotch Members on this small point by alleging that the English Bill contains a similar provision. The English Bill cannot be altered, and that fact is put forward as a justification for refusing to yield to our request.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Let me very respectfully suggest to the First Lord of the Treasury that it is just because this Bill very materially differs from the English Bill that he is going to get it through so amicably. Under these circumstances I think he might give way.
MR. HUNTER: There is one complete answer to the First Lord of the Treasury, and that is: that, under the Scotch Bill, the men will not be superannuated until they are 55. Under the English Bill the men may be superannuated eight years earlier. The hon.
1976
Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Hozier) is quite in error as to the views of the Committee on this point. It is true the clause, as a whole, was carried by a majority of 12 to 4, but this particular point was never submitted to the Committee at all. The First Lord of the Treasury cannot see the possibility of any person suffering any injury. That is quite right, speaking as an Englishman from an English point of view; but he has no idea of the depth of bitterness of the Scotch Tory. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not only possible, but probable, that injury will be done. With regard to suppression of crime I give way, but the disturbance of the peace is a totally different matter. It is likely that this clause will be utilised for the purpose of trying to deprive men who have served their time of their pension. That is quite within the limits of experience, and it is important we should give to the Highlanders the security that such a thing cannot happen. I hope that, even at the last moment, the Government will give way.
(10.18.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 75; Noes 127.—(Div. List, No. 235.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
DR. CLARK: I very much regret the Government have not seen fit to give way to the Scotch Members on this point, and, as a means of expressing our dissatisfaction, we must oppose the clause altogether. Personally, I consider the clause totally unnecessary. I shall vote against the Third Reading, but I hold that if you give police constables a pension you ought not to take it away for any other reason than you take away pensions from anyone who has served in the Army, Navy, and Civil Service.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10.
Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 41, to leave out all after "shall" to end of Clause, and insert—
"Prejudice the existing right of any police authority to dismiss any constable, or to reduce him to any lower rank or lower rate of pay, or shall prevent his claim to pension from being

1977
refused on account of misconduct or of negligence in the discharge of his duties or on account of any of the grounds on which his pension, if granted, would he liable to he forfeited and withdrawn."— (The Lord Advocate.)
MR. HUNTER: I do not rise to object to these words, but to remark, this Amendment was proposed in the Select Committee, and was then defeated by a narrow majority, by the casting vote of the Lord Advocate himself. He now makes the proposal himself, and I hope he will take no exception to the renewal of other proposals where decisions were carried in Committee by the casting vote of the Chairman. When we come to a later Amendment, I shall invoke the precedent the right hon. Gentleman is now setting.
MR. J. P. B. BOBERTSON: This is singularly ungracious. It is true that decisions were arrived at in Committee by narrow majorities, and in several instances I was called upon to give a casting vote. But I have cheerfully given way where I thought I could do so in the public interest, and to meet any generally expressed view. I shall make no complaint of any such citation of my action.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11.
DR. CLARK: Does the expression "Sheriff" include the Sheriff Substitute? It is not included in the definition clause.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: According to my recollection of the Bill of last year, the expression does include the Sheriff Substitute.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: But I think that is undesirable. The Sheriff is a great officer, and though I do not say a word to derogate from the dignity of the Sheriff Substitute, he does not occupy that high position an official should have if he is to over-rule the Local Authorities in a great burgh. I think this function should be confined to the Sheriff.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I entirely disagree with my hon. Friend. The Sheriff Substitute is present in the district, and we look to him in all practical business of this kind, but the Sheriff is sometimes a political opponent
1978
with whom we have differences of opinion. I am sure Scottish feeling will be in favour of including the Sheriff Substitute.
DR. CLARK: I am strongly desirous that the phrase should include the Sheriff Substitute, and if there is any doubt on this point, I would suggest an addition here or in the definition clause. The working Judge is the Sheriff Substitute, the Sheriff is but an ornamental official, and his appointment often but a political job.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I find I am quite right in my interpretation; the expression "Sheriff" includes Sheriff Substitute.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13.
MR. CALDWELL: The Amendment I have to propose is with the object of providing that no constable in receipt of a pension shall be appointed to an office, the remuneration for which is provided by moneys voted by Parliament or raised by the rates. It is quite conceivable that a policeman might, after receiving a pension, be appointed to an office paid for out of the rates, and thus receive better payment than he actually received when a younger man in full active employment in the force.
Amendment proposed in page 8, line 32, to leave out "If a," and insert"No."—{Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "that the words 'If a' stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the restriction in the Bill represents the general view of the Committee.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and question proposed "That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I took the opinion of the House on an Amendment to omit a similar clause in the English Bill, and the English Bill is much better than the Scotch Bill in many respects. Possibly Scotch Members may be willing to accept the exclusion of this clause.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15.
MR. J. P. SMITH: In view of the intention of the Government to accept the Amendment standing next to mine for deleting the sub-section, for the insertion of which I and others voted under a misapprehension, I do not propose to move my Amendment standing next.
MR. HUNTER: If the hon. Member will not move his Amendment I will move it for him. What I wish to bring about is this, and if the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite accomplishes the end I have, I need not move. In Committee it was agreed that the deductions from the officers should be 7½ per cent. If the proposition had been 5 per cent., I should have voted for it, for that, I think, is the proper sum to be deducted. Then an Amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Lanark, that an officer should not suffer any deduction beyond 2½ per cent., a proposal I am bound to say, I could not agree with. Nearly the whole of the Committee agreed that there should be a substantial distinction between the contributions of the officers of the constables and sergeants. The argument used to induce us to give pensions to constables and sergeants has no application to officers.
MR. HOZIER: May I ask to what Amendment the hon. Member is speaking?
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member proposes to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Partick Division.
MR. HOZIER: I do not think he is speaking to it.
MR. HUNTER: I was mistaken as to the particular Amendment.
MR. HOZIER: I beg to move my Amendment. The increase of pay when a member of the force is promoted from the rank of sergeant to inspector is so slight——
MR. HUNTER: On a point of order, Sir, I wish to move and omit the words "seven and a half," and insert "five." Shall I be precluded from doing that by the result of the Amendment the hon. Member is about to move?
THE CHAIRMAN: I will put the Amendment in such a form that the hon. Member's right will remain.
MR. HOZIER: The intention of my Amendment simply is that officers of superior rank shall not be called upon to contribute 7½percent., but only 2½ per cent. like the rest of the force. I think, as a matter of fact, there was a general agreement upon this in Committee. The figures gave a majority of two for the Amendment, which was carried, but, certainly, two hon. Members voted under a misapprehension. I hope the Committee will agree to the deletion of the sub-section.
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 9, to leave out the words "every officer above the rank of sergeant liable at the rate of."—(Mr. Hozier.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the decision of the Committee is one that cannot be maintained, and if it it were necessary to dwell upon that, I could give some figures that would be absolutely convincing. At the same time, I desired to ascertain, as far as I could, the prevalent opinion among Scotch Members, and, so far as I am able to gather, no one is in favour of 7½ per cent., and I think that figure is untenable. In point of fact, it would reduce the pay of an inspector of the lowest rank below that of a sergeant of a highest rank for a period of five years. The pay of an inspector of the second rank being £90 reduced by 7½ per cent. will be £83 5s., while that of a sergeant of the highest rank reduced by 2½ per cent. will be net £83 9s. Such a statement is quite enough to blow 7½ per cent. out of the water. The preponderating opinion is, I think, in favour of 5 per cent., but I think it would be well for the Committee to avoid a distinction which involves no advantage from a financial point of view, and may result in an irritating effect upon the Service. I hope the Committee will agree to the general reduction all round being 2½ per cent.
MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: So far as I am able to ascertain, I think the general feeling is in favour of 5 per cent., and I should be quite willing to concede that. I think most of us in the Select Committee were under the impression that salaries rise more rapidly

1981
in the higher grades than they actually do. But, at the same time, I feel strongly that, even in the case of constables, 2½ per cent, is a very small contribution indeed towards earning a pension, and financial authorities have remarked upon this. I think that in the higher salaries, it is reasonable to fix the contributions at 5 per cent. I think we ought to look at the financial side of the question, although the Lord Advocate seems to think that is unnecessary. The scheme is really a different scheme to that presented to us on the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I did not say it was unnecessary to look at the financial side of the question, all I said was that the difference was so small that it could not be said to have any bearing on the actuarial calculation.
MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I am not quite sure that it requires to be made out by figures, but we are not entitled to disregard any part of the financial position, having in view the position at the end of 30 years, and the probable increase of the Force with the increase of population. I do not think we are entitled to throw away any just source of income, and I think in these cases 5 per cent. is not an unreasonable contribution.
MR. HOZIER: The actuarial calculations put before us in Committee were based on the distinct understanding that no one paid more than 2½ per cent.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I hold that the view taken in Committee had no reference to actuarial calculations at all; it turned upon matters of equity and fair play as between various members of the Force. It was represented that the men who retired on high pensions, the men in the higher branches of the Service, would be contributing a very much smaller proportion towards their pensions than the less fortunate individuals who had never emerged from the lower ranks. I have not the figures now, but they show a startling disproportion against the poorer men, and in favour of those who, after promotion, retire on the higher pensions, having contributed on the lower scale during nearly the whole of their terms of service.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend has considered that these superior officers
1982
above the rank of sergeant will contribute to the age of 60, and others only to 55. I am bound to say I think it is rather hard that a fine should be put upon the men who rise. Is it not sufficient that they have to serve another five years? I think the 2½ per cent. might be maintained. I confess I have sympathy with the idea of charging more when a man gets to the higher rate of pay, but here it must be pointed out that our pay is not uniform, and some men who have not risen above the rank of sergeant will get as high pay as Inspectors in some instances. It is less a matter of pay than of grade and merit. I think 2½ per cent. might be adopted, and that it is scarcely worth while contesting the point.
MR. HUNTER: I base my consideration of the point upon the question of justice and fair play between the officers and the men, and between the police and the public at large. If this were a fund upon which pensions were to depend, and these were to be measured by the amount of contributions, it is obvious that proportionately much higher contributions would be required from the officers than from the men. But the Government are granting £40,000 a year, and the contributions of the men are but a fifth or sixth of the amount they will receive. It may fairly be contended that the Government should not make a proportionately larger contribution towards the pensions of the officers than the pensions of the men. There are these considerations also, that the wear and tear and exhaustion by exposure to all weathers is greater among the men than among the officers; also that the wages paid the men are not sufficient to enable them to make any provision for old age, but that is not so with the officers, whose pay exceeds the income of many men of middle class. There is certainly no argument ad inisericordiam for the officers. It is fair they should contribute a larger sum than the men, and my opinion is, that if the proceedings in Committee had been conducted with more deliberation, 5 per cent. would have been inserted. With regard to what the hon. Member for Lanark has said as to two Members of the Committee having changed their opinions, I do not think we can take account of that, because if they are here, they

1983
can explain their position, and if they are absent, it is not well that their views should be represented by proxy. It is within the power of the Government, of course, to upset the decision of the Select Committee, but I think it would more conduce to progress and the harmony of our proceedings if they accepted the compromise of 5 per cent.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Throughout the proceedings before the Committee I stated, as I did also in private communications to Members, that I should ask the House upon this point to go back upon the finding of the Committee.
MR. J. P. SMITH: I may explain that in Committee figures were put before us which seemed to show that the pay of the inspector was three times that of the ordinary constable, £100 to £33, and upon that it was estimated the contribution of the inspector should be three times that of the constable. But on further examination of the figures, it appeared that the difference in pay was as 10 to eight, or £100 a year to 33s. a week. The fact is, the rise in pay is extremely gradual in the grades of the Scotch Police Force, and this sudden increase in contribution would reverse the positions as regards pay in some instances.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I may point out that this provision will work very unequally. In some counties the inspector gets only 28s. per week, and you will deduct 5 per cent. of his pay, while the constable, who in another town gets 30s. a week, will pay only 2½ per cent.
Amendment put, and negatived.
Clause 15, agreed to.
Clause 16.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 16, page 9, line 25, to leave out "stoppages and."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think this matter was sufficiently discussed in Committee, and the clause as now framed is a fair compromise. It met with general approval in the Committee, and I hope it will not again
1984
be discussed here. The Scotch Authorities are well treated under this Bill. Glasgow, for instance, will be a great gainer by the arrangement now proposed, for its rates will be relieved of a charge of something like £1,200 a year for pensions. I do trust this Committee will accede to what, after all, is a settlement of matters of detail, and not engage in a mighty amount of discussion about a very small affair.
DR. CLARK: It seems to me that Clauses 16 and 19 are closely allied to each other, but the Debate will take place on the latter. If you pass it, you will make the police rate liable for any deficiency. This scheme will entail a lot of intricate book-keeping, but I think we had better give a trial to the arrangement proposed.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: We went carefully into this matter in Committee, and I must say that this suggestion did not meet with any support.
MR ESSLEMONT: I may explain that there were originally sub-sections giving the police an interest in certain convictions. I thought that a vicious principle and one altogether undesirable to be introduced into the Bill. I can see no objection to these small contributions going into the Police Fund, which, I think is their proper destination; and I hope the compromise, which I think was a fair one, will be accepted by the Committee.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17.
MR. CALDWELL: In this clause I desire to substitute in line 2, page 11, the words "two months" for "thirty days." My reason is that the County Council Authorities in Scotland do not, in consequence of the great distance, find London easily accessible, and, in the event of this scheme for the distribution of the grant not proving acceptable to them, 30 days would scarcely be sufficient to enable them to make the necessary representations against it.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 7, page 11, line 2, to leave out, "thirty days," and insert "two months."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
DR. CLARK: This may seem a trifling matter, but it is very important—Scotch County Councils should have an opportunity of considering the scheme.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The subject of regulations providing for these and other schemes is a somewhat complicated one, and is governed by such a consideration, among others, as the period at which Parliament sits. In order to preserve uniformity of system the period of 30 days was introduced, but, personally, I have no strong feeling on the subject.
MR. BUCHANAN: I think it is very desirable the period should be extended in view of the fact that there is sometimes a fortnight's vacation at Whitsuntide or Easter.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Very well, for the present I will accept the term of two months, on the understanding that if I find, on inquiry, it is inconvenient, we shall revert to the former proposal.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19.
MR. J. P. SMITH: I think that if the Amendment I have to move on this clause is carried, it will remove the only possible ground of attack against the Bill. I believe that under the scheme, there will be no liability on the Police Fund for many years, but, if it should arise, it ought to be removed, and the acceptance of this Amendment will get rid of any difficulty which may be felt in regard to it.
Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 29, "to leave out Sub-section (1)."— (Mr. Parker Smith.)
Question proposed, "That Sub-section (1) stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I agree with my hon. Friend opposite that what took place in the Select Committee has practically established what I ventured to assure the House on the Second Reading—namely, that there will be no burden cast on the rates in
1986
the ordinary case until a period which may be roughly represented as about 30 years. I believe hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Committee were on the whole satisfied that that is the case. At the same time, one has to deal with a problem which is not a matter of absolute certainty. We have to take into account the fact that the actuarial calculations upon which we all relied, are liable to the fluctuations and incidents of the number of funds which have to be dealt with. I am aware that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen think that those difficulties might have been avoided if we had a central fund. It is conceivable that even the best actuarial calculation may prove to be fallacious. I put it to the Committee whether it is wise to infuse any doubt as to the sufficiency of the rights conferred on the constables. I do not think it would be a satisfactory or business-like way of dealing with a case of this kind, if we were to set up a fund, and say that that is all we have to go upon, and that nobody shall be liable beyond it. I hope the Committee will not look upon this question as one of more than theoretical interest. I am satisfied that Members of the Select Committee and Members of the House are convinced that to throw the ulimate liability on the rates is not to indicate the slightest doubt as to the solid ground we are upon.
MR. CHILDERS: On the whole, although not without doubt, I think it would be well to adopt the Motion of my hon. Friend. In point of fact, the Police Fund, as a whole, will always be solvent, and this Mr. Finlaison fully admitted, especially after the changes made in the Schedule. It is therefore useless to give it an additional security, which would be misunderstood, and may have the effect of interfering with strict economical management. I hope the Government will yield this point to the general feeling of Scotch Members.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I think it would be in the interest of those who will receive the benefit that an assurance should be given to the constituencies in Scotland that there will be no local rate for this purpose. This is a most important clause. On the general principle of the Bill I have hitherto supported the Government, but I have always con-

1987
tended that, before imposing any burden on the rates, the ratepayers ought to be consulted. The sum offered by the Government for the superannuation of the police should be devoted to that purpose, bat we ought not to impart any degree of uncertainty into the matter. The people of Scotland should understand that the Government cannot deprive them of this source of revenue, without providing another source. The Lord Advocate has assured us that there is no fear of losing the source from which the money is supplied, and the right hon. Gentleman, one of the Members for Edinburgh, has intimated that, with economical management, the fund will suffice. With such opinions in his favour, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Partick will press his Amendment. I hope the Government will see that there is no danger in giving way on this point, and that they will accept the Amendment.
MR. HOZIER: The hon. Member seems very tender hearted towards the ratepayers on a theoretical point, but he nevertheless allowed himself to be led on another occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs, who speaks about "the naked brutality of the relief of the rates."
MR. HUNTER: In the Committee the retention of the clause was decided by the casting vote of the Lord Advocate. I certainly object to throwing the ultimate liability on the ratepayers. There will be constant pressure put upon the Local Authorities to make the conditions of pensions less hard, and if they have the fathomless depths of the ratepayers' pockets behind them, the Local Authorities may be tempted to yield to that pressure. Besides, it should be remembered that these authorities are often very much under the control of the head police officers. It was proved before the Committee that it was almost impossible that the sum of £40,000 to be granted by the Government will be exceeded, and that constitutes another reason why they should accept this Amendment. If the Government had only contributed to the Pension Fund in the same proportion as the most liberal railway companies contribute to their employés' funds, the grant would not have exceeded £20,000 annually, whereas it is to be double
1988
that amount; therefore they are treating the police most liberally in this matter. The difficulty of those of us who have been supporting the Government in that matter is that, if this Amendment is not accepted, we shall be unable to justify these proposals to our constituents, who will see that the police are being dealt with with enormous liberality, and who will not be satisfied unless they are assured that not a single penny of the charge will fall on the rates. I hope the Government will not persist in the course they have adopted, but will allow the Amendment to be adopted.
(11.30.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 136; Noes 77.—(Div. List, No. 236.)
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 23.
MR. HUNTER: I beg to move an Amendment to this clause. Clause 23, page 14, line 12, leave out the words "or part." The object of this Amendment is to prevent the Local Authority from returning to the constables some indefinite and undetermined portion of their contributions. I cannot see the necessity for introducing such an element of doubt and ambiguity. I hope, therefore, my Amendment will be accepted.
MR. CHILDERS: This question is one that was very fully discussed on a former occasion, and, for my own part, I should be disposed to give the Local Authorities a certain amount of latitude in this matter.
MR. BARCLAY: I think that, seeing how vague and ambiguous is the proposal as it stands in this Bill, the Government might consent to the omission of these words.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: As has just been stated, this matter has already been carefully considered by the Committee, and I may remind hon. Members that as the Bill originally stood, it merely enabled the Local Authority to return these contributions by using the word "may," but the Committee still further strengthened the clause by inserting the word "shall," so as to enforce the provision. It was thought that having in that way strengthened the right of the constable

1989
the object of this part of the clause was sufficiently guarded.
Motion made, and Question, "That the words 'or part' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
Other Amendments made.
Bill reported.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the House will agree to take the Report now.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now considered."— (The Lord Advocate.)
MR. CALDWELL: One or two of us who did not press our Amendments in Committee have a few words to say on the Third Reading, and we object to the Third Reading being taken now.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 404.)
Order for Third Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): This being a Money Bill, I hope the House will permit some verbal Amendments to be made. I think it will be of advantage.
Several verbal Amendments made.
MR. RITCHIE: I beg to propose that the Bill be read a third time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
MR. CALDWELL: I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the Third Reading, but with the object of pointing out the position taken up by the Government on the occasion of the Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) then pointed out that if the licensing clauses were dropped the whole Bill would go.
MR. RITCHIE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. It may save him
1990
some trouble if I deny having made such an assertion. What I said was that if any Amendments were adopted which would alter the character of the Bill the measure would be dropped.
MR. CALDWELL: The right hon. Gentleman said on the Second Reading—
"Unquestionably if the hon. Member for Barrow is successful in his onslaught the whole Bill will have to go, and none of the powers, which I think are universally approved, will go into the hands of the Local Authorities."
The right hon. Gentleman also made other observations to the same effect, and I think that it is perfectly obvious that the Second Reading of the Bill was carried on the pledge of the Government that in the event of the licensing clauses being defeated the whole Bill would go. I think that is the plain interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's words. Well, the licensing clauses have gone, the Government having practically been defeated by Mr. Caine. The whole object of putting on the additional taxes was to provide funds for the compensation of publicans, and the balance was distributed for other purposes. I venture to say that the Government, having got the money and brought forward the Bill for an express purpose, it is a breach of faith with the House and the country to proceed with the measure when they declare that in the event of the compensation clauses being dropped the whole Bill will go.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): No declaration of the kind was ever made. It was said that if the Motion of the hon. Member for Barrow on the Second Reading was carried the whole Bill would go; but the two matters are entirely different.
MR. CALDWELL: I have read the words of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and the public can form their own opinion. As to the education question, the Government were very anxious on the clauses dealing with the Scotch portion of the money that it should only be applied for the purpose of freeing education in the compulsory standards, but it has been pointed out

1991
that in the great majority of schools—in all but 98— the school fees are abolished in all the compulsory standards already, and that the grant under the Bill will go for the purpose of relieving education in subjects above the compulsory standards. The point I wish to emphasise is that the position taken up by the Government in respect of free education in Scotland will bind them when they come to deal next year with the same question in England, and will compel them to free education, not only in the compulsory standards, but in all the schools.
MR. ASHER: Before this Bill is read a third time I desire, in a very few words, to make an appeal to the Lord Advocate with respect to that part of Clause 2 which limits the application of the £40,000 to relief from the payment of school fees in the compulsory standards in Scotland. The Lord Advocate has undertaken that the money will be distributed among the State-aided schools, in the same way as was done with the grant of last year; and we, of course, know that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything he possibly can to fulfil that (undertaking. But the point to which I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, before it is too late, is whether it would be possible, under the Bill as it stands, for the Education Department to fulfil the undertaking which he has given. The clause in question is divisible into two parts. The first relates to the application of the money, and the second to its distribution. Under the first part it is expressly enacted that the money shall be applied in relief from the payment of fees in the compulsory standards. Under the latter part the Education Department merely have power to regulate the manner in which the money is to be distributed among the schools. The serious difficulty which seems to me to arise is that the Scotch Education Department, who are to exercise the function of distributing the money by Minute among the State-aided schools, will have no power to give a share to those schools in which, prior to this Act, the fees have been abolished in the compulsory standards. I will
1992
illustrate the difficulty by taking a particular case. Take the case of a school in which the grant of last year was sufficient to cover all fees in the compulsory standards, which were therefore abolished, and in which the grant, under the present Bill, will be sufficient to cover the fees in the standards other than the compulsory standards. Now, I understand that it is the intention of the Government that the schools in that position are to receive a share of this grant. Well, it seems to me that two difficulties will be encountered. The Education Department has to pass a Minute. They have got to distribute the grant among the schools. I should think their first duty would be to see how, under the Act, the grant is to be applied, in order to discover what schools are to participate in it. By the Bill, as it stands at present, the grant, when it is given to an individual school, must be applied in relief of the payment of fees in the compulsory standards, and if the Scotch Education Department find that a certain number of schools, prior to the passing of this Act, have no fees in the compulsory standards, and could only apply the money, therefore, in relief of fees in the non-compulsory standards, they will be driven to the conclusion that these schools cannot participate in the grant. Then, what can the School Boards do with the money if it is given to them? They must look to the Act to see what they have to do with it when they get it. The Act says it shall be applied in relief of school fees in the compulsory standards. How are the Boards to administer it, when fees have been already abolished in the compulsory standards? They cannot apply it in relief of fees which have been already abolished, and under the Bill they cannot apply it in relief of fees in the non-compulsory standards. Are they to go through the fiction of re-imposing fees in the compulsory standards for the mere purpose of remitting them? It is a serious misfortune that the sum of £40,000 has not been increased to £90,000, but it would be a matter that every one would lament if by any possibility, through the retention of unnecessary words in the section, the intention of both sides of

1993
the House were to be frustrated as to the division of the £40,000 amongst all the State-aided schools in Scotland, on the principle of the Capitation Grant. My reason for interposing at this stage is that, after carefully considering the matter and forming the best opinion on it I can, I am convinced that difficulties of the most serious character will arise in the administration of this grant if the words limiting its application to the compulsory standards are retained in the clause. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will still see his way, either by re-commitment or in the other House, to clear the Bill of the ambiguity which the presence of these words involves.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations with very great surprise. I have not observed that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been present during recent Debates, and I conclude from his speech that he has not heard or read any Report of our proceedings, because the very question which has caused him so much wonder and anxiety has been discussed over and over again in this House, in Committee, and on the Report stage; and every point which has preyed on the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind, and from which he desires relief, has been pressed on the attention of the House and the Committee by hon. and right hon. Gentleman sitting on the same Bench as himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, therefore, for not entering into detail on the matter. The long statement he has given us, with admirable lucidity, has been made in various forms during the hon. and learned Gentleman's absence, and if he has not been supplied with an answer to that statement, I would venture to refer him to any Report of the Debates, where he will find full corroboration of his own views from Gentlemen sitting on his own side, and an ample answer, if not refutation, of them from mine.
MR. C. S. PARKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has simply repeated his conduct on the first occasion when this matter was brought forward. There were then two quite different and distinct Amendments before the House, one to in-
1994
crease the sum of £40,000 to £90,000, and the other to provide that, if the sum remained £40,000, it should be applied without restriction. The right hon. Gentleman, instead of dealing with this latter Amendment, confused the two, alleging that the second was a mere repetition of the first, and, therefore, required no answer. In consequence, I raised the question again on the Report, and then the right hon. Gentleman was discreet enough to hold his tongue. If my hon. Friend should search the Debates for any answer from the Lord Advocate he will find none. The Solicitor General spoke for the Government, and all he said was that, practically, the £40,000 could be applied at the discretion of the School Boards, so that I had not succeeded in showing what harm these words would do in the Bill. I think a case has now been made out as to the harm they will do, namely, that they will, at the very least, create a legal ambiguity. I regard it as most unsatisfactory that the Chief Law Officer of the Crown in Scotland should have slurred this question over without an answer.
SIR W. LAWSON: I do not exactly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) in thinking the Government were bound, when the licensing clauses were done away with, to withdraw the Bill altogether. I do not think they could help themselves. Having provided for the raising of the money, they were bound to do something with it. I regard the Bill as one of great importance, which should not pass to another place without a word of recognition from us. It is, no doubt, the great Bill of the Session, and it is the Bill which makes this Session memorable. We spent 25 nights over it, and I believe the country does not think we spent too long a time. 406 Bills have been before the House this Session, and I think this one has excited more interest in the country than all the other 405 put together. It seems to me that the system of giving to Local Bodies large sums of money raised by local taxation is a very bad system. I am sorry to see it seems to be becoming popular, because I am sure it will lead to a great deal of evil and corruption in our local affairs. The

1995
Bill, however, might have been a great deal worse. What we feared when we fought it was that it would have led to the strengthening and the consolidation of the great drink interest throughout the country. Now the money is to be spent on a very good purpose, namely, the promoting of the education of the people. Some of it is to be used for police purposes. That is a very good thing too, because we all know the police would be hardly necessary in this country if it was not for the expenditure on drink. On the whole, we have a good deal to be thankful for, and can part with the Bill in pretty good humour. I shall always remember it with interest because it is the first Bill ever brought in by a responsible Government which has been based avowedly on the principle of trying to make people sober by act of Parliament, and reducing intemperance by diminishing the temptations to drink. I cannot help shedding a tear over the suspensory clause. The Government appear to be like game-preservers. They bring up the game, and when they have arrived at maturity, they shoot them. I hope, however, the Government will not be discouraged from pursuing the course they announced when they brought in the Bill. I have read of wild talk about there being no more legislation of the kind for the next 20 years, and about the foolish action of the Prohibition Party. When I see that, I always remember the words of Mr. Disraeli, who once said:—"Never take the words of your opponents." I hope the Government will not say that, because they cannot get a certain amount of money to strengthen and endow the liquour trade, they will never do anything more for temperance. They have declared plainly in this House that there are far too many liquor shops, and I think they ought to do something to get rid of them. Although we had to fight against this Bill, I can assure them the Prohibition Party are ready and anxious to assist them in any attempt in that direction, and I am sure that in such an endeavour they will have the support of the great majority of this House, and the immense majority of the people.
(12.37.) Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

INDIAN COUNCILS BILL [LORDS]. (No. 197.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

PARTNERSHIP BILL [LORDS]. (No. 373.)
Considered in Committee, and reported, with Amendment; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL—(No. 403.)
Read a second time, and committed for this day.

YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL [LORDS].—(No. 349.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].—(No. 405.)
The Select Committee on the Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Bill [Lords] was nominated of,—Mr. Ambrose, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Coghill, Mr. Elton, Mr. Howell, Mr. Knox. Mr. Solicitor General, and Mr. Whitley.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Solicitor General.)

GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 181.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "twenty."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
MR. JACKSON: I do not know whether this has been agreed to by the Lord Advocate; if not, I must ask that Progress be reported.
MR. PARKER SMITH: I think it has been agreed to

1997
by the Lord Advocate. The Amendment is to allow the owners to have some larger percentage than the Bill provides.
MR. JACKSON: Under the circumstances it would be well to report Progress.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

FIRE BRIGADES (EXEMPTION FROM JURY SERVICE) BILL.—(No. 273.)
Order for Second Reading, this day, read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Bram well to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Tenants Compensation Bill. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) (SOUTH CLARE RAILWAYS) BILL.—(No. 251.)
Order of yesterday referring the Bill to the Examiners, discharged.
METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 168.)
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 252.)
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.—(No. 220.)
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 Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 253.)
TENANTS COMPENSATION BILL. (No. 240.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for General Bills, with Amendments: The Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 254.)
METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS, &c. (No. 240.)
Message from the House of Commons for Report, &c, of the Select Committee of this House: Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP SANITATION BILL.
A Bill to make regulations for the better sanitation of factories and workshops. Was presented by the Lord Thring; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 256.)

LONDON STREETS (REMOVAL OF GATES) BILL.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I regret very much that I should have to trouble your Lordships for a few moments in reference to this Bill, at this stage. I regret that your Lordships did not follow the lead of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell), and reject this Bill at the Second, and if not at the Second, at the Third Reading. Because, my Lords, I think it would be a good thing to have rejected this Bill, coming as it did from this newly created London County Council without any Compensation Clause, whilst it takes away property rights which had been previously acknowledged. The County Council are very ambitious. They were, in the main, created to keep our sewers in proper order, and our streets well cleaned and lighted, but, in their ambition, they go in more for what is called haute politique, and they endeavour to bring in new principles of legislation, such as "betterment," besides endeavouring to take possession of the Corporate property of the London City Companies. And here, in a Bill which they bring in to clear away obstructions in the streets, they, as I have said, for the first time introduce a new principle, and bring in a Bill taking property without compensation. Well, my Lords, I think it would be useful, under those circumstances, if the Bill had been rejected either on the Second or on the Third Reading, but it appeared otherwise to your Lordships. The Prime Minister while favouring compensation thought the Bill should be read a second and a third time; so did the Opposition Bench, and the Chairman of Committees also was in favour of the Third Reading of the Bill, although he expressed an opinion in favour of considering a compensation clause. Nevertheless, notwithstanding all the arguments in favour of the Bill, the Third Reading was only carried by a majority of nine, and if we analyse the Division List we shall find it was practically mainly carried by the official

1847
supporters of the present Government. It was under those circumstances that I ventured to ask your Lordships to take advantage of what I cannot but consider a very wise provision in your Lordships' Rules of Procedure, and take time to consider whether, there having been this strong feeling expressed with reference to compensation, you should not delay the further progress of the Bill, and introduce a Compensation Clause into it. It is acting upon what I believe to have been the feeling predominant, at any rate, in the House on that occasion, that this clause is now proposed. Well, I venture accordingly, merely as a mouthpiece of others, to propose that this clause should be introduced into the Bill. I doubt very much whether any clause ever came before your Lordships drawn and backed with the authority which attaches to this clause. I myself, I need not say, have had no hand in it. It is a clause which is accepted by those who are interested in the Bedford estates, and it was sent to me voluntarily, without any communication on my part, on Saturday last, by Lord Selborne. It is drawn by him, or drafted by him. It has, I think I may venture to say, the approval of the Lord Chancellor, and, after what the Prime Minister said after the Debate on the Third Reading the other night, I venture to think it meets also with the approval of the Prime Minister. Few clauses have ever come before your Lordships' House so drawn and so endorsed, and I think I may venture to submit it to your Lordships' favourable consideration. Here, my Lords, I should at once sit down, and simply move the clause, were it not that I would, with your Lordships' permission, say a very few words with reference to the position which this House occupies with regard to this great question of property rights. A short time ago I attended a public dinner, at which two very distinguished Americans were present—Mr. Hurlbert and Mr. Dudley Field. I may say that Mr. Dudley Field is certainly the finest specimens of humanity at 85 I have ever seen, and he is also the finest orator I ever heard—I except none. Those two gentleman spoke on that occasion, and I venture to bring before your Lordships what they said, as having a direct bearing upon this question, and
1848
upon all questions affecting property and liberty rights. Perhaps your Lordships, therefore, will allow me to quote what they said, and I hope that their language will not only have influence with your Lordships, but that it will be taken to heart by the nation, and also, perhaps, have influence in another place. Mr. Hurlbert said this:—
"The American Union is simply a union for the defence of liberty and property. I read with surprise in an address of Sir Frederick Bramwell that your British Parliament to-day is in the habit of enacting laws which wind up with this declaration—' Any contract to the contrary notwithstanding.' I can imagine nothing more amazing to Americans than that. One of the fundamental principles of the American Constitution is this: No State shall pass a law impairing the validity of contract."
Mr. Dudley Field followed, and said—
"Mr. Herbert has told you, and told you truly, that the foundation of American life and American Government is the sanctity of the home and the sanctity of contract. The State of New York, to which I belong, the proudest and most powerful of all the States in the Union, could not enact a law by which one dollar of rent could be taken from a landlord and given to any human being. We believe, and the majority of my countrymen believe, that Government was made, not to give property to anybody, but to protect everybody. To protect then and keep the peace is the duty of Governments. We call the other theory the "meddlesome theory." What right have you to interfere in my domestic concerns? You protect me, and I carve my own career for myself. It is that which we Americans consider our birthright. We hold these truths to be our birthright— that men are born equal, and that each man shall be left to judge for himself what is best in the pursuit of happiness for him."
Such a Bill then as this, taking away rights of property, could not, by any possibility, have passed through the American Legislature and become law, because you have the security in America of what is called the Supreme Court, and a written Constitution, in which the sanctity of contract is recognised as one of the main elements of freedom and liberty. If, then, the American Senate or Legislative Assembly, departing from the written letter of the Constitution in this respect, were to pass a law taking a dollar out of one man's pocket to put it into the pocket of another, the Supreme Court steps in, squashes, and sets aside any such measure. Contrast with that what has been going on in this country for the last 20 years. Why, there is

1849
hardly a day on which the State does not interfere with somebody or other, either making, or breaking, or barring contracts, and you have, unfortunately, no such security as they have in the Supreme Court in America. There was a time when we resisted the extension of the Franchise, and what is called the Democraticising and Americanising of our institutions; but I now wish to Heaven our institutions wore Americanised in the sense in which I have mentioned, which renders it impossible, owing to the existence of the Supreme Court, for such legislation as has been in fashion in this country for many years to be passed. There is hardly a newspaper in which you do not read, for instance, of the Crofters Commission meeting somewhere up in the north, in some out of the way place, that they reduced rents, say 30 per cent., and striking off, perhaps, 60 per cent. of arrears. But although we have no Supreme Court in this country, we have your Lordships' House. Practically, your Lordships' House is the only check at the present moment upon wild legislation, and against doing away with the rights of property. For, mind you, it is not merely a question of the Duke of Bedford, but the principle affects the small freeholder as well; it is a question affecting property of every sort or kind which anyone may have inherited or earned. Therefore it is that I hope your Lordships will take this strong position, and maintain it through thick and thin, that any Bill which comes to your Lordships, be it from what quarter it may, for the purpose of taking forcible possession of property, without compensation, will be rejected by your Lordships, or will be amended by your Lordships, putting into it a compensation clause. That is all that I invite your Lordships now to do. It is not to a very high level of ambition that I would wish your Lordships to rise. I would simply point out this, that although the County Council of London, as I have said, and I repeat it, have ignored the action of their predecessors, their predecessors, who, acting upon a dictum of the then Home Secretary as to compensation in this very case being needed, put into their Bill, introduced only five years ago, a Compensation Clause. All, then, that I am inviting your Lordships to do is to rise,
1850
as regards the defence of property rights, from the level of the London County Council to that of the late Metropolitan Board. I, therefore, beg to move the Clause which stands in my name; but there is just one very small omission in it to which I must call attention. That is, where the word "land" stands, "lands" ought to be read. It occurs in the first and last lines of the clause.
Moved, to insert at the end of Clause 4—
"Provided that if any lands shall be taken or injuriously affected by anything to be done under or by virtue of this Act, without the consent of the owner thereof, compensation shall be made for the same by the Council in the manner provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the cots amending the same, the provisions of which Acts, so far as relates to lands taken otherwise than by agreement and to compensation for lands injuriously affected, shall be deemed for that purpose to be incorporated with this Act."— (The Earl of Wemyss.)
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Earl on the Cross Benches into his disquisition of the rights of property. It would appear that the noble Earl has little confidence either in the tribune of this House or in that of the House of Commons, for he comes and tells us here that the unanimous opinion of the Committee was that property shall be taken away without compensation according to law, and that a majority of this House agreed with the Committees of the House of Commons and of your Lordships' House. Neither shall I follow the noble Earl into the disquisition on the sacred rights of contract, because, after all the legislation that has taken place I think the noble Earl lets light in upon the question in putting his views forward; and besides, that does not seem to me to be the question which is at present before the House. This is really a very serious matter, but it is, perhaps, more serious even than my noble Friend seems to imagine; for this proposal is made, as the noble Earl the Chairman of Committes stated, after the Bill has been read a third time, and after a decision has been arrived at upon the measure in the Committees of the House of Commons and of this House, although no new evidence has been adduced. That, as the noble Earl has stated, is a very unusual course, and there must be very

1851
strong reasons indeed shown for taking' such a course. But there is a great deal more than that. Let me ask your Lordships to consider what would be the effect of the reversal of these decisions of the Committees of both Houses. The effect would be this: It would be said that, by the action of your Lordships House, you would be imposing a burden upon the ratepayers of London, and a burden, mind you, for the benefit, if anybody is to be benefited, of the noble Duke who is a Member of this House; and it would be said you propose to do that by a Party majority in this House. Now, I should like this matter to be cleared up a little. What is the position as between the noble Duke and the leaseholders? The position taken up by the leaseholders before the Committee of your Lordships' House was this, that they are the only persons who in reality are damnified if anybody suffers damage, and that the Duke himself is benefited and not damnified by the removal of these bars if they are removed by the Legislature. Mr. Balfour Browne, who represented the leaseholders in this House, used these words:—
"The attitude of the Duke in the House of Commons was this—For myself I do not care; I am simply here to support my tenants; I do not suppose that the alteration in the character of this district would really materially affect the district supposing it was all turned into shops and if thoroughfares were made through it, for dare say the Duke's rent at the end of he present tenancies would he higher than they are to-day."
Under those circumstances it is, at least, doubtful whether the Duke desires the passing of this clause as proposed; but I should like to get a distinct answer from the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bram-well) and also from the noble and learned Lord by his side, as to whether or not they consider the leaseholders would have any chance of obtaining compensation. I understand the view of the noble and learned Lord is that they would not; I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord agrees with him. If the noble and learned Lord and the noble and learned Earl both agree that it is only the Duke that can get compensation, and not the leaseholders, I think they will find it exceedingly difficult to persuade the people of London that it is a just thing that the Duke of Bedford, who is not damnified at all, and certainly-
1852
much less than his tenants, if there is any damage done, should get compensation, and that those tenants should not get a penny of compensation. You are asking compensation, then, only for the noble Duke the Duke of Bedford. Very well, but the Duke of Bedford himself asked for no compensation before the Committee of your Lordships' House; he was content with the decision of the House of Commons, and I think the Duke of Bedford was exceedingly well advised to be content with that decision. I do not know whether your Lordships quite understand the feeling of the ratepayers of London in this matter. I belong to that much-abused body which the noble Earl has talked about, the London County Council. I represent on the Council a certain body of ratepayers, and I am in the habit of coming into contact with other members of that body who represent other ratepayers of London; and I can say that, Whether rightly or wrongly, the opinion in the mind of the average ratepayer is this—that the Duke of Bedford and other ground landlords have been obtaining, for many years, a very unjust and inequitable advantage out of the rates. It is said by the ratepayers of the County of London that the Duke of Bedford and other large landlords have had their property very largely increased in value, not owing to any money they have themselves expended upon the property, or not entirely owing to expenditure of their own upon it, but really owing to the money which has been subscribed by the ratepayers in furtherance of Metropolitan improvements. It does seem to me that the Duke of Bedford does not care to come to your Lordships' House to ask for compensation. It is the most extraordinary thing in the world that your Lordships should be asked to set aside the decisions of both Committees in favour of this noble Duke, who says himself he does not want compensation, and who, very likely, will not obtain compensation even if this clause is carried. There is just one observation which I should like to add in the name of the County Council. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches has said something about the action of the County Council, and I should like to say one word to the noble Lord in regard to the action of the Liberty

1853
and Property Defence League, of which he is such a pillar. It seems to me that, by pressing the rights of property far beyond anything which public opinion is likely to endorse, they are paving the way for radical reforms in the future which they would consider of a confiscatory nature. I can only once more entreat your Lordships not, at this stage of the Bill, to put in a Compensation Clause, giving compensation to the noble Duke for which he has not himself asked.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not understand that this clause gives any right to compensation to anybody, but only a right to go before a jury and ask whether there is to be compensation paid or not, and if the jury says they think the parties have a right to compensation they will fix the amount. I do not see that the right to compensation becomes less clear because the party who goes to the jury happens to be the Duke of Bedford, and possesses a great deal of other property, or that it will then be affected because he happens not to have pressed his claims before this House. But, in truth, I think this clause will have very little practical effect; but I can quite understand the force of the observation which was made by my noble Friend the other night, that it is undesirable to sanction the principle, even in a small matter, that property may be taken away without giving the ordinary right to obtain compensation, which is given in every other case. The amount of laud to be taken will be extremely small, probably only that which is under the gates; but you do take the land, and whenever you do take land compulsorily it is your habit to incorporate the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 in the Bill which takes it. The Land Clauses Act gives no right to compensation, it simply gives a right to the parties to go before the ordinary tribunals of the land to inquire whether compensation should be paid. Therefore, merely as a matter of principle it seems to me that the case for inserting the clause is complete. I confess that my feeling in favour of the clause is rather strengthened by the speech to which we have just listened. I cannot help feeling that if a Representative of the County Council in this House shows such warmth in resisting in a Bill of this
1854
description a provision which is merely one of principle, and which will practically leave no burden whatever on the rates, there must be some design which we do not see in the particular mode in which this Bill has been introduced into Parliament. I cannot help thinking that there are members of the County Council who hope that if we do pass a Bill, without taking the ordinary precaution to insert a clause with regard to compensation, in this small matter, in cases where larger sums are concerned the precedent will work against the owners of property. That, I confess, makes me think that, on the whole, it would be batter that we should adhere to the ordinary Parliamentary practice in this case; that it does not matter two straws whether the Duke of Bedford has asked for it, or not; that what we have to do with in this matter is the Parliamentary practice; and that Parliamentary practice demands that we should follow the usual course, and insert this clause.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I cannot agree with the view which the noble Marquess has suggested to your Lordships. If we were proposing now to deal with a Bill which was under consideration for the first time in your Lordships' House, which had not been considered by a Committee of this House, and by a Committee of the other House, and passed by the other House, the case might be different; but I would ask your Lordships to consider the aspect which this case will wear if the course proposed by the noble Earl is followed. It will appear that—after a case has been considered in the other House by a Committee who unanimously came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to insert a Compensation Clause, the noble Duke, who is said to be the only person interested, having been represented before them, when the Committee of your Lordships' House by whom it was considered came to the conclusion that there should be no Compensation Clause—by doing what has never, so far as I know, been done before between the Third Reading and the passing of the Bill, your Lordships are willing to insert such a clause in favour of a Member of this House. By doing such a thing as this, it would seem that, on behalf of a Member of your Lordships' House, and for his benefit, you

1855
are taking a course which is absolutely unprecedented, and altering this Bill in a manner which will make it inconsistent with the views which have been taken by the other House, and by a Committee of your Lordships' House. I cannot think that such a course is likely to raise either the credit or character of your Lordships' House. I do not say that the imputations which are likely to be cast upon it will necessarily be just; but I am quite certain that if your Lordships take this course it will give rise to observations with regard to the action of your Lordships' House which those who are concerned for its credit and character and reputation would much rather not hear, because they would be unable to avoid the feeling that there is, at all events, some foundation for it. Now, I agree that this question may be said, as it has been put by the noble Marquess opposite, to be a question of principle; but is there any question of principle necessarily involved here? Are you wronging anybody when, there being only one person to whom this clause will apply, that person, having presented his case in the House of Commons, has been content not to petition your Lordships' House, or to suggest here that he has any claim to compensation? Where is the serious interference with the rights of property that is complained of, because you do not put in a special clause for compensating a person who has not suggested that he is entitled to such compensation, or that he has any desire for the insertion of such a clause? I confess I am at a loss to see how the non-insertion of such a clause in this extraordinary and unusual way would be a serious interference with the rights of property. I am certain that, such a clause not being there, if the persons concerned desired that it should be inserted they would bring the matter before your Lordships' House, and suggest that such a clause should be inserted. Where they do not take that course, then surely it is wantonly and unnecessarily putting this House in conflict with the action of the other House to take the course proposed at this late and unprecedented stage. On the other hand, I certainly fail to see how your Lordships not taking that course, is likely to inflict harm upon anyone, either at the present time or in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As far as the question of precedent is concerned I can remind my noble and learned Friend of one instance in which I had a personally painful experience of a similar course being pursued after the Third Reading of the Land Transfer Bill, when, upon the Motion that the Bill do now pass, the House was adjourned for the purpose of inserting an Amendment.
LORD HERSCHELL: I did not mean putting in any Amendment. I meant putting in a Compensation Clause of this kind in a private Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought my noble and learned Friend said there was no instance of such a course having been taken as far as the practice of the House goes. I misunderstood him; but that that did occur your Lordships will remember, and a new clause was ultimately put in upon the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I only rise for the purpose of setting right what I think is a misapprehension on that point, As I am addressing your Lordships I cannot help noticing the disguised menace, which is really the only argument brought forward by both the noble Lords who have addressed the House. What is the meaning of their continually saying, "This is a very awkward thing; this will expose you to a conflict with the other House and with the ratepayers," and so forth? If the thing is right, I trust your Lordships will have the courage to do it. If it be wrong let it be shown to be wrong, but I trust your Lordships will not yield to that sort of indirect menace that you must not do it because the ratepayers will be angry.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment mentioned truly that, as far as the form goes, I am responsible for that form. I am willing also to be responsible for the substance, for it does appear to me that the principles which have been appealed to in this discussion are of much greater importance than the immediate question involved. What does the Amendment propose? Merely that that rule, and exactly that rule, shall be applied to this case which, as far as I know, has always been applied to every other case of the same kind. If land belonging to a private

1857
person is taken and injuriously affected, and those words have been construed by innumerable decisions under powers of this kind, for the public benefit, that land has to be paid for if the owner does not consent. That there is any reason why a difference should be made in favour of a permanent Public Body of the character of the London County Council is not to me obvious. On the contrary, I think that the power and permanence and great respectability of that body appear to mo to constitute additional reasons why no new precedent infringing on the right of individuals to be compensated for property taken compulsorily from them should be made in its favour. It has been said by my noble and learned Friend on the Front Bench that such a clause as that now moved has not before been put in at this stage of a Bill which has passed without it in the other House, and through a Committee of this House. The answer is, that there has never before been occasion to do so. I quite agree that before putting in such a clause we should seriously and carefully consider whether the principles of justice require it. But I am perfectly certain that no such Bill as this, taking away private property for a public purpose, private property which upon the hypothesis is taken or injuriously affected within the meaning of the Land Clauses Act, has ever been passed before, and the fact of this Bill having passed the House of Commons would, in my opinion, go no further than to make it probable that the Committee of the House of Commons may not have thoroughly appreciated the step which it was proposed to take. And I can well understand that that might have happened there, as I have no doubt it happened in the Committee of your Lordships' House, from the position which the freeholder, in my view the only person who would come within those words, appears to have taken there. The freeholder appeared to oppose in the House of Commons; he did not appear to oppose here. But opposing the passing of the Bill is one thing, and waiving, or relinquishing, or consenting to give up a right to compensation, to which he would otherwise have been entitled, is another
1858
thing. I quite agree that, in these circumstances, and parties whom I assume not to be entitled to compensation having appeared to oppose before the Committees of both Houses, the attention of the Committee was rather directed to the position of these parties than to the principle involved as to the freeholder, who may possibly have thought he had a right to rely upon the ordinary course being taken, and that it would be taken. On the other hand, in favour of the Committees, I am quite disposed to admit this, that they may have misunderstood the position of the freeholder, and have supposed him to waive what, as far as I can see, there is no evidence whatever of his waiving, that is to say, his right to compensation. I cast no blame upon the Committee, if that was the view which they took; on the contrary, I have myself found in this state of circumstances a sufficient reason for not rejecting the Bill on the Third Reading. But upon the present Motion the question is different; and I do think that in such a case nothing less than the consent of the party interested ought to preclude him from claiming compensation, and it has not been made out to my satisfaction that there has been a deliberate relinquishment of the claim. If there was, and if that can be shown, no doubt, no claim will be made under this clause; but as far as the principle is concerned, it does seem to me that without proof of consent, without some less equivocal proof of waiver, it would be a very dangerous and a very unsafe thing not to introduce a clause which would enable a person whose land may be taken, or injuriously affected, if he has not consented, and if he does not consent, to claim in the ordinary way in which, as far as I know, every such person has always been held to be entitled to claim under every Bill giving compulsory powers which has hitherto passed. And, my Lords, I must also say that neither the humble estate nor the high estate, neither the poverty nor the wealth of the private person affected, ought, in my judgment, to induce your Lordships to depart from whatever may be the proper principle and proper method of dealing with this question.
LORD HERSCHELL: I do not know whether I may do so now, but I propose

1859
to add some words to this Amendment. The words which I propose to add will have the effect of providing that the words "injuriously affected" shall have the same meaning in this Bill as they have in the Lands Clauses Act.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot imagine how any doubt could possibly be entertained on the subject, but as far as I am concerned by all means let those words be added; I have no objection.
LORD HERSGHELL: It has been suggested that some doubt might arise owing to the manner of assessing the compensation.
Moved to add at the end of the proposed Amendment the words: "that the words 'injuriously affected shall have the same meaning as in the said Act."
On Question, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment," agreed to.
On Question, "Whether to agree to the said Amendment as amended," their Lordships divided:—Contents 56; Non-contents 18.
Resolved in the affirmative; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 15) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order).
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, the amendments which stand in my name are to the two Orders which affect the City of London, and are little more than drafting Amendments. As they are matters of agreement, I think I need say no more about them. With regard to the Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord opposite, those I shall be glad to adopt, with some verbal alterations which the promoters and other parties have agreed to. This Bill, as far as this particular Order is concerned, was the first opposed when the Order was made sending it to a Committee. Since that time an agreement has been come to between the parties concerned, the Corporation of the City of London, and the London County Council. Therefore, if your Lordships will now accept the Amendments which are on the Paper, there is every prospect that the Orders
1860
in question will pass through this House and the other House as matters of agreement. Under these circumstances, I beg to move the Amendments which stand in my own name, and in the name of the noble Lord opposite.
Amendments made.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Owing to the advanced period of the Session, it is necessary to ask your Lordships for some indulgence in regard to this Bill. If your Lordships consent to suspend the Standing Order, I propose to pass the Bill through its other stages this afternoon, in order that there may be a reasonable prospect of its passing through the other House of Parliament. Ample opportunity will be given to any one who desires to object within the number of days which have necessarily to expire; but unless this be agreed to there is grave fear that what I believe to be practicable now will be lost through lapse of time. I hope under those circumstances your Lordships will agree to the suspension of the Standing Orders.
Standing Order No. XXXIX, considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.

  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, these Bills, which are for confirming certain Orders under the Pilotage Act of last year, are the first which have been brought before Parliament under the Act. The circumstances under which I ask for a suspension of the Sessional Order are these. The Bills under which the Orders are made only came into force on the 1st January last year. The Local Authority required some time to consider whether they would apply for the Provisional Order, and when they did so the Board of Trade agreed to give it to them. Every possible expedition has been used to get the Bills ready for your Lordships, but, owing to the provisions of the Act, which make it necessary that a period of six weeks should elapse between certain stages

  1861
  of the Provisional Orders before they can be presented to Parliament, the time passed away, and the Orders could not come before Parliament sooner than they do. The first Bill refers to the Firth of Clyde, and the pilotage upon the Firth of Clyde, and is absolutely unopposed. It passed through the House of Commons absolutely unopposed. The second Bill refers to the port of Bristol, and that I believe also is now absolutely unopposed. There was opposition before the Committee of the House of Commons, but the Committee unanimously confirmed the Bill, after some two hours' discussion. Under those circumstances, I hope your Lordships will consent to the Standing Order being suspended.
  Moved—
  "That the Sessional Order of the 10th of March last, That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Friday, the 27tn day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bills be read 2a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: The noble Lord has certainly justified his Department so far in making out that they have lost no time in bringing these Orders before the House: but I think it would have been, under the circumstances, better if the Orders had been suspended for another year, considering that we have now arrived at the 5th of August, and that the Bills ought to have been presented more than six weeks ago. If the Bills are opposed I think it is very doubtful whether your Lordships should suspend the Standing Order, although if my noble Friend can assure the House there is no opposition to the Bills I should not oppose them.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I cannot, of course, give an absolute answer that there is no opposition. That can only be decided by lapse of the time for petitioning. I think the time for petitioning with regard to No. 2 Bill will not have expired until 3 o'clock on Thursday. With regard to No. 1 Bill, that is absolutely unopposed, for the time expired at 1 o'clock to-day.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: Then would it not be better to postpone the second Bill until Thursday's sitting?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Under the circumstances, I will not move the suspension with regard to
  1862
  No. 2 Bill to-day, but I hope the House will remember that it is not a new application if my name appears again on Thursday as moving for the suspension of the Standing Order. I move that the Order be suspended in regard to Pilotage Bill No. 1, and it be read a second time.
  Motion withdrawn as applying to the second Bill, and agreed to as the first Bill.
  Bill No. 1 read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 219.)
  Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) BILL. (No. 229.)
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There are some Amendments in my name, but with one exception they are purely draftsman's Amendments; that one is upon Clause 8, page 7, the exact words of which were objected to by my noble Friend on the previous stage of the Bill under what I have since become satisfied was a misconception, as the words under Sub-section 2, Clause 3, are sufficient to meet their purpose. Under those circumstances, I move that the Amendment be inserted.
  Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 205.)
  Amendment reported (according to order).
  LORD HOUGHTON: Your Lordships may, perhaps, remember that in the previous stage of this Bill, Clause 8, which deals with the power of ecclesiastical, parochial, and charitable bodies to convey land for purposes connected with, the Public Libraries Act, was seriously assailed, and, in deference to the suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite, I withdrew it, and said I would bring it up in another form of the Report. I have brought up the clause in a form which, I think, will meet the objections then raised; but there are two points

  1863
  upon which I should like to say a word to your Lordships. One of my noble Friends behind me took a general objection to the power of such Public Bodies to give land, although not to their power of selling or exchanging of it. Well, as regards the word "gift," I am informed that in several other Acts, such as the Schools Sites Act of 1841, the Literary and Scientific Institutions Act of 1854, and the Places of Worship Sites Act, 1873, a power of gift is found in each of those measures; and if land can be given for such a purpose as a literary institution it is difficult to see why it should not be given for the purpose of a public library. The other point was with regard to the application of the money derived from such land. My noble Friend behind me has suggested an Amendment in the last paragraph, to which I shall be very glad to agree, namely, that the money derived from the sale of the land shall be applied to the purposes of the Trust, and not as here stated. My noble Friend, Lord Meath, who is not present, brought up on a former stage an Amendment with reference to open spaces; he was anxious that no land which had been set aside for the purpose of being preserved as an open space should come under the operation of this clause. Upon that I have only to say that if he, or my noble Friend Lord Thring, who I believe had charge of the matter in his absence, will bring up an Amendment to that effect at the next stage of the Bill, on the understanding that its provisions should only apply to the Metropolis, or very large towns, I should not offer any objection to such an Amendment.
  Moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause—
  8."Any person holding land for ecclesiastical, parochial, or charitable purposes, may, subject as herein-after provided, grant, convey, or enfranchise, by way of gift, sale, or exchange for any of the purposes of the Libraries Acts, any quantity of such land not exceeding in any one case one acre in any manner vested in such person Provided that no ecclesiastical property shall be granted or conveyed for such purposes without the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England; that no parochial property shall be so granted or conveyed save by the Guardians of the Poor Law Union compromising the parish to which the property belongs, or without the consent of the Local Government Board; and that no other charitable property shall be so granted or conveyed without the consent of the Charitable
  1864
  Commissioners; and the said Board and Commissioners respectively shall provide for the application of the money derived from the sale of any land with their consent under this section, regard being had to the purposes for which such land was held. Any land granted or conveyed to any library authority under this section may be held by such authority without any licence in mortmain."— (The Lord Houghton.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am quite satisfied with what my noble Friend has said with regard to gifts, and as there are precedents with regard to gifts in analogous cases I shall certainly not press my Amendment. The other point to which I would call attention, is that the words after
  "Said Boards and Commissioners respectively, provided that the application of such moneys derived from the sale of land under this Section regard being had to the purposes for which such land is taken,"
  should be omitted, and the words
  "Land taken in exchange, or money received from such sale shall be held on the same trusts as the land exchanged or sold"
  should be inserted. I cannot see why there should be any difference made in the application of the money received from those portions of land to the purposes of the Trusts on which the land is held. I, therefore, beg leave to move that Amendment.
  On Question agreed to, Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  DIRECTORS' LIABILITY BILL. (No. 242.)
  House in Committee (on re-commitment) (according to Order).
  Clause 3.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Upon this clause with regard to liability for statements in a prospectus, I have to move to omit lines 10 to 15, on page 2. That question arises in this form. The Bill has provided for the liability of Directors in respect of untrue statements made in a prospectus, which, presumably, upon the theory of the Bill, they are responsible for composing and issuing. It throws upon them the necessity of showing affirmatively that they believed, at all events, in the statements put forward by them. But, besides that, the Bill proposes to make a Director liable under circumstances which I will mention in a moment, for any statement which, in fact, is untrue in the report of any

  1865
  expert, whether the expert be an engineer, accountant, valuer, or what not. Now, I think it would be quite fair that a Director should be called upon to show that he had made a fair extract from or had correctly copied the report or valuation of an engineer, valuer, accountant, or other expert. That, of course, is a matter within his own knowledge, and it is a matter with regard to which he may be justly expected to be careful in what he puts before the public; but this Bill goes further, The Bill calls upon him to show affirmatively, and, in the first instance, without any evidence being called, that he did not himself do it; that he believed the statement which was made; that the valuer or expert was competent; because that is the only interpretation that I can give to the phrase "bona fide." Now, if I am to suppose that this is a conspiracy between the engineer, valuer, or accountant, and the Director, the law reaches that at present. That would be a fraud. Therefore, what this Bill does is this: the hypothesis of its necessity assumes that the Director is not in fraudulent conspiracy with the engineer or valuer, because that is reached by the law as it stands at present, but it says that he is, in the first instance, without any foundation being made to call upon him for it, to be called upon to show, in the words of the Bill—
  "That he had reasonable grounds for believing that it was a correct or fair copy of or extract from the Report or valuation, and that he had reasonable ground for believing, and did, up to the time of the allotment, believe that the statement, Report, or valuation was made in good faith by the person by whom it was purported to be made."
  That is, that he believes that the person who made it did himself believe it. Now, this is the first time in any legislation, as far as I am aware, in which Parliament has called upon a man to answer, not only from his own belief, but to state that he believes that some other person believed something, and not only that, but that he believed the person who believed that something, and made the statement about it, was competent to make it. I do not understand upon what ground it is supposed that a Director should be called upon to prove that rather than that the person who, by the hypothesis,
  1866
  has taken the shares upon the faith of the statements, should exercise his belief in regard to their untruth. It must, by the clause itself, be a fair copy or representation of what the engineer or valuer has said, and why on earth the Director is, more than the person who has taken the shares, to be called upon to exercise that belief, and that he should, in the first instance, satisfy a jury that he did believe the valuer was competent, and that he did make the valuation or Report in good faith I cannot understand. With reference to a statement which was made by the Director himself, and upon his own authority, in a prospectus, if he put his name to it, I quite agree that it is not unreasonable to say that if, as a matter of fact, an untruth is found in it, the issue may be changed, and that he may be called upon to show that it is either true or that he believed it to be true. That I can understand; but I do not understand why, when a Director says, as he impliedly does say by extract from or giving a copy of the valuation or accountant's Report:—"I, myself, have no knowledge of this, but I give you what the expert to whom I have applied says about it, and you must inquire for yourselves what the value of that expert's opinion is, what his reputation is among the set of valuers or accountants among whom he practises, and you must form your own judgment upon it,"he is to be called upon to pledge his belief to the competency of that expert, and to the expert's own belief in the truth of the statements. All the Director says, and all I think he ought to be called upon to say, is—"This is an extract from, "or" This is the valuers' opinion," but this Bill throws upon him not only the onus in respect of statements which he has made himself, but calls upon him to show, if anybody chooses to bring an action against him, that he believed the valuer did believe in good faith, and that the valuer was a competent valuer. It seems to me both unreasonable and improper that you should call upon a Director to do that, and for that reason I move to omit the clause.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 3, page 2, lines 10 to 15, to leave out—
  "And that he had reasonable ground for believing, and did up to the time of the allotment of the shares, debentures, or debenture

  1867
  stock, as the case may be, believe, that the statement, report, or valuation was made in good faith by the person by whom it purports to have been made, and that the person making it was competent to make it; and")— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: This matter was fully discussed in Committee, and the view taken by the Committee was not that of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. I imagine it will be considered here as free from those Party considerations which divide us as it was there. I cannot consent to the proposal of my noble and learned Friend. It seems to me to strike an absolutely fatal blow at this Bill. I believe if this Amendment were agreed to it would increase the mischiefs which exist rather than diminish them, as I hope to show your Lordships in a moment or two. My noble and learned Friend has dwelt upon a good many things concerning this clause, and has asked why you should not call upon a man to prove this, that, and the other; but he has not laid any stress upon this: that you have to prove that the person whom you see has issued an untrue statement in order to get money from the public who subscribed upon the faith of the untrue statement, that they acted upon that untrue statement, that they had been deceived by it, that they had lost their money in consequence of it. That you have to prove, and then my noble and learned Friend says, "Why are you not content with that? Why should you throw any on 11s on the man who has issued an untrue statement to the public, and got money out of them upon the strength of it?" For myself, I think that is a reason for saying that you should throw the onus on the man who has issued that untrue statement to the public. Then my noble and learned Friend says it is enough if the Director gives the name of a valuer or engineer who is of any kind of reputation. The proposition which my noble and learned Friend seems to lay down is this, that a man has a right to issue to the public a false statement, because that false statement is vouched for by someone of reputation in his profession, no matter how incompetent or how absolutely unfit to deal with the matter he may be; that the Director who issues it has a right to issue it without caring or troubling himself in the least as to the competency of the expert he has employed,
  1868
  to put it before the public as a thing they may rely upon, and then to say, "Though I had no reasonable ground to believe the man whom I employed was a competent man, though I put forward a false statement which he made, I shall be under no law." Now, just consider all this clause asks of him. It not only asks that he shall believe the statement which the expert made, but it says, "You who employed him shall show that you had reasonable ground to believe that he was a competant man." If he has employed the man, and put his statement before the public to induce them to part with their money, if he has induced them to act upon that man's statement, is it too much to ask that that man should show that he had reasonable ground to believe the person he employed was competent? What easier than to prove it in nine cases out of ton, if the man is really a competent man? But consider for a moment what would be the result if the proposal of my noble and learned Friend is adopted. I submit that this will be the result: that those who are going to launch companies before the public will be able to show that they employed an export, and there will soon grow up a particular class of experts, who will be easily got to make such Reports. My noble and learned Friend talks of the proof being given by the person who has taken the shares. But it is known perfectly well to him that many things cannot be proved. You may have your suspicion that the man has gone to this, that, or the other person to get a Report, without troubling himself to ascertain whether the person to whom he went was a man on whom he could rely; but proof in these cases is very difficult; and the result of my noble and learned Friend's proposal will be that you will have less examination as to whether Reports have been made by fit persons, because you will positively put a premium upon Directors going to a man who is likely to make loose statements and favourable statements which may be desired; and if a Director goes to such a man he will know that he is no more liable than if he had employed the most competent valuer or engineer in the country; whereas here there is an advantage conferred upon a man if he goes to a person of known competency,

  1869
  because there will be no such likelihood of his making loose or inaccurate statements. This is really putting a premium upon Directors and Promoters—for it is the Promoters especially I am thinking of—going to men of but little competence, repute, and skill, and it would act in the opposite direction to that desired by those who are promoting this Bill, and by a largo body of the public. It seems to me that if this Amendment be adopted it will strike a fatal blow at the Bill, and will make the condition of things worse than it is at present.
  LORD MORRIS: As I proposed this identical Amendment in the Standing Committee on Law, I would ask your Lordships' indulgence while I make a few short observations upon it. It is quite true, as my noble and learned Friend opposite said, that my Amendment was rejected, but it was rejected by only a majority of one, and at a time when there was only a very small attendance, if my recollection is accurate, upon the Committee—seven noble Lords voted for the Amendments, and eight voted against them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Committee consisting of 45.
  LORD MORRIS: But there were only 15 present.
  LORD HERSCHBLL: I did not put any stress upon the numbers, whether many were present or not. All I said was, I hoped it would be considered as free from Party bias here as it was there.
  LORD MORRIS: I know my noble and learned Friend did not place stress upon the numbers, but still he alluded to the fact that the same Amendment had been proposed in the Standing Committee on Law, and I think it right to explain, because, if unexplained, that might affect noble Lords' views upon the subject. Without the slightest kind of communication with any person, and being wholly disinterested, as I am not a Director of any Company, I was so struck with what appeared to mo the extraordinary imposition upon a Director under this clause, if it were allowed to stand, from the word "valuation," down to the end of it, that I proposed its omission. It does appear to me to be an unprecedented proposal, and I will take the liberty of saying one contrary to good sense, that any man should be called upon, not
  1870
  only to explain his own opinions or belief, or why he had acted upon them, but that he should be obliged to prove that he had reasonable grounds for relying upon the statements of another man, having been made by that man, in the honest belief that they were true. That is shortly, as has been put by the Lord Chancellor, the effect of the clause—that the Director had reasonable ground for believing that another man believed rightly and properly. I think that is an issue which ought to be imposed upon no Director and upon no man. There seems to be some sort of run at Directors at this moment, and I think we should be very likely to be legislating in a kind of panic on the subject by passing such a clause. But if, as it appears to me, that is an imposition upon Directors which should not be allowed to stay in the Bill, the second branch of the clause appears to me to be still more open to objection, and that is that he shall prove to a Jury if anything happens to the Company of which he is Director—and Companies may be affected, your Lordships must remember, by other causes, by perhaps bubble companies breaking up, and not by actual failure of the company in question—that the person whom he employed was competent.
  LORD HERSCHELL: That is not the provision, but that he had reasonable ground for believing him to be competent.
  LORD MORRIS: I know that, but we have to consider what a Jury would think, and that is the way a Jury would look at it; they never enter into fine logical distinctions, and practically, if the statements turned out to be untrue, they would probably come to the conclusion that the Director had no reasonable ground for believing them. He would put it in this way: that no Director who was solvent and had any regard for his personal character could ever employ any expert unless one who was eminent in his profession; because if he employed a Sir John Fowler, or a Sir Frederick Bramwell, the name of such an expert would be sufficient. But that would prevent any young man ever being employed, because it would be said at once to him, "I may be put upon my trial afterwards, and although I know you to be very clever and competent, still a Common Jury of the City of

  1871
  London will come to the conclusion that, as your name is unknown to fame, you are not a competent person." I venture to repeat, what I have already said in this House, that we ought to be satisfied with advancing to the extent that we have done, and that if there is any future legislation required of the subject it is quite time enough to adopt it when there are evils found which this present Bill, if passed into a Statute, would meet. Upon those grounds, my Lords, I should certainly support the proposition of the Lord Chancellor.
  LORD BRAMWELL: My Lords, I am not desirous of putting any unnecessary burden upon Directors. I am very much afraid of the Bill as it stands, but I cannot agree with the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor. Really, the proposition is this: that if the Report of an expert is relied upon in a prospectus, the Director shall be able to say not that he was competent, but that he believed him to be a competent man, and that he believed the Report was bonâ fide made. Now, what can be the objection to that? It is said that these cases will come before Juries, and even Common Juries. I know they will come before Common Juries, and if a company has turned out unsuccessful I know very well what may happen. But that is an excellent reason, my Lords, for not passing the Bill at all. If the Bill is to be passed it should be passed on principle, and if the man is able to give a good account of himself, and of his own opinions, why should he not be also called upon to give a good account of his opinion of the expert he has relied upon, and of that expert's Report? Just see what the consequence is if it is not so. A man desirous of "floating" a company, as it is called, goes to a great number of experts, and your Lordships will remember that the definition of an expert is a man whose profession enables him to be looked upon as an authority on a particular subject—he goes to a great many experts who do not agree with him, and after he has gone to the most respectable of them he goes to some man who will agree with him, in whom he has much less faith than he had in the half-dozen who rejected him, perhaps no faith at all, and whose Report he believes is made simply for the fee he
  1872
  would get for it, and not in consequence of its correctly representing his opinion. Now, that would really be the case if the Lord Chancellor's Amendment was adopted, and I think the noble and learned Lord must remember this, that when a man has been called upon to give evidence, and has relied upon the opinion of an expert, that it frequently happens to him to be asked: "Did not you consult Mr. A. B?—Yes.—Are you going to call him?—No."What is the inference from that? And he is, perhaps, asked the same question with regard to Mr. C. D., Mr. E. P., and so on. The conclusion from that is that he has gone to the best experts in the first instance, and their Reports have not suited his purpose; therefore, he has gone on until he has found some expert whose Report did suit his purpose. Now, I beg your Lordships to look at this proposition as the Bill stands. It does not make the Promoter or Director guarantee the good faith or skill of the expert; all it makes him do is to show that he believed in him and in his statements.
  LORD HERSCHELL: That he had reasonable ground to believe in them.
  LORD BRAMWELL: I should have said had reasonable ground for believing in them. Why not? If that is true of his own sentiments and his own opinion, is it not true of his faith in those whose statements he has brought forward to the public and advised them are to be relied upon? And your Lordships will always remember there is a primâ facie case made out against the Director or Promoter by showing in the first instance that the Report, or valuation, or what not, contained an untruth, and that calls upon him to show his good faith, and that he believed in the man who made it.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, it has occurred to me to call attention to one thing which does not apply to this particular point, but rather more widely to the question of the onus probandi. I do not see any provision for the case of a Director having become of unsound mind, and being of unsound mind, at the time when the charge arises. I do not know whether the Bill applies either to a case where the Director is dead.
  LORD HERSCHELL: In that case, I think no action would lie.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, I suppose the ordinary rule would apply in that case, that no action of tort would lie after death, and therefore we may dismiss the case of a man who is dead. But I cannot help thinking that the onus probandi, which this Bill introduces for the first time, upon a man who is of unsound mind at the time when the action arises would he to take from him the possibility of clearing himself, however honest his conduct might have been, and however well able he might have been to satisfy the burden of proof if he had been of sound mind. I do not know, therefore, whether my noble and learned Friend would be willing to put in at the end of the clause some such words as these:—"Provided always, that if at the time when any such action arises the Director is of unsound mind, the burden of proof shall be the same as if this Act had not passed." I cannot help thinking that otherwise some injustice will be done, because it would probably be the case that the company would have gone on for a time at all events, and the action might arise some time after the man had commenced acting as Director. It might also be the case that he had become of unsound mind, and totally unable to make even an affidavit as to his ground of belief with regard to any statements in the prospectus.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have never been able to appreciate the importance of this point with regard to the onus of proof. In a case of fraud, the onus of proof is upon the plaintiff, who alleges that a statement is untrue, to show that it was known to be untrue by the man who made it; but if it is once proved to be untrue, and the circumstances are not such as to make it clear that he knew it to be untrue, I have never known any case where steps had not to be taken to prove that the man did not know it. Of course, there may be a case where a man is dead, but that would be an entirely different matter; and if such an action were brought, the circumstances would be carefully scrutinised, and the result would depend upon a consideration of the whole case, whether, upon the whole, the proper conclusion was or not that the man believed the statement to be true. I do not myself think this shifting of the onus of proof would make any differ-
  1874
  ence in the form of the issue for trial in a question of fraud. It has always been sufficient to launch an action of fraud if you prove that the untrue statement has been made; and that calls for an answer. That is all that is done here; and this calls for an answer, not by the persons who have lost their money, but by the persons who made the statement, or put forward statements made by the persons whom they have employed. In the view I take it will make no difference in the issue to be tried, and I do not believe it would make any difference in the working of the Act, or in the mode in which trials would be conducted. I should like to make one observation upon the suggestion that you might have a case of this kind tried before a Common Jury, and that it would be impossible to say what a Common Jury might do. Well, that amounts only to this: that you have not confidence in the tribunal which administers the law; not that the law is wrong. But the cases will not all be taken before Common Juries; some would be tried before Special Juries, or in other ways, and therefore it is no argument at all to say that you should make the law otherwise than what it ought to be, because it may be administered by a Common Jury. That is what the argument really amounts to, and I cannot give it my consent. I would remind the noble and learned Lord (Lord Morris) that in this country, and in Ireland too, I suppose, Juries are not left absolutely without control, and that if a Jury were, without any evidence, to find that a man had no reasonable ground which all the evidence went to show that he had, the verdict would not be allowed to stand. My Lords, I cannot help feeling very strongly about this. I do not wish to throw any undue burden on Directors, but it is undoubtedly a public evil that men do put forward too readily to the public untrue statements, upon the faith of which they get money subscribed, and I venture to say that this proposal of the noble and learned Lord will encourage that practice, because men will not them trouble their heads with the question whether the valuers, accountants, or engineers whom they employ are competent or not, provided they are recognised professional men, and indeed the more

  1875
  reckless they are the more advantageous their services will be to those who desire to float companies. It is suggested that no young man could ever be employed under such a clause as this, because Directors or Promoters would have no means of showing that they had reason to believe such a man to be competent, as they would in the case of men of high repute who had already become distinguished. Surely it is a reasonable ground for believing that a man is competent if you are assured by others in the profession to which he belongs that a young man, although his name may not be widely known, is quite competent in his profession. Therefore, my Lords, I am quite sure that if these words are omitted, the result will be that the measure will become rather mischievous than beneficial.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help repeating my noble and learned Friend's words: I also feel very strongly on this matter. It appears to me you are introducing a totally new head of liability. My noble and learned Friend has, from time to time, used the phrase, "makes statements which are untrue." That is fallacious, because all the Director makes by the hypothesis is the statement that is undoubtedly true, namely, that such and such a person has reported either as accountant or engineer or valuer, and of whose Report he gives either an exact copy, or a fair representation—that is all the Bill obliges him to do—a fair representation of what the expert has really reported. I must say I am a little surprised at the attitude of my noble and learned Friend Lord Bramwell opposite. It appears to me the argument he puts forward is something like this: you have taken a wrong course in this Bill altogether, and it does not matter if you add something else that is, wrong—you have done something already which is a little unreasonable in this Bill, and, therefore, you cannot do much more harm by adding this clause. I am a little surprised, I confess, at this attitude being taken up by my noble and learned Friend. His observations, however, as to the result of such trials, and the mode in which these actions will be tried, appear to be admitted by my noble and learned Friend opposite. He said, with that expressive eloquence which he knows so well how to employ, "If it comes be-
  1876
  fore a Common Jury I know what will happen." To put that into ordinary plain language that means that a Common Jury, in such a case, would find a verdict which they ought not to find by reason of their inclination to suppose that if a statement is once proved to be untrue it was known to be so. I say that is the very reason why you ought not to do this: you ought not to lay traps for a jury, or to assent to a provision which would enable them to give way to such a practice as this Bill seems likely to encourage. It seems to me it is quite reasonable to call upon a man wherever the onus of proof may have been originally to prove that that which he has himself said, or asserted upon his own authority, is true; or, if not in fact true, it is quite reasonable that you should call upon him to show that he had reasonable ground for believing it to be true; but when he tells you in terms—"I know nothing about this myself; but I have applied to a valuer, and this is the valuer's report." It appears to me to be unreasonable that you should then shift the onus of proof from the person who made the statement, and place it upon him in the first instance to show that the valuer was a competent valuer, and that he had reasonable ground for believing that the valuer's report was true.
  LORD BRAMWELL: I must ask leave to say another word.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You are entitled to do so; it is Committee.
  LORD BRAMWELL: I will take my noble and learned Friend's own suggestion. The Director says: "I know nothing about this myself, but I have got a report from so-and-so, a valuer,"—does not he by implication also say—"whom I believe to be a competent and honest person"? And that is all my noble and learned Friend's clause makes him responsible for saying. But, supposing he does not say so in so many words, ought he not to say it? He would know very well that if he said to the public, "I know nothing, mind, about this report or this expert, whether he is an honest man or not," who would care a fig for the expert's report? Therefore, when he says, "I know nothing about the matter myself, but I put forward the report of an expert upon it," he clearly does by implication go on to say—"whom I

  1877
  believe to be a capable and honest man."
  VISCOUNT BURY: My Lords, I think that what has just occurred must have shown your Lordships that the very first thing that will happen in a trial of this kind will be that the matter will turn on a side issue as to whether a Director, or anyone making a statement on the authority of an expert, can prove that the expert whom he consulted in the matter was a reliable person. Now, if that expert happened to be a young man, of course the whole force and efforts of the legal minds on the other side would be devoted to proving that, being a young man, he was inexperienced; that he ought not to have been trusted at all; and that any reasonable man would have gone to Sir John Fowler, or some other great expert, and would not have consulted this young man. Perhaps, as a matter of fact, the expert who had been so called in might possess a very special knowledge of the matter in hand, and he might be really a very reliable person. But everyone knows how in a case of this kind the tendency would be to ride off upon the side issue of whether the man himself was a reliable person, leaving the main issue almost untouched. My Lords, I was one of the Committee; perhaps as a lay Peer I may be pardoned in stating the fact that I was one of the minority of that Committee; and I really must say that, whenever any question arose upon that Bill, I was struck with one special circumstance—that if one noble and learned Lord asserted positively that the effect of an Amendment proposed would be so and so, another noble and learned Lord immediately spoke up and contradicted him, and three or four noble Lords would follow one another, each of them differing in opinion from the first. It seemed obvious that when you have even the highest legal luminaries in the country discussing a matter like this, and they all disagree with and directly contradict one another when they are there for the very purpose of settling the matter, what will be the case when an unfortunate man is put on his trial for his life and his honour, which is more to him than his life, before a Common Jury. I say, then, that the present condition of hesitation as to the meaning of the clause only proves the mistake
  1878
  you have made in passing the Second Reading of this Bill and altering the Common Law of England, which has hitherto been that a man is innocent, or must be considered innocent, until he is proved guilty. By this Bill you have altered the state of things, and you say that any man is to be liable in his honour, his life, and his fortune for any inaccurate statement that is made in his name unless he can prove that he believed that statement was true—in other words, that he is to be presumed to be guilty unless he can prove himself to be innocent. This I believe to be the first time that departure has been made in English law. The Limited Liability Act has, no doubt, done a great deal of good in this country; it has enabled a great many of our most prominent and most responsible citizens, who are not immediately engaged in trade, or immediately connected with commercial pursuits, to join in them; but if it be an advisable thing to continue the advantages which have been enjoyed under this Limited Liability Act you must not make that profession, if you choose so to call it, on the face of it, a dishonourable one. In future anybody who chooses to start a new company—I doubt whether you will find many to do so—will do so at his peril. They will not be the best men in the country who will do so; they will not be the most responsible; they will not be those on whom you ought most to rely, because they must primâ facie and as a first step put themselves under this Act, if it becomes an Act, and be presumed to be guilty, of malfeasance unless they can prove themselves innocent. My Lords, I think that this Bill is a great mistake; that it ought not to have passed a Second Reading; and that, as it is going through Committee, it ought not to be read a third time now. I certainly think you ought to take more time over this matter. The noble Lords who have been engaged in considering this Bill are not by any means of one mind as to the effect of all the Amendments which have been introduced into it. Noble Lords, many of whom have spoken upon it, have expressed, and do very freely express, out of doors, the opinion that this Bill is a very dangerous one, and for that very reason also I think that the further consideration of this important measure ought to be postponed. The real point,

  1879
  namely, preventing frauds upon investors, has not been grappled with in this Bill at all. I will not go into the general question, hut will simply say that the real point is not the one which you have now before you, and I hope my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will stick to this Amendment, for it seems to me that it is only a reasonable one.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I have listened with very great interest to the discussion upon the Amendments which have been placed on the Paper by various noble and learned Lords, but I should very much like to have the opinion of noble Lords on both sides of the House upon this cardinal question: whether this is a Bill which can be amended at all; whether there is not an original vice in its construction which renders it incapable of amendment. Your Lordships are aware that every law stands upon a certain sanction—no sanction, no law. Surely, hitherto the law has always preceded the sanction. First of all, you enact a certain law, and then you say what the penalty shall be if that law be violated; but now, my Lords, for the first time, I think, in the history of legislation, the sanction in Clause 3 comes first. First of all, you have a penalty of crushing magnitude invoked upon the head of some unfortunate man, not because he has broken any law enacted either by this Bill or any other Bill, but because, forsooth, his mind has not been at a certain time in such a condition as is desired by the Bill respecting some thing which may be of a highly speculative character, or some person about whom there might be very different opinions. It seems to me the very first principles of jurisprudence are attacked by such a measure. I do not see how it is competent for Parliament to place such a measure upon the Statute Book, and I should very much like to have the opinion of noble and learned Lords upon that point.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents 17; Not-Contents 34.
  Resolved in the negative.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suppose my noble and learned Friend will not now put me to divide upon the next
  1880
  Amendment, in lines 10 to 15, to leave out from "valuation" to the end.
  LORD HERSCHELL: No; of course I should be "not content," but I shall not divide again.
  Other Amendments made.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In line 25 I should move to omit the words "he proves," and to substitute "it is proved." The object of this Amendment is to meet the possible case of the individual on whom the burden of proof is thrown being dead.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 3, page 2, line 25, to leave out the words ("he proves,") and insert the words ("it is proved.")—(The Lord Selborne.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: This is not an Amendment which I should myself have proposed, but it is not one which I will resist, if indeed it were any use resisting. In the view which I take I do not think it makes any substantial difference.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then, in lines 26 and 27, I move to omit the words "before the issue of the prospectus or notice." This imposes liability unless it is proved that, having consented to be a Director of the company, he withdrew his consent, and that the prospectus or notice was issued without his authority or consent. He would have to prove two things: first, that he withdrew; and next, that the prospectus or notice was issued without his authority or consent. The objection, as it strikes me, to the words which I propose to amit is this: A man might have been accidentally absent from a particular meeting at which a prospectus was agreed to, and, of course, as I read the whole clause, it would apply not only to a first issue, but to the issue of a prospectus at a later stage of the company. Surely a Director cannot be expected always to be able to be present at every meeting. But there is another and a stronger case. He may have been present when the subject of the prospectus was discussed, and when it was agreed to in a certain form; but afterwards, in his absence, material alterations may have been made without his knowledge, and the prospectus may have been actually issued in that altered form before he knew that any

  1881
  such alterations had been made in it. In that case, if he does all he can to dissociate himself from it, and withdraws his name from the list of Directors as not having authorised the prospectus, it seems to me it could not possibly be right to throw upon him the burden of proof that he had reasonable ground for believing what on the hypothesis he did not believe, because his reason for withdrawing would be the very fact that he could not consent to be made answerable for that prospectus.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 3, page 2, lines 26 and 27, to leave out ("before the issue of the prospectus or notice.")— (The Earl of Selborne.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: I understand the proposal is that if a man withdraws his consent to be a Director at any time this shall apply. That no doubt is the proposal of my noble and learned Friend. But he might withdraw his consent; and, according to this, if he proved that he withdrew his consent to be a Director of the company at any time after the notice or prospectus was issued, although the shares were allotted on the faith of the prospectus which had been issued with his consent, he would not escape liability. He would still be liable, as I understand it, if my noble and learned Friend's Amendment were carried, because he has to prove two things: first, that the prospectus or notice was issued without his knowledge or consent; and then he has also to prove that he withdrew his consent. But that withdrawal, as I understand, need not be before the shares are taken. I quite understand the case which my noble and learned Friend alludes to. It is this: that although a man has consented to be a Director, and consented to have his name on a prospectus, yet, unless the prospectus was agreed to in the particular form in which it was issued, it is to be considered as having been issued without his knowledge or consent. I should propose, in lieu of my noble and learned Friend's words, that words to this effect should be adopted; that upon becoming aware of the issue of the prospectus he had forthwith given notice to the public that he withdrew his sanction. The effect of it would be to make the final proviso of sub-clause (1) read as follows:—
  1882
  "Or unless he proves that, having consented to become a Director of the company, he; withdrew his consent before the issue of the prospectus or notice, or that the prospectus or notice was issued without his authority or consent, and that, on becoming aware of its issue, he forthwith gave reasonable notice that it was so issued."
  It is only fair and reasonable, I think, when a prospectus is issued, and the Director finds that it is not the prospectus he authorised, that he should give some public notice of the fact, because, if he goes on and says, "Never mind, although I do not believe it is true, let it go," I think he ought to be made liable.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think the precaution is necessary which my noble and learned Friend proposes, but I will adopt his Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved after the word "consent," in line 38, to add—
  "Or that the prospectus or notice was issued without his knowledge or consent, and that on becoming aware of its issue, he forthwith gave reasonable public notice that it was so issued without his knowledge or consent."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  A NOBLE LORD: May I ask whether there should not be some special form of public notice indicated?
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have merely put in the words "public notice." There is an ordinary practice with regard to that. The way it is ordinarily done is by giving notice to the public in newspapers. If a man writes to say that a prospectus has been issued without his knowledge, it very soon gets into all the newspapers. I do not think there would be any difficulty on that head.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then there is a proviso in the second subsection that "promoter" in this subsection means a party to the formation of the company. I would call attention to the fact that the definition does not include—
  "Any person by reason of his acting in a professional capacity for persons who were engaged in procuring the formation of the company."
  Those words seem to me to be open to very grave question. According to my experience, I should say that in the large proportion of cases the persons

  1883
  who have been most to blame in these transactions, and who have made cats-paws of the Directors, have been professional persons who have procured them to put their names to the prospectus, and I very much doubt whether it is desirable to shield them from responsibility. I think that is a matter of some importance, and I invite my noble and learned Friend's attention to it now.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not intend to shield them from responsibility. Those words were put in because some alarm was felt lest being a person who was not a promoter, but who was simply employed as a lawyer, we will say, to register the company and to do what was necessary in his capacity as a lawyer, should be held to come within the earlier words, because he had taken part in the preparation of the prospectus. The words were suggested to me as desirable to meet the fear of the legal profession lest they might be unintentionally included, but as I understand those words, if a lawyer acts as a promoter he would come within this clause, and not within the exception, because it only provides that it should not include anyone by reason of his acting purely in a professional capacity for those who were engaged in promoting the company.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to refer to the case which my noble and learned Friend has so often referred to, but supposing the person who prepared the prospectus was a lawyer, and that he wrongly advised the Directors that they had, we will say, the power of using steam or anything else, I think that person would be very properly held to be responsible. I cannot help feeling that "by reason of his acting in a professional capacity" might not receive the construction which my noble and learned Friend means it to have, because I think it might be said that if he has, for payment as solicitor, prepared a prospectus on instructions, although he knew perfectly well the inaccuracy of it, he might be excluded from the operation of this Bill, though he might be assailed in another form.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Surely it is not reasonable, if a solicitor is acting merely as solicitor, and is not himself a promoter in the sense in which promoter has been construed by the Courts, to hold
  1884
  that he should be liable under such a measure as this for having given erroneous advice. If he has acted fraudulently there would be means of calling him to account. I doubt really whether there would be any difference if you strike the words out, because I doubt whether any person could be held to be a promoter as party to the preparation of a prospectus by reason of his having acted in a professional capacity. No doubt there has been considerable alarm and consternation caused with regard to its application in the case of the legal profession.
  A NOBLE LORD: Lawyers would not, of course, be the only persons who would act in a professional capacity; for instance, there would be engineers, and the engineer acting in the matter might be the very man whom you would like to bring within your net.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Unless he is a Director or a promoter you cannot make him liable under such a Bill as this. You are then going to an outside category altogether. This Bill deals with floating companies, and placing them before the public. I agree that engineers sometimes, like lawyers, are promoters, and, if so, they are hit.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the whole question between us. I am not going to move an Amendment upon it. I only call my noble and learned Friend's attention to it. I doubt whether those words are apt. My impression is that the effect of the words will be to shield a man who is really a promoter under the plea of having given professional advice, that he was only acting as lawyer, engineer, or valuer, in the matter, and not as promoter. I only desire to call attention to it.
  LORD MORRIS: Would it not be sufficient to use the words "by reason merely of his acting in a professional capacity?" The noble and learned Lord, in describing the object which he had in view himself, used the word "merely." That is why I make the suggestion, so as to provide that the exception shall apply only in cases where the man was merely acting as attorney, accountant, or engineer, or so on.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot help thinking the words, as they stand, come to the same thing. The meaning of it is that that is not to be a reason for

  1885
  making him a promoter. You make him a promoter in another way; and if he acts in a professional capacity only, he would not be liable, provided you do not bring fraud home to him; of course, he would be liable for his fraud. But with regard to Sub-section 3, I should like to ask my noble and learned Friend whether there is any sufficient reason for limiting that sub-section to companies which are existing at the passing of the Act. New companies will be in the same situation. They may, at some later period, have occasion to make new issues of shares or debentures, just as much as companies which are existing at the time of the passing of the Act. It seems to me that in that case, where you have similar circumstances existing, the same law should be applied to both present and future companies.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The difficulty I have felt about that is that with regard to existing companies you can, of course, do it, because it could not be held to be an invasion of the Act; but with regard to new companies what I fear is, that if you provide with regard to a subsequent prospectus, there would be a danger of something being done to enable it to be said "This is not a first issue," which would get rid of the stringent part of the Bill. That was my fear, and I have not quite seen how one can make certain that the words would not be used for the purpose of bringing about some evasion of the Act of that description. I am not quite sure that it would not do that, any more than a provision with regard to making first allotments of shares, because they might simply allot two or three shares only, for the purpose of making the real allotment not the first allotment of shares. That was my only fear.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot help thinking that ought to be met. The case would otherwise have to be dealt with under the previous sub section. It seems to me that the difficulty is one which my noble and learned Friend's ingenuity is equal to overcome.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In line 5 of this clause, I think something should be put in to meet the alteration which
  1886
  I has been made by my noble and learned Friend.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have an Amendment in line 6 which I think would meet it, to insert "not to affect any such Director." It would then not cast liability on any of the Directors without whose knowledge or consent the prospectus was issued.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 257.)

  PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 172.)
  Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 258.)
  CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 226.)
  Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  CENSUS (SCOTLAND BILL.—(No. 227.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  MARRIAGES IN BRITISH EMBASSIES. &c. BILL.—(No. 167.)
  Amendments reported (according to order.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: My noble Lords, I have to move to leave out Clause 3, and to insert some Amendments in Clause 4. The effect of that will be to empower certain persons to act, as in the case of Consuls, instead of defining the persons who may solemnise marriages in certain regions and districts as defined in clause, and thereupon declaring, as is proposed to be done by Clause 10, what ministers, Governors, and so on may perform these functions. I think it would be much simpler to leave out Clause 3, and to amend Clause 4, by giving to certain persons, when authorised in the same manner as Consuls, the same authority as the Consuls have under the Consular Marriages Act. I believe that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs agrees that this carries out the purpose in view.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): I have the authority of the noble Marquess, who was unable to stay, for saying that he assents to these Amendments.
  LORD HERSCHELL: There are some consequential Amendments. It will be necessary to leave out Sub-section 2 of Section 10, and to omit the 2nd schedule.
  Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 259.)

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 260.)
SILVER HALL-MARKING IN INDIA.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK,in rising to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the opinion of the Government of India has been asked with regard to the proposal that a system of "hallmarking" should be applied to silver articles manufactured in India, and if any despatch has been received from India on the subject, whether he has any objection to lay a copy of it upon the Table, said: My Lords, before putting the question to Her Majesty's Government of which I have given notice, I should like to congratulate the Government on having been able in this Session of Parliament to remedy the grievance that has been felt for many years in connection with this matter by persons engaged in the manufacture of silver articles in India. It is twelve years, I think, since a Committee of the House of Commons recommended that the duty on silver plate in India should be repealed. That recommendation was repeated by the Royal Commission over which my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell presided, and nine years ago Mr. Gladstone, when he was Prime Minister, also expressed a desire that this duty should be repealed. But from untoward circumstances, it has remained until the present year, and I can assure the Government that the feeling of gratification in India will be very keen at finding that the duty has at last been repealed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in another place, has explained that it is not the intention of the Government to abolish the system of compulsory hall-
  1888
  marking in this country, and he indicated that it was intended that a system of "hall-marking of silver articles" should be established in India in respect to articles exported from India to this country. The present state of the law in respect of the import of silver articles from India is, I believe, that under the Inland Revenue Act, 1884, articles of Indian plate can be imported into this country without being assayed here, and it seems to me that condition of things is perfectly satisfactory to the Indian manufacturers of silver. Although it may possibly be an advantage to establish in India a system of voluntary hallmarking, it might very seriously affect the silver trade in India if any system of compulsory hall-marking should be established in that country. It will be obvious to your Lordships that to require that an article of art manufacture made, perhaps, 1,000 miles from the place where the article would be assayed should be brought up to be assayed in a semi-manufactured state, and then sent back to the artificer to finish, would be a most cumbrous and restrictive measure with respect to the manufacture of silver in India. But, however that may be, the Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly explained in another place that the Government did not intend to take any action in this matter without communication with the Government of India, and that Her Majesty's Government are actually in communication with the Government of India on the subject. That statement was made three months ago, and what I have to ask Her Majesty's Government is, whether they have received up to the present time any answer to that communication, and if such an answer has been received, whether there is any objection to its being laid on the Table of your Lordships' House?
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India has requested me to reply to the noble Earl's question, and to point out that the intentions of the Government, as indicated in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were communicated to the Government of India, but the Government of India do not appear to be content with the arguments and statements of the Chancellor of the

  1889
  Exchequer. The correspondence on the subject is not yet complete, but there will be no objection as soon as it is complete to lay it on the Table of the House.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.