Sitting of 1 July 1890

POSTMEN'S PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
Address for—
"Return showing for London, Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, the terms on which the Postmen are employed as to pay and allowance during sickness, after various terms of service; as to allowances of clothing, holidays, medical attendance, in other ways; as to hours of work and the ages at which the men join; as to pensions and terms of service entitling men to the same; as to any other emoluments and conditions of employment."—(Mr. Provand.)

IRELAND—POLICE SHADOWING.
MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

451
Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Rev. W. H. O'Kelly, a parish priest of New York City, and Mr. Patrick B. Egan, merchant in the same city, and native of Woodford, County Galway, were shadowed by police through Cork on the 10th instant, and that one of the constables, who gave his name as Murphy, followed Mr. Egan from Cork to his house in Woodford; and whether he will give instructions to the police not to subject visitors to Ireland to such treatment in future?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the movements of P. B. Egan are watched in consequence of information in the possession of the police; but that it is not the case that those of the rev. gentleman named have been. The police have been acting in the proper discharge of their duty.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what number of persons are now being shadowed by policemen in the County of Cork, or if he can give the number so shadowed for the first fortnight of this month?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question was answered yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. I have nothing to add to his reply.
MR. FLYNN: Is there any distinction drawn between persons "shadowed".and persons "temporarily observed" by the police; or is it only a difference of degree?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is undoubtedly a difference between shadowing and a general observation.
MR. CONYBEARE: Does it depend upon the distance at which the constable watches the person observed?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
MR. FLYNN: Is temporary shadowing carried on only for a day, or a portion of a day?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; shadowing is an operation which may be carried on permanently or temporarily.

THE CAVAN UNION.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, when Patrick M'Cartland, of Belturbet, a widower with six children, all under nine years of age, dependent upon him, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, leaving his family for the time without support, the Board of Guardians of the Cavan Union resolved, on the 6th August, 1889, that the best course would be to place the children in the charge of their nearest relative, their grandmother, and to allow her 1s. per week per child for their support during the term of their father's imprisonment, which is about half what it would have cost to support the children in the workhouse; whether the Auditor of the Local Government Board surcharged the sum so paid in out-door relief to the Chairman; and whether the Auditor acted with the sanction of the Local Government Board in the matter; and, if so, whether he will consider the expediency of giving the Guardians a wider discretion in such special cases?
MR. A J. BALFOUR: The facts appear to be substantially as stated in the question. The Guardians could not, in the circumstances, legally grant outdoor relief to the man's family. The Auditor, therefore, was obliged to surcharge the Vice-Chairman, and the Local Government Board have no statutable power to give the Guardians a wider discretion of the nature indicated.

BAIL PRISONERS.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is the fact that to-day the Chief Magistrate of Waterford attended at the gaol of that city, but that the Governor refused to take the recognisances which were tendered on behalf of Mr. Redmond and Mr. Fisher, two bail prisoners, unless a Resident Magistrate were present; and, if so, whether he will telegraph at once to have these gentlemen released on bail?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing about the circumstances of the case, but I will make inquiries.
MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, if the facts are as I have stated, to have these men let out to-night? It is a most unpleasant thing to he detained in gaol in defiance of the law.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will take care, if anything illegal has been done, to have it remedied as soon as possible. I am not aware at present that anything illegal has been done.
MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no necessity for the presence of a Magistrate at all?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not familiar with the law.
MR. CONYBEARE: When I was in Derry Gaol the presence of a Resident Magistrate when recognisances were entered into was not required.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already given the only answer to the question I am able to give.
MR. TATE'S PICTURES. DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Trustees of the National Gallery accepted Mr. Tate's generous offer subject to the condition that the Government should provide sufficient space to accommodate the pictures; whether the Collection consists entirely, or almost entirely, of works of the modern British School, and whether, under these circumstances, they must have been of necessity kept together, and whether there are already several precedents in the National Gallery, such as the Reel and Turner Collections, for groups of pictures to be hung by themselves in separate rooms; whether, even if Mr. Tate had handed over his pictures to the nation quite unconditionally, and allowed them to be dispersed in different rooms, space could have been found to hang more than half a-dozen of them; whether the Trustees have repeatedly pressed on the Government the desirability of enlarging the existing building; and whether he will lay the correspondence regarding Mr. Tate's offer upon the Table of the House?
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I will answer the first part of the question by replying to the last part. Correspondence will be laid on the Table of the House which will show in detail all that has been done in
454
the matter. It is true that the Trustees of the National Gallery have repeatedly urged on the Government the desirability of enlarging the existing building, and arrangements have been made for providing additional accommodation with a view to a permanent Gallery for British Art.

LOCAL TAXATION.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the declaration of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland, on the 24th of March last, that Ireland is entitled to
"A contribution of £40,000 a year, which Ireland has never yet got, but which she has a right to get, as a set-off against the advantage which England and Scotland have recently derived from the Liconce Duties handed over to those countries,"
and Section 7 of the Land Purchase Bill, which proposes a yearly charge on the Consolidated Fund of £40,000 in order
"That the like benefits maybe given to Ireland as were given to England and Scotland when the duties on local taxation licences were transferred to Local Authorities,"
what means he will adopt to provide that the arrears of this contribution, and the amount payable for 1890–91, shall be made available for the benefit of Ireland in the current financial year?
*MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member's assumption that the Land Purchase Bill will not pass into law by March 31, 1891, is one with which I cannot agree. Accordingly, I think that the time for discussing the point of what should be done with the £40,000 if the Bill does not pass by that date had better stand over until it is seen more clearly how that may be. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that one way or another that sum of £40,000 shall not be lost to Ireland—that is to say, it shall not be retained in the Exchequer. As to the question of arrears, I would point out that this is the first year in which Scotland gets the difference between the grant and the licence, and the first year, too, in which Ireland will get the £40,000, so that Ireland and Scotland will stand on the same footing.
MR. SEXTON: I am much obliged for the general assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given. Does

455
the right hon. Gentleman expect us to take it from him that the Land Purchase Bill will pass through this House and through the House of Lords, and receive the Royal Assent, before the 31st of March next year?

THE LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.
MR. SEXTON: I bog to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the further inquiry into the incidence of the Beer and Spirit Duties comprised in the Local Budget, which he undertook to make with a view to a Supplemental Estimate, has yet been concluded?
MR. GOSCHEN: I have not received any information on the subject, but will communicate with the Department.
MR. LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the desirability of appropriating part of the money derived from the increased duty on spirits to provide for the free postage of newspapers to places beyond the cities and towns in which they are published, or as preliminary to that arrangement of reducing the postage on all newspapers weighing less than four ounces to one farthing each copy?
*THE FIRST LORD OP THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think I am treating him with discourtesy if I repeat the same answer I have already given to a question of the same character, that Her Majesty's Government are considering the question, but are not able yet to make any statement to the House.
MR. STUART RENDEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware of the unanimity of feeling existing in Wales in reference to the expenditure of the Welsh portion of the moneys to be placed at the disposal of the County Councils under the provisions of the Local Taxation Bill; and, whether, in compliance with that feeling, he is prepared to consider favourably the allocation of the whole or a portion of such moneys for the purpose of Intermediate Education in Wales and Monmouthshire, and in furtherance of the objects of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of last Session?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: My answer is the same as that which I have given to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Leng.)

SATURDAY SITTINGS.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the First-Lord of the Treasury if there are to be any Saturday Sittings this Session?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure the hon. Member will see that I hare not the power of forecasting future events.

HELIGOLAND.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before agreeing to the cession of Heligoland, Her Majesty's Government had any resolution from the Executive Council of Heligoland, assenting to the cession on behalf of the inhabitants, laid before them; what steps have-been taken to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants as to the transfer of the island to Germany; whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the very full evidence obtained by the correspondent of the Pall Mall Gazette, and the statements in the Press of Mr. W. G. Black, Mr. Eraser Rae, and other gentlemen who have special means of knowing the sentiments of the inhabitants, to the effect that the transfer is viewed with the strongest aversion -, whether any evidence has been produced to a contrary effect; and, if so, what evidence; and whether, having regard to these facts, Her Majesty's Government will re-consider their decision, and consent to send a Commissioner to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: It has already been stated that no reference was made to the inhabitants of Heligoland on the question of the cession of the island. As I have said before, it would not be a matter for surprise that there should be regret at parting with a sovereignty under which the people have so long lived. While the utmost care has been taken in the agreement with Germany to secure for the inhabitants the continuance of the privileges they have hitherto enjoyed, it cannot, I think, be regarded as a hard thing to hand over the inhabitants of the island to a nation to which they are allied, both by blood and language, I believe there is an

457
Executive Council in the island, but no Resolution of the kind referred to has been adopted.
*MR. CHANGING: Was any Despatch received by Her Majesty's Government from the Governor of the Island before the cession was agreed to, stating the grounds upon which he based his belief that the inhabitants would favour the transfer; and, if so, will Her Majesty's Government lay such Despatch on the Table of the House?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: No such Despatch? exists. The Governor of Heligoland was in this country at the time the negotiations were in progress, and personal communications proceeded with him on the subject.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Is it the fact that the Agreement for the cession was signed in Berlin to-day; and, if so, will it be laid on the Table?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware.
MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask whether the conditions of the cession will apply to all persons on the Island or to adults only, and whether the children as they grow up will be subject to conscription under Germany?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: Full details of the negotiations will be communicated to the House.
*MR. CHANNING: Are we to under-stand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government have information in their possession to the effect that the inhabitants are likely to approve of this transfer, and that the decision of Her Majesty's Government is to refuse to lay such information in any form before the House?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I have repeatedly stated that Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the conditions under which the cession has been made, and that they have been made under circumstances which will secure to the inhabitants a continuance of the privileges they have hitherto enjoyed.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE IN WALES.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I have a question on the Paper of my intention to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that violent resistance to the payment of tithe rent-charge has been renewed in Wales; that at Llannefydd, in the Vale of Clwyd, Mr. Stevens and a
458
distraining party were unable to proceed with the recovery of tithe rent-charge by the ordinary means provided by the law owing to the disturbance of rioters; that stones were thrown, and one of the emergency men injured; whether he is also aware that there are at present arrears of tithe rent-charge in Wales amounting to thousands of pounds; that grave breaches of the peace are anticipated during the winter should remedial legislation be any longer denied; and whether, in the interests of law, order, and justice, he will recommend the House to proceed with the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill in the present Session? At the request of my right hon. Friend I beg to postpone the question until Thursday.

MARINE INSURANCE.
DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to a letter purporting to be signed by Messrs. J. and P. Hutchinson, shipping agents in Glasgow, and published in the Shipping Gazette of the 23rd June, in which the writers, replying to a demand for explanations from the Committee of Lloyd's regarding certain marine policies of insurance, make the following admissions:—
"We had issued a policy of insurance purporting to bear the signatures of certain Lloyd's underwriters, while, as a matter of fact, we had no mandate or authority to adhibit their names, and the policy which we issued did not even represent any actual contract made by them, the premiums being different to that at which the risk had been accepted";
and whether he will inquire into the genuineness of the letter, and if it be genuine if he will instruct the Procurator Fiscal, in the public interest, to investigate the primâ facie case of forgery and fraud which the alleged admission establishes?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The matter which forms the subject of this question was fully investigated some time ago, but no such case was disclosed as to justify criminal proceedings.

THE ROYAL NAVY—TRAINING SHIPS.
MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that Commander Field is

459
engaged in delivering lectures at some of our seaports regarding the pay and prospects of seamen in the Royal Navy for the purpose of obtaining an additional number of boys, and whether this is with the consent of the Admiralty; will he be good enough to state how the 4,514 lads specified in the Navy Estimates of last year are distributed, that is, how many are on board training brigs and how many otherwise afloat; how many of the 1,730 additional boys voted this year have been obtained; and whether any system is to be adopted whereby lads other than those trained on board the Britannia may compete for commissions?
THE FIRST LORD OP THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Of the 4,514 boys specified in the Navy Estimates of last year, 1,892 are in the training ships and 96 in the brigs, the remainder being distributed in various capacities over the Fleet. The number of boys to be entered this year in excess of the numbers last year is 1,290. Of these, 727 have been entered since April 1, 1890. A few boys are already entered direct as midshipmen or cadets from the Worcester and Conway training ships.

NAVAL MANOEUVRES.
MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended during the autumn to mobilise the Channel and Reserve Squadrons, on a similar or larger scale than last year, for the Naval Manoœeuvres; if so, whether, with the large addition of ocean cruisers, it is intended to extend the scope of the experimental operations to the protection of the leading food and cotton ocean routes between the United Kingdom, America, India, and Australia, notifying to owners and commanders of British ships that they will be expected to avoid (if possible) capture by experimental cruisers, in place of instructing the officers of Her Majesty's ships nominally to capture merchantmen under conditions totally opposed to what must exist in actual war?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Speaking generally, my answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.
MR. GOURLEY: Perhaps the noble Lord will state how many squadrons are to be mobilised.
LORD G. HAMILTON: There will be two fleets—one against the other. I believe the mobilisation will be of such a nature as to be efficient; but the question is of a character that I cannot answer.

FLASHING SIGNALS.
MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury has decided upon offering Admiral Colomb £2,000 as an adequate settlement of his claims in respect of his invention of flashing signals; and, if so, when this offer will be officially communicated to Admiral Colomb?
*MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Has the noble Lord seen a statement of claim, laid before the Admiralty in July, 1859, in which Major General Charles Babbage states that his father was the inventor of flashing signals, and published full particulars in the Times, and exhibited the apparatus in work years before the patent of Admiral Colomb?
LORD G. HAMILTON: The Government have decided to offer Admiral Colomb a further grant of £2,000 for his services in connection with the introduction into the Navy of the system of flashing signals, and this offer will be at once officially communicated to Admiral Colomb. The claims not only of the late Major General Charles Babbage, but also of another gentleman, to be considered the originator of the system of flashing signals have been brought to my notice. The question they raise is one rather for a Court of Law than a Public Department to decide. I cannot undertake to express an opinion upon the claims in question. Admiral Colomb's claim to have adapted flashing signals to Naval uses is not, I believe, disputed.
*MR. WINTERBOTHAM: The noble Lord refers to "a further sum of £2,000." What is the amount Admiral Colomb has already received?
LORD G. HAMILTON: £1,000.

THE NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE REGIMENT.
SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department

461
whether his attention has been called to the case of' Richard Hinde, who was recently fined 40s. and costs, or in default seven days' hard labour, at Lichfield Petty Sessions, for being absent through inadvertence from the annual training of the 3rd Battalion North Staffordshire Regiment on 29th April; and whether lie will take into his consideration the desirability of remitting a portion of the sentence?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS, Birmingham, E.): The Justices inform me that the prisoner's defence was that he did not know to which regiment he belonged, the 3rd or the 4th Battalion; but inasmuch as he had served for several years in the Army, and had trained last year with the 3rd Battalion, the Justices deemed his excuse insufficient, and imposed the minimum penalty of 40s. In default of payment the prisoner was committed for the minimum term of seven days' imprisonment, which sentence expires to-day. It does not seem to mo to be a case calling for any interference on my part.

"MITCHELL V. KEGINA."
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has received repeated applications from the Suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina," for payment of the small sum due under allowance regulations for having performed the duty of Paymaster at Manchester in 1885–6, when ho was also commanding Royal Engineers, and Officer commanding the troops; and whether it is true that his application has been refused; and, if so, can he explain the reason for this refusal?
*THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. BUODKICK,): Colonel Mitchell was not entitled to the allowance he claimed, and he has been repeatedly so informed.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Petition of Right, presented by the Suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina" in 1888?
MR. MATTHEWS: It is not usual to lay such documents upon the Table of the House, and as the case arising upon the Petition has been decided by
462
the legal tribunals of the country, I do not see that any public advantage would be gained by such a course. I shall be glad to show the Petition to the hon. Member if he wishes it.

INQUEST AT BLACKPOOL.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending an inquest held in Blackpool, on Monday, on the body of a woman found dead in a house in that town, in which no evidence, medical or other, as to the cause of death was submitted to the jury; and that the jury insisted, in spite of the strenuous opposition of the Coroner, upon a post mortem examination of the body being made; whether application has been made to him for authority to exhume the body for this purpose; and what he proposes to do in the matter?
MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to this matter, and I am informed by the Coroner that the deceased was found dead in her own house on the 21st June. The police having no suspicions of foul play, and the body being greatly decomposed, the Coroner did not think a post mortem necessary, and for sanitary reasons ordered the burial of the body, which had been duly viewed by the Jury, at the earliest possible period. The Jurorsat the inquest, which was held in the afternoon of 23rd June, the body having been buried in the morning of that day, declared their inability to find a verdict in the absence of medical evidence. The Coroner accordingly issued his precept for the exhumation of the body, and an inquest was held and medical evidence given, with the result that the verdict was death from natural causes. I do not propose to take any action, as I do not gather from the facts before me that the Coroner has failed in his duty.

PROCESSIONS TO HYDE PARK.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I wish to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, of which I have given him private notice, and if he cannot answer it now, I will repeat the question on Thursday. I wish to ask him whether he has seen a paragraph in the Times to-day, in

463
which it is stated that certain persons, calling themselves "the Open-air Meetings Committee" have
"Unanimously decided to meet on Clerken-well Green next Saturday, march in procession to Hyde Park, and there hold a public meeting with a view to the assertion of the right of public procession and public meeting in London"
in the interests of the public. Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent wanton and unnecessary proceedings and obstruction in the public thoroughfares which are absolutely contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and which materially interfere with their ordinary occupations and business?
MR. MATTHEWS: I have not seen the paragraph in question, but I will make inquiry and see what steps ought to be taken.

DEATH FROM STARVATION.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the verdict of the Coroner's Jury at the Vestry Hall, E., on Thursday last, on the death of Elizabeth Bryant, which was "that the deceased died of starvation;" whether he is aware that the Parish Authorities, as reported, refused deceased outdoor relief, and that in consequence, rather than go into the workhouse, deceased died; and if, in face of the apparent dislike (even to preferring death by starvation) of the poor of the East End to the indoor system, he will advise that the system shall be relaxed?
*THE PRESIDENT OP THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's): I have no information upon the matter referred to; but if the hon. Member will give me particulars as to the name of the Coroner who held the inquest, or the place at which it was held, I shall be happy to make inquiry.

OUTRAGES IN ARMENIA.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Daily News of Monday, to the effect that Halil Pacha, Governor of Van, is constantly supplying Martini-Henry rifles to the
464
Kurdish chiefs of the district; that the Kurds, emboldened by the encouragement they meet with in high places, are committing every kind of outrage and atrocity on the Armenian people; that on the 23rd of May the Kurds outraged an Armenian woman of Kavash, and cut off her breasts with their swords, death following shortly after the deed; that murders have been committed by Turkish soldiers in the town of Van itself; that towards the middle of April more than 15 villages lying to the south of Van were raided by the Kurdish brigand cheif Shakir; and that the Governor, Halil Pacha, has effected no arrests; whether the Government have any information relating to these matters; and whether they will cause inquiry to be made?
*MR. SCHWANN: I wish to put this further question to the right hon. Gentleman—whether he has seen the following statement in the Daily News of this morning:—
"Most of the principal outlaws and bad characters who were arrested last year and cast into prison, in consequence of the Armenian agitation in Europe, have been let loose, and are now overrunning the country. The miscreants have, it is reported, purchased their release through the Turkish Governors on payment of substantial sums. The notorious Hussein Bey, of Hosh, in the Kharpout district, whose name is dreaded throughout the country, and whose misdeeds are almost unsurpassed in the criminal annals of Turkey, having slaughtered more than 15 Armenians during his lifetime, has been released from the Erzeroum Gaol, and appointed to a high public office at Kharpout. The inhabitants of the district are almost panic stricken in consequence. The policy of exterminating the Armenian element is being pursued with unabated vigour. While a great number of Armenians emigrate to distant climes through want of security and protection to life and property, those who venture to return to their country are killed on their way by Kurdish brigands a t the instigation of the local officials."
I wish also to ask whether there are still a number of Christians imprisoned at Erzeronm and at Erzingan, where they have been lying for two years and p half; and whether the Cinder Secretary will inquire into the truth of these allegations, and use his influence to prevent further misdoings?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON, Manchester, N.E.): In answer to the question on the Paper I have to say that we have received no such

465
information, but there is no doubt that the Kurds are armed. Nor have we received any information of the shocking occurrence stated by a newspaper correspondent to have occurred at Kavash. On April 19 the Vice Consul at Van reported that a company of 16 mounted Kurds made a descent into the Havatzor Valley, 10 miles from Van, for the purpose of levying blackmail. On May 19 the Consul at Erzeroum reported that the Vali was making "honest and strenuous efforts" to have these Kurds arrested; and I observe today a telegram that one of the leaders has been arrested. With regard to the last question, I have no doubt that these matters will be reported on in due course; but the hon. Gentleman will observe that in the newspaper from which ho takes these statements they are professedly not from its own correspondent, but either from "An Armenian correspondent," or were rumours. In regard to the question of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Schwann), I may say that I only received it just before I came to the House, and I have not had an opportunity of making inquiries. It is a question which I could not undertake to answer off-hand.
MR. SCHWANN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will make inquiries at the Foreign Office. I cannot carry all the Records of the Office in my head. I shall be happy to give him an answer if he will put the question on the Paper.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: Have the Government received information of any representation having been made by the Russian Consul, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of a joint representation being made to the Porte?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: I can answer that question now, and also the question of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. F. Stevenson) upon the same subject. [To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true that the Russian Consul at Erzeroum has addressed remonstrances to the Turkish Authorities on the subject of the outrages which have been committed against the Armenian population; and whether the British Consul has been, or
466
will be, instructed to address similar remonstrances?] We have asked our Consul at Erzdroum, in conjunction with the Russian and French Consuls, to make a joint representation as to the measures thought to be necessary. The recommendations have been brought to the notice of the Grand Vizier at Constantinople by Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires, and certain orders have been given in accordance with those representations.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Will the Government instruct Mr. Clifford Lloyd to convey information as soon as possible to the Government with regard to the matters referred to in his question?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is totally unnecessary to convey such special directions. Mr. C. Lloyd has interested himself greatly in these things. [Cries of "Oh!" from the IRISH MEMBERS.] I do not know on what grounds hon. Gentlemen should doubt the truth of that statement. Mr. Clifford Lloyd has constantly interested himself greatly in these matters. I have explained to the House over and over again that newspaper correspondents have only to telegraph a rumour; whereas Her Majesty's Representative has to ascertain its correctness before making a Report.

THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the object of the negotiations with Germany as regards Walfisch Bay; whether the Government will undertake not to make any cession of territory at Walfisch Bay without the consent of the Cape Colony; and whether the negotiations with regard to Walfisch Bay form part of the negotiations for the general Anglo-German Agreement?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: The object of the negotiations is the delimitation of the southern boundary of Walfisch Bay. There is no question of cession of territory. The matter will be dealt with by the Agreement.
MR. BUCHANAN: Has the Cape Colony been consulted?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am not pre-pared to answer that question.

BARRACKS AT COLCHESTER.
MR. ROUND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to erect permanent infantry barracks at Colchester in place of the wooden huts now in use and which were built for temporary occupation by the German Legion at the time of the Crimean War?
MR. BRODRICK: If any of the huts are found unfit for occupation they will be replaced by others built of permanent materials.

HOLIDAY FOE POSTMEN.
COLONEL EYRE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the postmen throughout the United Kingdom are to have a general holiday on the 2nd of July; and whether postmen availing themselves of this holiday will have to pay substitutes for doing their work?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The intention is that, if possible, all officers who can be spared shall have a holiday on July 2, and those who cannot be spared shall have a holiday on some other day during the year. All substitutes will be paid by the Department.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ENVELOPES.
MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N. E.): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will give instructions for Members being supplied, at the rate of a penny, with envelopes having a penny stamp embossed on House of Commons paper; and, if so, how soon they will be obtainable?
*MR. RAIKES: I have already suggested to the authorities of the House an arrangement under which House of Commons envelopes with embossed stamps could be supplied to Members at the Post Office in the House. The part of the Post Office in the matter will be simply to keep them on sale, and this part it will be prepared to carry out as soon as the envelopes are ready.

POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHISTS.
MR. LAFONE: May I ask the Postmaster General if there is any truth in the statement which appears in this morning papers,
468
that the telegraphists employed by the Post Office refuse to work overtime?
*MR. RAIKES: At the Central Telegraph Office, where the business is liable to sudden increase from unforeseen causes, it is impossible to carry on the work without overtime. Every effort is made, however, to restrict the overtime, and additions are made to the staff from time to time as the number of messages increases or additional wires are brought into operation. Less than a year ago authority was given to increase the number of telegraphists by 100, and no time was lost in training the new hands. The question of a further increase of the force is now under examination, The necessity for overtime is, I am sure, appreciated by the general body of the telegraphists, and I do not entertain any apprehension that these officers have it in contemplation to refuse to perform duties which are required in the interests of the public. They are well aware that one of the difficulties which the Department has to contend with in this matter arises out of its desire to allow those officers who are not juniors to take their holidays in the summer season of the year, and they are also aware that if overtime were entirely abolished there would be a grievance on the part of a large proportion of the staff by whom the payment for the overtime is welcomed as an additional source of income.

ALLOTMENTS AT TIDDINGTOX.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether he is aware that, under a bequest of a Mrs. Ann Jenkinson, a sum of money was left, the interest of which was to be applied to the reduction of the rents of allotments held by poor men residing at Tiddington, near Alveston, Warwickshire; whether it is true that the Trustees of this Charity have rented from one of their number (the Vicar) nine acres of glebe land at a rental of £3 10s. per acre, and have sub-let the same to lubourers in allotments at £3 per acre, while the adjacent portion of the glebe land has been let to a farmer at 25s. per acre, and the rent for allotments in neighbouring parishes is 30s. to 35s. per acre; and whether the Charity Commissioners will take steps to ensure the operation of the

469
benevolent intentions of the testatrix for the benefit of the allotment holders of Tiddington?
MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The facts set out in the question are not absolutely accurate, but are substantially correct. The Vicar, on May 19, suggested that the tenancy of the Trustees should be determined, and on June 5 the Commissioners informed the Trustees that this course was desirable.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the question.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER: It seems to me that it is a matter for the Trustees themselves to carry out. Of course, the Commissioners will do everything in their power to assist the Trustees in carrying out the scheme.

BRITISH GUIANA.
MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has yet received any Report respecting the charges of misconduct against the Chief Justice and other Judges of British Guiana preferred by the late Mr. de Souza, or has made the inquiries promised in reply to questions put to him on or about the 17th November, 1888; whether two editors of newspapers in British Guiana were committed to prison for commenting on the de Souza case, after all proceedings connected therewith were terminated; whether they were fined, and to what amount, before they could obtain their release; and whether, having regard to the decision of the Privy Council in the de Souza case, he will consider the propriety of remitting such fines?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): In November, 1888, it was stated, in answer to questions in this House, that Mr. de Souza had notified his intention to prefer charges of misconduct against the Judges of British Guiana, and that on the receipt of such charges, if they were not accompanied by a full Report, Her Majesty's Government would call for such further Report as might be necessary. Mr. de Souza did not prefer any charges, and there was, therefore,
470
no occasion for Her Majesty's Government to call for a further Report. Mr. de Souza obtained permission to appeal to Her Majesty in Council against the sentence imposed upon him for contempt of Court by the Supreme Court of British Guiana, but he died before the appeal could be prosecuted. In November, 1888, two editors of newspapers in British Guiana were sentenced to pay fines of £50 and,£20, and in default of payment to be imprisoned until the fines were paid, for contempt of Court in publishing articles containing scandalous and libellous statements tending to obstruct and prejudice the administration of justice. The articles related to-the de Souza case, and were published after the proceedings in that case had terminated. One of the editors paid the fine without going to prison, and the other after being in prison for one day. The only decision of the Privy Council in the de Souza case was that Mr. de Souza should have special leave to appeal against the orders of the Colonial Court. Her Majesty's Government do not propose to direct the re-payment of the fines.
MR. CONYBEARE: Do I understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. de Souza died before the appeal could be prosecuted?
BARON H. DE WORMS: Yes, Sir; that is so.

DORMANT FUNDS IN CHANCERY.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I had intended to ask the Attorney General if, in reference to the dormant funds in Chancery, he will consider whether the publication of the lists may not be made more useful to the public by giving the names of the estates and "matters" which are the subject of the suits in addition to the titles of the suits; and whether the office still retains its objections to publishing the amounts of money to the credit of each suit? but I beg to postpone the question until Thursday.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Electric Lighting Acts Amendment (Scotland) Bill, with an Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to facilitate the Appointment of new Trustees of Land held in trust for religious or educational purposes, and

471
to make provision for vesting the Land in the Trustees for the time being." £ Trustees Appointment Bill [Lords.]

SELECT COMMITTEE OX KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS.
Ordered, That Mr. John O'Connor be added to the Select Committee on Kitchen and Refreshment Booms.—(Mr. Richard Power.)
INLAND REVENUE [REGULATION BILL.—(No. 255.)
Bill, as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
BARRACKS BILL.—(No. 234.)
Bill read the third time, and passed.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION (RE-COMMUTED) BILL.—(No. 256.) COMMITTEE.
Bill again considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 agreed to.
MR. RATHBONB (Carnarvonshire, Arfon): I beg to move the addition of the following clause:—
"Any Act of the Legislature of Western Australia authorising the imposition of restrictions on the emigration of British subjects into Western Australia, other than persons who have been convicted of crime, shall be void."
I think we ought, in this House, to guard against any want of forethought upon the part of the colony in future. The object of the clause is to provide that in case the inhabitants of Western Australia desire hereafter to pass a law which would restrict the migration of British subjects to that colony it would be necessary, in the first instance, to obtain the consent of the British Parliament. The Imperial Government ought to act as trustees, not only of the 40,000 persons who now constitute the inhabitants of Western Australia, but of all British subjects who desire to colonise that region. It may be said that at present there is no danger of such an interdiction being proposed, because the Western Australians are anxious for immigration. But that is just the reason why we should embrace the
472
opportunity of laying down a rule which would prevent the possibility in future of hurried and unwise legislation, and perhaps do that which it would be impossible to undo. A real danger exists, and I trust that that want of foresight which has hitherto characterised the regulation of our colonies will not be further extended. Anyone who watches the current of events in foreign countries will see that there is danger, and that a strong feeling is being expressed against the continuance of emigration to fields which have hitherto been open to the subjects of this country. We may learn a great deal from- the action of the United States. The people there are the most advanced of all the democratic countries in the world, and have had a greater experience of democracy than any other, but anyone who has studied the course of politics there will see that there future difficulties and dangers threaten them in reference to emigration. What I ask now is that we should take precautions against hasty legislation in times of peculiar pressure in the future. Let me give an instance. The American people have found that one of the greatest dangers to democracy is an unwise and profuse expenditure in regard to local matters, the result of the past action on the part of more than one local legislature having been to reduce the localities to the verge of bankruptcy. The American people have, therefore, in nine of the principal States of the Union grafted upon their Constitution laws which prevent local expenditure or local taxation from exceeding a certain amount. In that way the hands of the Local Legislatures have been tied, so that it requires two or three years of successive action before an excessive expenditure can be incurred. That, I think, would be the effect of the proposal I now make. Hitherto, there has been no Federal Constitution in Australia, and, consequently, our legislation cannot take the exact form which it has taken in the American States; but the Imperial Government is responsible, not merely to the present inhabitants of Western Australia, but for all time. I am not afraid of the democracy acting in any ungenerous or narrow spirit if they have time to think, and can have the justice of the case placed before them by those whom they are willing to listen to.

473
But I cannot forget that a few years ago, after a period of lengthened distress in America, the working classes became irritated at the change in their condition, and took steps to prevent emigration. Similar reaction from overtrading may happen in Western Australia, and I am afraid that if it does the blame will be attached to the emigrants from England, Scotland, and Ireland, who go over there to compete with the colonists in their work, and that, under the pressure of temporary distress, the colony may be tempted to pass hasty and unwise laws against emigration from this country. And when once bad laws are imposed it is difficult to make a retreat. I, therefore, propose that no such legislation shall be permissible on the part of the inhabitants of Western Australia against their fellow-subjects in this country without an appeal to Parliament. The witnesses who were examined before the Committee which sat recently upon this subject expressed their willingness to accept a clause in the direction of my Amendment, and I think the House would display a gross want of forethought if they neglect the present opportunity of protecting those portions of Her Majesty's subjects who may hereafter desire to emigrate.
New Clause (Emigration of British subjects,) brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read the second time."
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: The hon. Member has assigned various reasons in support of his proposal, and among them he has referred to the evidence before the Select Committee. But it so happens that not a single witness was in favour of this clause. One after another, including Sir William Robinson, the present Governor, and Sir Napier Broome, the late Governor, they all stated that there is no necessity for it, and the only evidence which in the slightest degree justifies what my hon. Friend has stated was that of Mr. Parker, one of the leading men in the colony. And all that Mr. Parker said was that the introduction of Chinese British subjects under Clause 8 might give rise to a considerable amount of agitation, and, therefore, he was in favour of in-
474
serting in the clause "not being Chinese;" and when the difficulty of the Imperial Authorities legislating against the Chinese was brought to his notice; he also thought that the whole clause should be abandoned. We know that the Australians will not allow Chinese to go into their territories. They would come in hundreds and thousands from Penang, from Singapore, and from Hong Kong if they were once allowed to enter. Surely it is better to allow these colonies to settle the question, of emigration themselves instead of taking it into your own hands. The Amendment is perfectly unnecessary. For there, every law passed by any Australian Legislature may within two years be annulled by the Crown. The consequence is that if any Act is passed which may prevent British emigrants going to Australia, it may be annulled at any time within two years after its passage. There is also another reason why the clause is unnecessary. In the general form of instructions given to the Governors of colonies there is included a clause providing that they are to reserve for the consideration of the Crown any Act which is to the prejudice of any British subject, and under that clause every Act which has been passed against the immigration of British subjects, including Chinese, has been reserved for the consideration of the Crown. For these reasons I think it is quite unnecessary, and it would certainly be very objectionable to the Australian Colonies, that a clause of this sort should be inserted in this Bill.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.): No one could have more sympathy than I have with the view of my hon. Friend (Mr. Rathbone) as to the desirability of providing such outlets as we can for our surplus population. I think, however, that the proposed Amendment would not attain the object my hon. Friend has in view, and the hon. Member who has just spoken has shown that the proposal is entirely unnecessary. The point which has been raised with regard to Chinese subjects of Great Britain is one of the utmost importance. We are asked to give Parliamentary sanction to the emigration of Chinese into Western Australia. I think it is most undesirable. It is undesirable that this

475
country should have so disagreeable a matter brought under its jurisdiction as that of having to decide whether or not the Chinese should be freely admitted into the British Empire. It has been found necessary in America to put restrictions upon the immigration of Chinese, and I think very rightly so. In Canada the same course has been adopted, and in that case it was also very desirable. In the present situation in Australia I do not think it would be for the welfare of the State that the Chinese should be allowed free entry. On the other hand, the value of Chinese support in our relations with the East is of an importance that cannot be denied, and I deprecate the attempt to introduce disturbing questions of this kind into the relative positions of the two countries.
MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leonftnster): I am ready to support the Amendment or some modification of it, and I think that the difficulty with regard to the Chinese, who are also British subjects, may be met by some slight alteration in the wording of the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire. We must remember that this country is making an enormous concession to the Western Australians, and I think it is only reasonable that we should insist upon the imposition of some conditions. The Western Australians are the English, Scotch, and Irish of a few years back, and will be the English, Scotch, and Irish of a few years to come; and it seems to me right that, when making such an enormous concession to these few persons, we should obtain conditions which will be for the benefit of our own nation for years to come. I fully endorse what has been said as to the likelihood of our requiring outlets for the people, and I would strongly press on the Government that they should adopt some clause of this sort. The Government themselves, by the clause (8) which they put into their own Bill at first, show that they consider some arrangement about this matter of emigration in the future is necessary and just, and lam sure that the Western Australians would gladly accept such a clause. It is true that the other Australian Colonies are by no means ready to welcome our emigrants now; and as this region is
476
practically the only one left over which we have any control, I think it would be an act of folly to throw away our last chance of getting settlements for our people.
MR. A. M'ARTHUR: I entirely dissent from the sentiments which have been just expressed by the hon. Member opposite. I think a more useless Amendment was never proposed in this House. It would be of no good whatever for any Australian Colony to attempt to put restrictions in the way of emigration. In New South Wales and Victoria, as I have already stated on a former occasion, the Governments have always been most anxious to encourage emigration. They do not want the sweepings of our streets or paupers, but the more emigrants of the right sort the better they are pleased; and a more foolish idea never entered into the brain of man than that emigration is injurious to the industries of the colonies. Experience has proved that even the working classes of the colonies profit by it, though it is difficult to persuade them of the fact. The working classes of the colonies have opposed it and have brought great pressure to bear upon their Governments, with the result that, whereas previously those Governments used to give £50,000 or £100,000 a year to emigration, nothing at all is now given. The colonies want emigration, but the Governments cannot bring it about, and I think it would be well if some fund could be placed at the disposal of the West Australian Government for the promotion of immigration.
MR. DILLON: I do not think there is any fear in the mind of anyone who has travelled in the Australian Colonies that the Australian people will ever impose any real disability on citizens of this country desiring to go to Australia. The idea is absurd, but it is true, no matter whether you pass this clause or not, that the Australian people will certainly reserve to themselves the same rights as are enjoyed by the American people for the control of immigration. They will insist, no matter what the English Parliament may do, on their right to restrict objectionable immigration. This objectionable immigration comes under three heads. First of all, that of the Chinese subjects

477
of Her Majesty; secondly, of the coolies from India, which is objected to by a large section of the community, and also of those that reside in the Fiji Islands and the Southern Sea. The latter class of immigrants are admitted in some places, but objected to in others, and not allowed to land. The proposed clause will become more and more onerous in proportion to the increase of white labour in the colony. But there is another class of immigration which the Australian Colonies are beginning to object to, and will increasingly object to, namely, the importation of paupers from other countries. No matter what this House passes, Australia will not allow you to land your paupers on her shores. And more than that, I believe they will shortly stop the system of contract labour which the American people are now legislating against—the system under which large employers of labour enter into contracts with bodies of men to work for them, giving them free passages and giving them a fixed rate of wages lower than the rate generally prevailing in the country. As has been pointed out, Western Australia will have no right to pass any Act without the consent of the Crown; but what would be the result if the House were so ill-advised as to pass any clause of this kind? Simply to bring ourselves into collision with the Legislature of Western Australia. When the Act excluding the Chinese from New South Wales was sent home for the consideration of the Crown, the Executive of the colony did not wait for the assent of the Crown, but at once stopped the Chinese coming into the country, thus setting the authority of the Imperial Parliament at defiance. That is exactly what would happen in Western Australia if any such clause as this were agreed to, and you know that public opinion in this country would not back you up in any high-handed proceeding against the colony. Do you mean to say that you would tie up the hands of the people of Western Australia by a clause of this kind? If they take the matter in their own hands, what are you going to do? I believe that in the whole history of the Australian Colonies the only other instance in which Australia undertook to interfere with the free landing of British subjects from the United Kingdom was
478
when they would not allow certain informers in the Phoenix Park murder case to land. They had no law to justify their action; but the Executive of the Colony, trusting to their own judgment, and having confidence in the people, took it upon themselves to do it. They said, "We will not allow these men to land, as it would interfere with public peace and tranquillity." These men had committed no crime. They were sent out by the Home Government, who were under apprehensions as to their safety; but the Executive of the colony said, "We will not let them land," and the Home Government acquiesced in that decision. I maintain that this clause is unnecessary and mischievous, and calculated to lead to future trouble with the colony.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIES (Baron H. do WORMS,): Her Majesty's Government appreciate the motives of the hon. Member who moves the clause; but, at the same time, I think he can judge from the arguments put forward on both sides of the House that it cannot be inserted in the Bill. Her Majesty's Government are anxious to do all in their power to promote emigration, but I do not think that the method he has suggested would be likely to forward that object. Independently of that consideration, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the course he proposes is entirely without precedent. The other Australian Colonies have received responsible Government, but no such regulation was ever imposed on them, and if Western Australia is entitled to responsible Government the House would not be justified in imposing upon her restrictions that would be entirely foreign to those to which the other Australian Colonies are subjected. I would further point out to the hon. Member that the evidence produced before the Committee was entirely opposed to his view. All the witnesses examined—or all those who had had the best opportunity of forming an opinion—expressed them selves in the same sense as the hon. Member for Leicester. They said, "The Western Australians would reject any legislation of this sort;" and the fact of an enormous tract of land being handed over to them is rather in favour of than against their doing all they can to promote emigration. We have been told that 8,000 may be

479
taken to represent the adult male population of Western Australia. I do not pledge myself to the accuracy of those figures; but, if they are correct, surely that is an argument in favour of the proposition that these men will do all they can to invite labour to their shores, for the purpose of developing to the utmost the resources of the vast area so sparsely populated. Two Governors of the colony have testified to the fact that Western Australia would strenuously oppose any such clause as this. They object, as I suppose we should object, to a wholesome system of immigration which, to use a familiar Colonial expression, dumps down on their shores large numbers of paupers and criminals. And I think they are justified in that objection; and to say that they shall not be allowed to enforce any regulation with regard to that matter which shall not previously have received the assent of Parliament in this country is to impose upon them a restriction which is unfair and not in accordance with the principles of responsible Government. Further. The Act to remove doubts as to the validity of Colonial Laws, the 28 and 29 Vict., cap. 63, provides, in Sections 2 and 3, as follows:—
"Any Colonial Law which is or shall be in any respect repugnant to the Provisions of any Act of Parliament extending to the Colony to which such Law may relate, or repugnant to any Order or Regulation made under Authority of such Act of Parliament, or having in the Colony the Force and effect of such Act, shall be read subject to such Act, Order, or Regulation, and shall to the extent of such Repugnancy, but not otherwise, be and remain absolutely void and inoperative. No Colonial Law shall be or be deemed to have been void or inoperative on the ground of Repugnancy to the Law of England unless the same shall be repugnant to the Provisions of some such Act of Parliament, Order, or Regulation as aforesaid."
I think the new clause of the hon. Gentleman would be in contravention of these sections; but be that as it may, I hope that, in view of the fact that such a regulation has never been adopted in the case of any of the other colonies, and taking into consideration the fact that the evidence taken before the Committee was strongly against the principle affirmed by the clause, the hon. Gentleman will not divide the Committee, and will accept the views I have laid before him.
SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): While I think the Amendment right, I doubt if the hon. Member will be able to carry it, or whether Her Majesty's Government will be at all likely to be induced to accept it, because now that we are giving Western Australia so-called "statesmen"—who are somewhat on a level with the Councillors of a tenth-rate town in this country—responsible Government, it would hardly be of any use to try and impose on the colony terms different to those we impose on other colonies. If this clause is imposed on Western Australia, we ought to impose it on all the other colonies. I think it is a clause that ought to be imposed on all the other colonies, but Her Majesty's Government do not dare to impose it on them. They dare not say "boo" to the colonies nowadays. There was a time—a century ago—when we were inclined to tyrannise over the colonies, but now the colonies tyrannise over us. The hon. Member for Mayo told us that New South Wales defied the law in regard to foreign immigration. He referred to the Chinese question. I am sure he did not wish to raise that question, but was desirous only of raising the question of what we may call the immigration of European-British subjects. The question is, whether the white subjects of Her Majesty from these British Islands should be allowed to emigrate from this country to Western Australia. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) says we should have to make war upon these colonies in order to force our emigrants upon them. You cannot make war upon these colonies, but you can withdraw your connection and refuse to occupy the humiliating position we now occupy. You dare not contradict your colonies. You give them all they want; but when you want anything from them, you dare not insist upon having it. We are consenting to this tyrannical, overbearing treatment of the colonies. It seems to me it would be far better to say to the colonies: "If you desire to maintain the connection with us, and to retain our assistance, you must accede to our demands. Otherwise, let us part amicably." If the colonies quarrelled with other countries we should be bound to back them, whether they were right or wrong; and I think

481
that if the connection is to continue, they should at least submit to the reasonable demands of this country. One of those demands is that, as long as this is a United Empire, the citizens of one part shall be free to go to another part, and shall not be shut out by restrictive rules. We are told that the Australians must not admit paupers. There are paupers and paupers. A man who is unfitted to earn his bread ought not to be sent out, but I do not think that poor men ought to be shut out if they are able to earn their bread, although they may not be able to do so in this country.
SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I should like to mention one consideration which I hope will induce the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment. There is no Australian Legislature that has yet imposed restrictions on the immigration of British subjects into Australia. That which hon. Members mistake for such legislation is a provision against spending the money of the colonies upon taking emigrants to Australia. I may remark in this connection that the chief difficulty in regard to emigration is its cost. It has been conclusively proved that it costs between £20 and £30 to transfer a human being from this country to Australia and to settle him there. The Australians, however, are not likely in any way to interfere with the immigration of British subjects provided we pay for it. There are two technical objections to this Amendment: One is, that it would permit Chinese and coolie immigration; and the other, that the only persons exempt would be those convicted of crime. There already exist Customs Acts which prevent the landing in these colonies of persons who are not convicted of crime, including lunatics; and other persons who are hopeless paupers. I think the Amendment would not be objected to by the Australians, for the reason that they do not intend to carry out any regulation forbidding the immigration of capable citizens. But I think it is unnecessary, and that it would be very injudicious, to say the least of it, to put it into the Bill.
MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)I believe the true policy of this House and of the country is to
482
trust the colonists in this matter of emigration. I have, however, only risen to correct an error inadvertently made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) yesterday, and which might have some importance in Australia. He quoted from a letter which he stated was from my correspondent, Mr. Hensman, but which was, in fact, written by another gentleman to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), and which was in opposition to responsible Government. It is of some importance to Mr. Hensman that I should say neither he nor anyone else I know of acting in connection with him in Western Australia has written to me or anyone else words contrary to the adoption of responsible Government in Western Australia. The objection taken by Mr. Hensman and his friends was solely to the form of the Bill.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I have refrained from speaking on this Bill in the hope that it would pass the House at a much earlier period, and I have how to express my extreme regret that those who have thought it their duty to oppose the Bill should have made use of words of opprobrium towards the Australian Colonies. It can have no good effect, and may lead to ill-feeling between the colonists and ourselves such as we all wish to avoid. It would be an absurdity to add such an Amendment to the Bill. I hope that neither here nor elsewhere will restrictions be imposed on emigration; but we must hot forget that these are just the questions which arise at times when labour is plentiful and wages are falling, and these are just the occasions when the colonists would be tempted to rebel against any tie upon them. I will not push the matter further, as I understand the hon. Member does not intend to carry his Amendment to a Division, I regret that against any portion of our colonial dominions suggestions of jobbery and insult, and trying to trample upon us, words which may go to the other side of the world, and be treated there as of more importance than they deserve, should be uttered in this House.
*MR. RATHBONE: I have never uttered one word—
MR. BRADLAUGH: I referred to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
*MR. RATHBONE: I have never said one word in disparagement of the Australian Colonies. I must confess that the arguments of the Under Secretary for the Colonies are somewhat extraordinary coming from a Member of a Government who, with the consent of the Representatives of Western Australia, inserted in the Bill a clause very similar to my own. Let me point out that if this clause were read a second time it would be perfectly competent for the House to introduce words confining it to the interests of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Shropshire talked of millions of Chinese coming in as British subjects. The hon. Gentleman—and other Members who have spoken—seem to forget that the Chinese difficulty exists now, and that it will exist if the Australians pass laws against the immigration of Chinese, laws which have to be sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government. The Queen will have to give her sanction to any of the laws which are passed against the Chinese by the Australians, and, therefore, my proposal is a wise one, because the fact of such a law existing will probably prevent objectionable legislation being proposed in Australia in times of pressure. The Under Secretary for the Colonies says there is no precedent for what I suggest. I admit there is not. I contend there is no precedent for proper foresight and statesmanship on the part of the Government of this country in dealing with our colonies. We have never taken sufficient care to look ahead more than one or two years, hence the difficulties that have occurred, and will occur again. I am afraid that there is a disposition on the part of the present Government to deal only with the difficulties of to-day, and that there is little hope of my persuading the House to look further ahead.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. P. MORGAN (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to move the new clause which stands in my name, which is to the effect that, whether the lands be alienated or not, the gold and silver mines be vested in the Colonial Legislature. As I understand the Bill, by it the gold and silver to be found in the lands of Western Australia will pass under the general words of the
484
clause to the persons who become possessed of the lands. I believe that the Crown cannot divest itself of the precious metals without a special Act. In this country the gold and silver found even in copper mines is vested in the Crown. Though a man may own the fee-simple of his lands and is entitled to all the mines and minerals they contain, yet he cannot touch the gold and silver without the permission of, or an arrangement with, the Crown. There is another reason why what I propose should be emphasised by a new clause. The rights of the Crown, or rather the Colonial Legislature, should be reserved in the same way as they are here at home. I am possessed of certain lands in Wales with all the mines and minerals. My predecessors in title have possessed the same rights of ownership, yet directly I attempted to mine for gold or silver on lands of which I hold the title deeds, giving me the right to the mines and minerals, I was prevented to work the lands in search of gold and silver. If therefore, I was prevented from gold mining in this country á fortiori, the colonists of Western Australia should not be entitled either to seek for gold and silver without permission of the Local Legislature. Not only would I have my new clause apply to the mines of gold and silver contained in the lands to be handed over to the control of the Legislature of Western Australia, but to all lands that have been alienated. I have lived a long time in Australia, and although I have not taken part in the Debate on the Bill as a whole, yet, not with standing that the franchise under it may be regarded as too high, I consider that it is a good Bill, and I congratulate the Government upon introducing it. I hope that it will be speedily passed into law. In the Colony of Victoria land* which have been alienated 20, 30, or 50 years are found afterwards to contain precious metals; and, recently, a special Act of the Local Legislature has been passed whereby the right to the precious-metals shall revert after 10 years to the Crown. I wish that this should be done at once in Western Australia for the benefit of working men, who would then have nothing to do but pay their fee of 10s. each, and with their picks begin to dig for gold—even on the alienated lands—to enter upon the lands of private

485
persons in Western Australia; of course by paying compensation, as now can be done in Victoria. It is with this object in view that I propose the new clause.
New Clause (Mines and Minerals) (Mr. P. Morgan), brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time.
BARON H. DE WORMS: I think the hon. Gentleman has scarcely considered his own clause, or he would have found it is absolutely unnecessary. In the first place, he speaks of all mines. "All mines" include gold and silver mines. Then again, "minerals" include gold and silver. That is the opinion of the highest Legal Authorities. As to the second part of the clause, let me point out that it would be retrospective and its effect would amount to confiscation.
*MR. P. MORGAN: All I want to do is to put the Government of Western Australia in precisely the same position with reference to land that has been alienated as the Government of this country professes to be in.
BARON H. DE WORMS: What I suggest is, that you ought not to take away rights that already exist in certain individuals and transfer thorn to the Legislature without compensation.
DR. CLARK: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands the point. My hon. Friend's point is that he possesses lands in Wales just as much as any man possesses lands in Australia, and that when he mines in Wales the Crown comes down and charges him royalty. He claims that the Government of Western Australia should be placed in the same position. Just as you prevent the hon. Member from mining in Wales for gold, unless he pay s the royalties, so the colonists, in permitting the sale of lands should reserve these royalties on metals. It is an important question for the colonies, and whether the gold mining industry of Western Australia will be advanced or hindered depends upon how it is settled.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): In a few words I think I can remove all doubts, though I notice the two hon. Gentlemen
486
do not approach the subject in the same way. First, I will deal with the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment. Mines and minerals in the United Kingdom do not include the royal metals, and therefore arise those issues and Crown claims which have arisen in certain cases. In regard to these waste lands in Australia the position is wholly different, and there can be no doubt whatever that all mining rights, and the right to prospect for the precious metals, will be vested by the Act in the Legislature of the colony. With regard to prospecting upon lands already leased, that must depend upon grants already made. If rights have been disposed of, of course the arrangements made must be respected, but all rights else will be vested in the Legislature, with whom will be the power to licence to prospect for all minerals. The object of the Amendment is, I submit, carried out by the Bill.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: The new clause which I have to propose arises out of circumstances which were referred to yesterday on the subject of the pearl fisheries. The Federal Council passed an Act applying to British ships and boats, allowing certain regulations to be enacted by the Legislative Council of Western Australia. These powers are defined in the Bill, but then follows the words "And any Act amending the same." In replying to me in the last discussion the Under Secretary said that Acts dealing with this subject were Acts of the Federal Council, and, therefore, Western Australia had no power to rescind or deal with these Acts. But to this I have to refer to the words I have quoted, which delegate to Western Australia powers under any Act for amending the Acts cited. Further it was asked if the Federal Council gave power to legislate for extra territorial waters, and the right hon. Gentleman replied "Certainly not." I will leave the Under Secretary to explain how this answer conforms to legislation which has been passed by the Federal Council, and which enables the Western Australia Federal Councils to amend and apply Acts to extra territorial waters. I need not dwell on points of detail; they are well known. It is the fact that this affects the relations between

487
this country and Western Australia which compels me to move this new clause.
New Clause (Jurisdiction in extraterritorial waters), brought up, and read the first time.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
SIR R. WEBSTER: This is a subject which the Solicitor General and I had brought under our notice; but, speaking from recollection, it does not come within the Bill at all.
*MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: Subsection 60 of the Schedule.
*SIR R. WEBSTER: I am not aware of any clause in the Bill. I may be under misapprehension. It was no part of my duty to look at the Schedule in connection with this subject.
*MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: The part upon which I ground my reason for the clause is the sub-section of the Schedule (60), which deals with the levying of duties on imports.
*SIR R. WEBSTER: That gives no warrant for the new clause. That is a Customs' clause, whereas the Fishery clauses are in the nature of police regulations, by which the various colonies under the Federal Act are enabled to regulate their own fisheries. The hon. Member now proposes that it shall not be lawful for the Legislature of the colony to exercise any jurisdiction in extra territorial waters, but the levying of duties on imports cannot affect ships sailing in those waters, notwithstanding any powers delegated by the Federal Council. Now, the hon. Member purposes to deal with a subject which, so far as I know, has never been discussed in this connection. My recollection of the matter is that, under the Federal Council Act, power was given to each colony t J make its own regulations in respect to pearl fishing. The Schedule of the Bill does not touch the question at all. The Federal Council of Australasia has dealt with the matter and settled it in an Act which has been approved by Her Majesty, and it would be quite inconsistent with anything in the Bill, which does not propose to deal with fishery regulations, to pass such a clause. The question, if raised at all, should be raised on a proposal to amend the Federal Councils Act.
MR. HALDANE: I am unable to agree with the Attorney General that this is not germane to the Bill. In 1883 the Legislature of this country adopted a distinct policy in regard to extra territorial Australian waters, and by Section 15 of the Act of that year exclusive power is given to the Federal Council to legislate in respect to these waters, and the regulations for fishing were placed under the authority of the Federal Council. But under the Bill, which became law in 1889, the Federal Council have done what seems to me an extraordinary thing, they have delegated their powers of regulating, among other things, the pearl fishing in extra territorial waters off Western Australia to the Legislative Council of Western Australia.
SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not agree that that is so.
MR. HALDANE: It is a matter of reference to the Act. Certain Acts are defined, but then follows the significant line, "and also any Act amending any of the same." Then, by Section 5 of the Act, there is a provision that it shall not be lawful to employ in the pearl fishing ships or boats in waters adjacent to Western Australia, unless such ships are duly licensed. In this way control is given to the Legislature of Western Australia over extra territorial waters adjacent to the colony, and directly contrary to the Act we debated in 1885. I should like to know if the Law Officers were consulted in reference to the Act, for there is the gravest reason to suppose the Federal Council acted ultra vires in delegating this power. This being so, British boats have been taxed by having import duties levied on them in a way that has certainly created some ill-feeling, and we are entitled in this Bill to put some restriction on the Legislature, which is now being re-constituted, in reference to the exercise of such powers. Here is a Bill recognising a new Constitution for Western Australia, and here we have an opportunity of saying what are the limits within which jurisdiction shall be enforced. It may be that Sub-section 60 in the schedule refers to treaty obligations, but that has nothing to do with whether it is right and proper to deal with the matter here. It seems to me it is perfectly right to take the opportunity

489
to put a limitation on the powers granted.
SIR R. WEBSTER: I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman should have thought it necessary to adopt this tone. I think it has been practically determined by the House that we cannot make any Amendment to the scheduled Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has brought forward no evidence to justify him in stating that there has been any gross abuse in the action of the Federal Council of Australasia, and he then goes on to ask a question which he knows cannot be answered—namely, whether the Law Officers were consulted. I do not admit that the House has before it any facts upon which to base the conclusion that the Federal Council have delegated their power, or done anything which they had not a right to do. But, even if it were so, that is not a matter which has to do with this Bill, and I respectfully protest against this side attempt to fetter the hands of the Council and the Government of Western Australia.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: At present Western Australia does exercise certain powers over non. Australian vessels trading from Singapore and other parts. That may be a jurisdiction British shipowners do not like, but at all events they have at the present time the consolation of knowing that the Crown Executive is under the control of the Secretary of State, so that, in a sense, they are not without protection, but the grievance will be greatly aggravated when you give up all control to the West Australian Government.
MR. J. MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne): I understand that not one single foreign vessel has ever come within these waters for pearl fishing. Further, if a vessel should come, it is also certain that every two weeks or so it would have to put into one of the ports of Western Australia to refit, &c. I take it that the moment such foreign vessel puts into a Western Australian port she would not be able to depart until she had taken out a licence and paid the duty. The case, however, has not arisen, and is not likely to arise.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: The question is the imposition of a tax on British ships engaged in a certain industry. I do not think the Attorney General can have read the evidence before the Special Committee, for this question was gone into very fully. Western Australia has been given certain powers by the Federal Council, and we are now asked to give her fresh powers, and some of the powers granted by the Federal Council have been exercised to the prejudice of Englishmen fishing in the extra territorial waters of Western Australia, and we have, I think, a fair right to ask that in the granting of these new powers they shall be exercised without prejudice to other rights of Englishmen in these waters.
MR. HALDANE: I think we have a right to complain of the way in which we have been treated in this matter. It seems to me that neither the Under Secretary or the Attorney General have taken the trouble to get up the facts. Last night I asked the Under Secretary whether the Federal Council had conferred powers upon Western Australia to legislate for extra territorial waters, and the right hon. Gentleman answered, rather recklessly, as I thought, "Certainly not." But I think we have shown that the Federal Council has conferred such powers on the Legislative Council of Western Australia, and until we have some better explanation I shall continue to say so, and I do not think there can be much doubt about it. The Attorney General says the matter was never before the Committee, and, therefore, ought not to be discussed, but, as a matter of fact, the subject was fully and specifically before the Committee in evidence. I am so far in sympathy with the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle that I express no opinion upon the exercise of the licensing power. But I do say that this House, having said that the Federal Council is the proper authority to exercise this jurisdiction, the Council has delegated the powers to the Legislature of Western Australia, and that it has been exercised not in accordance with the policy which received legislative sanction in 1885. We cannot know how far the opinion of the Law Officers confirmed the validity of the Act of 1889, but we are entitled to make

491
provision for what may happen in the future.
Question put, and negatived.
Schedules and Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported to the House without Amendment.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I trust I may appeal to the House to read the Bill a third time. There is a very general feeling in its favour, although there may be some difference as to details.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read the third time."
DR. CLARK: I must object. The Bill has not been fully discussed, because the Closure was applied on a most important clause last night.
MR. CREMER: If the Government had treated the opposition to the third clause of this Bill in a spirit of fairness the appeal might have been acceded to; but I think we have a right to complain of their conduct towards us. We were only allowed an hour and a quarter to discuss a most important Amendment, whereas three or four hours were given to the discussion of an Amendment of a far less important character. I know that the hon. Members for Morpeth and the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland were anxious, with other hon. Members, to speak on my Amendment; and the Government were perfectly aware of the fact that we desired to discuss a principle dear to the hearts of hundreds of thousands of men out of doors. This was the first opportunity we had had of raising a Debate on it, and yet the Government allowed us only an hour and a quarter. Under these circumstances, many of us think we are justified in opposing the Third Reading of the Bill being taken to-day.
MR. BURT: As I gather that the First Lord of the Treasury is prepared to assent to the postponement of the Third Reading, I will reserve what I have to say on the principle of the Bill until the Motion for the Third Reading is made. With regard to the very small opportunity we had last night of Debate on what I regard as the chief
492
principle of the Bill, it is true that a good deal of time was occupied on other parts of the Bill; but I do submit that on that one question there certainly was not ample discussion.
DR. CLARK: Can the Bill be now read a third time, without the assent of the House?
MR. SPEAKER: It must be by the general pleasure of the House.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I had hoped that the House would agree to read this Bill a third time. I think there have been ample opportunities of discussing it. If the proposal to which hon. Members refer had been accepted the Bill would have been lost, and, under these circumstances, I hope hon. Members will not think the Government exercised undue authority in asking for the Closure last night.
MR. J. MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne): I, for one, shall very much regret if the House declines to assent to the Third Reading of the Bill. I have been reproached in regard to my attitude towards the Bill, which I am told is an unusual attitude for a Member of the Opposition. We who have voted with the Government in support of the measure have not, as is suggested, been supporting the Bill of the Government, bat the Bill sent over from the Western Australian Legislature. The Bill of the Government, as it went before the Select Committee, is not the Bill now before the House. We succeeded in Committee, without much pressure upon the Under Secretary, in transforming the Bill in two very Radical particulars—in procuring the excision of Clauses 4 and 8. It will be most disastrous if we are going to turn colonial legislation into the vortex of Party politics. It is quite true that a very short time was allowed for the discussion of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Haggerston. I regret it was so, but so much time had been taken up needlessly with discussion on other Amendments that the hon. Gentleman suffered for the excesses of others. The course which has been taken in regard to the Bill, after it was submitted to full discussion in a Select Committee which is admitted to be impartial and not animated by Party considerations, is to be regretted.
MR. FENWICK: The Government have themselves to blame for the objection

493
now taken to the Third Reading of the Bill. They allowed great latitude to a certain hon. Gentleman, who ultimately withdrew the Amendment, and when the First Lord made up his mind to Closure that Debate my hon. Friends supported him in his action. Yet, on what we considered to lie the most important Amendment, we were only allowed three speeches before the Leader of the House, most unfairly, in my opinion, Closured us. The present opposition is, I repeat, due to the unfair manner in which the Opposition was treated last night by the Closuring of the Debate after insufficient discussion (Upon what was, perhaps, the crux of the whole Bill. I, for my part, shall certainly oppose the Third Reading being now taken.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston with regard to the way in which his Amendment was Closured last night, seeing that the subject was one of great interest to many Members. I think we have good reason to protest against so important a Bill being so rapidly pushed through its stages by the application of the Closure.
MR. CONYBEARE: I shall certainly object to the Third Reading. I heard an hon. Member opposite speak of this Bill last night as the most important piece of legislation before the House during the whole Session. I do not think it was right on the part of the right hon. Gentleman last night to rush it through the House as he did.
MR. WALLACE: I have endeavoured to help the Government through with this measure by religiously abstaining from uttering a single syllable in the course of the Debate, but the impression made upon my mind by the action of the Government with reference to the 3rd clause was that they were acting oppressively last night. The right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill said the Amendment of the hon. Member for Haggerston was supported only by a Scotchman, an English lawyer, and a London Radical. Arithmetically speaking, he was correct, because the Government, by a forcible measure, stopped further discussion; tout I am morally convinced that, if they
494
had had an opportunity, 50 Members on this side would have supported the Amendment, and would have made the promoters of the Bill understand how strong was the opposition.
MR. W. H. SMITH: If hon. Members really wish the Debate to be adjourned I will offer no opposition.
Debate adjourned till Thursday.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 353.)

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The House is aware that it is proposed to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, which will consider its details, and it will, therefore, only be necessary for me now to give a general outline of the measure. It is probably unnecessary that I should vindicate the general principle of superannuation. One of the reasons rendering the establishment of a system of superannuation desirable is the fact that the work of a constable is of a specially arduous nature, and to secure proper efficiency the men must be engaged in it when they are in the prime of life. To attract a good class of men to the Force a current of promotion is necessary. Another point to bear in mind is that the system acts as an inducement to the men to be of good conduct. A man is likely to be careful not to misconduct himself when he knows that his prospects of a retiring allowance depend on his keeping a clean defaulter's sheet. I will not stay now to dwell on general considerations, but will proceed to say a few words as to the existing state of things in Scotland. There, at the present time, there is no systematic pensioning of the Force. In the burghs the Police Authorities have a general power to give something to a man when he leaves, small periodical payments to be made during pleasure, or in some cases spread over a term of years. In the counties there is no power to spread the payment over a period of years, and the donation must take the shape of a gratuity or lump sum down. In the burghs, therefore, there are payments in the nature of pensions, but not in the counties. One feature is common both to burghs and counties—namely, that no man has

  495
  a right to a pension, under any circumstances at all. It is entirely by the pleasure of the Police Authorities if any payment is made to him on his retirement. The present amounts charged against the rates in Scotland for payments to retired constables reach a total of £4,789. Of this sum, £1,744 is for county payments, and £2,706 for burgh payments. In Greenock there is an organised Pension Fund; the charge is £338 10s. 9d. It is an argument in favour of the establishment of a statutory system of pensions that some of the counties have found pensions so necessary for the due maintenance of the Force that they have stretched the existing law, and, in lieu of only giving gratuities, have made payments in the nature of pensions, terminating after a period of years. The legality of this proceeding I greatly question. In Lanarkshire, the Police Authorities have found themselves compelled to rely upon a voluntary assessment in order to provide pensions for retired men. The feeling of the Community in Lanarkshire has thus actually outstripped the present law, and proceeded in the direction in which the Government now propose to go. There is another point which must be within the knowledge of hon. Members. In many Forces may be found men whose services would not be missed, and who are kept on at a lower rate of pay, as a sort of pension, and simply because the Local Authorities do not feel justified in keeping them in the higher grade, for the performances of the duties in which they are disqualified by the advance of years. I shall start, then, with the assumption that there is a general feeling in favour 'of a system of superannuation for the police. Now, Sir, in regard to the provisions of the Bill, I do not think it necessary to go into them with any great amount of detail; but it may be convenient to state that the proposals we submit start with the Police Authority in each case with regard to the administration of the Police Fund. When the House remembers that the object is to promote the efficiency of the police it is manifest that there is a relation between the wages to be paid to the police and the amount of their retiring pensions, which renders it almost impossible to have one authority to regulate and determine who
  496
  are to receive the pensions, and another separate authority to determine the question of wages. This, therefore, I am disposed to think is one of the necessary conditions of this measure of superannuation. But there are other provisions in the Bill. As the House is aware, we propose that a policeman shall be entitled, after a certain amount of service, to receive a pension, the amount of which is to be left flexible and determinable within certain limits of maxima and minima by the Local Authorities; but this is to be qualified by a condition which is left to the Local Authority, and that is, that they may fix the age on arriving at which alone a man shall be allowed to retire with a pension. Let me take the case of 25 years as the long period of service after which the full pension, that is to say three-fifths of the-wages, is to become due, without a medical certificate. This is to be taken in connection with the proposal that the Local Authority is entitled to prescribe an age before the attainment of which a man shall not obtain a pension, even though ho may have served for 25 years. On this matter, both with regard to the amount of salary between the maximum and minimum, and, also, the age between maximum and minimum, the Local Authority will have the right to decide and determine the sort of work, and the peculiarities of the service to be performed, in the particular districts as-to which pensions are to be accorded. Therefore, there is a a free hand given to the Local Authorities in introducing such variances as they may deem appropriate to the circumstances of the case. Well, Sir, as I have stated, we have fixed certain maxima and minima, and I may be allowed to say, on this as on all other matters, I am not going to discuss the question whether we have fixed them rightly or not; and for this-reason: that these are matters entirely for the Committee, and if the Committee consider that any modifications of our proposals should be introduced, or that certain variations should be made, they can be brought forward in Committee. I say, therefore, that the details are left entirely open. At the same time I must say that I trust hon. Members will perceive that there are limits at which it is necessary to stop in order to secure the general object of the measure, which

  497
  is the increased efficiency of the police. And now I will ask the House to see how the national aspect of the question stands; and on this point I do not intend to go into detail, but merely to indicate the general lines on which our proposals are based. In the first place, it will be convenient that I should take a figure. I will, therefore, state that the number of efficient men at the present time in the Police Force of Scotland is 4,042. Now, Sir, the proposal of the Bill is that the sum of £40,000, which is provided for in the Local Taxation Bill, should be placed in the hands of the Local Authorities, in certain proportions which, at the present moment, it is not necessary for me to discuss. The allocation of that sum will begin at the beginning. It will at once, and hereafter from year to year, be placed in the hands of the Local Authorities, and in addition to this there is the 2J per cent, deduction from the pay of the men, which, as has been already stated, amounts to £7,500. This, again, will be an amount available year by year, and plus this, there is a certain amount provided from various minor and miscellaneous sources, but, as to these, I have not been able to obtain the precise details. I can, however, give the House specimens from some of the larger towns, if the House cares to have them, and it will be seen that these items amount to a considerable sum. I may say that, in regard to these items, there is great variance as between the different towns; they include such things as the payment of fines, payments for police services, and so forth, and in regard to these things it is obvious that the local conditions will vary very much. I will take, as an instance, the case of Glasgow, which, however, I do not put forward as a representative case. In Glasgow, the regular deductions of 2½ per cent, amount to £1,774, and the miscellaneous items, to which I have referred, amount to £4,530. In Aberdeen, which stands on a different footing to Glasgow, the deduction of 2£ per cent, amounts to £199, and the miscellaneous items to £136. In the other burghs and counties, I find from five counties and five burghs of which I have instances, that generally speaking, there is more derived from the miscellaneous items than from the 2½ percent, deduction. I do not propose to enter
  498
  minutely into the financial results of the scheme; but I will ask the House to suppose that 300 men are retired during the first two years, and that three-fifths is to be the proportion of the pension payable; that would come to between £15,000 and £20,000. Suppose we take the figure at £15,000 or £20,000. The result of our calculations is this: that at the outset the Government grant of £40,000 alone is much more than enough to meet the liability thrown on the fund, and the consequence will be that at this time, and for some time afterwards, a large portion of the £40,000 will be invested and accumulated, so that the rates will not be even within sight of being touched. There will not only be the surplus of the £40,000, but also the £7,500 derived from the 2½ per cent, deduction from the wages of the men. But, looking forward to a more distant period, the result of our calculations is that for at least 30 years there will bono burden whatever on the rates. An hon. Gentleman opposite seems to indicate incredulity; but I would remind him that this is a subject on which careful and detailed calculations are necessary, and if he doubts the infallibility of the calculations on which I rely I may say that, for my part, I am not convinced of the infallibility of some rival suggestions that have been made. The House will, however, observe that, so far as the rates are concerned, the question is a very remote one, assuming our calculations to be at all near the mark. But I want further to point out that, supposing at some distant time the burden is thrown on the rates, any one must see that much more than the Government contribution would be required; in fact, that much more than double would be required; and that there-is no reason for alarm as far as the ratepayers are concerned is shown by the fact that the produce of one penny per pound on the valuation roll of Scotland is £83,000 per annum. Now, Sir, I am not suggesting that this amount will be required until a very remote period, if at all. I merely mention the matter as-showing that, the alarmist figures are necessarily circumscribed by these prosaic figures of mine.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman made an esti-

  499
  mate of the maximum amount of the pension list?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes, I have. I may say that somewhere over 50 years hence, something under £80,000 will be required, plus the £40,000.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: In addition to the £40,000?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: And above all other sources?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think not. I may say I think the amount of detail through which I have gone is sufficient to show what is the scheme of the Government. I am not concerned to do more than show that the scheme we propose is practical, and, moreover, presents no danger of an expenditure which can be regarded as in anyway excessive. I will not now occupy more of the time of the House beyond saying that my object has been to show the general principles on which the scheme is framed. It is a scheme under which, in the first place, pensions are, by Statute Law, to be a matter of right under certain conditions, the fixing of which is to be partly by the Bill within certain limits, the adjustment of which is to be left to the Local Authorities; in the second place, our system places the power of managing these funds in the hands of the Local Authorities; while, in the third place, I hope I have said enough to show that the financial aspect of the question is such as to present no ground for alarm, and that the object in view, which is of high importance, can be obtained by the aid of the Parliamentary grant within very reasonable limits and without adding to the local burdens. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think the Lord Advocate has set the model of the maximum of explanation in the minimum of time. And the explanation was thoroughly well adapted to leave the Committee largely free in its operations. I think the Lord Advocate under-rated the very serious nature of the change which Scotch Members are asked to make in the administration
  500
  of Scotland. It is a very serious change indeed. It is not, as in England, the extension of an existing system, but it is practically the adoption of a new one. In the counties of England there are 1,650 pensioners. In the counties of Scotland there are very few pensioners, and no recognised and legal pensioners. In the English boroughs there are 5,500 pensioners; in the Scotch burghs there are, probably, taking all the men who are pensioned in an irregular manner, less that 100. What deduction ought we to draw from those figures? Up to this time there has been to say the least, the greatest lukewarm ness in Scotland towards pensioning the police. What information have the Government as to the manner in which this proposal is looked on in Scotland? I say that not only should we know, as in the case of England, what is the feeling in this and that locality, but I should be very anxious indeed to know, what I must say I feel myself at this moment very ignorant of indeed, what is the feeling in Scotland in general. So ignorant are we of that feeling, that the operations of the Select Committee will have to be, I think, of a more serious character than only examining the details of the Bill. They will likewise have to inquire what is the wish in at least some of the respective localities with regard to the main objects of the Bill. The only means that we have of judging of feeling in Scotland is by a Petition—now somewhat out of date—from the Town Council of Glasgow against the Bill for the pensioning of police constables in the year 1877. From that Petition I can gather the feeling of Glasgow, which I conclude to be likewise the feeling in some of the larger towns. They take two objections to that Bill which do not apply to this Bill. The Town Council protests that the Government ought to contribute a very sensible sum towards pensioning the police. That is done by this Bill. They likewise ask for a general system over the whole country. That is given by this Bill, rightly or wrongly. The Town Council protests most strongly and most rightly against setting up a separate police pension fund, with a number of separate contributions to it, which is not a real, true, separate fund. They object exceedingly to the number

  501
  of payments which at this moment come in some shape or another into the Exchequer of the community ear-marked, and placed in a fund for the police, so as to give the idea that there are certain special funds and special sources from which the superannuation of the police may be drawn, when that merely conceals the fact that in the last resort all is to be drawn, above the contribution of the Government, from the pockets of the ratepayers. For my part, I hope the Government will consider whether this, as a separate fund, ought to be kept up, unless it is made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen proposed to make it, a genuine fund with representative management, with full liberty of giving or withholding and giving largely or in a less degree. Either the fund should be made a real one, or else we ought to have the thing put before the community in its right shape, that is, that a certain contribution is made by the Government and that all the rest must come from the ratepayers. A request was made in reference to the English Bill that was very inadequately answered by the Lord Advocate. He gave us an estimate made with some care. I think it was very much too sanguine. The Lord Advocate said it was calculated that for 30 years hence no charge would fall upon the rates, but that everything would be covered by the Government grant. The only experience we have to go by is the experience in connection with the Metropolitan Police. It is now 28 years since the system of pensions was adopted for the Metropolitan Force, and already, over and above the £150,000 given to that Force, £50,000 is thrown upon the ratepayers. But the Home Secretary tells us that under the new scale of pensions—I have no doubt it is quite true—the burden will be doubled; so that in 28 years the cost of the pension system in London will be £250,000. To London £150,000 is given, and to Scotland £40,000.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into an error. The scale adopted in 1862 is the scale in force.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Pensions were in force before that, of course, and so far as they were in force my argument, no doubt, is weakened. Taking the experience of London, the grant given to
  502
  Scotland would in 30 years be more than balanced. I have made an estimate so far as I can for Glasgow. In London at this moment the charge for pension per man is £14. Glasgow has 1,060 police, so that at that rate the charge in Glasgow for pensions would be £14,800. If, as the Home Secretary says, the burden will be doubled in 28 years, Glasgow at the end of that period would be paying £29,600. At present she stands at £1,100 a year for pensioning 25 men, so that she will have the burden of another £28,000 a year, which she would have to make up out of the Government grant and a matter of some £2,000. I resolutely refuse to deduct any of those fines or licences which go now to the ratepayers, and which, in any case, are public money.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I did not say that I deducted them.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I quite understand that. They are part of the funds for police pensions, and we cannot take them into account. I think the £40,000 is distributed upon an excellent system. It is given in due proportion to the amount which the different localities expend upon pensions. Under this system Glasgow will get about £12,000 a year, and the ultimate burden on Glasgow will be about £16,000 a year. In the case of a self-governing community like Glasgow the Government would do very well to inform themselves whether such a proposal is popular with the Town Council, who are the representatives of the ratepayers. There is one very great danger to which I hope the Committee will very carefully look, and I believe that the Bill contains the means to a great extent of guarding against it. The real danger is lest the police over the whole country should be a sort of military force, independent of the Local Authorities. We are not satisfied with the character of the Local Authorities charged with the management of the police. We hope that, whatever the authority is, it will have control over the police, who will look to it as their virtual paymaster. I cannot conceive anything more unfortunate, especially in the Highlands, where the authorities and the police act in unison, than that the police should be able to snap their fingers at the authorities who have control over them, because they are in no sense de-

  503
  pendent upon the Local Authorities for either their present or future. It is no use going back to the question of whether the police ought to be superannuated, or whether they ought not. We cannot afford, and we do not intend, to throw away the £40,000 which is our share—not our rightful share, but the share which is allotted to us—of the Spirit Duty. But everything depends on the pay and emoluments of the police being kept in the hands of the Local Authorities. There are great differences in the pay of the Scotch police. The pay of a constable of four years' standing is 27s. a week in the town of Glasgow, and 24s. 6d. in Inverness and Montrose, and in the counties the pay varies from 28s. to 21s. 6d. a week. There are all these differences, and it is quite right that this variety should exist. If you once place the police in these Highland counties on the same pay as that which is enjoyed in Lanarkshire, you will get them entirely out of the hands of the Local Authorities, and, for the protection of the ratepayers and the due discipline of the police, it is most essential that the Local Authorities should be able to fix the pay so as to correspond with the rate of wages and the demand for labour in their respective districts. There is another reason why you should keep the most extreme elasticity in the machinery which the Local Authorities use. For my own part, I entertain grave doubts about pensioning many classes of public servants who are pensioned already, but the principal defence of the system is that a pension is only deferred pay. For this reason it is extremely important, when this Bill has become law, that the Local Authority should have absolute power to vary the pay of the police in such a manner as to make it, together with the pension, a due reward for the labour of a policeman. I admit that there is need of something being done. At this present moment, in England, out of 37,000 policemen, there are 2,300 over the age of 50, while in Scotland, out of 4,200 policemen, there are 480 over the age of 50. Thus, in England, one policeman out of every 17 is over the age of 50, while in Scotland the proportion is one to nine. This shows that the £40,000 allotted to Scotland can be expended with some effect. I trust we shall hear nothing
  504
  more of the monstrous idea which has prevailed elsewhere of retiring a man after a certain period of service, while he is still comparatively young. The taxpayer, and the ratepayer, and the citizen, have a right to protest in the most vehement manner against a man being retired under 50 or 55 years of age for any other cause but absolute inability to serve any longer. I hope the Committee will insist that the age of 55 shall be kept as the age below which a man shall not have a right to retire. I am informed that the Head Constable of Glasgow', representing, I suppose, the feeling of the police, has stated his opinion that the age should be 55, unless the man is unfitted for service; that the age should be the same for all, and that a suitable man should be allowed to remain on till the age of 60, with a slight addition to his pay. I am very glad to hear such a suggestion coming from the police themselves^ because I think it shows they are public spirited men, who do not forget the supposed interests of their calling, and yet who recognise that they are citizens who ought to think of the public too. I belief that if the Committee vigorously keep to the cardinal points I have mentioned, the Bill will be freed from some of the great evils which I am sure will be associated with the English measure, and may be, though attended with some disadvantages, of real benefit to the police.
  MR. HUNTER: My position with regard to this Bill is a very simple one. If the money required for the pension scheme in Scotland is only this £40,000, I am ready to support this Bill. The Lord Advocate says that for 30 years this £40,000 will suffice without any call on the ratepayers. I will put, I will not say the sincerity, but the depth of conviction, of the right hon. Gentleman to a decisive test. If there can be no demand on the rates for 30 years, why not postpone for 30 years Clause 19, which now imposes liability on the ratepayers? There are just two ways in which we can estimate the cost of this superannuation scheme, and I quite expected that the right hon. Gentleman1 would have adopted one of them. One way is to lay by nothing for pensions until they arise, and when and as they arise to pro-

  505
  vide the money for paying them. That is a method which is very easy for those who impose the liability. The initial cost is small, but every year adds to that cost, and no man can tell what the ultimate amount will be. The figures we have had put before us are actually derived from the imagination, because the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) proved in this House that the tables on which the old pension list of London was based were utterly and entirely erroneous, and the right hon. Gentleman warned us in Scotland that it was not £40,000 nor £80,000,. but something more like £120,000 that would be required for this pension scheme. Well, the second mode by which we can estimate the cost of a scheme of this kind is based upon absolute data. I may represent it in this way. Supposing the Government were to ask a company to undertake the obligations that this Bill entails, the price the company would demand would be the real cost of the scheme. The Lord Advocate estimated that during the next three years quite 300 persons would come upon the Pension Fund. As a matter of fact, there are more than 400 persons now serving in the police who are over the age of 50 years, and there are nearly 200 ready to come into the category of "over 50." Why we should assume that during the next three years, out of a total of 500 or 600 men, only 300 will come on to the pension list I do not understand. If you fix your pensions by age, you know exactly where you are. A policeman will go on till that age and then receive his pension. But if you fix the pension according to the number of years' service, you make it practically compulsory on a constable to receive a pension as soon as he completes his 25 years' service, for the reason that if he continues in the force longer he is liable to be dismissed, and if he is dismissed he is dismissed without a pension. Therefore, by fixing a stated period of service, such as 25 years, you make it impossible for a man to continue in the Force beyond 25 years without risking this valuable pension. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate mentioned a sum of £15,000 or £20,000 as being all that would be necessary; but that struck me as illusory. If it were £50,000 that would be an average of £50
  506
  each. In a calculation I have made, I have taken £40 as the average amount for a pension. In the table of Post Office Annuities you find that, for a man of 20 and under 21, to undertake to pay him a pension of £40 a year after 25 years* service, at which time he would have reached the age of 46, the premium required would be £16 a year. That is the sum for which the Post Office would guarantee the pension. But the premium which is available under this scheme—assuming that you give an equal share of the £40,000 to every constable in the Force, and add 2½ per cent.—the premium would be £11 9s. 8d. Thus, at the very start, taking the constable who is to contribute for 25 years, you have a deficit of £4 10s. 4d. per annum on each constable. But this scheme is not one to apply merely to future entrances into the Force. It is to apply to men now in the Force. Now, at the age of 25 the premium rises to £22 3s. 4d., which leaves a deficit on each constable of £10 13s. 8d. At the age of 30 the premium rises to £32 16s. 8d., leaving a deficit of £21 7s. 0d.; at the age of 35 the premium is £48 16s. 8d. (against which you have only £11 9s. 8d.) leaving a deficit of £37 5s. 0d. per man. These figures show that if you were to provide this prudent investment, there would be a large deficit in the £40,000. Even supposing you had all the constables in the Force at the low premium of £16 per annum pension, there would be a deficiency of £20,000 after paying the £40,000 proposed by the Government. If we advance the deficit arising upon the classes from 20 to 35 years of age, they amount to £30,000 a year; and as to those between 35 and 45 the premiums from pensions are so large that the Post Office does not publish any tables at all. The best calculation I can make by these classes is a cost of no less than £80,000 a year. There remains the large class of constables over 45 years of age, numbering 525. To buy annuities for these would cost £660 each, and to provide pensions would consequently require £326,500. On this basis we should, therefore, require to provide half a million of money in the first year; in the second year £150,000, and that sum would diminish year by year until ultimately we should have to

  507
  pay £60,000 a year. It is perfectly obvious that by paying the money in advance and accumulating it year by year we should adopt a policy ultimately more favourable to the ratepayers; and my conviction is that the figure of £120,000 given by the Home Secretary, if it errs at all, errs on the side of being under the mark. Upon the Lord Advocate's own statement these facts dispose of the Bill; and the people of Scotland are not prepared to tax themselves to the extent of £70,000 or £80,000 a year to provide pensions. This Bill proceeds upon wrong principles, and the only sound or economic proceeding is to first ascertain what our funds are, and then what pensions we can afford to pay. If the Lord Advocate had proceeded upon that principle he could never have proposed the scale of pensions which is in the Bill. I also object to the Bill on the ground that a constable would be entitled to retire on the completion of 25 years' service, and I would ask the House to compare the position of two agricultural labourers under the Bill. One does not become a constable, and has wages always under £1 a week, while his fellow becomes a constable, at once gets more than that amount, and constantly increases. At the age of 46 the constable would retire with a pension of £40, on which he could afford to live like a gentleman for the rest of his life; but he would probably take some other form of remunerative occupation, so that the labourer would have to pay rates for the superannuation of a constable who could compete with him for the more choice occupations in the country. That is adding insult to injury. There is, from the policemen's point of view, an objection of great force with respect to entrusting the payment of pensions to Local Authorities. It is to the interest of these bodies to keep down the Pension Fund, and it is to the interest of the higher officers to see that as few men come upon that fund as possible. What the policemen freely say where these pensions exist is, that when the time comes near for a pension their superiors become very strict to mark iniquity, and do not hesitate to use any excuse to dismiss the men. I very much doubt whether that prevails to anything like the extent the men believe, but by
  508
  having one general Pension Fund any possibility of such a misconstruction will be removed. The Bill is also objectionable on the ground that it gives no pension for disablement from duty until after 15 years of age. Very little is gained by inserting that limitation, and I think it might be struck out. Then, I have never heard of a constable being killed in Scotland in the execution of his duty—at any rate the cases are so rare as to be scarcely worth talking about—and I would suggest to the Government that they would, very much improve the attractions of the fund if they provided that, in the case of the death of a constable from any cause there should be a moderate allowance sufficient to keep the children from the poor-house until they reached the age of 15, when they would be able to earn their own living. Clause 8, dealing with the forfeiture of pension for neglect of duty, or other causes, is utterly wrong in principle and indefensible. If a man has a right to a pension he should not be deprived of that property simply because of the reasons stated in that clause. I also take great objection to Clause 21, which provides, in a qualified and unsatisfactory manner, for the return to a constable when he leaves the Force of his-contributions to the fund. That is a paltry, niggling clause which, financially, is worth nothing; and I think a constable ought under such circumstances, to get back his contributions. Another matter which I regret to see in the Bill is the stoppages during sickness to the resources of the Pension Fund. I think it very unfortunate that the police should have their pay stopped during sickness, and I trust that the practice may be abolished. I also hope that the words "without his default," in the clause as to pension to an officer injured in the execution of his duty, will be struck out, for no man would willingly injure himself. I must repeat that the Lord Advocate has wholly failed to show any reasons whatever for believing that the ratepayers will not be called upon to pay for the next 30 years. On the contrary, he must be wrong, for he undertook to do what the Post Office will not do. While I will vote for the Second Reading, in order that the Bill may be sent to a Committee, I will not promise to support the Third Reading

  509
  unless the Bill is so modified as to make it certain that there will be no payment whatever from the ratepayers.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The House has listened with interest to the speeches which have been made in great detail on this side of the House, but I must confess that the conclusions which have been arrived at by the two hon. Members who have addressed us are extremely disappointing. They justified the Lord Advocate in the assumption—which to me seems unjustifiable—that there is an apparent unanimity in favour of this Bill. I should have thought that Scotch Members would have put in, at all events, a dilatory plea against the Bill being passed at present. Is any demand made for this Bill on behalf of the Scotch people, or on behalf of the Local Authorities who will have to work it? I do not believe there has been any such representation of public opinion as to justify the Lord Advocate in his statement, except what we have heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) and the right hon. Gentleman below me (Sir G. Trevelyan). My experience is entirely in the teeth of the conclusion arrived at by these gentlemen. In the election of 1885 there was no question which excited more interest than the question of the pensioning of the police, and I can say with perfect assurance that the opinion of the working men of the constituencies is opposed in the most determined way to this principle. These working men say, "What are the police whom you propose to pension? They are working men as we are; nobody proposes to pension us. You ask us to bear the burden of providing superannuation allowances for this particular class of working men. We, being working men for whom no such provision is proposed, and for whom no such provision certainly will ever be made, entirely object to this privileged legislation which you are proposing." I sympathise strongly with that view, which was pressed upon me by representatives of working men in my own constituency in the election of 1885, and I have to consider this Bill under the obligation which I took upon myself, in 1885, to oppose the scheme, then brought forward by the Liberal Government, and which is reproduced in the present measure. The Bill proposes a
  510
  wholesale pension scheme for this-branch of the Public Service in Scotland. Do ho=n. Members opposite, does my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Trevelyan) realise the horror with which the whole business of pensions is regarded by the working classes of Scotland? I am sorry the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) is not present. He has produced good and wholesome results on the public opinion of this country, and in Scotland there is no result more permanent and more profound than that he has inspired the whole working classes in Scotland with the most utter detestation of, and disgust with, the whole system of pensioning public servants at the public expense. It is a question admitting of some doubt whether we should pay our servants by means of pensions. If we were beginning de novo, and dealing with men entering the Force for the first time, it would be a doubtful question whether we should pay them by giving them a certain allowance in the name of wages, and a certain other allowance in the name of pensions, or whether we should give them the full market value of their labour in present wages and leave them to find their pensions for themselves. If we adopt the system of pensions we must proceed upon the principle that the pension, plus wages, shall be no more taken together than the market value of the man's wages ought to be if he is hired in the open market. The Bill treats the subject in this way. It deals with a class of men who have made engagements under a system of free contract. They are at this moment getting their full wages—the wages fixed for them by the price in the labour market—but my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Trevelyan) is willing not only to give them this but a deferred allowance also. I think that, from this point of view alone, I should be justified in offering a strenuous opposition to the whole Bilk But there is another point. The Bill deals with a whole profession which has entered into contracts with the Local Authorities, such contracts making no provision for pensions. We are going to give the same amount of pension to the constable who is on the point of retiring as to the young man who is just going to enter the Force, although the man who joins the Force now will pay a

  511
  deduction of 2½ per cent, from his pay for 25 or 30 years, while the man who is about to retire will make no such payment. There is an old parable which is quoted in vindication of the rights of labourers who come in at the eleventh hour, but receive as much wages as those who have borne the burden and heat of the day. I think common instincts are rather against the justice of the inference to be drawn from that parable. I am certain that the working men of Scotland would not submit to it as a just principle, and I do not believe the members of the Police Force in Scotland would be satisfied that those who are to make large payments during the whole period of their service are to receive no more than those who are going to quit the Service, and who will naturally make no payment at all. With regard to the financial aspect of the Bill, the Lord Advocate was unable to tell what is to be the total burden to be imposed upon the country by this pension list. It matters not where we get the money. The £40,000 from the Exchequer and the £7,500 from fees are just as much public money as the money which comes' by direct contribution from the ratepayers, and I must express my regret, in regard to the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter), because he said that if nothing was to be asked for from the ratepayers he was entirely for the Bill. I do not look at it from that point of view it all. We are putting a burden on the people of Scotland, as to which all we know is that there will be £40,000 of local Scotch money and £15,000 of other local contributions. Beyond that, there will be a sum as to which evidently no calculation has been made, but which the Lord Advocate estimated at £80,000. Therefore, what you are doing is to put on Scotland a burden which at a minimum must mean £120,000 per annum, and if we count other local contributions must amount to £150,000. Capitalised, that means a direct expense of something like £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 for the pensioning of men who have entered into contracts which make no provision for such pensions. The pension is a mere superfluity and gratuity; and the burden you are asking the Scotch Members to place on the Scotch people to pay is £120,000 or £150,000 a year. It
  512
  may be said that burden is not coming into existence immediately. The Lord Advocate said the burden of £80,000 will not fall upon the people for 50 years. That, it appears to me, is an extravagant estimate. Under the Bill these men may all be superannuated at the end of 25 years, and thus at the end of that period the absolute maximum possible may be realised, and the full burden of £120,000 or £150,000 per annum placed on the people of Scotland. And all this is being proposed as something thrown in by way of gratuity to public servants with whom we have already made a contract in the open market. After the expression I had five years ago of the opinion of my constituents on the question I should have no right to vote for the Bill; but after the statements that have been laid before the House by the promoters of the Bill, I am bound to say I feel justified, without any disrespect to the police, without any desire to depreciate their character, or under-estimate the value of their services, to offer to this Bill the very strongest opposition. I should just like to ask the Liberal Members, who I fear have been induced to pledge themselves to some kind of superannuation, what their working men supporters will think of this proposal. Again, I ask, what are they going to do with the other Public Services in Scotland beside the police? Are they going to treat them in the same way? What are they going to do with men who are not in the Public Service at all, in the sense of being engaged by the public, but who render services as great and as valuable as those rendered by the men who are technically public servants? I have a case before me where a man 78 years of age, who has spent all his days upon the land, has received no public pension, but who, after bringing up his family decently and respectably, finds himself unable to do anything more. What does your law do for him? It offers him something like 2s. per week. This man may have a son, and it is this man and his class who will have to provide for the superannuation of the police. At the same time, you propose that a constable at 45 shall be entitled to a pension equal to three-fifths of his pay. It will pay a policeman well to retire at 45 on three-fifths of his salary,

  513
  for the chances are that with the open market he will be able to get employment that will bring more than the other two-fifths. Summing up my objections to the measure, I may say this is an English measure, which is forced upon Scotland in the same way as English ideas have been forcibly impressed on Scotland, greatly to its disadvantage, in the matter of education. By the necessities of your position in England you are bound to formulate some scheme of superannuation for policemen, and because you are under that obligation, you think it necessary to force the same system upon us in Scotland. In the second place, I object to the Bill because it has been put forward before it is asked for, and in the face of evidence that justifies us in saying that the opinion of Scotland, if it were consulted, would be not only lukewarm, but distinctly hostile to the whole principle. That being the state of Scotch opinion, the Government are bound to give us time for consultation, and to know what our constituents and the Local Authorities who are to administer it think of the measure. Lastly, I object to the Bill from the point of view of general interest. This Bill is of the same colour as all the legislative proposals of the Government this Session. They are all tarred with the same brush—I do not know whether the brush is imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are tarred with the same brush in the sense that every one of these Bills constitutes in itself a raid upon the Public Treasury for the benefit of a class.
  An hon. MEMBKE: The police a class!
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Yes; they are putting a burden of £120,000 upon the people of Scotland for the benefit of a class. It is what they tried to do with regard to the licensing clauses, the Land Purchase Bill, and even the Tithes Bill to a limited extent. The Western Australia Bill is, to some extent, of the same character. It is a most remarkable thing that this Government of the classes seems to be concerned in an attempt to divert a certain portion of the Public Treasury in whatever shape it may be to the benefit of some section of the community. Liberal Governments in days past have been accused of harassing the various interests. The Government of the pre-
  514
  sent day has read the lesson of previous Liberal Governments in this way, and it harasses the public in order to do as much good as it can to the interests of classes with the hope that those classes will serve them in the day of trouble. I object to the Bill from that point of view, and from the further point of view that it is put forward entirely without demand, and that, therefore, we are justified in asking that time shall be given to the people of Scotland to express their wishes on the subject.
  MR. MARK STEWART: If there is one thing quite certain it is that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. E. Robertson) and his friends had their way no Police Superannuation Bill for Scotland would pass. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a great deal of the fact that there is no demand for the Bill. I have had something to do with police matters in my own county, and I am able to say that, although this is not a burning question, although men's minds are not agitated on the subject, it is a matter which everyone has regarded as one which must be brought about some day; and surely when there are so many discordant elements in the House in agreement as to the principle of the measure, it is not an inopportune time to press forward a Superannuation Bill. I have in my mind's eye constables who have continued in the Force until an advanced age in the hope that some Superannuation Bill will be passed. The Local Authorities do not care to burden the rates heavily by pensioning the men, neither do they care to dismiss the officers in a tyrannical manner. I have another case in my mind, that of a police officer who was for some years the head constable in an English county. He took a similar position in a Scotch county, with the result that, in consequence of there being no Supernnuation Fund, in Scotland he will leave the Scotch Force a great deal poorer than he would have left the English Force. I think that when there is a consensus of opinion that such a measure as this is feasible and expedient, the Government are not only justified in doing something, but are called upon to do something in the matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the working men are hostile to this Bill; but I doubt

  515
  whether the working men who view this matter reasonably and dispassionately will protest against the measure. It must be borne in mind that the details of the Bill can be adequately discussed in the Committee upstairs. For instance, if it is found that the measure imposes large burdens on the rates, attention will very properly be called to the fact, and, if necessary, alterations made. I think that a man who serves a longer period should be entitled to a proportionately larger pension, and in that direction I should like to see the scheme re-arranged. The statement of the Lord Advocate must have done much to allay the financial apprehensions that have been raised; and I am satisfied that if the Bill is carefully considered in a spirit of generous justice, we may hope that it will be welcomed throughout Scotland, and have a good effect upon the Force.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I think the Government have placed Members who think a reasonable case for a Superannuation Bill has been made out in a position of considerable difficulty, and for two reasons: In the first place, this is obviously a Bill upon which, in one form or another, Local Authorities ought to have been consulted. In my opinion, it was the duty of the Government to consult them directly. The Government ought to have come to the House, and to have been able to say, "We have obtained the opinions, not only of the Police Authorities, but of the Rating Authorities, who have to pay the expenses of this Bill." As they have not taken that course, at least the Bill ought to have been before the country for a considerable time, so as to allow Members an opportunity of consulting their constituents and obtaining that information which I think the Government ought to have obtained for themselves. I feel that these difficulties are very serious indeed. They do not prevent me from voting for the Second Reading of the Bill; but, so far as our opinions on this side of the House are concerned, I believe we are unanimous in thinking that our assent to the Bill must be held in suspense until we see, after the deliberations of the Select Committee, how far our objections are removed. There is another objection, that we have not authentic information—I think I am
  516
  entitled to say this—as to what the cost of this scheme to the country will be. The Lord Advocate, for the first time tonight, has placed before us certain calculations, carefully made, no doubt, but they are entirely in conflict with the calculations presented to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, whose calculations have certainly a basis of fact, as they were derived from statistics of the Post Office Insurance Scheme, whereas we had no information from the Lord Advocate as to what his calculations were based upon. That lack of information, I admit, may be supplied by due activity during the investigation by the Select Committee. There is one principle of very old application which has been referred to to-night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton—that is, that pensions should be regarded as deferred pay. That principle, I think, was rather too much lost sight of in the statement of the Lord Advocate. If, as was urged by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Robertson), you are going to give policemen full pay and pension over and above that as a sheer present, can you be surprised that this scheme should excite resentment and opposition on the part of Local Authorities? That is a view of the subject which has been ignored by the Lord Advocate. I will make a practical application of this view. I admit it is a difficult case; I foresee that if you establish any scheme of superannuation you can scarcely say, without causing great dissatisfaction, the men are to be entirely excluded, even though they have not contributed to the building up of the fund; but surely those men who retire to-morrow, the labourers who have only worked from the eleventh hour, should not carry off exactly as much pension as those who have contributed out of their moderate earnings during the whole of their working lives from the age of 21. That is a part of the scheme that will certainly require modification when it reaches the stage of Committee. There is another point of general principle I would also urge, and it has been touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Trevelyan); it is of the utmost importance that we should give a very free hand in the administration of the scheme to Local Authorities. The Bill proposes to do that to a very

  517
  limited extent. The Bill, I think, does mot interfere with the power of Local Authorities to fix the pay of constables, and it also gives them power to fix the limit of age up to which a man must servo before he can receive his pension; but I think we must go still further and give power to Local Authorities to determine for themselves whether they will accept any burden upon the rates or whether they will be contented with the contributions of the men and such share as they may get of the aid afforded by Parliament. I feel there are most important and difficult questions in this Bill; and if the Bill is to be passed, it must be after it has been carefully examined in Committee and evidence taken upon it. I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to address the House, and my object now is simply to point Out in a friendly spirit the very serious difficulty I feel there will be in passing the Bill as rapidly as it must be passed in the shape in which it is presented to the House. I do not agree with my hon. Friends who have indicated their opposition to superannuation altogether. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee to point to the case of a man who, having worked upon the land up to the age of 78 then had nothing but a poor allowance from the Parochial Board to support him; but if the policeman fares better, all I can say is that it should not be in violation of the principle of deferred pay. A policeman should get a fair return for his work, and no more; and if he does not get more, then he need not fear comparison between the treatment he gets and the treatment of the pauper. I feel very strongly that some measure of superannuation would be a good thing, not only for the police themselves, but for the country. It is perfectly true that they have a semi-military occupation, and their value to the country only lasts during the prime of their life. The authorities cannot turn them adrift as soon as they have passed their best. It is desirable that such a scheme should be adopted, but we must be careful that it is not too lavish as compared with the remuneration of other classes in the working community. If the Government are prepared in Committee to discuss the matter fairly, and will make fair
  518
  concessions, my own opinion is the Bill will pass withgeneral assent. The country will not, I think, object to the Government taking the initiative. This is one of the Bills, and here I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee—as to which the country look to the Government to take the initiative. They can hardly expect Local Authorities to come and ask to have this burden put upon the rates, but if the scheme is a fair one they will not refuse to accept it. It is quite true that the Bill is framed too much upon English lines, but, as I have said, it is capable of modifications in Committee which will make it acceptable to the people of Scotland.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I think that a case has been made out for the Second Reading of this Bill, and the adoption of the principle of the Bill, but, while I say this, I desire to have an open mind regarding the further progress of the Bill and the condition in which it may leave the Select Committee to which it is to be committed. Of course, I assume that that Committee will altogether, or almost, be composed of Scotch Members. With regard to the principle of this Bill, I think there is very little to be said logically or sternly in favour of the principle of superannuation. But the question is less one of principle than expedience, and there is, from my point of view, nothing more to be said in favour of pensioning the police than any other class of public servants, unless by a system of deferred payment or superanuation we can keep in the Force a more efficient body of men than we otherwise would have, and my support of the Bill is purely influenced by the expediency of improving the efficiency of the Force. We have adopted this principle in London and other parts of England, and in Ireland. It has frequently been represented to me by the superintendents of police in Scotland that the want of a Superannuation Fund in that country has been so felt by the men in the Police Force, that as soon as men became efficient they showed a desire to join some of the Forces in connection with which a Superannuation Fund has been established.

  519
  One of the results of this was that the best of the police in Scotland were in the habit of joining the English or Irish Forces, leaving the less efficient men at home. There is another practical difficulty which has to be got over. We have in the Force a number of men who have become, on account of age and infirmity, unfit for duty. When one goes to the superintendent of the police and represents this fact, one is constantly met with the reply: What am I to do with these men? whether from circumstances which they could or could not control, they heve saved no money, but they have been good and faithful public servants. I have the greatest sympathy with the superintendents, who deprecate the step of throwing these poor men on the Parochial Board in their latter days, and that is the reason why these men are retained for years in the Force after their efficiency is lost. But there is another circumstance which must be taken into account—these men are exposed to great temptations. They are occasionally employed to administer Acts of Parliament upon which opinions are much divided, the Games Act in the country, and the Licensing Acts in towns, for instance. These men are open to heavy temptations, which they must find it very hard to resist if they are underpaid or have no hope of a competency in their old age. A system of superannuation, it is to be hoped, would be an incentive to keep up the discipline and integrity of the Force, and to make the men independent of temptations of this kind. It is for reasons such as this that I feel that rather a strong case has been made out in favour of superannuation. But no indication has been given by the Lord Advocate that the people of Scotland will be prepared to accept the Bill on the lines in which it is drawn. For my own part, I think the working classes in Scotland will never agree to superannuate policemen at the rate of 15s. or 16s. per week, which is, at the present time, the full pay of ordinary unskilled labourers throughout Scotland, to superannuate them at the age of 45 or 46, and enable them, at the same time, to enter the labour market in competition with themselves. I hope it will be made clear under this Bill that no such allowance will be made to policemen
  520
  under the age of 55. At the same time I desire that a man who is healthy, and who has contributed his share, should feel that he is entitled to superannuation, and that he will not be in the position of going and begging for it. The Member for Dundee has challenged1 Liberal Members to justify this principle of superannuation, but he has run away without hearing our justification, I admit that unless the employment of the policeman is different from that of an ordinary workman, there is no case made out in favour of superannuation. But I think that the police stand in a very exceptional position. I believe that we may trust the working men of Scotland to do what is fair in this matter. It must be remembered that when a man is taken away from a given trade or industry for a period of 30 years he is not then in a position to compete very successfully in the labour market, and he cannot readily adapt himself to the new conditions. I think that, for the sake of the efficiency of the Force and in the interests of discipline, a good case is made out for superannuation. Has the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate calculated that he is by this Bill raising the wages of every constable throughout Scotland at once by at least £10 a year? This is a large and serious rise. If you divide the sum by the number of constables employed, you will find that this £40,000 will give an increase of something like £10 to each man. I quite agree with the Lord Advocate in thinking that the large increase spoken of, extending up to £150,000 a year, is an exaggeration of what may be expected in the near future. I do not believe that the Bill is drawn on the lines suited to the circumstances of Scotland, and the £40,000 payable from the Imperial Exchequer will be more than sufficient, for many years to come, for the superannuation of the Scotch police. It Would be a great mistake to believe that the circumstances of the Scotch police are to be compared with those of the police of London. The Scotch police can live much more cheaply, the price of labour is relatively less, and in their old age a smaller sum would suffice for their maintenance than would be necessary were they living in a great city like

  521
  London. We cannot conceal the important fact that the duties of the police in London are very different from those of the Scottish police. The amount of exertion required from the London police is not to be compared with the leisurely life led by the constables of Scotland. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) has told us that he has given some sacred pledges against superannuation in any shape or form. I am sorry he has so pledged himself, because I think it rather unwise to give many pledges to one's constituents. So far as I am concerned, I am under no pledge whatever on this question. I have had opportunities of hearing this matter discussed in Town Councils and other bodies in Scotland for many years past, for it is by no means a new subject, and I think the Lord Advocate will not deny that among those Public Bodies there is great diversity of opinion. The Lord Advocate shakes his head, and I should be glad if he or any other Member of the Government would stand up and state that Petitions have been received from County Councils or other Public Bodies in Scotland asking for this superannuation. No such things exist. It may be that the Inspectors of police, the superintendents, and the constables have been asking for superannuation, but the large mass of constituents have not considered the question, and I know that a great many of them are decidedly adverse to the proposals, I hope, therefore, that the Government will send this Bill to a Committee with an open mind, and that, in the interests of the police and superannuation, they will not drive matters too far, because, if they attempt to hurry this proposal through Parliament too soon, they will arouse a feeling of opposition in Scotland. Public Bodies in Scotland ought, at least, to have some little time to consider the Bill and express their opinion upon it, even if it were assumed that they are in favour of its principle. It should be understood that, although most of us on this side of the House support the principle of the measure, we desire to be left free as to the action we may take when the Bill is in Committee. I believe we shall not be able to effect a satisfactory settlement of the question unless care is taken that those who come up from Scot-
  522
  land representing the police and those who are opposed to this superannuation proposition are called upon to give evidence before the Committee, so that the subject may be considered in all its bearings, and a hasty and premature legislation on the question be thereby avoided. This is one of the things which the Government have sprung upon the country in a sudden and abrupt manner, and without consideration. We have in Scotland been considering questions relating to public health and police for the last 8 or 10 years. The Lord Advocate cannot find time for the introduction of legislation of a sanitary character, but he asks us to find time to pass a Bill for the superannuation of the police, with regard to which no direct encouragement has been given to the Government. I support the Second Reading of the Bill because the subject is deserving of consideration, but I am anxious to put before the Government the fact that the people of Scotland are anxious to have an opportunity of further considering the question, and I think the House would best promote the interests of Scotland by refraining from forcing this measure in a hasty and hurried way upon the House.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL (Montrose): I think it will be admitted that the case of Scotland is very different from that of England. In England we have had growing up for many years a system more or less perfect, under which a system of pensions has grown up and now prevails generally. In Scotland, on the other hand, except in very exceptional cases no such system exists. One would have expected to have heard from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill some justification for its introduction in the form in which we find it, especially when we find that it is in exactly the same terms and almost the same words as the Bill relating to England. Indeed, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the English Bill, and wherever he has found the word "England" he has struck it out and inserted the word "Scotland," and that is practically all the difference between the Bills for the two countries. It is a question whether in Scotland there is any strong desire to deal with

  523
  this question of superannuation at all. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find, if he makes the inquiry, that a strong feeling is growing up against the lavish pensions proposed by this Bill under the name of superannuation. We have some evidence before the House as to what is the extent of the wants of Scotland, but the right hon. Gentleman has not referred to that evidence. I would refer him to the recently expressed opinion of the Inspector of Constabulary, laid before the House during the present year. On page 7 of the Report to which I refer, that gentleman says—
  "By the passing of a much required general Superannuation Act, to provide suitable pensions on retirement for deserving and worn-out officers and men, and towards a fund of this nature the members are desirous of contributing."
  Therefore, all that is demanded is a pension for men who are superannuated in the sense of being "worn out." But what is the object of this Bill? It is to apply to Scotland the same scale of superannuation that exists in England, and. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is right or just to apply the same rule to Scotland. The average of the county constable's wages is £70, and that of the borough constable's is £71, and if you apply the proposed principle of superannuation after 25 years' service, you will find that a man at 46 will be able to retire on a pension of £46 per annum. I venture to say that in all the discussions which have taken place in Scotland on this question no one has ever had the idea that a man of 46 years of age should be able to retire on an annual pension of £46. I now come to another matter. Doubtless the finances of the right hon. Gentleman has some good basis, which, however, he has failed to disclose. We are told that the Government have taken actuarial advice on this matter. If they have, it is so much the worse for the figures, but whether they have taken actuarial advice or not they have volunteered no information to the House. Under these circumstances is it reasonable to ask us to accept the right hon. Gentleman's calculation that in 50 years the amount that will be required
  524
  beyond the £40,000 already provided for will be £80,000 only? He has calculated that only 30 men would be retired in the course of three years, and that up to 50 years hence we shall not reach the maximum charge for superannuation; but he has not given attention to this, or, if he has, he has not taken it into account, namely, that according to the Returns before the House there are in the Police Force of Scotland 373 men who have served between 15 and 20 years, 272 who have served between 20 and 25 years, and 194 men who have served between 25 and 30 years, so that in a comparatively short period the whole of these men will be entitled to retire on pensions. That will absorb, say, £35,000 out of the £40,000 coming from the Imperial Exchequer. This Bill is one which the Scotch people themselves are not prepared for. The Inspector of Constabulary in his Report, says:—
  "The factor of deferred pay might be introduced in the consideration of this most important subject."
  What is contemplated by this Bill is to pension off all those men with whom you are under no contract to pay pension, and to whom you have been paying full wages, and from whom no deferred pay has been deducted. What the Report of the Inspector General contemplates is superannuation to which the men shall contribute; and, therefore, I deduce from that recommendation that if the men who have been serving in the past deserve a pension that pension should be on some other lines than those proposed in the Bill. I am not disposed to reject the Second Reading of the Bill, because I desire to see a fair Bill dealing with the £40,000, and dealing also with the contributions referred to in Clause 16 of the Bill. As regards so much of these contributions as are derived from the Sick Funds, I quite agree in what has been said that too much stress must not be laid on them, because the system of stopping the pay of the sick has been reported against by competent authorities. I think it is extremely unwise, in most instances, to take away from a man his pay, at a time when he most wants it, when he is in sickness, which I assume is real sickness, and not

  525
  malingering, which would soon be discovered by the police doctor. I will record my vote for the Second Reading, reserving to myself liberty at any subsequent stage to oppose the Bill, should I have reason to be dissatisfied with it. *(9.20.) MR. PROVAND (Blackfriars, Glasgow): It will have been gathered from what has fallen from hon. Members that the Scotch Members are not opposed to superannuation in any form, but we are opposed to it on the extravagant terms embodied in the Bill. We are nearly unanimously of opinion, further, that this is far more a question for the Local Authority than for the Parliamentary Authority. To this view there has been only one exception—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, who also showed clearly that there is no principle whatever in pensioning constables, and that it is entirely a matter of expediency. He certainly succeeded in making a very good case indeed, on the ground of expediency, for some method of superannuation, although he, like all the others who have spoken, was against such extravagant terms as those proposed by the Bill. I should like to know why the Government in this matter have discarded local opinion with which they should have made themselves familiar. It is certain that this Bill is entirely unasked for in Scotland. No communications have reached me with reference to it. I have heard nothing from my constituents with reference to police superannuation for four or five years, and at that time the opinions of my constituents were against it. I am certain that the feeling throughout Scotland against this Bill will not be lessened when they read the startling statements made in this Debate respecting the amount that is likely to be involved in the carrying out of this measure. To the sum of £40,000, according to the Lord Advocate, is to be added £7,500 of percentages from the pay of the police, and a further sum of £10,000, making a total of about £60,000. But all this is nothing to what the hon. Member for Aberdeen has told us to expect. His calculations, which he gave in such detail that they can be checked by the Government, is that ultimately at least three
  526
  times the amount will be required in Scotland that will be granted by this measure. That is to say, a sum of £120,000, and I am certain that the people of Scotland will be much surprised when they hear that the Bill will involve them in such a contingent annual liability. It has been remarked in this Debate that pension is merely deferred pay. I believe that is a definition which no one will object to; it therefore follows that those who get high pay being able to provide for the future should get small pensions. But this Bill is based on a diametrically opposite principle, because as the pension is to be proportionate to the pay, those who now receive the highest pay will also get the highest pensions. According to the terms of this Bill, those constables who retire at once will receive their pensions without having contributed anything from their pay, whereas those who join after the Bill is passed will be required to contribute from their pay as the condition of receiving pensions. It seems to be only fair that the constables who are now retiring from the Service, never having contributed anything to the fund, should receive smaller pensions than those now in the Service and those who join here after, because they will all contribute to the fund. I wish to call attention to Clause 16 of the Bill, providing that various amounts received for fines and in other ways should be added to the Pension Fund. I think it wrong in principle that the police should have any direct interest whatever in creating their own Pension Fund, and this clause ought to be struck out of the Bill. No constable should have a direct interest, by means of fines or otherwise, in adding to the Pension Fund. It would leave them open to the imputation that they might arrest persons in order to have them fined, and so benefit themselves. These receipts amount now to about £10,000, and that money, I contend, should go into the Municipal Fund, and from it should be granted whatever amount the Local Authority is disposed to give in aid of the Pension Fund. In this way the whole of the money which might be granted by the Local Authority in lieu of the fines and other sources of income mentioned under Clause 16,would be just

  527
  as if it had been drawn direct from the rates. Notice has been given by two hon. Members to reject the Bill, and, knowing its extravagant terms, I feel that if they carry the question to a Division I must give them my support. It is not because I am against superannuation of any kind, but because I am against extravagant superannuation, that I oppose this measure. I hope opportunity will be given to the Select Committee to ascertain local opinions in Scotland. I feel satisfied that when it comes to their knowledge that this Bill may involve an ultimate expenditure of £120,000 a year, the proposal will meet with very liitle support. At the same time, the Local Authorities may be perfectly ready to come to terms in reference to some reasonable scheme of superannuation of which they have complete control.
  SIR J. KINLOCH: Sir, I venture to make a few remarks in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen for trying to prove to the House that there would be heavy loss to rates. He stated that the only means of arriving at a fair understanding of the question was to take the example of an Insurance Company and see what premium it charged for a similar annuity. He took the Post Office instance, and then cited the case of a constable joining at 21 and retiring at 46 years of age, receiving an annuity of £40 a year, after having paid an annual premium of £16. The money, he pointed out, proposed to be given by the Government was £40,000, and the 2½ per cent, to be deducted from the pay would give an annual premium of about £11 10s. 0d., leaving a deficit of £4 10s., which would be the amount of the loss on the rates. Now, it seems to me rather an arbitrary thing to base your calculation upon one Insurance Company alone. If you examine the Tables of the largest Insurance Company in the world, the Mutual of New York, you will find that instead of requiring £16 in annual premiums you will require only £13 for the same annuity. This completely upsets the calculation of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter). If he can quote one Insurance Company, I can quote another; and I think the one is as good as the
  528
  other. As to the rest of the Bill, I think it will be most acceptable to Scotland if, when it goes upstairs, the age limit is altered to 50 or 55. I think, however, the clause which provides that a constable may by misconduct lose his pension after he has acquired a right to it is a very bad one. When a man has paid a premium, which a constable will be doing in the shape of deferred pay, during all the time of his service I think it is a very arbitrary thing to say that he should lose the pension for which he has thus paid.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: My own inclination would lead me to follow the course indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan) and support the Second Reading of this Bill. But my vote on the Second Beading must depend very greatly on assurances which are yet to come from the Government. I think that chief amongst such assurances I must put a very full and complete statement with regard to the constitution and powers of the Select Committee to which the Bill is to be referred. We are always told that on measures of a non-Party character like this the Government are disposed to give full play to the opinions, and full consideration to the wishes, of the Scotch Members. It seems to me that this affords the Government a very suitable opportunity for proving that they really carry into practice the professions which are so often made to us. I think the proposal that the Bill should be referred to a Committee consisting of all the Scottish Members is a very reasonable proposal. I would point out to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that by adopting it he would lose none of the power of the Government to modify or vote down—I do not use the expression in an offensive sense—the wishes of the Scottish Members in some future part of the proceedings on this Bill. I wish to say also that the Committee, whatever its constitution, ought, in my opinion, to have full power to call witnesses from different parts of Scotland to examine into the views of the people of Scotland. Otherwise the Committee would certainly not fulfil the object for which it is to be appointed. I am bound to confess that I

  529
  myself am prepared to support the principle of superannuation for the police. I do not in the least mean to say that I support the details of the proposals in the present Bill, or that I admit that because certain arrangements are made in the Metropolis, or in England generally, the same or similar arrangements should be made for Scotland. The conditions and the requirements are totally different. At the same time, I do not at all agree with the position taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson), when he said that the proposed superannuation of the police would be an absolute hardship and grievance to that working men class from which the police are drawn. My own view is that the duties of a policeman are peculiar ones and responsible ones. We want to draw from the class from which the police are taken the best, the most intelligent and educated men we can get. We want to make the profession of the policeman such that it shall be worth while for the best men to adopt it. But to say that these men shall be retired at the age of 45 in Scotland is, I believe, perfectly farcical, and a proposal that will commend itself to no portion of the constituencies in Scotland. The hon. Member for Dundee also said that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had imbued the working men in Scotland with the most tremendous hatred of all pensions. I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend in that proposition. The hon. Member for Northampton's point of attack has been perpetual pensions. To give the police pensions is only to give them the same advantage as I believe almost every other class of Civil servants already have; and I think that when a constable has done his duty, and has worn himself out in the Service, we may well provide for his declining years and his failing health by giving him a pension. I am disposed to think that the amount that will be needful to carry out a superannuation scheme has been somewhat exaggerated by some of my hon. Friends. We are led to suppose that the amount that will eventually fall on the rates in the Metropolis for superannuation purposes is the sum of £250,000. If we take it at that figure, and compare the numbers of the
  530
  police in Scotland with those in London, we find that the amount that will fall on the rates in Scotland is exactly £72,150. That would be less than 1d. in the £1 on the whole valuation in Scotland. I do not assume that that amount will be thrown on the rates in Scotland, because I do not believe we shall at all adopt the scale that is to be adopted in England, For my part, I shall be prepared to support the Second Reading of this Bill if the Government give us satisfactory assurances as to the constitution of the Committee, and also assurances that they will be guided by the decisions of that Committee when it makes its Report on this Bill.
  MR. SOMURVELL (Ayr &c.): The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has introduced a considerable amount of matter that would more appropriately be dealt with in the Debate as to the constitution of the Select Committee than on the Second Reading of the Bill. The question we have now to determine is whether the principle of the superannuation of the police is a right and proper principle. The question of the constitution of the Select Committee is one entirely for future consideration. But it appears to me that the only valid objection that has been raised as to why this Bill should not be read a second time is that it has been to a certain extent flashed on the country. I do not know whether hon. Members who make that statement have looked into the history of this question; but it would not appear that they have made themselves familiar with the long period of time during which this question of the superannuation of the Scotch police has been before both Houses of Parliament. In 1858 there was an inquiry, there was a Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to consider the subject in 1877, and in 1883 there was another inquiry, so that it is an absurdity to say that this subject has not been ventilated in the country. It is said that the Government is departing from the principle which should be observed in dealing with this question, because it is founded on the principle embodied in the English Bill; but I say that hon. Members who make that statement have not read the Reports of the Committees who con-

  531
  sidered the question. The question whether superannuation should be granted after a fixed period of years or at a certain age was considered and reported on, and there was a large concensus of opinion—of the best and most influential description—in favour of the principle of granting superannuation after a fixed term of years. It was stated that it was essential to getting the best class into the Police Force that these payments should be given after a fixed term of years, so that there should be no uncertainty when a young man entered the Service as to the period at which he would be pensioned, that period not depending on the failure of his health. A man who enters the Service at 21 might serve 38 years without his health failing, and the prospect of a pension at the end of that term of years is not a sufficient inducement to attract men to the Service, and to keep them there when they have entered. In the Report of the House of Commons Committee of 1877 we find—
  "I see from the evidence that a fixed term of service has been asked for by some of the influential witnesses, and this, which does not appear unreasonable.…would have as one result the advantage of enabling the conscientious constable to get the pension which was at one time obtained by the malingerer for slight, short, or even artful incapacity."
  The late Lieutenant General Cartwright, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary (England), states—
  "I consider age to be of little consequence compared with service, for, if it is to be based upon age, if a man enters at 40, he soon arrives at 60, comparatively, and he gels his pension. Then the men who are the best men whom we have in the Force, generally speaking, are those who come in young, about 22 years of age, and who are trained to their duties. These would have to wait 38 years before they would arrive at the age of 60, so that really the only thing to do is to strike out age and lo put in service. When he has served a certain number of years, he should have a claim upon the fund? Yes; when he has served a certain number of years. I will not pretend to say what number of years, but I am sure it would be of the greatest advantage in getting the right sort of men into the Force if there was a knowledge that it was to be made a profession for life, and that after a certain period they were to have a certain pension."
  That disposes of the argument reiterated time after time by a considerable number of Members on the other side of the House. The Government in introducing this measure have not brought in a new
  532
  principle, but have adopted the principle recommended by the Committee of 1887, and I think that when hon. Members have further time to consider, they will see that it is of great advantage that the pension should be granted for a fixed term of years. A policeman, especially in the mining districts, should be physically capable of coping with criminals in the prime of life, and he therefore ought not to be retained in the Force until years enfeebled him. To say, as some hon. Members seem to wish, that policemen should not become entitled to pensions until quite incapacitated by bodily ailments would, I maintain, have the effect of deterring good men from entering the Force. That a constable who is ailing, but who might recover if relieved from work, should be compelled to remain in the Force if he wished to gain a pension, until his disease should have taken a firm hold of his constitution, would be cruel and inhuman. It should be remembered that the Police Force is certainly not popular, especially in the country, where the constable is always on duty day and night, Sundays and holidays. The Force is one that requires men of self-control, and the service is one which deprives the men during the whole of their lives, of many innocent enjoyments. County police must not be regarded in the same light as burgh police. In the burghs, the men go on duty for a certain number of hours, after which they are relieved, and they have a limited amount of night duty. The case of the county policeman is different. He is never relieved; he cannot make friends, because he may be be liable at any time to arrest his neighbour. He is placed in a peculiar position, and unless you hold out special inducements, you will never get good men to join, or when good men have joined, you will never retain them in the Service. In 1873 the average of retirements from the police in Scotland was 16 per cent. When wages rose in 1874 and onwards, the average retirements were 30 per cent.; and last year, according to the Export presented by the Chief Inspector, there were 115 more retirements than the year before. Why is that? To my mind it is because wages outside are good, and there is no Pension Fund, and

  533
  the duties are unpopular. It is of the greatest importance that you should be able to retain men especially in counties such as Lanarkshire and Ayrshire, and in the mining districts generally, where wages are constantly going up and down. It is at the very time when wages are high, and rioting and drunkenness are most frequent, that the Police Service is most unpopular. It is at these times that the policeman can better himself by leaving the Force, and it is at these times that they do leave the Force. In the Constabulary you cannot raise and lower wages, as they do in the outside world, according to the state of trade. If you once raise wages in the Police Force they are raised for ever, so that you have to be very careful what you do; and I maintain that it therefore becomes necessary that we should offer what other inducements are open to us to get men to resist the temptation to leave the Force at such times as they find their duties unpopular. The best thing we can do is to provide a Superannuation Fund. It is said that such a scheme will entail a heavy charge on the ratepayers at some future period; but I fail entirely to follow the figures of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. No doubt in starting a superannuation scheme, seeing that it has not hitherto been in existence in Scotland, as it has in England, you will have more than an average number of men thrown on the fund, and you must expect to have a large demand made on your purse, but according to an actuarial calculation made in one of the Scotch counties, if you started a superannuation scheme just now, and stopped at this 2½ per cent., and had to levy a ½d. rate to make up the deficiency, in the course of 10 years you would find a ¼d. rate sufficient, and in another 10 years ⅛d. It would be inevitably necessary to raise this additional sum when starting a superannuation system. There must be a number of men who cannot be said to be absolutely inefficient, and who are only remaining in the Force because there is no Superannuation Fund, and because to turn them away would be to deprive them of a means of subsistence. They have not joined Benefit Societies, for the reason that for the past 22 years they have been expecting a police superannuation scheme. It should be
  534
  remembered that there is a superannuation system in England, and the effect of that is that at the present time the best men in the Scotch Police are annually being drawn away to the English police by the temptations which the Superannuation Fund in England offers. It is of vital importance to Scotland that the question should receive a final solution. I do not for a moment say that I am in favour of every provision of the Bill as it stands. I do not believe in this peddling certificate money clause, but that is only a detail which can be easily remedied. We have to consider, broadly, whether it is necessary that there should be a Police Superannuation Bill for Scotland, and I claim that I have shown that it is essential to the police and the people of Scotland that this question should be dealt with. The question we have most to consider is whether the Bill can be so improved in Committee as to satisfy the people it is intended to benefit, without undue pressure on the ratepayers. I maintain that this is such a measure. If my two premises are admitted, I say that Gentlemen on both sides of the House have no alternative but to vote for the Bill and to leave it to the consideration of a Select Committee, in the confidence that in this question Party feeling will be laid aside, and that a Member will be actuated with the intention of doing justice to the ratepayer, and at the same time giving to the police that to which they are justly entitled.
  DR. CLARK: I regret that, notwithstanding the strong assertion of the hon. Gentleman, I have not been converted to a belief in the desirability of the Bill. I listened to the lucid statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate in introducing the Bill, and I was sorry that not more than half-a-dozen of his own Party were present to hear him. I was not satisfied with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in support of the Bill. He told us the pension system was quite a new thing in Scottish Local Government life, but that it is in existence in England, and, therefore, ought to be introduced into Scotland. I do not think that is a very strong argument, judging from the tone of the Scottish electors and Members. I

  535
  think it will not be long before we refuse to take the coins contemptuously thrown to us by the English Government, and demand our full share of the Public Funds. We have not in Scotland this pension system at all, and hence we have not all the abuses that are always associated with pensions and superannuations. We are told that we cannot get good men unless we give pensions. I do not know any place in the north in which there is any difficulty in getting good men. The position of a policeman is very popular, and a dozen men generally apply for every vacancy. The best plan to adopt is to pay full salary to your men and let them buy annuities or enter Friendly Societies, and so develop thrift and foresight. We have not had any information as to a measure of this kind being asked for by Local Authorities in Scotland. I am rather inclined to doubt the accuracy of the actuarial knowledge of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Somervell). The Home Secretary told us the other day that instead of £40,000 we really want £120,000. That is very much nearer the mark. Before long you may want £150,000. More over, by this Bill you are striking at the control of the police, and you are going to centralise the Force. And more than that, you are introducing, by means of one of the clauses, a little Coercion Act for the Highlands. One of the burghs in my county has refused to take your grant. They do not want the police to be stuck up and to be made imitation soldiers. They prefer to have their men modestly dressed and not quasi soldiers. Orkney and Shetland prefer to have control over their police. What you want to do by the 24th and 25th clauses is to amend the General Police Act, and you want to introduce into Scot land the pension system. England wants a Bill of this kind, and, there fore, a Bill of the same type must be drafted for Scotland. The 24th clause provides that the police may be sent anywhere in the country, and it even provides that the Police Authorities may take naval and military expeditions under their control, and defray the cost out of the Police Funds. We are, there fore, to have a little mild form of coercion for the Highlands. I do not think you require either extra police, soldiers,
  536
  or marines. The Bill will be costly, and is totally unnecessary, and I think that before a heavy burden of this kind is placed upon them, the people of Scotland should have some little time for consideration. I beg to move that the Bill be read the third time this day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. WILSON: I rise to support the provisions of this Bill, so far as they are in accordance with what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen has pointed out. There is no superannuation for the police of Scotland at present. The police of England and of Ireland, the military, naval, and civil servants of the Crown have pensions, and while I would not vote for any extravagant superannuation scheme, entailing a very heavy burden upon the people of Scotland, I think that, upon the whole, there is good ground for some police superannuation scheme for Scotland. I am very much of the same mind as the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Bridgeton, who thinks that 45 or even 50 years of age is too early to give a man a pension. I think the right hon. Gentleman struck the key note when he placed the age at 55. In cities and large centres of population both the temper and the nerves of the police officers are sorely tried, but in the borough of Govan, where we have a very large working-class population, I am proud to say the Police Force is in such a high state of discipline that, notwithstanding that they have sometimes some very troublesome parties to deal with, there is a remarkably good feeling between the inhabitants and the police, and I am sure the Local Authority will welcome a well-devised scheme of police superannuation. I know that the superintendents of the Police Force will approve of a superannuation scheme because it will bind the men to their duties and keep them from going away to other situations. I hope the Lord Advocate will give special weight to

  537
  what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) as to referring the Bill to a Select Committee composed of Scotch Members. Judging from the attenuated attendance upon the Government Benches, it is evident English Members take no interest in this case. Hence it is only right and fair that the Scotch Members should settle the matter themselves. Though the Bill is not everything we desire, I regard it as a fair attempt on the part of the Government to supply a want which has been long felt, and I may encourage the Lord Advocate by saying that so far as I know the Local Authorities, there is a very strong feeling in favour of some scheme of superannuation. I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill on the distinct understanding that we are left a free hand when we come to consider it in the Select Committee.
  MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox): So far as I understand the feeling of the people of Scotland, especially in the working class centres, it is entirely opposed to anything in the nature of a police superannuation scheme. Superannuation of the police can only be defended on the ground of some necessity. Necessity may be of two kinds—the necessity of efficiency and the necessity of getting men into the Service. The police of Scotland are as efficient a body of police as can be found anywhere, and there is no want of supply. When the question of increased pay came before the Town Council of Glasgow, it was said that any number of men could be got to join the Force, and the Council felt that under such circumstances it would be most unreasonable to give increased pay. Then it is said that this £40,000 is a present to Scotland, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "If you do not want it, leave it, or take it for the superannuation of the police." It is perfectly obvious that this money must be given to Scotland, apart altogether from the question whether it is applied to police superannuation or not. This £40,000 belongs to the Scotch people, and if it is not used for the purpose of superannuating the police, it must be used for some other Scotch purpose. What do
  538
  the people see at the present moment? There are 40,000 policemen in Scotland. They get about £300,000 a year. They are perfectly content with their wage, and the Local Authorities receive as many as 10 applications for every vacancy. The average wage is about 27s. a week, besides clothing, which is considerably more than the average wage of the working man, and yet in these circumstances we find the Government proposing to give £40,000, or £10 per man more. But it is not only the £40,000 that has to be considered. The £40,000 may have to be increased to £120,000, as the Home Secretary pointed out. The right hon. Gentleman has no interest whatever in magnifying the sum. In this case you have got selected lives, men who have been taken into the Force on account of their specially good constitutions. After 25 years' service these men are to enjoy pensions. Who are the policemen in Glasgow, for instance? They are the hardiest men in Scotland, and it is impossible to find a more healthy body of men anywhere. They are the very men who, retiring at 45 or 50 on pensions of 16s. a week, are very likely to live until they are even 90 years of age. Everyone knows that the longest lives are those of annuitants, and in this case we are dealing with selected lives. It must not be supposed that because a man in Scotland is 50 years he is not fit to be a policeman. It is not brute force that makes a man a good policeman; tact and discretion are of far more importance than brute force. Young and strong men are, no doubt, required in those parts of a city where rowdyism is rampant; but there are many opportunities of utilising the services of policemen advanced in years. I think the Government are making a great mistake in raising this question. The people of Scotland consider that the policemen in Scotland get an ample wage, far above what the ordinary working men get, that the wage is steady, and that the employment is comparatively light. They have, no doubt, to stand in the streets a considerable time, but the omnibus conductor is required to stand for long hours together. If you try to convert the police into a military Force, the result will be to destroy the friendly feeling which exists between the police and the

  539
  public in Scotland, and which distinguishes the case of the Scottish people from that of the English Metropolis. Of course, where you have a mere handful of police in proportion to the population, it would be utterly impossible to maintain law and order unless the police were supported by public opinion, and the more you endeavour to make the police a military body the more will you estrange them from the people. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan) that you must take the present pay of the police, and regard the superannuation as deferred pay, in order to arrive at the market value of the policeman. It has been shown that in Scotland the market value of the policeman at the present moment is exactly the pay he receives. There are a dozen applicants for every vacancy, and the men are all thoroughly efficient. There are no complaints of want of men or want of efficiency, and, this being so, no case is made out for introducing this superannuation proposal, except as an extra gratuity to the men. And I am quite certain that the people of Scotland will look very much askant at the proposal to set aside for superannuation purposes the large sum of £40,000 per annum, especially when that is coupled with the probability of its being increased by £80,000 at no very distant future, making a total of £120,000 a year as a superannuation provision for 4,000 policemen. It seems an extraordinary thing that the Government can provide £120,000 a year for police pensions, and yet be unable to devote the modest sum of £10,000 or £20,000 for the relief of those who are suffering from agricultural distress in Scotland.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR (Falkirk, &c.): In proposing to create a new fund for the purpose of giving a pension list to Scotland I think we ought to take great care that we should act upon sound principles. It seems to me that both in the English and Scotch measures the soundness of the principle on which the police pension fund is to be created is in considerable doubt. The fund is made up of contributions from different sources. One of those contributions comes from the police themselves. It is generally assumed that the deduction
  540
  from the pay of the police will be 2½ per cent, of their wages. This is in the nature of deferred pay, and to this is added contributions from other sources, including the £40,000 from the Imperial Exchequer. The policemen's contributions, being in the nature of deferred pay, ought to be obtainable by every policeman at the end of his period of service, under whatever circumstances he may leave the Force, even in the case of misconduct, which I put as a severe test. If the pension is derivable from funds of this character he has a right to his share in consideration of the contribution he has made. On the other hand, the pensions derivable from such a fund as the £40,000 payable from Imperial sources should be regarded as an act of grace and a reward for meritorious service. I think great difficulty will arise from the mixing up of those different cases of funds as the source from which the pension is derivable. It seems to me that much of the trouble arising in London and other places is due to the confusion of mind occasioned among the recipients of pensions as to the fund from which the pensions are obtained. In so far as the policeman's pension is derived from his own pay, or deferred pay, he has, in my opinion, an absolute and unalienable right to it, even, as I have said, in case of his dismissal for misconduct; and this ought not to be confused with any other sort of superannuation given as a reward for meritorious service. I trust that when the Bill is in Committee the question of the character of the fund will be carefully considered. Otherwise I am afraid it will be found, as has been stated by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), that abuses are always associated with pensions.
  MR. BRYCE: I think the date of this Bill shows that the Government have introduced it without due consideration. The origin of the Bill is by no means satisfactory, because the House has been asked in the first place to vote money, and then to pass a Bill to appropriate it to this purpose. It would have been far better if the Government had first asked the House to pass a Bill to provide for police superannuation, and then to vote the money necessary for carrying the

  541
  provisions of such a measure into effect. The Lord Advocate has observed that Scotch Members are in considerable doubt about this measure, and the reason of that is because the Local Authorities have not been able to express any opinion with regard to the superannuation of the police. Had there been any strong desire on the part of the Scotch Local Authorities in favour of this proposal, they would certainly have made their voices, heard. The hon. Member for Dundee has put the case very strongly against all superannuation, but I confess that I am not prepared to follow the hon. Member to that length. It has already been pointed out that superannuation, as far as it merely means deferred pay, involves no injustice to the working men. It is impossible to avoid superannuation in some form or other, and if it must exist it ought to be the subject of a certain system, so as to induce steady and respectable men to enter the Force, and insure that there should be no jobbery with regard to it. In these circumstances I confess that I do not see how hon. Members are to refuse to read the Bill a second time, unless they agree with the hon. Member for Dundee and object to the principle of superannuation altogether. If everybody can be heard in Committee who can represent the feelings and wishes of Scotland, I do not see that there is anything in the Bill so objectionable as to prevent us giving it a Second Reading. I, therefore, propose, and I believe it is the view of most of us who are discontented with the Bill, to support the Second Reading of the Bill, trusting that ample opportunity will be given in Committee to ascertain the wishes of Scotland.
  MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: I think the great majority of us are pretty much agreed on the principle of superannuation; but I must say I was a little alarmed when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Marjoribanks) suggested that the Committee should take evidence, and go into an elaborate inquiry, which might possibly have the effect of throwing this measure over to another Session. My right hon. Friend, when he began his remarks, attributed to the Government some sort of sudden inspiration in taking up this subject,
  542
  as if they were legislating in a new way. The genesis of this measure has not been in the minds of my hon. Friends opposite within the last few months. Again and again during the last 10 years I have heard proposals by Government after Government, to institute police superannuation for both the English and Scotch Forces. I come from the Borders, and I have heard it again and again alleged that constables are leaving the Scotch for the English Force, in which better terms exist as to superannuation. That is a state of things which requires to be remedied. My right hon. Friend spoke of aged policemen, as, on the whole, rather beneficial to & Force, as if they were the Nestors to their rural friends around them. I do not think that is the case. In Scotland, in the big towns especially, we want active, strong, energetic men. It is quite true that the police are a popular Force, especially in the part of Scotland from which I come, and I think we have a right to complain if the men are drawn away to the English Force by reason of the better terms which exist there. My hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Hunter) made some observations as to the forfeiture of deferred pay. My hon. and learned Friend said that we are treating those who are really members of the working classes in an unjust manner, not in the manner in which other members of the community would be treated. He said that forfeiture long ago was given up as a barbarous remedy, and he asked us not to act in that retrograde fashion. But in regard to the Army, Navy, and Civil Service, if my hon. and learned Friend will take the trouble to refer to the Act, he will find forfeiture of the pension is provided for in case of felony. This Bill acts in direct conformity with that principle, and we are only dealing with police pensioners as with any other pensioners in the Public Service. But the real question in connection with this Bill is whether or not we are making a very bad bargain, or, in fact, making a good, bargain. It is clear that we cannot properly thrash out that question here, and I believe the Committee will be able to go into the figures of the right hon. Gentleman (the Lord Advocate), and see whether they are right. I shall vote

  543
  in favour of the principle of superannuation, and I have no doubt the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire has raised, perhaps, the most tangible question. He has spoken of the Second Reading as a matter of course, as did the majority of hon. Members opposite who have addressed the House. Not more than two or three of the speeches were in a tone of inexorable hostility to the Bill, and to the principle of superannuation. The hon. and learned Member for Dundee spoke in a very stern tone, and the Motion of the hon. Member for Caithness is made in the same spirit. But beyond these objections, I am not aware that any voice has been raised to the progress of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire, as I said, raised the question of the constitution of the Select Committee. That Committee will, of course, be struck by the methods known to the House, and I have not the least doubt that on both sides of the House there will be a desire that there should be a preponderance of Scotch Members on the Committee, though, at the same time, there will be no wish to preclude either side of the House from putting upon the Committee any Members who have a special knowledge of the circumstances of the case. As to the number of the Committee, it will be something like 17.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: Twenty-one.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Well, these are matters which my hon. Friends are more conversant with than I am. As to the scope of the operations of the Committee, we come across some political phenomena which are worthy the attention of the House. Complaint is made that we do not know the feeling of Scotland. The hon. Member for St. Rollox uniformly uses the phrase, "The people of Scotland," but what are hon. Members from Scotland here for unless it be to represent "the people of Scotland?" The right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Bridgeton and Berwickshire, and other hon. Members, cannot escape their several responsibilities. I greatly deprecate the
  544
  suggestion that the Select Committee is to inquire into the feeling of Scotland, and if the opinion of every Local Authority were to be sought the inquiry would be extended far beyond the limits which would permit of the Bill being passed this Session. The scope of the inquiry will rather be directed to matters of technique, to questions of management of the Force, and to actuarial calculations. The hon. Member for Aberdeen has raised the question of actuarial calculations, and I am glad to find that he has not insuperable confidence in the figures which he has given, and that he takes them not from the point of view of his own authority, but rather as being for the Committee to examine. Then, I understood the hon. Member for East Aberdeen to say that £40,000 was more than sufficient for many years.
  *MR. ESSLEMONT: Without the other funds, I think it is sufficient provided the age is fixed at 55, not as the Bill now stands.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes, Sir; that is a satisfactory answer to the point I put to the hon. Gentleman. We have no intention of urging on the House the scale set out in the Schedule or the number of years service to be insisted on before a pension is granted. These are matters which must be considered with special reference to the general opinion of Scotland, and we hope to derive that opinion from the hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the Committee. I gather from my hon. Friends who sit behind me that they concur in the view that the figures in the Bill need not represent the ultimate decision of the Committee, but there are reasons for taking them as the maxima and minima. In the Committee there will, I hope, be a candid examination of the whole subject with the full assent of the Government. This, I think, affords a solution of some of the difficulties put forward by various hon. Members. The Committee will have an opportunity of examining the

  545
  actuarial calculations. I hope that I have made it plain that the desire of the Government is to pass the Bill during the present Session, and the Government will enter the Committee, not with the view of exploring all the regions of local opinion upon the subject; but, relying for Scotch opinion upon the members of the Committee, they hope that evidence will be taken only of that kind which will inform the Committee on technical matters, and that the rest of the work of the Committee will be in presenting its opinion to the House. I have no doubt we shall arrive, before the Session closes, at a happy conclusion, both for the police and for those whose interests are guarded by them.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling, &c.): I think that only a little more is wanted to make the understanding with regard to the Committee perfectly clear. We desire that this inquiry should be as complete as possible. There is no desire to go through the whole field of Scotch opinion, but it would not be at all unreasonable that a few typical Public Authorities—Clerks of Supply, Clerks of the Peace, Town Clerks, or others representing municipal authority in Scotland, and possibly some representative Chief Constables—should be brought before the Committee in order that our information may be complete. We have only had this Bill before us a week, and when we are taunted, as we have been, with confessing our ignorance of Scotch opinion upon it, the explanation is that the measure has so recently been laid before us that we have had no opportunity of ascertaining the views of the people of Scotland upon it. I trust that the evidence to be laid before the Committee on technical matters will include some proof of the basis of the actuarial calculation, because we all know that serious errors sometimes creep into
  546
  calculations of this kind. It must be borne in mind that this proposal is an entirely new departure in Scotland—new not only in the sense of its being a scheme for the general superannuation of the police, but a departure in that it is the first introduction of the principle of pensioning the servants of Local Authorities. I admit the proposal to refer the Bill to a Committee composed exclusively of Scotch Members is somewhat novel; but if that cannot be conceded, I hope the Committee will be so predominantly Scotch that there will be no apprehension on the part of the Scotch Members that their opinion will be overridden by their Colleagues of other nationalities.
  MR. WALLACE: I think that the Lord Advocate is perfectly correct in his reasoning when he assumes that if the Bill be referred to a Select Committee there is no meaning or propriety in the desire that that Committee should inquire into the feeling of the people of Scotland in regard to it. If the Bill is to be read a second time, then I assume that the principle of it is to be taken for granted, and it seems to me quite ridiculous to expect a Select Committee to address itself to the question of the feeling of the people of Scotland. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke, that this is practically a new question for Scotland. Certainly the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs denied that this Bill had been flashed on the country, because he said that in 1868, it was fully before the country. But may I remind the hon. Member that 1868 is a long time ago, and entirely a fresh class of voters has grown up, and is composed of men who know nothing of what was done in 1868?
  MR. SOMERVELL: I also stated that in 1883 a Bill was introduced in I the House of Lords on the subject.
  MR. WALLACE: I know the hon. Member mentioned what was done in 1883, but I am not aware that the public attention of Scotland was at the time

  547
  very much drawn to the subject. I repeat that the question of the superannuation of the police has not been prominently before the people of Scotland. I consider that the proper course for those who hold that this matter has not been sufficiently before the people of Scotland is to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness, as I propose to do if the hon. Member goes to a Division. The question has not been one of those which have been prominent as political questions in Scotland, and it is far too soon to call upon Scotch Representatives to carry out a mandate from their constituencies. For my own part, I have no mandate from mine, yes or no; and if I am compelled to come to a conclusion, it is that it is too soon to read this Bill a second time. I am simply in the position of desiring that the people of Scotland shall have more time to consider a question which has never really boon put before them up to this time.
  (11.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 226; Noes 51.—(Div. List, No. 171.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."—{The Lord Advocate.)
  *MR. D. CRAWFORD: I should like to ask whether the Committee will have power to send for persons, papers, and records?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have already mentioned that we propose that shall be within the scope of the inquiry.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I have an Amendment to the effect that the Committee shall be composed of the Members for all the Scotch constituencies, but I do not think it is suitable or desirable to detain the House now, and I believe I shall be equally in order in proposing my Amendment on the Motion for the nomination of the Committee.
  DR. CLARK: Will the hon. Member be in order then; will he not have to move alternative names?
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the nomination of the Committee is set down for the commencement of business the hon. Member will have considerable difficulty in moving an Amendment of that character.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Then I will move the Amendment of which I have given notice. I only wish to point out that a Motion similar to this was proposed at the beginning of the Session of 1889 with reference to a most important Scotch Bill; but that Motion was imperfect and incomplete, inasmuch as the terms of the Motion only proposed that the Committee should consist of a preponderating proportion of Scotch Members, admitting the presence of English Members. It is no secret that this was not what the Scotch Members desired. There was a meeting of Scotch Liberal Members, in which the proposal was unanimously supported that Scotch Bills should be referred to Committees composed of all the Scotch Members; but in deference to the views of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench, the Motion was altered and submitted in a mutilated form. Now, I propose to renew the Motion which in 1889 received the support of the whole Scotch Liberal Party. At this stage I will not trouble the House with argument in support of my proposition, but there is one point I must advert to. English Members have been very much blamed because they have voted down the majority of Scotch Members on Scotch questions, but I have always thought there was a fallacy in the complaint. English Members are called upon to express an opinion by going into the Lobby, and they are condemned because they voted against the Scotch majority, which, however, cannot be known until the Division is declared. I

  549
  have always thought there was something unfair in the complaint. But I do think the House ought, in reference to a Scotch Bill, to inform itself as to Scotch opinion, and should respect that opinion. This Bill is exclusively Scotch in its subject. Hardly an English Member has considered it worth his while to occupy a seat on the opposite Benches throughout the discussion. I am sure there is no English Member who on this subject would not respect the opinion of the Scotch majority—and I offer them the opportunity of informing themselves of what Scotch opinion really is by referring the Bill to a Committee composed of all the Scotch Members. I appeal to our leaders on the Front Bench to withdraw the ban they placed on this proposal 18 months ago, and allow us to go to a Division on the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words "consisting of all Members representing Scottish constituencies."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson).
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: My hon. and learned Friend has not exactly stated what took place in regard to the proposal for Committee on the Local Government Bill for Scotland. The proposal made in the House was not to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but to a Grand Committee; and the proposal was, I think, that the Committee should consist of all the Scotch Members, with 40 Members added.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: That was the proposal in the House. I was referring to a proposal in the meeting of Scotch Liberal Members upstairs which was received, if not unanimously, nearly so, that it should be an exclusively Scotch Committee.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I will not discuss what took place at a private meeting of Scotch Members, but I may say that the question of a Select Committee was not raised; what was referred to was a Grand Committee to take the place of Committee of the whole House and
  550
  totally different from the position of a Select Committee, which, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, docs not take the place of Committee of the whole House. Therefore, I think my hon. and learned Friend stands on firmer ground in moving that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee representing all Scotch constituencies, because the House itself does not forego one of its stages, and any alterations made by the Select Committee will be subject to the revision of the House in Committee. The proposal of my hon. and learned Friend is open to far fewer objections than the proposal of last Session; he stands on firmer ground, and ought to receive far more general support from all sections of the House. For my own part, I trust the Government will assent to the proposal, and I shall support it.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I may say at once we cannot accept this proposal. When the subject was alluded to in a somewhat incidental and cavalier way earlier in the discussion, it was waived aside by a right hon. Gentleman opposite as an impractical suggestion, to be mentioned only to be discarded. I can only say, as I have said formerly, that all the reasons which animate the conduct of business in this House are arguments against the proposal. What would the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire say if, on an English question, it were proposed that the Committee should consist entirely of English Members? Would he consent on a question of general political and administrative importance such as this to have the matter determined upon by English Members alone? If he did ho would receive more than the measured degree of condemnation this Motion received from his Colleague earlier in the evening, and would stand alone—
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: The right hon. Gentleman has put a question directly to me, and perhaps he will allow me to answer it directly by saying that if it were a measure referring as entirely and completely to English interests and English money as this Bill refers

  551
  entirely and completely to Scotch interests, all I can say is, that I should be only too glad that English Members alone should deal with it.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes; but there would, I imagine, be near the right hon. Gentleman those with subtle minds to discover fine distinctions, who would show that the measure was not so completely and peculiarly English as at first sight it seemed to be. It has been evidenced during the previous Debate that the House is desirous of approaching this subject as a matter of business, and I can only suppose that this Motion is made for some collateral purpose, but not directly concerned in a settlement of the question of the superannuation of the police. We are anxious to carry the Bill to a successful issue, and cannot accept the Amendment.
  MR. HUNTER: I desire to point out that when the Bill comes back from the Select Committee it would have to go through a Committee of the whole House, when Scotch Members who were not on the Select Committee will be fully entitled to take advantage of their position to criticise the Bill. To assent to the Motion would be to obliterate one of the most difficult stages of the Bill and hasten its progress. I would seem that the Lord Advocate does not really desire to pass this Session the Bill which the Government have flourished in the eyes of some 4,000 police.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I regret very much that the Lord Advocate should have adopted such an aggressive tone towards this proposal. I may remind the House that if the proposal were accepted, it would not be following an entirely unprecedented course. In the Committee on the Burgh Police Bill of 1888, of the 24 Members, there were only two or three who represented English constituencies, and these were nominated for form sake merely, and did not attend more than once during the whole two months the Committee sat. I do not think the Lord Advocate is entitled to oppose the general wishes of the Scotch Members. I supported the Second Reading of the Bill, although there is much in it open to criticism. As a matter of fact, the Bill is drawn too
  552
  much on English lines, and needs adapting to the circumstances of Scotland. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he is really desirous of expediting business, the right method of doing so is not by imputing motives and making offensive insinuations, but by complying with the reasonable proposals and wishes of the Scotch Members.
  (11.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 185.—(Div. List, No. 172.)
  Main Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."
  MR. HUNTER: On this question I would ask the Government to agree to a Motion to adjourn the Debate—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  It being after Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

  ORDER OF PROCEDURE.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to explain to the House that this being a private Members' night, Motions ought to have been put down on the Paper before the Orders of the Day other than Government Orders. In future, while the Resolution of the House allowing Government Orders to be taken on Tuesday before other business remains in force, I propose to give directions that Notices of Motion shall be printed on the Order Paper after the Government Orders and before those of private Members.
MOTION.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT (CHRIST'S HOSPITAL).
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I rise to move—
  "That an humble address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from the Scheme of the Charity Commission now before the House for the administration of the foundation commonly called Christ's Hospital."
  I am aware that an hon. Member who

  553
  brings forward a Motion of this kind after 12 o'clock at night is voted a great nuisance. ["Hear, hear!"] I listen to those cheers, and I confess, if I may say so without impertinence, that they do not raise my opinion of the Members who utter them. Last night we had four Divisions—caused by the tactics of hon. Gentleman on the other side—between 12 and 1 o'clock, and on other occasions the House gives hours at this period of the night to the discussion of personal matters; but when it is a case of a public charity which has been conducted for 350 years in a manner that gives satisfaction to those who receive benefit from it, and against the administration of which very little has been alleged and scarcely anything proved, and when the law says that no charity scheme shall become law until it has laid on the Table of the House for two months, so that it shall be open to any hon. Member who may wish to do so to object to it, if a Member, in the conscientious discharge of his duty, brings forward, at the only time open to him, a Motion to protect the rights of the public and of his own constituency, and asks the House to consider whether the scheme is a good one or not, he is considered conceited, and a nuisance, and a bore. The period at which I bring on this question is the only period open to me for the purpose. In as few words as I can I will explain the matter, and I hope I may be successful in showing to those who have not studied the scheme that there is a good deal to be said against it, and that it would be well to send it back to the Endowed School Commissioners for re-consideration. I do not mean to say that the scheme contains no good points. It certainly contains one good point, though that is open to argument on the other side—the proposal that the site of Christ's Hospital in Newgate Street, consisting of five
  554
  acres, which is supposed to be worth half a million of money, shall be sold and the hospital removed into the country at a short distance from London. But that is not a necessary part of the scheme, and might be carried out apart from it, and without the drastic changes in the constitution of the charity which the scheme proposes. When I look for the reasons put forward for adopting the scheme I find them in two papers. One is issued by the Endowed Commissioners themselves, and, very unfairly, this paper has not been sent to Members of the House generally, but only to those who are believed to be favourable to the scheme. The other paper is put forth anonymously, and I am not surprised at this, because it contains libels upon myself and the present Governors, unjustly accusing them of jobbery. First, we are told that the scheme is the result of 12 years' work, which will be wasted if it be rejected. My reply is, that 12 years is nothing in the life of a charity born 350 years ago. Sat cito, si sat bene. If the scheme has the faults which I believe it has it would be better to send it back to the Commissioners to be amended. We are told that it is accepted by the Governors. It is true that they have accepted it, but they have only accepted it because they are told that if they do not they will get a worse one some day from a Radical Government—and this is a reason why I might appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I will not do so as I desire to see this question dealt with on its merits. Then it is also said that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has passed the scheme. No doubt they have, but they look at the matter from a legal point of view, while I and others look at the question from a broader standpoint; we viewed it as a matter affecting the whole charity, and indeed the whole country. It is further said that the President of the Council and the Government have adopted the scheme. But this is not a Government scheme. It is proposed by

  555
  a body outside the Government, and the mere fact that the President of the Council had to sign it ministerially—
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, no.
  *MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: That does not seem to me a reason why the scheme should be adopted. This is rather like a private Member's Bill, which Her Majesty's Government regard with benevolent neutrality, but did not introduce as their own. It is the scheme of the Endowment Commissioners. Then we are told that the Royal Commission of 1877 reported against the present hospital system, and that, therefore, it is necessary to have this radical scheme. But the removal of the school could take place without the scheme. The removal of the school was brought before the Governors some years ago, and the question was lost by a majority of 14. The Royal Commission of 1877 reported that all the defects in the management complained of would disappear under an able and judicious headmaster of the school if it were removed to a spacious site in the country. But that suggestion did not carry with it all the other changes which this scheme recommends. I do not think, therefore, that there is much in that objection; because the evils, owing to the division of government out of school hours between the Headmaster and the Warden, have been cured by the action of the present body. Moreover, no general reason is shown for the scheme, and no jobbery whatever has been proved in any way. Who has ventured to say that the Governors have been guilty of jobbery in the exercise of their patronage? The School Board of London, in 1883, went into the whole question with the view of seeing who had been admitted to the school. They found that during the then last three years 515 children had been admitted, and of those 60 were the orphans of professional
  556
  men and officers 132 were the children of professional men and officers, 84 the orphans of tradesmen and clerks, 209 the children of tradesmen and clerks, and 30 were children taken from a lower rank of life. They also found that the average income was very small indeed, that only one parent had an income of £400 and under £500, and this was the case of the widow of an officer with six children. I doubt very much, therefore, whether we could improve upon such nomination under the present scheme. But the present scheme introduces a totally different mode in regard to the larger proportion of children filling up the vacancies. It proposes that the 1,200 should be reduced to 1,170, that out of this number 503 should be filled up by nomination and the remainder by competitive examination. Personally, I believe that there is scarcely any worse way of filling up vacancies in a charity of this kind than by competitive examination between young boys and girls of 13. The result too often is to bring forward children who are crammed; cramming means good coaching; and that means expense, and so, as at Eton, the children gain the scholarships whose parents least want the help. I admit that clever children should have an opportunity of rising; but I know that under the present system the Governors have taken pains to send in children who will be a credit. The Governors have appointed in many cases the children of poor parents whom they know personally, and it frequently happens that children without any knowledge of a Governor at all, but simply because they make out a strong case, have obtained presentations from perfect strangers. I have done that myself as a Governor, and I know that in this way deserving children do get admission to the school under the present system, but when admission is to be by competitive examination matters will be altered. I greatly fear the result of the present

  557
  scheme will be that there will be no new donation Governors, and that the school will sustain a loss of £5,000 or £6,000 a year from not getting their contributions. I ought here to explain to the House that the scheme is divided into two parts. At present there is a hospital for 1,200 boys and girls. The London School Board passed a resolution some time ago, by a majority of two to one, against the day school scheme, and proposed instead that the number of children in the hospital should be increased to 2,000. By this present scheme the number in the hospital is to be reduced gradually to 1,000, and two great day schools are to be set up—a boys' school and a girls' school. The day schools are to be entirely for the benefit of London, and unless children reside in London with their parents or near relatives, they are not to be admitted into either of them. Now, 179 of the appointments are to be competed for by children who attend public elementary schools in London. I should be the last man in the world to say a word against holding out the right hand of fellowship to the elementary schools; but I maintain that in the case of children living with their parents and near relatives in London, and whom it is desired to pass on to receive the benefits of the institutions, they ought to be sent to the day schools, and not at double cost to the hospital. At the present time the proportion of children from the lower ranks of life who are in the hospital is comparatively small, but it is proposed to increase that number to about one-third. We know perfectly well that these children have a very bad time of it. A number of them, who come from Berkshire, are called "the Newbury blackguards," and have a very bad time indeed. It seems to me to be by no means clear that professional men, officers, and men distinguished in science, will approve of the close relationship, in dormitories and otherwise, of their children in the proportion I have mentioned with children of the lower ranks of life, who have not unlearnt the habits of their class. That is a consideration which I am aware has great weight in the quarters referred to, and it constitutes a not unreasonable objection. We
  558
  are now, for the first time, going to introduce a system both in the boarding school and in the day school of some of the children paying and others not paying, and that seems an objectionable feature in connection with a school of this kind, because it will produce invidious distinctions between the boys themselves, and tend to upset the good working of the school. It may affect the feelings of the masters; and it will affect the feelings of the boys towards each other. You will have not only an investigation as to whether the parents can afford to send their children to an ordinary school or not, but an investigation into the comparative means of the parents. The greater part of the income of the masters is to be derived from capitation fees, and it will, therefore, be to the interest of the masters to lay themselves out for the benefit of the paying children at the expense of the rest. Again, under the existing system, which has worked well for over 300 years, the benefits go equally to the whole of England and Wales, but under the new scheme the advantage of the day schools, and of, at least, 179 berths in the Hospital, will be confined to the Metropolis, which will also get its share of the other berths, and the result will be that London, which is only entitled to share equally with the whole country, will get two-thirds of the benefit of a charity which was meant for all. This may please the Metropolitan Members, but it ought not to please the Irish or the Scotch Members, or the Representatives of English constituencies generally. I am sorry I have taken up so much of the time of the House. I have tried not to try the patience of hon. Members; and I think I have shown that there is, at all events, something in my objections to the scheme, and that they are not based on the vested rights of the Governors, about which I have said nothing. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the Scheme of the Charity Commission now before the House for the administration of the foundation commonly called Christ's Hospital."—(Mr Sydney Gedge.)
  SIR R. FOWLER: I beg to second the Motion, and I do so because I think that by agreeing to this scheme we shall kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Governors now pay £500 on their appointment, and they enjoy the privilege of a nomination every four years. The scheme will reduce that by one every six years, and the result will be that gentlemen will think twice before paying money to become Governors. The hospital will be so much the poorer, and it is already in some difficulty owing to the depreciation of its landed property. The liberality of people is likely to be materially checked by the scheme, and on that ground I second the Motion.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I do not think the House will complain that this question has been brought before it. Of course, the endowment dealt with by the scheme is a very large one. The interests affected being so extensive, it is right that the House should consider a scheme for the alteration of the destination of the endowments before it is allowed to pass into law. At the same time, I think the House would have grievous cause of complaint if the Motion of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) were agreed to. This matter has occupied the attention of the Governors of the hospital and of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for some 12 years. Numerous investigations have been made into the circumstances of Christ's Hospital, and the scheme of the Commissioners now before the House embodies the chief points which have been recommended by all the Committees and Royal Commissions that have inquired into the matter. The hon. Member for Stockport has advanced two arguments which, I think, are mutually destructive. First of all, he said that no scheme was wanted, and that it was
  560
  only necessary to remove the hospital into the country; and subsequently he urged the House to reject the present scheme, in order that a thoroughly good scheme might be introduced at a future time. The scheme has been accepted substantially by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, after an investigation extending over five days, and since that acceptance the Governors, as a body, have not done anything in opposition to it. Therefore, the scheme comes practically before the House as a arrangement assented to by all Parties. The hon. Member for Stockport has based his opposition to the scheme chiefly on the ground that patronage has produced very admirable results in the past. In reply to that, it will be sufficient to point to the recommendations of the Schools Inquiry Commission and the Education Commissioners against the continuance of the system of patronage. The Schools Inquiry Commission reported strongly against it in these words—
  "We should wish to fill the school with scholars selected by competitive examination from all public schools of the 3rd Grade in England and Wales."
  The Education Commission reported as follows:—
  "We have only to recommend that it, benefits should be bestowed, not by patronages but, as far as possible, by merit."
  I think these two Reports are a sufficient answer to the hon. Member's argument. If any further answer be required I may say this: The patronage Governors, under the existing system, give £500 each to the funds of the hospital, and are entitled to nominate children in turn. An actuarial calculation was made by the Schools Inquiry Commission, and it has been found that in return for his contribution of £500 a donation Governor receives back, in the space of 12 years, nearly £1,000 worth of patronage. I believe the actual amount is £913.
  *MR SYDNEY GEDGE: How does he get it back?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: By the education of the children whom he nominates to the hospital. Another point the hon. Member made was that too much benefit is going to be given to London and too little to the country. If we remember the origin of the foundation, and bear in mind that part of the site upon which the hospital now stands was the original site given to the institution in the time of Edward VI., and recollect the close connection that has always existed between the Corporation of London and the management of the hospital, and the many endowments given to it by Londoners, I think it may very fairly be held that London has a large claim to share in the benefits of the institution. The Schools Inquiry Commission reported that the benefits of Christ's Hospital have never been confined to London, but that Londoners may fairly claim a share,' and a very substantial share, in this splendid endowment. The Educational Commissioners in like manner reported—
  "There can be little doubt that the benefit of London was the primary object of the founder, and of a long series of civic benefactors."
  At present the places for London boys are limited to 49; under the scheme they will be increased to 179, and in addition there will be the day schools, accommodating 1,000 London children. I have had a calculation made, and I find that London will get the benefit of about half of the total income of the hospital. It is true that the Charity Commissioners are responsible for this scheme, but the Government are primarily responsible. As the hon. Member no doubt knows, these schemes have all to go before the Education Department. They are thoroughly sifted by the Education Department, and if the Department chooses to approve of
  562
  them they become responsible for them. I think the House will hesitate long before it rejects this scheme and denies to London and to the children generally the great advantage which the schema may "fairly be said to offer.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think the House generally will agree with my hon. Friend who so well represents the Charity Commissioners in this House, that there has been far too much delay already in respect to this scheme, and will not agree with the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) that further delay will be advantageous. I do not say that we on this side of the House agree with every single point in connection with the scheme, but we are obliged to recognise that this is a very large and far-reaching scheme. The hon. Member for Stockport laid great stress on the fact that nominations are to go by competition, and he said that competition would do harm, because the right class of children would not compete to enter the hospital. I think the House ought to remember that the one necessary qualification for every child entering the hospital is under the principal Act that his parents shall be in such a state of poverty that it is essential for him, in order to obtain education, to get into the hospital. Finally, I must enter one protest against the remark of the hon. Member—that this scheme will knit together the different classes in the school, and in that way be pernicious. I think that is one of the best points in the scheme. I am very glad that it recognises that this hospital is intended for the different classes of the community so long as they have the common bond of poverty, and that we shall obtain, as we have obtained in many other parts of our educational system, that which is of great value, namely, a true mixture of classes; that we shall, by means of

  563
  competition, give the opportunity to the best children to obtain this valuable education, and to rise to better things. I trust the House will accept the scheme as it stands.
  MR. S. HOARE: As a member of the Governing Body of Guy's Hospital, I desire to say that the Governors, as a Body, have one great objection to this scheme. We believe that by this scheme that great hospital, in which I am sure many in the House are deeply interested, will suffer a loss of the sum of £400 a year. I am not, however, prepared to vote against this scheme. The Governors of Guy's Hospital feel that Christ's Hospital is one of the great institutions of London, and we are anxious not to do anything which may prevent the scheme being carried through. We feel that to increase the number of children who will get the benefits of that hospital to 2,200—nearly double the present number—will be such a great advantage to London that we cannot take upon ourselves the responsibility of opposing the scheme.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Prom a hygienic point of view, I must give a most uncompromising opposition to the Motion. Every school is much better carried on in the country than in a town. There is batter accommodation, and the children are healthier. Of this, I cannot produce better evidence than that afforded by the Charter House, which a few years ago was moved to the country, which since has taken a fresh lease of life, and which now is one of the best, healthiest, and most progressive schools in England.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT or THE COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir W. HART DYKE): As this is the second occasion on which a discussion has taken place on this scheme in the House I shall be pardoned
  564
  if I refrain from entering into the details of it. I can assure my hon. Friend that I take no objection whatever to the manner or matter of his speech, still less to his bringing forward a matter of this importance. No more difficult matter than this scheme has occupied the attention of the Lord President and myself. When this scheme came before the Department in 1888 some opposition was offered to it by the Governing Body, but its educational advantages weighed so heavily in the balance that the Lord President and myself expressed our approval of it. But the House is now in a different position. Since that time an appeal has been made to the Privy Council, and that body has given a decision in favour of the scheme. Therefore, the House has to-night only to decide on the educational advantages of the scheme as it stands, and I feel sure that the House will endorse this excellent scheme.
  Question put, and negatived.

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT (1862) AMENDMENT (RECOMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 357.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACT, 1883.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Report by the Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland), respecting the works executed under 'The Sea Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1883,' (46and 47 Vic. c. 26)."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 276.]

  TRUSTEES APPOINTMENT BILL [LORDS].
  Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 364.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GLASGOW POLICE BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    EARL WEMYSS: My Lords, before this Bill is read a second time, I wish to call the attention of my noble Friend to a point which has been brought under my notice by persons who are interested in house property in Glasgow. It appears that by the Bill, as it at present stands, the Town Councils are empowered to shut up houses which they consider in an unfit state for habitation with an appeal only to the Sheriff; whereas, in the Public Health and Police Act for Scotland, there is an appeal to the Supreme Court, and in the Dundee Police Act there is also an appeal to the Supreme Court. Three successive Parliaments have approved of the principle which is embodied in the General Act to which I have referred, of an appeal lying to the Supreme Court. My Lords, it is not with the view at all of opposing this Bill that I venture to say these few words, but simply with the view of calling the attention of the noble Lord to this point, and I hope it will be well considered in Committee.
    THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I will see that the attention of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees is called to this point when ho returns. I understand that the noble Lord does not object now to the Second Reading of this Bill?
    EARL WEMYSS: No.
    Bill read 2a and committed.

    PARTNERSHIP BILL.—(No. 25.)
    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 Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 153.)
    DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL. (No. 106.)
    Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., with an amendment: The Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
    INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION BILL.—(No. 117.)
    Reported from the Standing Commiteee for General Bills, with amendments: The Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 10th of July; and to be printed as amended. (No. 154.)
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF) BILL.
    A Bill to make better provision for the elementary education of blind and deaf children in England and Wales—Was presented by the Lord President (V. Cranbrook); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 155.)
    REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (BOROUGH OF BELFAST) BILL.—(No. 91.)
    Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
    ANGLESEY ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS BILL.—(No. 125.)
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
SHERIFFS (ASSIZES EXPENSES) BILL. (No. 135.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill, which I am going to ask your Lordships to read a second time, deals with one point only—the expenses of High Sheriffs in connection with the Assizes. It is not, and does not pretend to be, a Bill dealing comprehensively with the whole question of the office of High Sheriff; and the reason why I have only introduced a limited Bill is because I think the general question of the office of High Sheriff is rather a question which ought to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government than by a

  419
  private Member of your Lordships' House. Now, this Bill deals, as I have said, with one point—a very important point, indeed, but with one point only—and if no opposition had been proposed to be offered to the Bill, it would have been necessary for me to say but a very few words to your Lordships in explanation; but as there is a Motion that it should be read a second time this day six months, I think it will be convenient to your Lordships if I very shortly remind you of what has passed in the way of inquiry and otherwise lately with reference to the office of High Sheriff. Two years ago your Lordships, on my Motion, granted a Committee to inquire into the office and duties of High Sheriffs. It was notorious, and had been notorious for a long time, that great anomalies existed both in the manner in which High Sheriffs were selected and in many of the duties which they were called upon to perform. The Chairman of that Committee was Lord Cranbrook, the Lord President of the Council, and there sat on the Committee several Members of your Lordships' House, who were very familiar with all matters of county business, more than one of whom had themselves served the office of High Sheriff, and the Lord Chief Justice of England was also a member of the Committee. The Report and the evidence were in due course laid upon the Table of the House, where any of your Lordships who wish can refer to them; but I will, merely say, generally, that all the evidence tended in one direction; that upon the consideration of the Report the Committee was unanimous, and that the Report was signed by every member of the Committee. Now, my Lords, to put in a very few words the substance of our recommendations. We recommended that the High Sheriff should be relieved from all obligations in connection with legal duties and legal business which are in practice discharged by the Under Sheriff; we recommended that he should be relieved from all responsibility for executions; that there should be a Returning Officer appointed to make the Returns to Parliamentary and Coroners' elections; and we also recommended that the position of the Under Sheriff should be clearly defined, and that he should in future be a permanent salaried officer of
  420
  the County Councils. Those, in short, were the recommendations; and I hoped that the Government might find themselves able soon to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole of our Report. I have once or twice received answers which were favourable from the learned Lord on the Woolsack; but as time went on, the answers became, I regret to say, less favourable; and as time was slipping away, I thought, on the whole, that it would be better if I were to introduce a Bill treating only that part of the question which touches the High Sheriff himself most nearly—I mean the question of the expenses which he is compelled to incur at the Assizes. Now, my Lords, this Bill, as I have said, is a Bill of very limited scope, and I ought here to express my acknowledgment to Lord Thring for his very kind assistance in drafting it; for if I had not had the advantage of the assistance of his great acquaintance with the law relating to High Sheriffs, I should not have been able, at this late period of the Session, to have laid a Bill upon the Table of this House. Now, my Lords, let us come to the Bill. The Bill proposes that the Joint Committee of the County Council, and the Justices of the Peace in every county in England and Wales, and the Grand Jury in each county in Ireland shall, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, make regulations as to the mode in which the Judges are to be received at the Assizes in the respective counties. Therefore, the first proposal that I make is that regulations shall be laid down as to the manner in which Her Majesty's Judges are to be received at Assizes in future; and I would point out to your Lordships that this is recommended, in the first instance, by the witnesses. Sir Offley Wakeman, a very important witness indeed from Shropshire, and who had himself served as High Sheriff, told us it was very desirable, he thought, that some regulations should be laid down. In the Report your Lordships will see that we ourselves went so far as to recommend certain definite regulations. We said—
  "We are of opinion that the county official bearing the title of High Sheriff should receive the Judges on circuit, and discharge the duties with regard to the Grand Jury and other honorary duties as at present; we recommend that he should be appointed as his her to, but we

  421
  are of opinion that all the expenses of the office should be paid by the Treasury and the county jointly, including the expense of one well-appointed carriage with a pair of horses to convey the Judge on his business, and that trumpeters, javelin-men, and so on, be discontinued."
  That is our recommendation. But it may be necessary that different regulations should be made for different counties, and I have therefore thought it best to include in this Bill the provision that the regulations should be made by the Joint Committee of the County Council and the Justices of the Peace, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. My Lords, the reason why I have selected the Joint Committee of the County Council to act with the Justices of the Peace is because that Committee at the present time has the general charge and management of the police. If it had not been for this, I should not myself have proposed to place a duty of this sort in the hands of the General Committee, but rather in the hands of the County Council; but after consultation with those who are familiar with the working of County Councils, though it may be thought by others a matter of argument whether the Joint Committee is the right body, I think, on the whole, it is right to propose, in the first instance, that this duty should devolve upon the Joint Committee. When those regulations are made they are to be submitted to the Lord Chancellor for his concurrence, and the reason for that is that nothing may be done to diminish or interfere with the proper and dignified reception of Her Majesty's Judges. The Lord Chancellor, as the head of the law, will, of course, take every care that the regulations that are proposed by the Joint Committee shall be such as are fitting and proper. Now, the reason for proposing the regulations at all is this: that at the present time a High Sheriff has no guidance whatsoever as to the practice he ought to follow in receiving the Judges or doing anything else at the Assizes. There is no one to advise him in the matter at all, with the exception of the Under Sheriff. On the other hand, the Under Sheriff is practically a permanent officer, and, of course, it is a matter of very little concern to him what is or is not done, at all events,
  422
  from the point of view of the expenditure, since all the expenses fall upon the Sheriff; and as many of your Lordships no doubt know, and you will find it was mentioned by the witnesses in evidence when any particular expenditure is proposed, and when the Sheriff is in doubt, the answer made to him is, "Oh, your predecessor did it, and, therefore, you ought to do it," and the consequence is, that whether it is right or not, the High Sheriff is naturally unwilling to appear to be stingy, and though he may not be by any means a rich man, many things in that way fall upon him which, if proper regulations were made, might possibly not devolve upon him. If regulations are made, a High Sheriff will have this advantage: that he can point to them, and he will know exactly what he ought to do. Of course, there is no reason why, if the High Sheriff wishes to spend more, and if he wishes to entertain, or do things of that sort, he should not do so. It will be at his discretion to do it; of course, that would be an expense properly falling upon himself, and would be properly borne by him. Your Lordships will remember that everyone who is pricked to act as High Sheriff is compelled to serve, and, therefore, if an honorary duty of this kind is thrust upon them, whether they wish it or whether they do not, surely, Parliament ought to lay down some regulations showing what they ought to do, and beyond the limits of which they ought not to be compelled to go. I do not think I need detain your Lordships at present, at all events, by making any further remarks, except this: that I do not know what smaller measure than this could possibly be proposed if we are to do anything at all in the way of defining what the expenses incurred by a High Sheriff are to be. I would ask your Lordships, can any measure more moderate than this be proposed? Certainly, the Members of the Committee, as I have shown your Lordships, all signed a Report, laying down certain definite recommendations; and until I have heard the reasons which may be given for proposing the rejection of this Bill, I should prefer to defer making any further remarks for my reply. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships any further now, and I will merely move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2."—(The Earl of Camper down.)
  *LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I am sorry to be obliged to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The noble Earl has very properly described it as a very small one, dealing with a very small portion of the office of High Sheriff. It seems to me that this Bill, is strictly speaking, a Bill that ought not to have been introduced in your Lordships' House. It is a Bill which certainly, as to the 2nd and the conclusion of the 3rd clause, ought to have been dealt with, first of all, by the House of Commons, because, as I understand, it is an attempt to impose charges on the rates; not because it affects any question of administration, which, as I understand, has always been a matter within your Lordships' thorough cognisance and jurisdiction, but because it deals with the whole of the county rates throughout England and Wales, and is really, therefore, as far as England and Wales is concerned, dealing with the subject of taxation. It is, therefore, a Bill which, in the main substance of it, ought to have been introduced into the House of Commons and not here. However, that, I suppose, can be got rid of by striking out the 2nd clause, and altering the conclusion of the 3rd clause so as to make it a Bill within your Lord-ships' jurisdiction. That might be done, and I rather gathered from the speech of the noble Earl that he proposed to do that; that he did not propose, as I gathered, to submit the Bill in its present form to your Lordships to-night. But that leaves only part of the 3rd clause. That will be really the whole of the Bill then left, and it is the 3rd clause to which, with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I entertain great objection. The provision is that the expenses and so forth, which are incurred in the reception of the Judges at Assizes, shall be determined between the Joint Committee of the County Council and the Justices of the Peace in England and Wales, and the Grand Jury in Ireland, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, and those authorities shall make regulations for the different counties in England which are to be observed, so that whatever a gentleman occupying the office of High Sheriff
  424
  might do either in excess or diminution of those regulations, he would be guilty of a breach of the Act of Parliament if he did not observe the regulations which are laid down. First of all, I venture to submit that the persons who have to-pay—that is, the County Council and the Justices, for the entertainment or reception of the Judges, are not the proper persons to make regulations for the expenses so incurred. Certainly they ought not to make them without some consultation with the persons who are most interested in the result of those regulations, and it would, I think, only be respectful to the Judges that they should be consulted. As long as you choose to maintain an Imperial system, as long as Judges arc to be treated with dignity, and as long as a certain amount of ceremony is to be maintained, which certainly, to some minds, may seem excessive, though the custom has come down from time immemorial, as long as that is kept up I must say that I think it would only be decent and respectful to them that they should be consulted as to how they should be entertained in the counties to which they go. It is provided that this is not to be done except with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. About that I shall say a few words by-and-bye. But I would particularly desire to point out this—there is nothing in the slightest degree to provide that those regulations, are to be the same. They cannot be the same in the different counties. What might be considered very fit and proper for large counties, such as Yorkshire or Lincolnshire, might be thought very unfit for Rutland or other small counties. There is no provision in this-Bill for laying down lines, nor is there any suggestion of the lines which the County Council, the Justices of the Peace, and the Lord Chancellor should follow in making those regulations and ascertaining the sort of reception which the Judges should be entitled to. And, more than that, I am perfectly aware that in former days things have been done by Sheriffs to Judges and by Judges to Sheriffs which, for my own part, I would not in the least defend. Many things have been done, I think, in forget-fullness of the relative positions of the High Sheriff and the Judge which may very likely have caused annoyance in the

  425
  minds of the persons who have been subjected, to them, and I should say very just annoyance. But all that was long ago. For my own part, I have been nearly 17 years upon the Bench, and during the whole time I have been a Judge I have never once—not once—had the smallest difficulty or trouble with any Sheriff with whom I have been brought in contact. They have always treated me, and I have certainly always tried to treat them, as gentlemen, and there has never been, as far as I know, the slightest desire expressed that there should be any regulation in the matter other than the regulation that decent provision should be made for the Judges in taking us to church and conducting us to our Courts. As far as I know, the expenses connected with Assizes which have to be incurred by the Sheriffs are necessarily small. A carriage and pair, which is all that is necessary, is all that a Sheriff is expected to provide, and the cost of that equipage in a small Assize town, where prices, I suppose, would not be very high, would not be a very heavy infliction; and I do not myself see what cause there is for interfering with that expense. At the same time, I can quite understand that, whatever the expense may be in the present state of the landed and agricultural interests, that the incidental expenses which have fallen upon Sheriffs, if even of very moderate amount, might sometimes be heavy for them to bear. Then, if it be said that the Judges should not be received by the Sheriffs at all, but that they should be provided for in some other way, or not at all, as is the case in America, I do not now say anything about. If that be thought right, let it be done by authority. But let us see, if regulations are to be made, that throughout England and Wales they are the same, and that the reception of the Judges is the same. Now, I said I would say a word or two about the Lord Chancellor as an official. These regulations, if they are passed, are to be passed with his concurrence. Of course, the Lord Chancellor is a great legal official of the country, and, if my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack will allow me to say so, he is well acquainted with the subject; and if he should be succeeded by my noble Friend Lord Herschell, who also was a Common Lawyer, he, too, knows
  426
  all about the circuits. If that were to be always the case that the Lord Chancellor should be familiar with these matters, I should not have a word to say. But during the time I have been on the Bench, I have known the office of Lord Chancellor to be occasionally filled by very great men and very great lawyers, who—speaking with all respect of them—knew no more about the circuits, or about the course of business or life on circuit, than any one of your Lordships who have never troubled your heads about them. I remember one of the greatest Law Lords, Lord Cairns. We used to have talks about those matters, and I think his views of the circuits were entirely misconceived. He apparently thought we went there, not to do much work, but to eat and drink, and to eat and drink to excess, and that the whole system was a system of guzzling, which it was high time should be put an end to. He used to speak in that manner and to that end. I am sure there was no man whom. I admired more than Lord Cairns. He was a great lawyer, and within his sphere a great man; but he did not know the subject, and I do not think a man who is not acquainted with a subject is a fit person to lay down regulations about it. I have mentioned Lord Cairns' view of these circuit matters because, really, he had no information and no knowledge at all about them. I rather object, therefore, that in an Act of Parliament which is fixing, not upon this man or that man, but upon whoever may fill an office which may be held at one time by a person who is thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and at another time by a person who is unacquainted with it, the only check which the Judges can have upon the propriety of the regulations, is to be an officer who may be fit or unfit to check them—unfit from no fault of his own, but because his professional life may have been otherwise cast. Further, I think, if I may be pardoned for saying so, and if the noble Earl will forgive mo, this is an instance of one of those small bits of legislation which would be much better left alone. Nobody, as far as I know, who are conversant with these matters, complains of the present state of things, and those who do complain have not very much knowledge of the matter or the work. If it

  427
  is to be dealt with, it is a matter which should be dealt with by the Government of the country. All intelligent minds possessing knowledge of it either approve of the present sytem or of a modified system of reception of Judges on Assize. Destroy it altogether if you please, though I should regret it, but do not take this sort of half measure in which the persons who will be the most interested in cutting down and diminishing the reception are to settle the regulations, those regulations to be afterwards settled by a person who knows very little about the matter. I therefore beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now," and add at the end of the Motion the words "this day six months."—(The Lord Coleridge.)
  LORD ESHER: My Lords, in the first place, I desire to say that I am wholly disinterested in this matter, because I can never be called upon, I think, to go circuit again, having been a Judge now for 21 years. The next remark I wish to make is this: I have waited with some curiosity to hear what was the chief point in this Bill; and, after having listened to all that has been said, it seems to me that its chief point is to get rid on the part of the Sheriffs of the payment of their expenses. My objection to the Bill is that I do not believe it can be worked in any sensible way unless every line of it is altered. Of all the extraordinary compositions that I have ever soon applicable to real business this seems to me to be the most extraordinary. These expenses are the expenses of the High Sheriff in receiving and protecting the Judges. What the High Sheriff does now to protect the Judges I am sure I do not know. Whoever drew this Bill must, I should imagine, have been thinking of the times when, I believe, upon the journey from Newcastle to Carlisle the High Sheriff had to protect the Judges against marauding Scots. In no other way does the Sheriff protect the Judges. I heard somebody just now say the Sheriffs protected them by the javelin-men, but there are no such people as javelin-men now.
  *LORD' COLERIDGE.: I can assure the noble Lord there are, in some cases.
  LORD ESHER: I can only say I have not seen them; at all events, for the last 15 years, and I rather think there is an Act of Parliament which has done away with them. The expenses of the Sheriffs are, further, in providing the necessary accommodation in keeping order within and about the precincts of the Courts of Assize. Then it says those expenses "are in this Act referred to-Assize expenses of the Sheriff." The words never appear again in the Act, but that is a small matter. Then it provides that they shall be defrayed out of the county rate in like manner as-the expenses of maintaining or providing Judge's lodgings may be defrayed. That, no doubt, is very pleasant for the High Sheriff. It would seem that the recommendation of the Committee is to do away with everything the High Sheriff has to do, except the mere reception of the Judges. No doubt they would like to be paid their expenses; and if you leave that clause as it is, they would have to be paid their expenses, whatever they might be. Let us see what it means. Supposing the High Sheriff now thinks it right to' receive the Judges, and to protect them, and to provide for them with decency, and he is allowed to do so by the County Council, the Sheriff would then send in his charges. Are they so very carefully protected by this Bill? It says—
  "The amount of expenses claimed by the Sheriff out of the county rate shall be submitted to the Treasury."
  Now, the Treasury may be in some respects the most estimable Department in the Kingdom, though a great many people think it is the most detestable office in the Kingdom; and if what the High Sheriff is to get depends upon what the Treasury will allow, I am afraid he will very often find himself very badly off indeed, and that he will be treated by the Treasury, from the way in which they often treat matters, as if they were the stingiest people in the world. And the decision of the Treasury as to whether the sum claimed by the Sheriff is payable out of the county rate is to be final. So that, after all, the Sheriffs are handed over for the purpose of getting their expenses to the Treasury, and they must look to the Treasury for a final order. Then, that

  429
  being the provision for payment, the 2nd clause is that—
  "The Joint Committee of the County Council and of the Justices of the Peace in each county in England and Wales and the Grand Jury in Ireland"—
  are to act. Will anybody tell me how to read that? I should have thought it meant the County Council and the Justices of the Peace in England and Wales, and the County Council and Grand Jury in Ireland. That is the way I should read the Bill according to its ordinary grammatical construction. But if so, there are no County Councils in Ireland, and, therefore, the thing cannot be worked—
  "And the Grand Jury in each county in Ireland shall, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor "—
  Is this to apply to England and Ireland? Which Lord Chancellor? Is the Lord Chancellor of England to concur with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or whatever the highest legal authority in Ireland may be? The Bill has been drawn without thought, that is the truth of it.
  "Make regulations as to the mode in which, in their respective counties, the Judges tire to be received at the Assizes, and otherwise as to the character and extent of the duties to he discharged by the High Sheriff with reference to the Judges and Assizes."
  Now, the regulations under this Bill may be different in every county in England. They may be different as to character and not merely in detail; their character will depend chiefly upon the nature of the County Council in each county, and the Lord Chancellor will have either to set himself against the County Council or to agree with it. If the Lord Chancellor does not agree with the County Council in any county, what is to happen? The state of things is to remain as it is in that county. In the next county the Lord Chancellor may agree with the County Council, and then there will be one law in one county and another law in another county, and the regulations may be in every county upon a different principle altogether. Then, they are only to agree as to the mode in which the Judges are to be received. In some counties they may propose that the Judge shall be received, and shall find his own carriage. In other counties they will, perhaps, allow him a carriage and pair of horses, while in some other
  430
  county they may insist that he shall take whatever vehicle is left at the inn after everybody else is provided for; and so you will go on. But the answer will be, I suppose, that the Lord Chancellor will not consent to that. Probably he would not consent where there is a violent County Council which wants to cut down the expense of receiving the Judges to nothing at all. Well, then, in that county I say the law will remain as it is. Then as to the character and extent of the duties to be discharged by the High Sheriff with reference to the Judges at Assizes. What are the other duties? Nobody knows. This Bill does not say what they are. The High Sheriff, of course, has a duty. He is now responsible for the decent reception and the decent maintenance of the Judges. But here he will have to act according to the regulations, "and such regulations shall be duly observed." Duly observed by whom? Is it by the Sheriff or by the Judge? And this is to be an Act of Parliament! The duties "shall be duly observed." That is to say, these regulations shall have the force of an Act of Parliament. What is to happen if the High Sheriff docs not observe them? Is he to be guilty of a misdemeanour because ho has not observed, or obeyed, an Act of Parliament? What is to happen to the Judges? Apparently they are to change places with the County Council. Instead of the County Council being responsible to them, they are to be responsible to the County Council. In fact, there is not one provision, as far as I can see, which will not practically alter the relative positions of the Judge and Sheriff, except to do them harm. Where have there been any differences between the High Sheriffs and the Judges? I was told a few minutes ago that two Judges—they are the only Judges in existence certainly that ever I heard of—had fined a High Sheriff. I can only recollect hearing of one disagreement between a ' Judge and a High Sheriff. I think it was in Wales, and the Judge was the late Mr. Justice Cresswell. The High Sheriff proposed to "receive him" in a broken-down hackney coach. Mr. Justice Cress-well said he "would not risk his neck in it." The High Sheriff said, "Do as you like; I shall get into it and go." But the learned Judge said, "No, you

  431
  have to attend upon me; I mean to walk into the town, as you will not provide me with a proper vehicle, and you must walk with me." And I recollect being myself once introduced into a lodging where there was no bell that would ring; but I made no fuss about it: I only asked the High Sheriff to lend me his dog-whistle, and he was kind enough to let me have it. The result was, that while I was there, every time I wanted my servant either I, or my marshall, had to go to the door, open it, and blow the High Sheriffs' dog-whistle until we could get the servant to come. I never had a difference with a High Sheriff. On the contrary; when a High Sheriff began to talk about the expenses, and I do not know what, I have always said to him, "Now, has not this been the happiest fortnight in your life I Here you have been in Court every day, which has amused you exceedingly, and you have received every consideration;" and he has always said it was the happiest time in his life. What have they to pay now? It is said there are certain expenses now. But there were exceedingly heavy expenses formerly. I do not believe at the present time that in nine counties out of ten the expenses are really heavy. The office is never imposed upon anybody who can make it clear to the Committee of the Privy Council that he is not able to sustain the expense. That is always a sufficient excuse. Therefore it is that I think people who are able should not object to bear the expense. They only have to bear it once in their lives. It comes only once upon an estate, I think, until there is a succession. They have to pay a sum which, I venture to say, in no county in England can be estimated at more than from £400 to £500, and I think it can be done for much less in most of the counties. And this is the dreadful infliction upon the estates of country gentlemen which is to induce a Bill of such a character. It is an unworkable Bill, which in any case would have to be eviscerated and filled up again for the purpose of altering what has been done now for so long a time. The truth is, the Bill has not been well-considered. If regulations are to be made, they ought to be made by some authority which will make them on the same principle for all the counties in England. It ought not
  432
  to be left as it is in this Bill. And what is more: this is only the smallest part of the subject which the Committee we have heard of recommended should be fully treated. The whole of that subject should be treated. One Bill should be brought in which would settle the whole matter. If you have a number of little Bills passed to settle each minute point you will have a legislation which nobody will be able to construe, and which nobody will be able to put into action. I second the Amendment of my noble Friend.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, I sat on the Committee to which my noble Friend who has brought in this Bill referred, and heard with a good deal of interest the evidence taken there. Apart from the guidance afforded by that evidence, I have had other means also of arriving at a different conclusion from that which has been expressed by the noble and learned Lord, the Master of the Rolls. This Bill is not introduced for the purpose of putting an end to differences, if they exist, between Judges and Sheriffs. The Judge may quarrel with the Sheriff and the Sheriff may quarrel with the Judge just as before, only under these different circumstances: that some rules will be laid down under which the Sheriff will act, and the Judge will see that the Sheriff cannot be called upon to go beyond them, which is not the case at present. My noble Friend says there is no real grievance in this matter; but there is a very real grievance. There is one county at this moment in which the Sheriff, so far from having had to serve only once in his life, is obliged to serve a second time, because there is nobody else who is ready to bear the burden of the office. Nothing can be so distasteful to gentlemen as to have to come and disclose their private affairs, their estate accounts, and to show that, in consequence of debts to their bankers or otherwise, they are not in a position to pay even that small sum which has been mentioned of the £400 or £500 which the dignity of the office entails. There are gentlemen who, with all the appearance of wealth, are really living in the greatest state of poverty possible. And even if a man is called upon only once in his life, as the noble

  433
  and learned Lord has said, to serve as Sheriff, yet if he dies soon afterwards his son, with perhaps great debts upon the estate and Succession Duty to pay, may be called upon at once to serve. My Lords, the times are completely changed. In the old times, no doubt, and in some counties even in the present day, the Shrievalty is rather sought after than avoided; but in the agricultural counties throughout England it has become a real burden. Country squires have not the command they formerly had of wealth; men have not the margin over from their incomes that they formerly had; and therefore they are obliged to look out and see in what way they can curtail expenditure. My noble and learned Friend says the Bill requires to be eviscerated, and no doubt he can eviscerate anything, and he has often done so with Acts of Parliament in the able Judgments which we know he has delivered. But the Bill has one chief point, and I think it is a point upon which it is worth while taking the sense of the House. The country calls upon these gentlemen to serve, and it is, I think, a question upon which it is worth while to take the sense of your Lordships—Ought the State to call upon a gentleman to undertake those duties and bear the expenses connected with them, whether he will or not? Ought you to call upon anybody you may fix upon to come and disclose to you his reasons for not desiring to serve, and to lay before you the accounts of his estate in order to show that he is not in a position to undertake those duties? Is it not part of the duty that belongs to a county (in many counties I believe now the Judges' lodgings are provided by the county) to find the money required in connection with the visits of the Judges to the Assize towns? In many places already the expenses are found by the counties, and not by the Sheriffs. I do not believe that the County Councils would so stint or cut down the expenses as to make the ceremonies associated with the visits of the Judges ridiculous. I do not think they would be parsimonious, though, I believe, they would use a judicious economy, which seems to me a very desirable thing to do in these matters. I can remember a time when the High Sheriff in Yorkshire rode in with his tenantry on horseback and made
  434
  a great show; but all that kind of display died out gradually. There were some Judges who did not like it, and I remember in particular one Judge who always avoided anything of the kind, who used to carry his own bag to the carriage waiting for him, and wished as much as possible to get rid of the ceremony he was surrounded with. Still, I think the reception of the Judges is rather looked forward to as an event in Assize towns. It is expected that the Judge should go with trumpeters and in great state to their Courts; but I have observed in many cases after the first appearance, though the Judge may have come in with great solemnity he is allowed to go to and from the Courts without much show of respect or assemblages to look at him. At first he goes into the town, goes to church, the sermon is preached, and he returns with ceremony, and altogether no doubt a great deal is thought of the first day of the Assize, but after the first day the ceremonies are very much abridged; yet all the expenditure for the High Sheriff goes on, he is obliged to find the horses and carriage, and, of course, there are other expenses, even though in some cases no longer the cost of javelin-men, and altogether he is put to very heavy expense. It so appeared to the Committee on which I sat. There are some High Sheriffs who have tried to cut down expenses as much as possible, and some have brought them very low indeed, while at the same time they have very-much curtailed the duties they owe to the Judges; and it is very difficult to say, if you leave it absolutely to the discretion of the Sheriffs, so long as there is a decent appearance made that any fault can be found. I do not know that In that case the Judge could interfere with him. But I think in almost every case the High Sheriff has done his best, and I cannot help thinking that the time has now come when we might take some step towards making a change. My noble and learned Friend has said this cannot be worked, and objection was taken to the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. I do not see that that is a ground for objecting to the Second Beading, though it may be made a ground of objection in Committee, as to the mode of framing regula-

  435
  tions in regard to these expenses. With regard to what the noble and learned Lord Coleridge said about the Bill being improperly brought into this House, this is a Bill not affecting taxes, but the rates, and Bills are constantly introduced in your Lordships' House which affect the rates. There is nothing irregular in it, therefore, in that respect. With regard also to the Treasury being the arbiter. The Treasury is not arbiter upon grounds which are open to it to settle for itself, but it must be guided by the regulations as to the expenses to which the Sheriff is subject. Therefore, the Treasury will not have an absolute discretion in the matter, but will be rather like a public auditor, having to see that no expenses are incurred which do not come within the ordinary regulations. I do not think it necessary to defend the drafting of the Bill; that is a matter to be examined in Committee; but I hope your Lordships will, at all events, express your opinion that the time has come when these expenses ought no longer to be imposed as a tax on individuals who are totally unable to bear them.
  *LORD MORRIS: My Lords, probably the House will pardon me for intruding for a few moments, because I observe that Ireland has been introduced into this Bill apparently at the eleventh hour, and I should imagine without the slightest consideration of what the practice is in Ireland. The 2nd clause of the Bill provides that the expenses of the High Sheriff shall, so far as they are expenses which would before the passing of this Act have been defrayed by the Treasury or out of the County Rate, be defrayed out of the County Rate in like manner, as the expenses of providing and maintaining Judges' lodgings are now by law defrayed and shall be included in the costs of the Assize, within the meaning of the Local Government Act of 1888. Now, that Act is entirely inapplicable to Ireland. The lodgings of the Judges in Ireland are provided not by the Sheriff, but by the Treasury. That expense is paid by the Treasury, and there is no Act of Parliament that I am aware of which is applicable to Ireland called the Local Government Act of 1888. How expenses are to be measured within the meaning of an Act which does not exist at all in the country to which this well-considered Bill is to apply is not ex
  436
  plained. The 3rd clause of the Bill is that—
  "The amount of expenses claimed by any Sheriff out of a County Rate shall be submitted to the Treasury together with his accounts under the Sheriffs Act, 1887."
  There is no such Act in Ireland; so that whoever has drafted this Act and put Ireland in it has done so without much consideration, and it is not alone that he has done it without much consideration, but he has apparently done it without any consideration. I cannot conceive any Bill being moved or introduced with a more infinitesimal regard to the state of law, the practice, or anything like acquaintance with that portion of the United Kingdom, which is sometimes not quite considered in these Acts of Parliament; and, indeed, I have observed that everybody who has addressed your Lordships' House up to this moment has spoken of this Bill as if it merely referred to England. I have not heard one reference to Ireland to which it is supposed to apply from any noble Lord who has addressed your Lordships. We have had illustrations and anecdotes to a considerable extent as regards what has happened in England. I can speak with even a longer experience than my noble Friend the Master of the Rolls, having been a Judge going circuit for 22 years, one year more, I regret to say, than my noble Friend, and I have never heard of any difficulties in Ireland as to the reception of the Judges. The lodgings are not provided, as I have already said, by the Sheriff. He provides the carriage by which they are brought to their lodgings, and go every day to the Courts I may say it is the habit in Ireland for the Judges to go to church or chapel as private individuals, and are not accompanied by the High Sheriff. I quite agree with the Lord President of the Council, that this is a subject which ought to be legislated upon, but as regards the expenses which the High Sheriffs are put to in Ireland in connection with receiving the Judges going circuit, they would be, I should say, only about £10 each Assizes in many counties. In Ireland the High Sheriffs enter into a contract with the Sub-sheriff, by which they agree to pay him a certain sum to indemnify him, not for entertaining the Judges, but for his duties, and against

  437
  all actions that may be brought against him. The matter has, in my opinion, really reached a crisis in Ireland, for, in consequence of the series of so-called remedial measures that have been applied in Ireland to the landed gentry, persons desiring to fill the High Shrievalty are getting to be within a very narrow circuit, and it is extremely hard to find anybody who will serve the office at all. This measure could bring no relief of a practical character in Ireland, even if it could work there, because, as I have said already, the expenses of actually receiving the Judges is very small. The sum paid to the Sub-sheriff, in some cases £200 or £300, is simply for acting as Sub-sheriff, not for honouring the Judge. I am very sorry a Bill of this sort should have been brought in, merely touching, as it does, the fringe of the question. I believe it would not work in Ireland, even if properly drafted, and it would be an almost inappreciable relief to the High Sheriff in Ireland, whereas it would be more convenient if he were relieved from indemnifying the sub-sheriff, who should be appointed with a regular salary, or if something of that kind could be carried out. As the Lord President of the Council has said it is the opinion of the Government that such a Bill should be brought in, I would not vote against them; but, as far as I can see, this Bill would not be of any great practical utility in Ireland.
  *LORD BELPER: My Lords, as I was Chairman of the Quarter Sessions in a county which took up this question—we having passed a Resolution upon it, I think, two years ago before the Committee of your Lordships' House sat—I should like to say a few words upon it. I must say that I think the noble and learned Lords who have addressed the House have ignored the fact that there is, undoubtedly, a very strong feeling in the country that the time has now come when you can no longer place what is really a part of the administration of justice as a charge upon the pocket of a single individual, and that individual very frequently a gentleman who is quite unable to bear any extra expense, and who, during the last few years, certainly has not been in a position to spend money on what does not concern him personally. I cordially support my noble Friend who has
  438
  brought in this Bill, for that reason. But I must say I rather regret the Bill does not go a little further. I have been at some pains to get the particulars in a county in which I live of the actual proportion of the Sheriff's expenses which this Bill would really deal with. I think the county to which I refer may be taken to-be a tolerably typical county, though, of course, the custom as to expenditure differs in various counties exceedingly. I find that the expenditure which would be dealt with by this Bill would be less-than two-fifths of the whole of the High Sheriff's expenditure. I think there is a very important consideration, which has not been noticed by any of the noble Lords who have addressed you this evening, and that is the economical part of the question. Even with regard to the part of it which this Bill deals with, I believe that precisely the same amount of reception and State might be kept up, but at a very much smaller expense. I have looked into the figures, and I believe you can save on this head alone between 40 and 50 per cent, of the present expenditure. You would have, in the first place, the same body acting every year instead of successive individuals. At present the High Sheriff has absolutely no control over the expenditure. Every year the High Sheriff has to get his new liveries, new coach, and new harness, and I believe the thing might be done, with exactly the same amount of proper respect to the Judges, at much less expense. But that part of the expenses which this Bill does not deal with is more than two-fifths of the total expenses. At present I am leaving out of consideration the personal expenses of the High Sheriff. I believe, if your Lordships pass this Bill, in the county with which I am connected one great economy might be effected at once, that is if you choose to put it into this Bill, that you might absolutely abolish the office of Under Sheriff. I do not know whether the practice is general, but in the county I am referring to it has been the custom of the High Sheriff to appoint his own solicitor as Under Sheriff, and he then appoints an acting Under Sheriff, who does the whole of the work and takes the fees. But, practically, the Under Sheriff does nothing except to assure the High Sheriff that everything is being properly done, and to make whatever arrange-

  439
  ments have to be made in a way that is satisfactory to the High Sheriff who has appointed him. Under this head you would save something like 20 per cent, of the whole expenditure, if you abolish the office of Under Sheriff, and let the officer acting as Under Sheriff be appointed a permanent officer, as was suggested by the Committee of your Lordships' House. With regard to the Sheriff himself, there are, as has been pointed out, certain fees payable on taking office. I believe it is the custom for the Under Sheriff, the acting Under Sheriff, and, I believe, the Sheriff's Officer, all to give bonds of indemnity to the High Sheriff in case they should do anything illegal during the time the High Sheriff) remains in office. Now, those bonds of indemnity are made out afresh every year, although they may be exactly the same persons who are acting as Under Sheriff and Sheriff's Officer. There is very considerable expense in regard to those fees on the Sheriff taking office, which might be avoided if the County Council took the bond of indemnity, and themselves had this appointment of the Under Sheriff. Then, my Lords, there are other charges and fees which are never really disputed. The Sheriff when he comes into office cannot do that. He simply asks, "What are the fees V and pays them, as he is told has always been the custom. If the County Council, or some such authority, became empowered to arrange and revise, from time to time, the scale of fees charged, I believe on that head alone there would be found to be considerable economy. My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill would be willing, if the Bill is read a second time now, to accept any enlargement of its scope in this direction. I venture to think it will be rather unfortunate if this part of the question is carried now without any consideration being given to the question of the Under Sheriff's expenditure. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships at any greater length. I would only venture to point out, with regard to one remark which was made by the Lord Chief Justice, that I cannot myself see that in the Bill there is anything which would prevent the Sheriffs from entertaining the Judges in a more hospitable or even splendid manner, if they wished
  440
  to do so. I believe the Bill only says that certain things are to be done, and that those things will have to be done with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. I believe in some counties it is the custom for the Sheriff, he being a rich man, to provide a four-in-hand to drive the learned Judges into the country after the completion of their work in the Courts. No doubt that would be extremely agreeable to the Judges, but I do not think there is anything in the Bill which would prevent a High Sheriff providing a four - in - hand, if he wished to do so. Quite the contrary; because if you take part of the necessary expenses off his shoulders he will have a little more to spend in showing hospitality to the Judges and to his own friends. However that maybe, there is certainly a strong feeling prevalent throughout the country with respect to this relic of the olden times. I, therefore, trust that your Lordships will pass the Second Reading of the Bill, and also that my noble Friend in charge of it will be disposed to receive Amendments, somewhat extending its scope, especially with regard to doing away with the office of Under Sheriff.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in support of my noble Friend behind me. In the part of the country to which I belong I know the feeling is exceedingly strong upon the subject, and it is thought that the levying of these sums upon the gentlemen who have to serve the office of High Sheriff is an exceedingly hard and unjust practice with regard to the reception of the Judges on circuit. I would just point out that in these matters times have very much changed. Judges in London are, I think, treated with as much respect as in any other part of the country, but it has not been thought necessary that they should be attended with a kind of pageant as they go to their Courts. No one would say, of course, that proper arrangements should not be made, or that on these occasions it may not be necessary to have some kind of reception of high officers connected with the administration of justice, but I assure noble and learned Lords that they will scarcely be aware of the kind of remarks which are made in the country regarding the

  441
  present practice. It is looked upon altogether as belonging to a different state of things. In former times, when railway communication did not exist, and people rarely left their own country, no doubt the entry of the Judges into an Assize town was a very unusual occasion, and their reception was an impressive ceremony. When the Judges came down to the country from the Metropolis in those days, it was very natural that they should be received with great ceremony. But those times have long passed away. People are now in the habit of travelling about by railroad all over the country, and when one hears that the Judges are to be received in the present rather extraordinary fashion, I confess it excites, as no doubt it does with many people, a feeling of anything but respect. I think, my Lords, the time has, therefore, come when it is desirable that there should be some regulations laid down in accordance with the customs and habits of the present day, and which should be, as far as possible, the same in each county and all over the country. Of course, there might be some differences maintained, the wishes of particular counties might be consulted, but, practically, it would be the same thing throughout most parts of the country. I do not think there is any cause to fear that the County Councils or the Joint Committee would treat the Judges with scant respect. On the contrary, I believe that each County Council, as a body, would wish that the county they represent should distinguish itself by acting with proper respect to Her Majesty's Judges, and I think in that respect there will be nothing to regret. But I do earnestly hope the question will not be left in its present very unsatisfactory position. If noble and learned Lords will pardon me for saying so, Judges, like other people, are apt sometimes to show a want of discretion; and though in the vast majority of cases the Judges in this respect give no cause for disagreement with the Sheriffs, yet I must say I have heard anecdotes as to proceedings of learned Judges in regard to the manner of their reception, which I would much rather not have been acquainted with. Then, too, I must say that many people think, though it is quite proper that the Sheriffs should receive the Judges, it is
  442
  not decorous, or necessary, or proper, that the Sheriff should dance attendance on them during the whole time of the Assizes. The Sheriff is a gentleman of high position, and to place him in that position is not fitting. He should receive the Judges, and after that they should receive the same attention as other gentlemen. I have only risen for the purpose of supporting what my noble Friend has said. I hope we shall read the Bill a second time, and any question of Amendments can be dealt with in Committee. The question of Ireland is a somewhat different one, but that can, no doubt, be dealt with in another manner.
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, after the discussion which has taken place, I do not think it is necessary for me to detain your Lordships very long. But there are one or two-points which have been raised which I should like to answer, because it might be thought not respectful if I did not answer certain objections which noble and learned Lords have taken. First, there is the question of form, which is objected to. My Lords, when the Bill is leaving this House, the clause, according to the invariable practice, which refers to the rates will be struck out and re-inserted after it has left the House. That is an answer to that objection. Then, my Lords, the next objection which was taken, was that the Lord Chancellor is not the proper official to entrust with the supervision of these regulations, because sometimes the Lord! Chancellor is a person who has not been connected with Common Law, and has not gone circuit. I apprehend that the Lord Chancellor, as head of the law, will, of course, consult the Judges. I think there is no Lord Chancellor who would not take such a course, and I think that that, at all events, is not a ground upon which your Lordships should refuse to read this Bill a second time. Then, it is said there have been no complaints. I can understand that noble and learned Lords who were not on the Committee may not be aware of the complaints; but I think the Lord Chief Justice, who sat on the Committee and heard the evidence, will not say that no complaints were laid before the Committee. If any of your Lordships will read the evidence you will see the statement made by the Lord President is exactly correct, that

  443
  many persons do feel that they are put to expense, and occasionally to unnecessary expense, in these matters, and that they are desirous some rules and regulations should be laid down. As has been very truly said, the object of this Bill is to lay down regulations, and not in any way to treat the Judges with disrespect. I should certainly not be the person to propose a measure which would have that effect. With regard to most of the other objections which have been taken, they can, I think, be perfectly well dealt with in Committee. My Lords, this Bill, I hope, will be referred to Committee in the ordinary way, and I can only say that I shall be perfectly ready to consider any Amendments which noble Lords may send to me, if they think there are points in the Bill which are not properly treated—for instance, let us say, the question-of Ireland. Lord Morris said this Bill does not in certain respects refer properly to Ireland.
  *LORD MORRIS: Not in any respect.
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Very wall, in any respect. As the measure is a very small one indeed, I shall be glad to receive from him an Amendment making it so refer. I apprehend there is nothing so different in the nature of an English county to an Irish county as to make it impossible for words to be inserted which will enable the Grand Jury in Ireland to act in exactly the same way as the County Council does in England. Then the last question I have to answer is whether I should be prepared to enlarge the scope of my Bill in Committee. Well, I confess I am rather afraid to answer that question, because, owing to the fortuitous concourse of learned Judges here to-night, I should be rather afraid lest, if I enlarged the Bill, it should meet with more serious opposition. It is so far practically unopposed, because it is such a little one, but I very much fear if I proposed to deal more nrgely with the office of High Sheriff the objection would be such as to make it impossible for it to pass this Session.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have very little to add. First with regard to the remarks which have been made by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice, I would appeal to him whether a great many of the objections which he has urged might not, at all events, be left to
  444
  Committee, so that your Lordships need not be put to the trouble of dividing upon this Bill. My noble Friend, I think, has never served upon the Committee, when applications are constantly made, from time to time, for the removal of certain names from the list of Sheriffs. If he had ever undergone that experience, I am sure he would have been under an entirely different impression as to whether or not there are complaints made with reference to performing the office of High Sheriff. With reference to the observations which were made by the Master of the Rolls, I am bound to tell him he is greatly in error in two respects. In the first place, he said he is no longer liable to go on circuit. I think he will see that is an error which may be cured when I tell him that he is liable.
  LORD ESHER: I think nothing will ever induce me to go.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid my noble and learned Friend is like some of those gentlemen who are called upon to act as High Sheriff; he would rather not serve. His second error is one which he could not have fallen into if he did go circuit—namely, that the javelin-men are abolished. That is entirely an error; no Act of Parliament has abolished the javelin-men at all. What has been done is this: An Act of Parliament has been passed which enables the High Sheriff, with the consent of Quarter Sessions, to employ police instead of javelin-men; but that can only be done if the Quarter Sessions consent. Only last year an application was made to me by a High Sheriff to know what he was to do because the Court of Quarter Sessions had refused to allow the use of the police. The High Sheriffs are now obliged, I believe, to provide a certain number of men in uniform—they are not called "javelin-men"—to attend the Judges on circuit. In all the circumstances, I consider there is an evil which ought to be dealt with, that there is a great subject of grievance in this matter, and that gentlemen throughout the country who are likely to be called upon to fill that office should be considered by your Lordships. Some of the objections to the Bill, as I have said, might be dealt with in Committee, and, in particular, that which was pointed out with regard to the Lord Chancellor

  445
  making arrangements with the County Councils. I can assure your Lordships, if the Bill goes into Committee, and the question is raised as to who is the proper person to make regulations with the County Councils, I shall myself move that the Lord Chief Justice shall do it. That part of the objection, therefore, that the Lord Chancellor may not be a person who is acquainted with the circuits will be removed. Under the circumstances, I hope your Lordships will not think it necessary to divide the House on the question, but will allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  *LORD COLERIDGE: After the exceedingly seductive appeal which has been made by my noble and learned Friend I will certainly accede to his suggestion, and I will not trouble your Lordships to go to a Division.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn: Bill read 2a, and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (PLEURO-PNEUMONIA) BILL.—(No. 105.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  *THR EAEL OF JERSEY: My Lords, when this Bill was passed through Committee there was an understanding that certain points should be referred for further consideration. There were three points raised: the first was whether more power should he taken to appoint additional officers, besides the Inspectors referred to in the Act; the second point was whether it might not be desirable to make the payment of compensation retrospective, so that persons owning animals which were slaughtered before the 1st September might be compensated for them under the Act, instead of out of the rates, as at present; and the third point was whether it might not be advisable to take further powers to withhold compensation for cattle slaughtered for having been in contact with diseased animals in cases where the owners had concealed the existence of the disease. These three points have been considered by the Minister of Agriculture, and he thinks that, under the Bill as it stands, there is ample power to appoint a sufficient num-
  446
  ber of Inspectors and other officers. There would be no fear of too many salaried officers being appointed, as any additional work would be done by Sub-Inspectors, who would only be paid by fees, except in the case of a general outbreak, when special arrangements would be made. With regard to the suggestion that the Bill should be made to apply to cattle slaughtered before the date when it comes into operation, as the provision in the Bill was founded on a Resolution of the House of Commons, it would require a separate Resolution to carry out the suggestion, and, considering the difficulties of passing measures quickly, it would not be desirable to make that change. As to the third point, there has naturally been considerable difference of opinion, but the President of the Board of Agriculture has carefully considered the matter, and has come to the conclusion that under the Act of 1878. and the present measure, he has sufficient powers to cope with any outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia which may arise, and that it will not be necessary to extend his powers by this Bill. No doubt it is very desirable that evil doers should be punished, but the President of the Board thinks he has sufficient power. If afterwards it is found desirable to enlarge his powers, it would be quite possible to get a short measure passed with this object in another Session of Parliament. I hope, therefore, it will not be considered necessary by those who take an interest in this matter to insist upon any change being made in the Bill.
  *LORD MORRIS: My Lords, on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Lord opposite mentioned that there was a very strong belief in England, or in his part of the country, that this disease was propagated from Ireland. He spoke of the Government of the day as not having acted with great vigour in endeavouring to stamp it out, and said it was much more difficult to enforce the orders in Ireland than in England. I will take this opportunity, not having been present when the Bill went into Committee, of dissenting entirely, not only from what the noble Lord stated as being a matter of belief, but from the notion that there is any good ground for it. At the time of the Second Reading of the Bill there were only two places in-

  447
  fected, the North and South Dublin Unions. An Order was made in February, 1889, declaring that no cattle belonging to those districts should be exported to Great Britain, or exposed for sale in the Metropolitan Market on the ordinary day; and further, all cattle in the defined districts must be handed on hoof and horn, and can only be moved out of the districts on licence; and every addition or diminution of cattle moved from to districts must be reported to the police, who exercise the strictest supervision over the defined districts and prosecute. Inspectors are specially employed and engaged in visiting the defined districts. Any diseased cattle are at once slaughtered, and all cattle in contact. Pleuro-pneumonia has decreased. In 1887 there were 240 outbreaks, and 819 cattle attacked. In 1888 only 181 cases and 522 attacked. In 1889, 108 outbreaks and 184 cattle attacked. All cases reported by the Board of Agriculture in England are at once inquired into. In all cases, it appeared that the cattle were not affected when leaving Ireland. I understand that a serious outbreak in Norfolk was not reported to the authorities there for months. The disease is much more likely to have spread in this manner from the County of Norfolk than by cattle from Ireland. I think, therefore, this impression, which the noble Earl says is so strongly felt in England, appears to be founded on no facts. I feel that the Government have acted with the greatest vigour in stamping out pleuro-pneumonia, the same course as they followed with regard to moral plagues. I can only say that the Orders have been carried out in Ireland as stringently as possible, and I do not see that more difficulty exists in enforcing them in Ireland than in England. It appears to me that in England really you have only adopted the system which has been in force in Ireland. The prevalent belief in England which the noble Earl referred to is wholly unfounded, and I suppose the only way to meet an unfounded statement of belief is to contradict it on the first occasion that one can.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have no doubt the noble Lord is entirely satisfied with the Report he has read, but I should infer from that satisfaction
  448
  he has probably not had much practical experience upon this subject. I am perfectly aware that excellent orders are issued in Ireland by the Privy Council, and I have no doubt that they are under the impression there that the diminution in the number of cases is entirely caused by the excellent way in which the law has been carried into effect. But I am rather disposed to draw exactly the opposite conclusion from that diminution of cases, because the impression it makes upon my mind is that there has been a want of vigilance in this matter. I doubt exceedingly that there has been a diminution of pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland. It is almost impossible to conceive that it can be so, when we know that animals which have been found to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia in England have been traced to Ireland; and so much has this been felt to be the case, that I know a great many people who do not think it prudent now to purchase Irish cattle, and as those cattle are exceedingly valuable to farmers, they would not decline to purchase them if they were not obliged to do so. Therefore, I think the noble Lord will see that that belief cannot be so easily disposed of. Ireland is a country of very small agricultural proprietors, and there are a great number of them; and those who are acquainted with the class of men who constitute a very large proportion of those proprietors must know that it follows there is much more difficulty in getting information from them than in a country like this, where there are mostly large farmers. I am very glad the noble Lord has read the Report. It shows certainly that there has been no lack of Orders issued, and all I can say is that I sincerely trust those Orders will be vigorously and continuously carried into effect. I hope the Irish Government, occupied as it is with many other matters, may in this so conduct their affairs that they will meet with the approval of everyone, and that they will succeed in removing from Ireland this disease, which affects animals sent to England. I am sorry my noble Friend, after consultation with the President of the Board of Agriculture, has not been able to accept the Amendments which have been suggested. I rather gather from what he has said that the difficulty is not the intrinsic character of those

  449
  Amendments, but the fear that if the Bill goes down to the other House there may be difficulty in passing the measure through. I can appreciate the difficulty, and I do not wish to undervalue it. I regret that the last of the Amendments has not been adopted, which would have enabled the Government to deprive those owners who had neglected to give notice of the existence of disease on their farms of the compensation which they would otherwise have been entitled to. I think that would have given a very valuable power to the President of the Board of Agriculture. I am by no means persuaded that the powers they possess will be found adequate for the purposes required. I think the experience of the Local Authorities, which is very considerable in these matters, is at present much more weighty than that of the Board of Agriculture. All I can say is that I am very sorry the Amendments cannot be introduced into the Bill, and that I hope at some future time, if there is any amending Bill brought in, it may be found possible to include them.
  Bill read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 122.)
  Bill read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND REPEAL BILL.
  A Bill for the repeal of the Local Government Acts for England and Scotland—Was presented by Lord Denman; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(No. 156.)

  ADMIRAL COLOMB'S FLASHING SIGNALS.
  VISCOUNT OXENBRIDGE: In the absence of my noble Friend Lord Sudeley I have to move for correspondence between Flag Officers (including Rear-Admiral Colomb) and the Admiralty relating to flashing signals between 1st January, 1887, and the present date.
  *LORD ELPHINSTONE: I am sorry to have to state that I am not prepared to accede to the Motion as it stands on the Paper. It asks for certain correspondence between
  450
  Naval Officers and the Admiralty from the 1st January, 1887, down to the present time. As that is obviously but a small portion of the correspondence it would, being incomplete, give an erroneous idea of what the effect of the correspondence was. If my Friend is prepared to move for the whole correspondence from 1867 there would be no objection to give that Return.
  VISCOUNT OXENBRIDGE: As my noble Friend is prepared to do that, I propose to amend the notice in that way.

  NAVY (FLASHING SIGNALS).
  The whole official correspondence relating to Rear-Admiral Colomb, from 1867 to the present date: Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Lord Sudeley.)
EDUCATION CODE (1890) BILL. (No. 157.)

  ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES BILL. (No. 158.)
  Read 1a, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.