Sitting of 12 June 1890

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time on this day six months. It is a Bill which relates to questions of an exceptional character, and ought to be dealt with by a Select Committee instead of being a matter of arrangement between the proprietor and present tenant of the Scilly Islands and the President of the Board of Trade. It appears to me that this Pier and Harbour Provisional Order Bill has grown out of the situation which has been created in the Scilly Islands in reference to Local Government. If I am not mistaken, provision was made by an agreement between Mr. Dorrien Smith and the inhabitants of the islands for the maintenance of a pier at St. Mary's, by which it was provided that certain dues should be levied upon the export of flowers, lobsters, cray fish, and other articles. If that is correct, I think some explanation is required of the present proposal taken in connection with that agreement. I have every wish to speak with great respect for the reputation of Mr. Dorrien Smith. He has, I believe, always taken an enlightened interest in the development of the islands and the wellbeing of the inhabitants. But this Bill
    682
    gives an exceptional treatment to Mr. Dorrien Smith, who occupies the position of leaseholder under the Duchy of Cornwall. The Provisional Order proposes to confer upon him much greater privileges than have been given to other landlords under similar circumstances, and I desire to know whether the Board of Trade is absolutely within its rights in making the Bill retrospective. It covers the existing works in connection with the present St. Mary's, which were executed under a quasi-agreement between Mr. Dorrien Smith and the inhabitants, and which ought to be provided for in accordance with that agreement. With regard to the schedule attached to the Bill, I wish to call attention to the fact that it undoubtedly places the inhabitants of the Scilly Islands at a disadvantage. Almost the whole of the necessaries of life have to be conveyed from the mainland, the Great Western Railway Company have the monopoly of carrying them, and if I am rightly informed, their charges are exceedingly high. That being so, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the dues proposed to be sanctioned in this Bill for shipping and unshipping at St. Mary's Pier are considerably higher than elsewhere. This proposal was coupled, in the first instance, with another harbour scheme for Criccieth in Wales. There may be circumstances which justify a difference between one place and the other, but, having already to pay heavy charges upon articles of prime necessity, brought over by the steamers of the Great Western Company, it is now proposed that when such articles are landed in the Scilly Islands, the inhabitants shall pay from 50 to 100 per cent, higher than the inhabitants of Criccieth. For instance, fruit, apples, and pears, which are to pay 3d. for 2 cwt. at Criccieth, are to pay 3d. for 1 cwt. at St. Mary's; bacon and pork, which are to pay 3d. for 2½ cwt. at Criccieth, will have to pay 2d. for 1 cwt. in the Scilly Islands; beef, which is to pay 3d. for 2½ cwt. at Criccieth, will pay 2d. per cwt. at St. Mary's, and in the same way the charges for butter, candles, haberdashery, hosiery, and groceries are all much higher. Then, again, so far as I can ascertain from this schedule, the dues upon the export of flowers and shell fish are left as addi-

    683
    tional dues to be levied by Mr. Dorrien Smith, independently of the schedule, upon imports under the Provisional Order Bill. These are points upon which I think the House is entitled to have information from the President of the Board of Trade. Then, again, Mr. Dorrien Smith and his representatives, the "undertakers" as they are called in the Bill, are empowered to charge, under the 10th section of the Bill, for the use of warehouses, offices, and sheds, and have privileges and advantages which are not usually given in similar measures. I understand that in the Scilly Islands from time immemorial there has been a claim on the part of the tenant to charge dues on vessels at a distance from the pier, which derive no benefit from the pier, but are anchored outside the pier and breakwater. I understand that the right to levy these dues has been challenged in the past by various shipowners, and successfully challenged; and I should like to know whether the Bill will authorise, in any sense, these charges for anchorage? These are the various points upon which I ask for information, and, although I move formally the Motion which stands in my name, I shall be guided in the course I take by the reply I receive from the President of the Board of Trade.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Channing.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): If there was any desire on the part of anyone in the Scilly Islands that the Bill should be considered by a Select Committee, or if any objection was entertained to any part of the Bill, all that was necessary was to present a Petition against it, and the Bill would have been sent to a Select Committee as the hon. Member desires, and I venture to say that it would have been much more satisfactorily dealt with there than it can be in this House. But no such Petition was presented. On the contrary, the only Petition was one from St. Mary's, strongly in favour of the Bill. Therefore, I infer that the hon. Member does not represent
    684
    objections which come from the inhabitants of the Scilly Islands.
    MR. CHANNING: The statements which I have made are made on the authority of a gentleman who resides on the mainland, and who is intimately acquainted with the wants of the inhabitants. He informs me that there was great reluctance on the part of the inhabitants to come forward in the matter owing to certain circumstances to which I do not wish to refer. [Cries of "Name."] I do not think that I am called upon to give the name of my correspondent. All I can say is, that my correspondent is vouched for by another hon. Member as a person of authority and integrity.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Then the objector to the Bill is an anonymous individual, who is not authorised to act for the inhabitants. Under those circumstances, I do not think I need waste much of the time of the House in discussing the matter. All I will say is, that the proprietor or leaseholder of the Scilly Islands, Mr. Dorrien Smith, in whose favour I was glad to hear the hon. Member say so much, has recently addressed a letter to the Press explaining the origin of this measure. He says that he was asked last year, by a public meeting of the inhabitants held at St. Mary's, to extend the pier, and he told them he was willing to do so if they would pay increased tolls. The inhabitants gladly accepted his proposal, and they have had ample time to re-consider the matter if they desired. No objection has been raised, but, on the contrary, all have spoken enthusiastically in favour of the Bill. The Bill has absolutely nothing to do with local government in the Scilly Islands. It is not an exceptional measure; but it is an ordinary Bill by which, in return for the facilities given to the traders in Scilly by the extension of the pier, the person who carries out the extension is entitled to charge dues for the use of the pier. If the Bill does not pass, the result will be that Mr. Dorrien Smith will be able to charge anything for the use of the pier that he pleases; and, so far as the tariff of charges is concerned, it is the same as that which was adopted by the fishermen themselves for a similar work at Newly n on the mainland. The power to levy dues is restricted to certain narrow limits, and there are 100 miles of coast outside

    685
    the pier in respect of which no dues will be levied. I do not think it is necessary to trouble the House with any further explanation of the provisions of the Bill, and I trust that the proposal of the hon. Member will be decisively rejected.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman has based his reply to my hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill mainly upon the ground that no desire has been expressed by the inhabitants of the Scilly Islands to oppose the measure. The right hon. Gentleman says that no opposition has been raised to the Bill in a Parliamentary sense, but that, on the contrary, there has been a Petition presented in its favour from a public meeting, held at St. Mary's, which Petition went before the Examiners of Private Bills. From these facts the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my hon. Friend, infers—I do not say unfairly—that the only authority we have in this House for opposing the Second Reading emanates from persons not connected with the Island, who live on the mainland, and are not the legitimate or authorised spokesmen of the islanders. I think I shall be able, before I conclude, to bring forward some evidence to show that our opposition is based upon the complaints of the islanders themselves. I undertake to show why no opposition has been raised in the Islands, and I propose, further, to bring forward a fact which I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to controvert, which ought absolutely and irrevocably to put an end to the Bill. The first I heard of this Bill was after my return from the East, and, as I had had reason on a former occasion to view with grave suspicion this kind of legislation, I took the trouble to look into the Bill in order to see what its provisions were. I found that my hon. Friend had been in communication with certain gentlemen in Cornwall in regard to the measure, and he consulted me as to what ought to be done. At that time I had had no communication with any one in the West, but when I saw what the character of the Bill was, I wrote a letter to the Western Daily Mercury at Plymouth which was subsequently circulated in the Island. In consequence, I received numerous letters, one or two of which I ask the House to allow me to read. The first is from the
    686
    Rev. Arthur E. Barran, the priest in charge at St. Martin's, who writes as follows:—
    "May I ask for a copy of the Bill referring to the harbour dues of Scilly? I have hitherto been a staunch supporter of Mr. Dorrien Smith; but if things are as stated in your letter to the Western Daily Mercury, I shall feel it my duty to assist in opposing such a measure. The proposed dues have astonished me. I was, of course, aware of the duty on exported flowers, and with this I could find no fault, as the inhabitants were called together by Mr. Dorrien Smith, and agreed to pay this extra due if he would lengthen the St. Mary's Pier."
    In reference to the facts mentioned in this letter, I wish to say that I am speaking without the slightest feeling against Mr. Dorrien Smith. Since my connection with the county, I have always heard the name of Dr. Augustus Smith, the predecessor of Mr. Dorrien Smith, spoken of with reverence and respect; and I have no reason to believe that Mr. Dorrien Smith, the present lessee, has done anything to disentitle him to the same regard. I do not propose to give all the names of my correspondents, although I am ready to show them to the President of the Board of Trade to prove that the letters are not bogus letters. The writer of one of them says—
    "I am thankful to you for the very great kindness you have manifested towards us as a people—inhabitants of the Scilly Islands—in sending to us circulars which give us information as to what is onward in Parliament, that will much affect our interest here, on the islands of Scilly. Had it not been for you I question whether very few would have known anything in regard to the Scilly Pier and Harbour Bill. We were very astonished to find such a measure before a Parliament of British Representatives in a free country and under the reign of Free Trade. I have read, thought, and conversed with many of our friends in regard to the matter. I had thought of calling a meeting at St. Mary's, and moving a resolution stating objections to the Bill in its present form; but I find, among persons whom I have conversed with, that fear keeps them back. They have stated to me if they meet and oppose the Bill they will be marked men and risk all their interest here, on the Island of Scilly, and be the subjects of notice to quit, and that means to leave the Islands. So they have suggested to me to write you, and ask you to be kind and send me a copy of the Bill by return if possible. Mr. Smith is very much excited over the appearance of your circular, and he has stated that the report is false. I have just seen one of Mr. Smith's notices, which I have copied every word for your information, as follows:—'Notice. A Pamphlet having been circulated on the Islands conveying a false impression as to the Pier Bill and

    687
    Harbour for the Scilly Mantis now before the House of Commons, Mr. Dorrien Smith will he happy to see any of his tenantry at the Public Buildings who are desirous of meeting him, on Saturday next, May 24th, at 3.30 p.m., and will give any explanation needed.'"
    As this letter introduces the question of fear on the part of the inhabitants, let me explain that this fear probably arises from the fact that, with all his philan-throphy, the late Dr. Augustus Smith was exceedingly autocratic, and did not hesitate to have persons who were obnoxious to him removed from the Islands. Another letter I have is from a gentleman who had been spending some days on the Island—Mr. S. Lear Head—who writes from Ivybridge South Devon. He says—
    "I have just returned from the Scilly Island, arid during my stay I have come into contact with many of the islanders. I find the all-absorbing topic to be this Pier and Harbour Bill and your action thereon. Last week, after your extracts from the Western Daily Mercury had been circulated, Mr. Smith issued a notice somewhat to this effect—'Erroneous impression having gone abroad owing to the circulation of some extracts, &c., from the Western Daily Mercury, Mr. Smith will be happy to meet his tenantry on Saturday next, at 3 p.m., and explain the provisions of the new Bill.' This meeting was duly held, and about 30 of the tenants were present, with Mr. Smith in the chair; and as you will have seen, a vote of confidence in Mr. Smith was passed, and for why? because not one dared speak a word against their lord proprietor. From what I can gather nearly all the tenants hold their property on a yearly tenancy, and if anyone raised a dissentient voice the probability is that he would get notice to quit forthwith. And even if he did not, it would cause such a state of friction as would be simply intolerable and unbearable. On Tuesday last a further meeting was held, and, although Mr. Smith was not present, the clergyman was. There was a considerable attendance, and it was ultimately decided to send a Petition to Mr. Bolitho urging him to use his best endeavours to get the Bill passed. This Petition was there and then framed and signed by many of those present; but those who did not now hear that it is to be carried around from house to house. This is simply monstrous: everyone will feel bound to sign rather than offend Mr. Smith. As far as I can gather, in a casual way, the late proprietor, Mr. Augustus Smith, spent £10,000 on the pier in accordance with the terms of his original lease from the duchy. The present Mr. Dorrien Smith has now spent a further £4,000, and the islanders have agreed to compensate him by an additional tax on all their flowers and vegetables exported. They have not at all agreed to pay on their imports, and were not aware that any such tariff was to be imposed. And they decidedly object to having to pay on the articles named in your paper,
    688
    including, amongst others, the necessaries of life. Without passing any approval or an opinion, I, as an independent person, cannot fail to see that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the islanders generally. The whole gist of their complaint is not so much against Mr. Smith personally, but against his being saddled with additional authority which is already practically absolute, and therefore very burdensome at any time. Such authority ought not to be in the hands of any one man. I may say that I am not at all personally interested in this matter, but as a passing visitor. I have never been there before, but I thought you ought to know how affairs stood. I am writing Mr. Bolitho much to this same effect, and if I can be of any further use, kindly communicate with me."
    This is from a second independent witness. A third letter comes from a gentleman in Penzance—Mr. Clement Chudleigh—who writes as follows on the 31st of May:—
    "I have been prosecuting inquiries, hence the delay in replying to your favour of the 26th inst. You will doubtless have seen a report in the Western Morning News of a meeting held by Mr. Smith last Saturday—I send you a copy for perusal in case you did not see it. I have had a conversation with one who was present, and he tells me the tenantry cannot oppose Mr. Smith, as they are completely in his hands, and to go in opposition to him would mean his retaliating to the ruination of them by non-renewal of leases and otherwise; in other words, they have to do as he wishes if they want to live at all. Nevertheless, he says the meeting, at which there was not more than 30 present, and those by the special request of Mr. Smith's agent, was not unanimous, although the opposition had to stifle itself. The next dodge was for the Magistrates to organise a meeting in Mr. Smith's absence. At this the opposition was more pronounced. About 50 attended, and eventually, after trying several resolutions, and failing to carry them, or rather withdrawing them on account of the opposition, either 17 or 18 held up their hands in favour of signing some kind of a Petition to Mr. Bolitho, M.P., in favour of the Bill, and subsequently canvassed for signatures. My informant, although utterly opposed to the Bill, signed this Petition, being, he assured me, afraid to refrain from doing so, for, as he said, Mr. Smith will see the list of signatures, and will know who did and who did not sign it."
    I have other letters, in addition to those I have read, which state distinctly that although the islanders agreed to pay increased dues upon the export of flowers and potatoes, they had not the remotest idea that they would be called upon to pay dues upon the importation of the necessaries of life. What these increased dues are the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) has already stated, but the islanders contemplated

    689
    nothing of the kind, and cannot be said to have had due notice. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Newlyn tariff, but that tariff merely affects fish, and does not apply to 200 and odd articles which form the necessaries of life. The right hon. Gentleman asks what harm the tariff will do, and says that it is only to apply to half a mile of the coast, leaving 100 miles untouched. But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the harbour of St. Mary's is the harbour of the Scilly Islands; it is the only place of trading, and from that harbour all the articles introduced are transhipped and forwarded to the other Islands. I, therefore, hope the right hon. Gentleman will not insist upon that argument. He has said nothing about the retrospective character of the Bill, but, as far as I understand it, it is clearly retrospective. I come now to another point. The 14th clause of the Bill says—
    "If at any time and from time to time the clear annual income derived from the pier and works authorised by this Order in the average of the then three last preceding years, after payment of all expenses and outgoings, shall exceed interest at the rate of 10 per centum per annum on the entire sum from time to time appearing to the Board of Trade to have been expended in executing the pier and the works authorised by this Order, including in such expenditure the sum of £10,000 already expended on the existing pier and works, the Board of Trade may, if in their discretion they think tit, on application in writing from six or more of the owners of vessels or boats using the pier, and after hearing the undertakers reduce the rates leviable under this Order to such amounts as will be sufficient to provide the aforesaid interest at the rate of 10 per centum per annum."
    Now, I would ask any hon. Member if he can point to any single instance in the legislation of this country in which Parliament has guaranteed to any landowner 10 per cent, for his money?
    SIR M. HICKS BKACH: It is the regular course.
    MR. CONYBEARE: If that is so, all I can say is that the sooner it becomes an irregular course the better. In many instances capitalists have to be content with an interest of 2¾ per cent. It is all very well to say that Mr. Smith is not likely to get 10 per cent.; but, if so, why not cut out the 10 per cent? Why insert a clause which will preclude any reduction of rates until Mr. Smith has been paid 10 per cent.;
    690
    I hope that the House will reject, at any rate, that portion of the scheme. And now I come to the last point. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the General Piers and Harbours Act of 1861 he will find that Sub-section 1 of Clause 9 provides that a schedule of the rates to be charged shall be published once at least in each of two consecutive weeks—in the months of October and November—in some newspaper circulated in the district in which the works are proposed to be constructed. I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether this has been done? I hold in my hand a copy of the Cornish Telegraph of November last; but it only gives an analysis of the Provisional Order in a condensed form, and contains no schedule at all. I have caused inquiries to be made upon this important point, and I have received two telegrams, which I will read to the House. The first says—
    "The local papers—Cornish Telegraph and Cornishman—the only ones circulated to any extent at Scilly—say the draft order, as in Telegraph sent you, is the only advertisement they have had. I have not seen the schedule of rates in any other paper. There can be no doubt of its not being advertised."
    That telegram reached me this morning from Penzance, where both of these newspapers are published. The second telegram comes from the Islands of Scilly, and I received it last night. It says, "Rates not published in local papers that we know." Unless the right hon. Gentleman is in the possession of evidence to show that the Schedule of Rates was published, I maintain that the provisions of the general Act have not been complied with.
    MR. BOLITHO: I fail to see that any valid reason has been adduced why the House should refuse to read this Bill a second time. When the scheme was first conceived, a considerable amount of pressure had to be put upon the lessee to induce him to undertake the responsibility of introducing the Bill, and from that time until the measure came before the House not a word of objection was urged against it. What fell from the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill satisfies me that the objections now urged are of a very trivial nature. The House will, I think, admit that any private individual who takes upon himself a responsibility of this

    691
    kind for the benefit of the public is fairly entitled to be recouped the amount of his expenditure with interest. The tenancy of Mr. Dorrien Smith's lease is only short, and, at the expiration of the lease, he has no assurance that a renewal will be granted. The Petition in favour of the Bill was signed by all the most responsible persons in the Islands, and I do not believe that any objections were concealed, because the individuals holding them were afraid to express their opinions.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have no right to address the House again, but I wish to say that I have no doubt all the requirements of the law were complied with. In proof of that I need only say that it is the duty of the Examiners of Private Bills to see that the Standing Orders had been complied with.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I have caused the Papers to be searched, and cannot find that the schedule was published. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the face of that evidence, a mere assurance that he has no reason to believe that all the formalities have not been gone through is quite sufficient. Will he not, at any rate, consent to the postponement of the Second Reading until further inquiry can be made?
    MR. DILLWYN: I shall certainly support the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not myself an inhabitant of that part of the world, but I have visited the Scilly Islands, and can bear testimony to the great benefits which have been conferred upon the Islands by the present proprietor and his predecessors.
    MR. CHANNING: In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I do so not because I am satisfied by the reply of the President of the Board of Trade, but because I propose to move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
    DR. TANNER: I hope the hon. Member will not withdraw the
    692
    Amendment. I maintain that this House does not sit here for the simple purpose of conferring gifts upon landlords, no matter what part of the world they may live in. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member will go to a Division.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the second time.

  REVISING BARRISTERS (ENGLAND AND WALES.)
  Address for—
  "Return showing the Circuits within which the several Revising Barristers were appointed in England and Wales in the year 1889; the names of the Barristers appointed; the places where each Barrister sat; the electoral areas included in each Circuit; the total number of voters in each group of areas included in a Circuit; the number of days actually occupied by each Barrister in the revision: and the total cost incurred for the payment of such Revising Barristers, and the amount received by the Treasury from the Local Authorities in respect of such costs (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 208, of Session 1889)."—(Mr. Hob-house.)

  PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES.
  Address for—
  "Return showing, with regard to each Parliamentary Constituency in the United Kingdom, the number of Electors on the Register now in force (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 179, of Session 1889)."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

  EAST INDIA (CANTONMENT ACTS).
  Address for—
  "Copy of Cantonment Acts, 1889, and any Rules made under Section 26, Sub-section 21, and under Section 27 of the same."—(Mr. John Ellis.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    WESTERN AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION BILL.
    That they do request that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships a Copy of the Report, &c., of the Select Committee appointed by this Hoose in the present Session of Parliament on the Western Australia Constitution Bill.

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  Return ordered, "Showing, by Counties, all Cases where a deduction has been made during the year ended the 31st day of August, 1889, under Art. 114:—

  Name of School, with denomination.

  Average attendance.

  Income from fees and sale of books.

  Nett income from Grant.

  Income from subscriptions or rates.

  Income from endowment.

  Amount of deduction under Article 114.

  Summary.

  Schools with no income from subscriptions:—

  Number of schools

  Average attendance

  Total nett grant

  Total deductions under Art. 114

  Schools with an income from subscriptions not exceeding 2s. 6d. a head:—

  Number of schools

  Average attendance

  Total nett grant

  Total deduction under Art. 114

  Total income from subscriptions

  Schools with an income from subscriptions of 2s. 7d. to 5s. a head, inclusive:—

  Number of schools

  Average attendance

  Total nett grant

  Total deductions under Art. 114

  Total income from subscriptions

  Schools with an income from subscriptions of 5s. 1d. to 7s. 6d. a head, inclusive:—

  Number of schools

  Average attendance

  Total nett grant

  Total deductions under Art. 114

  Total income from subscriptions

  Schools with an income from subscriptions of 7s. 7d. to 10s. a head, inclusive:—

  Number of schools

  Average attendance

  Total nett grant

  Total deductions under Art. 114

  Total income from subscriptions

  Schools with an income from subscriptions of over 10s. a head:—

  Number of schools

  Average attendance

  Total nett grant

  Total deductions under Art. 114

  Total income from subscriptions

  —(Mr. Mundella.)

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  Return ordered, "For all Public Elementary Schools examined during the year ending 31st day of August, 1889, giving—

  Name and denomination of School.

  Number of scholars for whom accommodation is provided.

  Average attendance

  Income from fees and books.

  Income from subscription or rates.

  Income from endowment.

  Income from Parliamentary Grant.

  "Any school receiving a grant for more or less than a twelvemonth to be marked with an asterisk."—(Mr. Mundella.)

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state what is the result of the consideration which, in August last, he promised the Treasury would give to the question of how to meet the claims of the attendants and messengers at the South Kensington Museum to receive the same benefits of superannuation as are enjoyed by men doing similar work in kindred Government Departments?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I am not in a position to state the actual result of the consideration which I have given for many months past to this question, but I may say that I have made a suggestion which I hope will dispose of the matter.

  ALLEGED LEPROSY IN AN EMIGRANT SHIP.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the case of leprosy in a Swedish emigrant, as reported in the Liverpool Courier of 22nd May; whether the woman in question was permitted to land in and pass through England, to pass the examination of the Medical Emigration Officers of Health at Liverpool at their survey of the Cunard steamer Cephalonia on
  696
  the 17th April last, and the second inspection at Queenstown by an officer of the same Department; whether it is true that the woman in question was not allowed to land by the Port Authorities in Boston, U.S.A., after inspection by their Medical Inspector and several eminent American scientists, who declared the case to be one of genuine leprosy; and that the Cunard Company were, in consequence, compelled to bring her back to England; if it is true that on her arrival in Liverpool she was conveyed to the Brownlow Hill Workhouse, and there examined, as reported in the Liverpool Weekly Mercury—
  "by Dr. Hope, Assistant Medical Officer of Health for the city, Dr. Hill, the Board of Trade Officer, and Dr. Robertson, who entertained little doubt that the case was one of leprosy,"
  and made special arrangements for her complete isolation; whether such isolation was effected on board the Cunard steamship on either passage; what has been done with the patient; and whether any steps will be taken to prevent the loathsome and infectious disease in question, as well as other contagious and infectious diseases difficult of detection, being propagated in consequence of the present system of inspection by Medical Board of Trade Inspectors?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: The woman in question was permitted to land at Hull and pass through England. The Board of Trade have no

  697
  Statutory authority to examine passengers arriving in this country from abroad. The woman did pass the examination of the Medical Emigration Officers at Liverpool before embarking upon the Cunard steamship Cephalonia. These officers regarded the case as one of lupus of a non-contagious character; she brought with her a medical certificate to that effect. She had a husband and six children in America whom she was going to join; and my officers did not think there was sufficient justification for preventing her proceeding in the ship, but, in consequence of her appearance, it was required that she and her immediate party should be kept in one compartment, isolated from the rest of the passengers. The woman was not re-inspected by the Medical Officer of the Board of Trade at Queenstown; such re-inspection would be unusual. I learn from the Cunard Company that this passenger was allowed to land at Boston and remain on shore for 12 days, and that she was returned, not so much on account of the disease, as that her husband could not pay for her maintenance in hospital. She was isolated as a matter of precaution on her passage home, and her apartments were afterwards thoroughly fumigated, stripped, and disinfected, and she was sent by the Cunard Company to her home in Sweden, accompanied by a special attendant. On passing through Liverpool the patient was, I understand, taken to the Brownlow Hill Workhouse, where she was visited, unofficially, by the two Medical Officers of the Board of Trade who had previously examined her. These officers report that her later symptoms had more of the appearance of leprosy, as understood by them. Every precaution is taken by the Board of Trade and its officers to prevent, as far as possible, the propagation of contagious and infectious diseases. It is to the interest of all steamship companies carrying passengers to immediately isolate any suspicious case that may break out during the voyage, and subsequently fumigate, disinfect, and paint any space occupied by such a case, and I am informed that this was done in this particular case.
  DR. TANNER: Does not this case exemplify the necessity of taking steps to give more power to the medical
  698
  officers on board steamers of rejecting certain passengers, and thereby protecting the rest from any infection which may be promulgated in consequence of the defective Board of Trade arrangements?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think this case exemplifies anything of the kind, nor do I believe that the present arrangements are defective.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that a case of leprosy—one of the worst diseases in the world—is to be looked upon so lightly that Englishmen, and passengers generally, on board a steamship may be exposed to such an infection?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir. As I have already explained, the case was considered to be one of lupus, and not of leprosy; but care was taken even then to guard against its spreading.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the American Authorities as to whether this was not a case of leprosy passed by the Board of Trade but rejected by the American Authorities?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir, I will not.
  DR. TANNER: It is perfectly notorious.

  FORTROSE ACADEMY.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the case that the School Board of Rosemarkie contemplate removing the old academy at Fortrose from its present freehold site to a feu at a distance from the teachers' dwelling-house; at whose expense, whether ratepayers or endowment, is the new school to be built; whether the new school is to be an ordinary Board school or a higher class public school; whether the same is to be vested in and under the management of the School Board as a Board school, or in name of the School Board as the Governing Body of the endowment; whether the School Board have obtained the sanction of the Department to the contemplated change; and what is the cost of the proposed removal?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The School Board of Rosemarkie propose to remove the academy to another site which the Board hold to be more eligible. The question

  699
  of the tenure upon which the new site is held is not one which comes under their Lordship's cognisance, but there is no objection to the erection of a Board school on a feu. The School Board is the Governing Body of the endowment, and the question of the form in which the new school is to be vested is one on which they will doubtless be guided by their legal adviser. The Board propose to raise a loan of £1,850 on the security of the rates for the purpose, and have obtained the sanction of the Department to that loan.

  THE PUNJAB.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has any information respecting the action of the police in certain cases which are reported to have occurred in Amritsar, a city in the Punjab, with a population of over 150,000; whether, under the Punjab Police Act, or any other law in India, it is permissible for the Police Authorities to keep descriptive rolls of parties who have been in prison, and, while these parties are at liberty and are charged with no offence, to subject their persons to rigorous examination in the public streets; whether certain girls were so examined in public places in Lahore; whether he is aware that a girl named Vid Koer was thus examined in a public bazaar, and that, in consequence of this treatment, she absconded, was found by the police, detained in custody, and not allowed to see her parents or to be released until she signed an agreement denying the examination of her person in public, although the examination was witnessed by many people who are ready to testify thereto; whether he is aware that a Brahmin girl, aged 20, named Dhau Deir, was, against her protest, and in spite of her cries, taken into a public street and examined, no occasion for this as regards wrongdoing on her part being even alleged; whether he can state how men and women have been so examined, and whether the particulars of such examinations are contained in descriptive rolls in the Police Register; who is the officer responsible for these occurrences; whether he has been punished in any way; and whether an
  700
  inquiry has been instituted, and, if the inquiry is simply of a Departmental kind, whether the Secretary of State will give instructions for an independent and thorough investigation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): No, Sir. My noble Friend the Secretary of State has no official information that enables him to instruct me to answer the question. The matter will be referred to the Government of India in the usual way.

  PAYMENTS TO ANGLO-INDIAN NEWSPAPERS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have made any payments, and for what purposes, to, and which of, the Anglo-Indian newspapers published in India; whether it was with the knowledge or approval of the Secretary of State that an offer was made to the Times of India, a newspaper published at Bombay, as stated in a leading article in that journal, "to become the official organ of the Government of India;" whether the proprietor of the Times of India is correct in saying that, in answer to such offer, he gave "so clear and distinct a negative as to admit of no misconception;" and whether the Secretary of State will lay upon the Table the correspondence relating to this matter?
  SIR J. GORST: In answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I have to say that, except payments for advertisements, the Secretary of State is not aware of any payments being made by the Government to Anglo-Indian newspapers. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. In reply to paragraph No. 3, the Secretary of State is not aware of any such occurrence arising, or statement being made. In answer to the last paragraph, I have to say that there is no correspondence, and therefore none can be produced.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the statement made in the Times of India is not correct?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State for India is not aware that the Times of India has ever made such a statement.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with it.

  PUBLIC HOUSES IN BURNLEY.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that about two years ago a Census was taken of the public houses and beer houses in the Parliamentary Borough of Burnley, which proved that, out of 177 houses of this description, 165 were "tied houses," whilst only 12 were free; whether there is reason to believe that a similar state of things exists in other boroughs and counties in the United Kingdom; and whether, if the Inland Revenue Department possesses no information on this subject, he will cause inquiry to be made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEK,): No, Sir; I have no information as to the Census to which the hon. Member refers, and I have no knowledge whether the state of things said to exist in Burnley applies to the rest of the United Kingdom. As at present advised, I am doubtful whether officers of the Inland Revenue have a locus standi to institute an inquiry into what is a matter of private contract.

  EDUCATION OF THE BLIND AND DEAF.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can now state when the English and Scotch Bills for the education of the blind and deaf will be introduced?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The Scotch Bill is down for Second Reading in the other House this afternoon, and the English Bill will be introduced there as soon as certain questions of some difficulty that have arisen in connection with it are disposed of.

  THE CENSUS.
  MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Bill authorising the Decennial Census will be brought in; whether the Departmental Committee, relative to the Census, have made their Report; and whether it is intended to present the Report to Parliament?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am not in a position at present to give any information as to the date when the Bill authorising the next Census will be brought in. The Departmental Committee referred to have made their Report, and it is under the consideration of the Government. The Report will shortly be presented to Parliament.

  CHURCH RATE IN WAPPING.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the statement made to Mr. Mead, the Police Magistrate sitting at Thames Street, that for many years past it has been the practice in the parish of Wapping to serve notices demanding a voluntary Church Rate on the same form as is used for the general, sewers, and poor rates, and that the Magistrate has expressed the opinion that many persons have paid the rate, believing that they were compelled to do so; whether in other parishes voluntary Church Rates are collected in a similar way; and whether the Local Government Board will take steps to prevent Local Authorities applying for voluntary Church Rates by means liable to produce the impression that the payment of them is compulsory?
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention has not been called to the statement made to Mr. Mead, the Police Magistrate at Thames Street, that for many years past it has been the practice of the parish of Wapping to serve notices demanding a voluntary Church Rate on the same form as is used for the general, sewers, and poor rates. I have no information as to other parishes in which voluntary Church Rates are collected in a similar way. The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction as regards the form in which the General and Sewer Rates are levied in the Metropolis. The Board, however, concur in the opinion that the including of a voluntary rate in the forms of demand note for the Poor Rate or other rate levied under statutory authority is open to much objection. The views of the Board on this subject are communicated

  703
  to the officers concerned, where they learn that the practice referred to has existed.

  THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is true that the Government of the Bahamas has refused its consent to the adoption of the Merchandise Marks Act; and whether he will lay the correspondence upon the Table?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Government of the Bahamas has twice introduced into the House of Assembly, Bills corresponding to the Merchandise Marks Act, but has failed to carry them. It seems hardly worth while to lay the correspondence on the Table; but the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps call at the Colonial Office and see it, and then consider if the presentation is really desirable.

  THE CITY LIVERY COMPANIES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Livery Companies of the City of London are gradually realising their property; and, in particular, that 30 acres of land at Barking, constituting Morells Charity of the Goldsmiths' Company, have been sold, and that another property of the same Company, namely, a portion of Messrs. Glyn and Company's premises in Lombard Street, has been conveyed away to that firm for £85,000; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take steps to act upon the first recommendation of the Royal Commission of the City of London Livery Companies, which was as follows:—
  "We think that the Companie3 should he placed by Act of Parliament under such restrictions as regards the alienation of their real and personal estate as would remove all danger of the loss of any portion of their property."
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention has not been called to the fact that the Livery Companies of the City of London are gradually realising their property. As regards the two instances to which the hon. Member calls my attention, I may mention that I have this morning received a communication from the Clerk
  704
  of the Goldsmiths' Company, in which he states that no part of the 30 acres of land at Barking has been sold, nor has such a sale been under consideration. The price which was obtained for the house in Lombard Street sold to Messrs. Glyn is stated to have far exceeded any price ever previously obtained for property in the City. The purchase was made with the approval of the Charity Commissioners, and the money was invested in the name of the Official Trustee of Charitable Funds. I cannot undertake to propose legislation such as that suggested.

  THE DENBIGHSHIRE CHARITIES.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether the Report of the Charity Commissioners' Inquiry into the endowed charities of Denbighshire is ready for publication; and whether, in accordance with the desire of several County Councils, the Inquiry can be extended into other Welsh counties?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The inquiries into all the parishes of Denbighshire have been completed, and the Reports on all the parishes except four have now been received, and the Commissioners are engaged in completing the information necessary to enable them to present these Reports to Parliament. The Commissioners understand that the Treasury desires to have an opportunity of considering these Reports before authorising expenditure in respect of further like inquiries in other counties.
  MR. T. ELLIS: Will the Commissioners hasten the publication of the Report?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: We are anxious to do everything we can to hasten the publication of the Report; but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the matter rests with the Assistant Commissioner, who has been very much occupied since he had charge of the matter; but I believe he is now giving his attention to it, and I trust that it will soon be carried through.

  REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE, IRELAND.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the alleged increased

  705
  business and insufficient staff in the Registry of Deeds Office, Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the letter of Mr. James T. Ellis, Public Record Searcher, which appeared in the Freeman's Journal, of 8th May last; whether, as therein stated, the number of deeds registered for the five years, 1880 to end of 1884, was 78,900, and for the five years, 1885–9, the number was 81,600; whether he is aware that of the 2,700 deeds registered in excess of the number given for the 'previous five years, the greater portion is made up of Land Commission Deeds, which, owing to the number of granting parties, involve greatly increased work in the preparation of index books; whether it is correct, as stated by Mr. Ellis, that in the six index letters quoted in his letter there are 797 pages for the five years ending 1884, and that this number increased to 1,252 for the five years ending 1889; at what date will the consolidated indexes for the years 1880–89 be available for public use; and whether, considering the complaints which are made as to the insufficient staff, he will have it adequately increased, or have the seven hours' scheme of attendance applied?
  MR. JACKSON: My attention had not been called to Mr. Ellis's letter until this question was put on the Paper. Mr. Ellis, though described as a Public Record Searcher, has, I believe, no official connection with the Registry of Deeds. The duties of the Registry and the staff required for their performance formed the subject of inquiry by a thoroughly competent Committee in 1885, and the present staff is considerably in excess of the number which the Committee recommended as sufficient for the proper discharge of all the work of the Department. There is no intention to increase the number of the staff; but I hope that the rule requiring a regular daily attendance of seven hours in the Registry will be very shortly introduced. I cannot say when the consolidated indices for the period from 1880 to 1889 will be completed; but I am not satisfied with the progress which has been made since 1885, nor am I satisfied that the work of the Office is discharged as promptly as it could be. I am considering the best means of securing the completion of these indices, and if it be found necessary to afford some temporary assistance in
  706
  order to effect this object at an early date the Treasury will give the necessary sanction.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN (TRAMWAYS, IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the power which was conferred upon the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland by the "Public Works Loan (Tramways, Ireland) Act" of 1886, to make advances upon the security of their fully paid-up shares to any public company which had, at the time of passing the said Act, or within 12 months thereafter obtained an Order in Council, has been withdrawn by a Treasury Minute; and, if so, when was it withdrawn, and for what reason?
  MR. JACKSON: The power in question was given to meet a special and temporary difficulty which has passed away, and the Treasury has decided that it is not desirable or necessary to make further loans under the Act quoted.
  MR. SUMMERS: What was the date of the Minute?
  MR. JACKSON: I did not say there was any Treasury Minute.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the cause of the delay in granting the sum of £116,000 recommended so strongly by the Light Railway Commissioners, and approved of unanimously by the Grand Jury of County Donegal at the last Spring Assizes, in favour of the Stranorlar and Glenties Line?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): It is not possible for me at present to state the result of the consideration of the various railway schemes in Donegal.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the matter is of public interest, and large sums of money have already been invested by contractors in initiating schemes, will the Government be soon in a condition to announce what course will be taken?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to put his question to my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

  ASSAULT UPON IRISH CONSTABLES.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Freeman's Journal of 27th May last, of the proceedings of a trial before two Resident Magistrates at Portumna, in which five men of the district were charged with having committed a riotous assault on two constables named O'Gowan and M'Grady, and two emergency men, when the charges against all the accused were dismissed; whether he has seen the evidence which shows that the constables and the emergency men had been drinking together from the morning of the day on which the alleged offence was committed; that Constable M'Gowan at the trial denied some of the statements which he had sworn in the deposition previously made by him; that Constable O'Grady at Mrs. Kelly's yard fired off his rifle loaded with buckshot, and M'Gowan and he attacked the accused with their rifles; that, the emergency man Kingsbury struck the accused Dewin with a loaded whip; and that Kingsbury admitted at the trial that he had been previously fined for drunkenness, and also for firing off a revolver in the public road; and what steps he intends to take with reference to the conduct of the constables and the emergency men on this occasion?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is the fact that the Magistrates dismissed the case, partly on a point of law, and partly on account of the nature of the evidence.

  THE INCIDENCE OF IRISH TAXATION.
  MR. MARUM: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings before Colonel Dunne's Select Committee upon Irish Taxation (1864), wherein complaint was made in regard to the narrowness of the scope of the Inquiry, resulting in an incomplete Report, and furthermore, that serious questions of law arose as to the true construction of the Union Statute, 1800; and whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to frame the terms of the Order of Reference to the
  708
  proposed Select Committee upon the above subject wide enough to embrace the question of the competancy of the high contracting parties, or at least one of them, to enter into Articles of Union outside its legislative function and involving its own annihilation, without a plébiscite or other cognate authorisation from its electorate; the question of the; original justness of the proportions of financial contributions therein; and inquiry into the causes that before and since the Union period have occasioned a want of uniformity in the incrementation of the value of the realty and taxable basis of Ireland as an integral portion of the Empire relatively to the rest of the United Kingdom; with power, if deemed expedient, to examine legal experts, and to suggest ways and means whereby relief may be afforded to the Irish taxpayer without trenching' upon the British ratepayer?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to Colonel Dunne's Committee. Whatever complaints were made with regard to the narrowness of the scope of that Inquiry, it was sufficiently comprehensive, at any rate, to employ the Committee for two years, and to result in an incomplete Report, as the hon. Member points out. I do not propose to include questions of history in the terms of the Reference, as I consider that this would not lead to any practical result, and would probably postpone the Report to an indefinite period. The intention of the Government is to secure a practical investigation into the present incidence of taxation in Ireland, and its relation to the taxation of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  MR. SEXTON: When will the terms of Reference be placed on the Table?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have been engaged upon the Reference, and I hope to be able to place it on the Table of the House in the course of a few days. We are anxious to obtain the assent of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to it.

  HIGHER DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. R. POWER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the number of Higher Division Clerks is in certain Departments considerably in excess of requirements under the present classification of the Service;

  709
  and whether, in view of the fact that all re-organisation has been rendered practically impossible by the Resolution adopted on the 12th of June, 1888, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give the House an opportunity of again considering the matter, with the view of enabling them to fix establishments on a proper scale without further delay?
  MR. GOSCHEN: In June, 1888, a Motion was moved in this House condemnatory of the principle upon which pensions had been awarded to public officers retiring upon re-organisation of office. The Government, admitting the necessity of care on such occasions, asked the House to adopt an Amendment on the Original Resolution to the effect that—
  "This House, whilst of opinion that, when the re-organisation of a Department becomes necessary, full inquiry should he made into the wants of other Departments with a view to the continued employment of redundant officers, is not prepared, pending the inquiry of the Royal Commission upon Civil Service Establishments, to anticipate its Report by laying down any absolute rule as to the provision of employment for persons not required in the Department to which they have been originally appointed."
  The House, however, declined to accept this Amendment, and resolved that the re-organisations in the Accountant General's and Secretary's Department of the Admiralty had been injurious, and that in any further re-organisation officials who are still able and willing to render service for the public money shall be provided with employment in other Departments instead of being forced to become useless burdens on the country. It must, of course, be understood that when the House of Commons takes questions of administration into its own hands, and decides against the advice of the Government, it acts with the intention that effect shall be given to its decision. The Government, in consequence, have been and are loyally carrying out the Resolution, and are insisting on the continued employment of officers while they are able to serve. Further, the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments has reported that the provision in the Superannuation Act, which permits addition to be made to the pension of an officer on the abolition of his office, has given rise to great abuse, and they recommended the immediate repeal
  710
  of the provision. In presence of the Resolution of the House and the recommendation of the Commissioners, the Government do not consider it their duty to take action in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

  THE EDINBURGH ARTILLERY MILITIA.
  MR. LEES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many of the men of the Edinburgh Artillery Militia now under canvas at Barry Links, Forfarshire, are unprovided with great coats; whether many of them are also unprovided with straw for bedding, but are only allowed two blankets apiece; whether these men have suffered considerably from the coldness of the nights; and whether he will instruct the proper authorities to supply them with great coats and bedding, or additional blankets?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODBICK,): The General Officer commanding reports that 20 great coats were deficient. A demand for these was received at the Army Clothing Depôt on the 9th, and they were sent on the following day. The tents were for four nights unsupplied with straw, through some mistake, although the straw was at hand; but the men have had their regulation supply of blankets and waterproof sheets, and no complaints were made to the General commanding.

  AN ENGLISHMAN KILLED BY AN ITALIAN SENTRY.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true that an Englishman has been fired upon and killed by an Italian sentry at Genoa; what were the circumstances which led to his being fired upon; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): A Report has been made by Her Majesty's Consul that a fireman belonging to a British steamer lying in the port had been shot dead by a sentry posted on one of the batteries. The Consul has been informed by the General in Command

  711
  that the sentry asserted that he had repeatedly challenged the man, who continued to advance upon his post, and was shot at a distance of a few paces from him. The man had got out of his direct way back to his ship, and his conduct cannot be explained. The matter has been referred to Her Majesty's Ambassador, whose Report we are awaiting.

  SEA FISHERIES OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can yet inform the House when the Bill in relation to the Sea Fisheries in Scotland will be introduced, or whether it will be printed this Session; and when the Report of the Salmon Fishery Commissioners for Scotland will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Bill will be introduced very shortly in another place, and the Report referred to will, I believe, be circulated in a few days.

  SCOTCH PARISH BOUNDARIES.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if it is within the powers of the Boundary Commissioners appointed under "The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889," when inquiring into the circumstances of parishes which have no detached parts, to detach a portion of the parish for the purpose of adding it to another parish, or whether the reference to the alteration of boundaries in Section 49 of this Act refers only to such parishes as have detached parts?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I would rather not make abstract statements on a subject on which the Boundaries Commissioners are at present dealing with individual cases. I may say, however, that where a parish which has no detached parts is situated in more than one county the Boundary Commissioners are empowered to detach a portion of it and add it to another parish, so as to secure that a parish shall not be in more than one county.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE ON THE WELSH COAST.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that between Holyhead and Milford
  712
  Haven there is no port or harbour of refuge into which a boat drawing eight feet six inches of water can run at all states of the tide; that the absence of such harbour accommodation seriously cripples the success of fishing and trawling on that coast, and occasions serious loss of life every year, he will appoint a Departmental Committee to visit Fishguard, Aberystwith, Aberdovey, Barmouth, St. Tudwell's and other places, to inquire what steps could and should be taken for the further protection of the lives and industry of fishermen and traders along the Welsh coast?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member's question appears to have reference chiefly to fishing harbours, and I would refer him to the terms of the Treasury Minute of the 4th of May, 1887, which has been communicated to the House. If the Local Authorities of the districts to which the hon. Member refers could unite in promoting the construction of a harbour at any particular place, their object might be attained by their making an application under the provisions of the Treasury Minute to which I have referred; but I cannot appoint a Departmental Committee for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member, as I think this would hold out hopes which could not be realised.

  HOSPITAL DUES AT SMYRNA.
  COLONEL HILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state what arrangements have been decided upon with respect to the collection of hospital dues at the ports of Constantinople and Smyrna?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The final arrangements have not yet been decided on. They are still under consideration.

  INJURY TO CONSTABLES AT TIPPERARY.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of the two constables injured in Tipperary, the injuries were inflicted before 1st July, 1889, and the presentments made by the Grand Jury on the 15th July, 1889; and whether these dates were previous to the inauguration of the combination on the Smith-Barry estate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears that the two constables referred to as having obtained compensation received it in respect of injuries inflicted in March, 1889. I was, therefore, in error in the statement I made on Monday about these two men. I am informed that two other policemen, named Curran and Keating, were injured subsequent to the inauguration of the conspiracy on the Smith-Barry estate. I have inquired into the character of their injuries, but have not had time to receive a reply. Perhaps the hon. Member will ask a question later.
  MR. DILLON: Has any policeman got compensation for injuries since the beginning of the combination on the Smith-Barry estate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rather think not, Sir.

  CHARGE AGAINST A TIPPERARY CONSTABLE.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. John Maher, of Lorrha, County Tipperary, has reported to the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary that Sergeant Lord, of the Lorrha Constabulary Station, had refused to pay him an amount due to him, and had forged a receipt for the same, and had sent in the forged receipt to his superior officer as a vouchor that he had paid the money; whether Mr. Maher has also reported the case to the local District Inspector; and what action has been taken (or will be taken) in reference to this charge of forgery and fraud made against this police sergeant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the man referred to has put forward a claim for some shillings for car-hire alleged by him to be due since 1888. The local officer has inquired into the case, but cannot find that there is any ground for the claim.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it intended to proceed against this man for forgery and fraud?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If there is a bonâ fide charge, there will be no difficulty in taking proceedings.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall ask a further question on this subject.

  LIMERICK HARBOUR ENGINEER.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he has read the report of the election of harbour engineer for the Port of Limerick, held on Monday last, and if it is legal that representatives publicly elected by a constituency consisting of importers and exporters, and by delegates from the Limerick Corporation, in accordance with an Act of Parliament, could legally proceed to such election by ballot; and whether Sir James Spaight, who assumed to preside at such meeting, as President of the Limerick Chamber of Commerce, was entitled to give two votes on such election?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The subject of this question is one upon which I have no official information; but even if I had the means of obtaining such information, I must point out that the question is one upon which I ought not to give an opinion, relating as it does to the legality of an election which will, I presume, if disputed, be tested in the usual way.

  BREWERS OWNING PUBLIC HOUSES.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the local valuation lists and rate books give the names of the owners as well as of the occupiers of all rateable hereditaments; and, if so, whether he will cause a Return to be prepared of the number of public houses owned by brewers in each city, municipal borough, and Petty Sessional Division, respectively, in England and Wales, in each of the years from 1880 to 1890?
  MR. RITCHIE: The valuation lists usually give the names of the occupiers and owners of the rateable hereditaments in a parish at the time when the lists are made up, but they are not corrected as regards these particulars when changes occur, and they do not distinguish the owners who are brewers. They would not be available for such a Return as is suggested. With respect to the rate books, the names of the owners at the time of making the rate should be entered in the rate book; but it too often happens that the parochial officers are not very careful to obtain accurate information as to the owners of

  715
  the hereditaments when the rates are collected from the occupiers. As in the case of the valuation lists, the rate books do not distinguish the cases where the owners are brewers. To obtain a Return from the rate books merely of the public houses in England and Wales, it would be necessary to apply to the overseers of all the parishes in the country, which number nearly 15,000. The overseers are unpaid officers, and in a large number of cases they have no paid assistants. It is quite certain that a Return of this character could not be obtained unless payment were made for its preparation; and even if payment were made, many months would elapse before it could be completed, and, when completed, its accuracy could not be relied upon.

  CORK LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the manner in which the Governors of the Cork Lunatic Asylum are said to have shelved the Report of Messrs. Plunkett, O'Farrell, and T. J. M. Courtenay, Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums; whether the Board of Governors refused to give the Report to the Press until "they had considered;" whether it is true the Report suggested many reforms, and made serious complaints as to the want of personal cleanliness allowed to exist with regard to some of its inmates, and also as to the sanitary arrangements in certain parts of the house; and whether the Inspectors stated that, in their opinion, the Board had not properly attended to the wants of the patients; and what is the number of patients at present in the asylum?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Inquiries are being made, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question down again.
  DR. TANNER: I will put it down tomorrow.

  DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY.
  MR. MURDOCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposal has been received from the Portuguese Government, offering to submit to the arbitration of certain European nations
  716
  the question of the Delagoa Bay Railway Company?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: A joint proposal of that character has been made by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, America to the Government of Portugal, who have accepted it in principle.

  THE POLICE AND PUBLIC MEETING.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether District Inspector Concannon on Thursday, the 5th June, endeavoured to introduce a police reporter into a meeting hold in the Corn Exchange, Cork, convened by the Mayor of the City for the purpose of promoting a testimonial to a member of the Cork Town Council; what reasons are given by the police for endeavouring to intrude on such a gathering; and whether any remonstrance will be addressed to Mr. Concannon for exceeding his duty?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the District Inspector asked the Mayor if a reporter would be admitted, and on the Mayor replying No, nothing further occurred. The meeting was convened for the purpose of starting a testimonial to a parson undergoing imprisonment in connection with boycotting.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman, because a person is in prison and his friends outside get up a testimonial, this detestable practice of shadowing these people is to be persisted in? Has not the right hon. Gentleman learned better?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE LAND PURCHASE BILL.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution unanimously adopted by the Newtownards Farmers' Association, at a meeting held on the 26th May last; and whether he intends to make provision in his Land Purchase Bill in the direction pointed out in this resolution?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman asked me this question the other day. I then stated that the resolution had not been brought to my notice, and I have not yet seen it. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to for-

  717
  ward me a copy of it I shall be very glad.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I may say I did forward a copy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I regret I have not received it.

  OVERTIME AT CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will state the number of hours overtime performed by telegraph operatives in the Central Telegraph Office during the week ending 7th June instant; also, how many hours overtime performed at the same office during the first week of June, 1889; whether clerks there have been threatened with penal consequences for refusing to work overtime from 12 noon, although their duties were from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m.; whether, notwithstanding that every available officer was pressed on overtime duty, telegrams are often delayed for nearly an hour owing to the insufficient staff; and whether, having regard to this delay, and to the exceptional strain which long hours entails on the clerks, he will consider the desirability of increasing the staff at the Central Telegraph Office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The number of hours overtime performed in the Central Telegraph Office during the week ended the 7th instant was 10,260, and during the corresponding week of last year 10,037. The work in this week is exceptionally heavy, and the amount of overtime is, therefore, correspondingly high. It is spread over a force of about 2,400 persons. In one or two instances telegraphists who have demurred to render assistance in times of extreme pressure have been informed that it would be necessary to consider the question of removing them from the duty extending from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m. to make way for those upon whose help the Department might rely, and it is, perhaps, to this that the hon. Member refers as being a threat of penal consequences. I may mention that the duty in question is only performed five days a week. It is not the fact that telegrams are often delayed to the extent mentioned by the hon. Member. Some delay has, however, occurred on a few of the circuits, owing to the extreme pressure, and, in view of
  718
  the amount of overtime performed, it has been in contemplation to make an early application for authority to increase the staff.

  THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will state the full particulars about the punishment of postmen in London for attending the meeting of their trade on Clerkenwell Green, 16th May; how many were punished; how many were fined; how many deprived of their stripes; if he will state whether it is the intention of the Department to dismiss the men who refuse to give a written declaration that they will not attend Union meetings in future; and if he will state definitely whether or no postmen are allowed to form a Union?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that certain postmen having, in defiance not only of the established regulations, but of a special warning which had been addressed to them only a few days before, thought fit to attend a meeting on Clerkenwell Green, which did not comply with the Rules of the Service, I felt constrained to vindicate the authority of the Department. Altogether 31 men have been punished by fine, and of this number eight have been deprived of their good conduct stripes. Obviously a distinction which, as its name implies, is given for good conduct, cannot continue to be worn by those who defy regulations. As regards those of the 31 who are under suspension, the intention of the Department is to restore them to duty as soon as they give satisfactory assurances for their good behaviour. Their restoration, therefore, as the hon. Member will see, is in their own hands. Postmen are at liberty to form associations for their mutual benefit, or for the discussion of matters in which they have a common interest, so long as they do not transgress regulations or organise resistance to the authority of their superior officers.
  MR. LAWSON: Are punishments of this kind imposed in other branches of the Civil Service for similar offences?
  MR. RAIKES: I have not inquired into that.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain in what respect the meeting on Clerkenwell Green did not comply with the Rules of the Service?
  MR. RAIKES: I think that the House is aware that under the rules as to the holding of meetings, men who propose to attend them are requested to give notice of their intention to hold such meetings; that such meetings should and are to be, confined to persons in the Postal Service; and that, if it is thought necessary, the authorities should be able to have their official shorthand writer present.
  MR. CONYBEARE: As this was an open-air meeting on Clerkenwell Green, I should like to ask whether the regulations will not absolutely preclude all postmen from attending an open-air meeting, and whether that is a fair construction of the rules?
  MR. RAIKES: No, that is not a fair construction of the rules; but it would be quite competent for the postmen to hold an open-air meeting if they complied with the rules—i.e., if they gave notice of their intention to hold the meeting; if they gave satisfactory assurance that the meeting would be confined to persons in the Postal Service, and if the shorthand writer was present.
  MR. CONTBEARE: Did the postmen on this occasion raise any difficulty or suggest any refusal to have an official reporter as a representative of the Postmaster-General at this meeting?
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: In order to make this matter clear to the country will the right hon. Gentleman state whether this meeting, for attending which these men have been suspended and punished, was held out of their working hours?
  MR. RAIKES: In answer to the last question I presume, at all events, that the meeting took place out of the working hours of such postmen as attended, but not, of course, out of the regular working hours of the whole Service. With regard to the first question, the men had not given the Department the opportunity of considering whether the presence of a shorthand writer would be required, because they gave no notice of their intention to hold a meeting.

  SPURIOUS COINS.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the extensive circulation of spurious florins and shillings now going on in this country; and whether any steps can be taken to prevent such circulation?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am informed that there is no reason to believe that there is any considerable circulation of spurious florins and shillings.
  MR. BOULNOIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable uneasiness in the mind of the public, especially among the working classes, on the subject of certain jubilee coins now circulated, and will he make some statement to allay that uneasiness?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I thought that the statement which I have just made would do so. There is no reason to believe that there is any serious circulation of any spurious jubilee coins.
  MR. KELLY: Is it, or is it not, the fact that many poor people believe that numbers of these coins have been imported from Germany?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am not aware that jubilee shillings have been imported from Germany. I will ask the hon. Member to put down the question.

  ALLEGED SLAUGHTER OF CHRISTIAN REFUGEES.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in the position to give the House any information regarding the reported slaughter by Arnauts, with the connivance of the Turkish Authorities, of a number of Christian refugees in the neighbourhood of Kossova, in North West Macedonia, as they were endeavouring to make their way to Servia?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No information has been received at the Foreign Office on the subject.
  MR. BRYCE: Will the right, hon. Gentleman inquire? This is a very serious matter, for it is reported in the Continental papers that more than 80 persons were killed.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: As I have previously explained, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Representatives to report

  721
  instantaneously on reports sent by telegraph to English newspapers. It is their duty to inquire into the accuracy of rumours before they report on them, as I am sure they will do in good time.

  POSTAGE TO AUSTRALIA.
  SIR G. BADEN POWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Australian Governments have yet decided to adopt the reduction of the rate of postage to the United Kingdom to 2 ½d.; and, if so, whether they have attached any conditions to such decision?
  MR. RAIKES: I have much pleasure in informing my hon. Friend and the House that, according to a telegram received on the 29th of May, the majority of the Australian colonies, as represented in a Postal Conference at Adelaide, have announced their intention to adopt the reduced postage of 2½d. for letters to this country. They have, at the same time, made certain other proposals; but the telegram does not make it clear that their acceptance of the 2½d. rate is conditional on the adoption of these proposals, which are at present under discussion.

  THE CABLE COMPANIES AND GOVERNMENT MESSAGES.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Australian Governments have made any suggestions to the Imperial Government as to taking part with them in any guarantee to Cable Companies against losses that may ensue on the proposed reduction of cable rates from 9s. 6d. to 4s. for public messages; and, if so, whether the Government has decided to comply with their suggestions, or to take any steps towards promoting this proposal?
  MR. JACKSON: It is a fact that the principal Australian Governments have made a proposal that the Imperial Government should join them in payment of the subsidy now and for some time past paid by them to the company owning the Australian cables, and should also join in guaranteeing the company against half the loss which might accrue from the reduction of the cable rates to the figure mentioned. But, after very careful consideration, the Government has not teen able to accede to the proposal.

  THE EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will lay upon the Table of the House, and cause to be printed, a Paper showing the grounds on which he arrives at the estimate of £100,000 as the probable additional annual expenditure involved by the educational changes of this year, showing in detail the proportions of the excess due to the New Code, and to the Code Bill respectively?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I have no objection, upon general grounds, to take the course suggested in my hon. Friend's question; but it must be understood that the figures will be an estimate only, and will merely show what we expect to be the immediate increase upon the present Vote.

  SPHERES OF INFLUENCE IN AFRICA.
  MR. A. E. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any substantial truth in the statement which appeared in the St. James's Gazette, of yesterday (11th June), purporting to give in detail the lines upon which a settlement either had been or was about to be arrived at between England and Germany respecting their spheres of influence in Africa?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No statement can be made upon the point at present.
  MR. E. W. BECKETT: I should like to ask whether the Government are prepared to adhere to Lord Salisbury's declaration in the City that it is very undesirable to come to any agreement which we have not ascertained would be acceptable to the trading companies, missionaries, and others, who have advanced this great work; and whether the Government are still of opinion that this matter is one upon which the public opinion of England and Parliament ought to be consulted?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am sure that the Prime Minister will adhere to any statement which he has publicly made. Further than that I cannot go.

  THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for

  723
  the Colonies whether it will be convenient to lay upon the Table of the House at an early date the Papers and Correspondence in reference to the additional military contribution proposed to be levied on the Straits Settlements?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: This matter is still the subject of correspondence, and as soon as this is completed, Papers will be laid.

  CONTEMPT OF COURT.
  MR. LEES: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention, has been called to the case of Mr. Thomas Harrison, of Hollinwood, Oldham, who is now lying in Strangeways Prison, Manchester, for Contempt of Court; whether he is aware that Mr. Harrison has never committed any offence except in connection with the publication of a pamphlet entitled The Coal Trade and Railway Rates, reflecting upon the action of a Railway Company and certain colliery proprietors; whether the order for a writ of attachment against Mr. Harrison was made in Chambers instead of in open Court, and whether it is the law that a man may be committed for contempt otherwise than by an order made in open Court; whether Mr. Harrison is now detained in prison for a contempt for which he has already humbly apologised to the Court; and whether this is in accordance with the usual practice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): In answer to the question of the hon. Member, my attention had not been called to the case to which he refers; but I am informed that Mr. Harrison was restrained by injunction from publishing certain letters received by him from a Railway Company, and that with full knowledge of that injunction he proceeded to widely circulate a pamphlet containing the letters in question. An application to commit Mr. Harrison for contempt of Court was thereupon made to the Judge in Chambers. Mr. Harrison was represented by counsel, who, as far as I am aware, never objected to the hearing of the application in Chambers, which was in accordance with the law and the usual practice. Upon that occasion Mr. Harrison admitted his offence, and tendered a humble apology, upon which the learned Judge made an order that no attachment should
  724
  issue against him provided he paid the costs of the application as between solicitor and client. Mr. Harrison, however, failed to pay such costs, and was committed to prison accordingly.

  "TIED HOUSES."
  MR. SUMMERS: I bog to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the number of "tied houses" in this country is constantly increasing; whether he is aware that the leases of such "tied houses" contain a clause providing that the lessee shall
  "have and purchase of and from the lesson and of and from no other person or persons, all the beer, ale, table beer, and cider;"
  and whether there is anything illegal in such a clause, as being in restraint of trade; and, if not, whether there is an implied contract that the "beer, ale, table beer," &c., shall be of good quality, and shall be supplied at a reasonable price?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am not aware that the number of "tied houses" is increasing, as suggested in the question of the hon. Member. There is, in my opinion, nothing illegal in such a clause as that referred to in the second paragraph of the question. A condition that the beer and ale and table beer should be of good quality would, in the absence of express stipulation, be implied, but the price must depend upon the special bargain in each case.

  "MITCHELL V. REGINA."
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is true that in 1886–7 a large sum of money voted by Parliament under Vote 19, for pensions and compensations to retired officers, was returned to the Treasury, as an unexpended balance, by the War Office; and whether he is prepared, as an act of grace and under the special circumstances under which the trial of "Mitchell v. Regina" took place, to grant as an act of grace to the suppliant, in consideration of his services of over 31 years in the corps of Royal Engineers, and the services of his father, the late John Wray Mitchell, Royal Artillery, for a longer period, some grant of money as an equivalent for loss sustained by early retirement from the

  725
  Army, in consequence of the operation of new and enforced rules of retirement which did not govern the Army when he entered it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The surplus of Vote 19 for 1886–7 was surrendered to the Exchequer according to law, and is no longer at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government. I am informed that it is not the intention of the War Office to ask for any further compensation for Colonel Mitchell.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: May I ask whether, if the suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina" is made to pay the taxed costs of the Crown on the action under petition of right, Messrs. Hare and Co., the agents to the Solicitor to the Treasury, would only get one-half the allowed fees, and the other half go into the Exchequer receipts of the Crown; and whether this arrangement is in contravention of paragraph 32 of the Solicitors Act, 1843.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The suppliant has been relieved from paying the costs of the Crown in this case. The arrangement with Messrs. Hare is an old one, which has worked well, and the legal point raised by the hon. Member is not one with which I am competent to deal.

  SIR LINTORN SIMMONDS' MISSION.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Holiness the Pope has declared—
  "That marriages celebrated in Malta by all those who profess the Catholic religion, whether both contracting parties be Catholics, or whether one of them be a Catholic and the other a non-Catholic, are not, and shall not be, valid if they are not celebrated according to the form established by the Council of Trent;"
  whether, on 18th January, 1890, Sir Lintorn Simmonds informed Cardinal Rampolla that Her Britannic Majesty's Government would cause a Project of Law to be introduced in the Council of Government in Malta in accordance with this declaration; whether Sir Lintorn Simmonds acted within his instructions in making such an announcement; and whether a Project of Law answering to this description has been introduced, or is about to be introduced, in the Council of Government in Malta?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The answer to the first three questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative; and, with regard to the last, I think I had better refer the hon. Member to a letter of the Prime Minister which appeared in the Times of the 4th inst.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the interest felt in the subject, and the importance of its proposals, he will undertake that an opportunity will be afforded for reasonable discussion of the Savings Banks Bill, and can now mention a date for its Second Reading; whether he will now fix a day for the Second Reading of the Employers' Liability Bill; and whether he will now inform the House when the Government propose to afford it definite and regular opportunities of considering Supply?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in reply to a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian on the 10th inst. Then I stated that the Government felt it their duty to proceed from day to day with the Local Taxation Bill, and would make no arrangements with regard to public business until the Committee stage of that Bill was completed.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Perhaps, as the right hon. Gentleman has inserted a condition in his answer—that it was intended to proceed day by day with the Local Taxation Bill, unless he had occasion to interrupt the proceedings on account of some measure of a public character; he also stated on the same day that he would be able to announce the intentions of the Government with respect to such a measure—he will permit me to ask whether he is able to make a statement, which is of great importance, as to the course of public business. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will lose no time in letting the House know what are the means to be taken with regard to the Bills before the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly accurate in stating that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Local Taxation Bill, unless it is necessary

  727
  to interpose a Motion with regard to public business. I am not in a position to give any notice of such a Motion. So soon as I am in a position to do so, I will avail myself of the first opportunity to make a statement, and I am sure I shall be favoured with the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. Until then, I must defer my statement.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I hope, also, independently of the question of any special measure, the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the time of year at which we have now arrived, and feel that it is becoming requisite speedily to announce the intentions of the Government as to their policy. This week I think it was understood we were to know.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman is not so accurate as he usually is. I carefully guarded myself. I said that I hoped "in a few days" to be able to give the statement referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HOWELL: When is it intended to proceed with the Savings Bank Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think I have practically answered that. The Government intend to proceed with the Local Taxation Bill as far as they can. If the Bill referred to can be taken after 12, it would then be taken, but it cannot then be taken if it is desired to have a discussion upon it.

  GOVERNMENT SUB-CONTRACTS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what administrative action the Government have decided to take in view of the "Evidence and Report of the Lords Committee on Sweating" to put a stop, by more efficient inspection and more stringent forms of contract, against subcontracting or otherwise, to the practice of sweating, so far, at any rate, as work done for Government Departments is concerned, as to one of which Departments the Director of Contracts has himself stated that—
  "The evidence given before your Lordships has tended to show that our contracts have been used for some years as a vehicle for sweating, and that the whole of the sweating business has been carried out almost under the protection of the War Office."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The remark which the hon. Member quotes applied only to accoutrements, and with regard to these I must refer him to the answer he received to a similar question on the 25th of July last.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman state if any War Office contracts have been given to foreign firms, and if so how many?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: A Return giving the information the hon. Gentleman desires will be presented to the House.

  THE BLIND AND DEAF.
  MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government has considered the Report and recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Blind and Deaf; and whether it is proposed to legislate for Ireland as well as for Scotland and England; and, in such event, whether effect will be given to the suggestions of the Royal Commission in special reference to the needs and circumstances of Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government have before them the Report and recommendations of the Royal Commission referred to. They hope to propose legislation for Ireland on the subject so soon as the state of Public Business admits. In framing their proposals careful attention will be given to the suggestions of the Royal Commission.

  WANTON DESTRUCTION OF SEA BIRDS.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to illustrated letters in the Daily Graphic of 31st May and 3rd June, containing an account of the wanton destruction of sea birds and their eggs by a landing party from H.M.S. Sir Richard Fletcher, on the Island of Grassholme, in the Bristol Channel, on the 23rd May; whether the acts described in the letters constitute a breach of "The Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880;" and whether he will take steps to prevent the repetition of such acts by persons using Her Majesty's ships?
  MR. BRODRICK: This subject has already been brought by the hon. Member for Pembroke to the notice of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and,

  729
  perhaps, the hon. Member for Swansea will allow me, by anticipation, to reply to his question in conjunction with that of my hon. Friend. Although the account given in the newspaper is somewhat exaggerated, it is the fact that an officer of the Royal Engineers did land on Grassholme, which is an isolated rock far out at sea, and did shoot some sea birds under the mistaken idea that the Wild Birds Preservation Act did not extend to the spot. The Commander-in-Chief has expressed his disapproval of the proceeding, and His Royal Highness has given orders that will prevent its repetition.

  THE REV. J. POWER.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why is the Rev. John Power, Rathgormac, County Waterford, followed by a Government notetaker and by police when engaged in his duties, even when calling on the sick and dying in the ministration of his sacred duties; and can he state how long it is intended that Father Power shall be thus followed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the rev. gentleman mentioned has been inciting to boycotting and intimidation in order to compel tenants to give up a surrendered farm which they had taken. In pursuance of this object he has been addressing indoor and open-air meetings, and whenever the police have reason to believe that he is about to hold an open-air meeting with this object he is followed by a police notetaker with the usual escort with a view to a prosecution being instituted against him. I am informed that the police do not follow him into any house, or in any way interfere with the ministration of his duties. So soon as the rev. gentleman discontinues the illegal practices mentioned, the duty of the police in the matter will at once cease.
  MR. DILLON: If this priest is, as alleged, guilty of these illegal practices will he be prosecuted? If not, why not?
  MR. P. J. POWER: Did the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information from the constables whose conduct we impugn? The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is directly opposed to what I state in the question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I obtained the information in the only way in which the Irish Secretary can obtain it. If the hon. Gentleman has any further statements, and will be good enough to lay them before me, I shall be very glad to examine them. As to the question of the hon. Member for East Mayo, there are many cases in which the police are cognisant of illegal acts, and yet are unable to carry them to prosecution.

  PROSECUTIONS AT CORK.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true, as reported in the Cork papers, that summonses were last week issued at the prosecution of District Inspector Ball, Fermoy (County Cork), against Patrick Keefe, Thomas Kent, William Kent, George Mulcahy, John Fuohy, Patrick Walsh, John Donovan, and James Donovan; if he can state whether these prosecutions are brought with the approval or sanction of the Irish Law Officers; and whether he is aware that of the above-named defendants two of them, namely, Thomas and William Kent, are at present confined in Cork Gaol for offences arising out of the alleged boycotting of a farm in connection with which these summonses are now issued?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The prosecutions in this case are still pending, and therefore it would not be proper for me to make any statement on the subject. I shall be obliged if the hon. Gentleman; will defer the question.

  ALLEGED ILLEGAL USE OF FIREARMS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that John Murphy, an emergency man, who was charged at Conna (County Cork) Petty Sessions last Friday, "with discharging a revolver on the public road" at a woman named Julia Fitzgerald and others, was acquitted by Colonel Longbourne, R.M., and two other Magistrates on the ground that "defendant had not got the revolver now;" also that the same defendant was charged by the Excise authorities with carrying the revolver without a licence, and fined the mitigated penalty of £2 10s. and costs; and whether he can state what are the

  731
  reasons which induced Colonel Longbourne, R.M., to recommend that this fine be further reduced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the man mentioned was charged not with firing at any person, but with having discharged his revolver on the public road, the shot being fired in the air. The defendant was not acquitted on the ground alleged in the question, but because the Bench of Magistrates considered, from the evidence before them, that the defendant had reasonable grounds of alarm at the time he discharged the weapon in the air with the object of frightening without causing injury. The Bench recommended the remission of the Excise penalty on the ground that, in their opinion, the defendant was not responsible for the neglect to take out an Excise licence, the revolver having been supplied to him for his protection by his employer, by whom the licence should have, in their opinion, been taken out for him.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to the fact that not a week elapses without some emergency man firing off his revolver; and whether anything will be done to put a stop to such riotous and rowdy conduct?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The fact has not been brought under my notice, nor am I aware that there has been any cases of serious breaches of the public peace.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: What about the case of Kinsella?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And there was the Templemore case. In these cases two men were killed, and nobody was hanged for it.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether instructions will be given that more supervision shall be exercised over the issue of licences to men of this character, in view of the frequent occurrences of outrages of the kind indicated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine there is supervision exercised. It is owing to the unfortunate state of Ireland that these men require revolvers.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct some inquiry to be
  732
  made into the character of these men before the issuing of these licences?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether in this case the fine was remitted by the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information on that point.

  THE IRISH BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT.
  MR. P. M'DONALD: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, considering the effect of "The Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act, 1888, and the remarkable diminution latterly of commercial and legal business in Ireland, there is still sufficient employment for two Judges and 10 officers in the Court of Bankruptcy, Dublin; and whether the Government intend to take any steps with regard to this state of things?

  PLOVERS AND CORN GROWING.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it has come to his knowledge that farmers are giving up the growing of corn, because of the very serious damage done to the crops by the great increase of grubs and insects, consequent on the rapid diminution of plovers, by the systematic robbery of their eggs; and whether he will bring in a Bill declaring a close time for plovers' eggs?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Until the appearance of the hon. Member's question, I have never heard any suggestion made by agriculturists that corn growing has been discontinued owing to the scarcity of plovers. There are many districts to which I believe plovers never resort, where corn is grown extensively, and the corn crops in those districts do not appear to be more subject to the ravages of insects than the corn crops in other localities in which plovers are numerous. As to a close time for plovers' eggs, the only complaint which has ever reached me, and which I own rather commends itself to me, is that the season for plovers' eggs is too limited already, and it would be a hazardous experiment for any Minister, I think, to endeavour to further restrict it.

  TORY ISLAND.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beer to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether all arrangements have now been made by Lloyds', with the sanction of the Board of Trade, for connecting Tory Island lighthouse and signal station by submarine cable with the main land of Ireland; and, if so, when this service of safety is likely to be put to work?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As the application by Lloyds' to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order under "Lloyds' Signal Stations Act, 1888," has been withdrawn, there is no need for the sanction of the Board of Trade to the establishment of a signal station on Tory Island. I have, however, communicated with Lloyds' on the subject, who inform me that, after considerable difficulty with the landowner, the conveyance of the requisite land has been completed, and possession will be immediately taken by Lloyds'. The contract for the manufacture and laying of the necessary telegraphic cable will, it is expected, be signed in the course of a few days, and also the contract for the erection of the necessary buildings, and it is believed that the signal station will be in working order within a few weeks, provided that the weather permits of the cable being laid within that time.

  THE TIPPERARY AFFRAY.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will entertain the request for a Committee of Inquiry into the alleged excessive violence displayed by the Constabulary at Tipperary and Cashel, on the 25th and 27th of May?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The case appears to be strictly parallel to others that have, from time to time, occurred during the last 10 years. I do not see any reason for departing from the precedent set, no doubt after due consideration, be hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. PARNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention boon called to the inquiry which has been held by the Town Commissioners of Cashel into this matter, and has he seen the Report, signed by 14 out of 18 members of that body, which relates to 17 specific acts of
  734
  violence and improper conduct on the part of the police at Cashel?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I have not seen that Report.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the precedent afforded by the Belfast case in 1886 as one applicable to the present case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I have the Belfast riots in my mind. There is, however, no parallel between those serious transactions and what occurred at Tipperary and Cashel the other day. We should require legislation to establish a tribunal like that which was created for Belfast.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I agree that there were great excesses in the case of Belfast which do not exist in the present instance, but I wish to know, as a matter of principle, whether it is not in the interest of the police themselves, when the gravest charges are made against them, that an opportunity should be given for inquiry before some efficient tribunal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a great deal to be said for the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but a Committee of the House of Commons, composed of Party gentlemen, is about the worst tribunal in the world to consider the case—an opinion which the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed himself to hold when he decided on the Belfast case. The police have been chronically attacked during the past 10 years by hon. Members below the Gangway, and the charges now made with regard to Tipperary and Cashel are far milder than those made on previous occasions in which inquiry was refused.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in England charges against the police are invariably followed by judicial investigation, instituted and ordered by the Police Authorities themselves.
  MR. DILLON: The object of the Irish Members is that some sort of inquiry should be had.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Derby can be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman desires that the police shall be prosecuted in order to find out whether they are guilty. That appears to me to be an inversion of the ordinary course of procedure. There

  735
  ought to be a primâ facie case brought home to the mind of the Attorney General for Ireland before such an inquiry is instituted.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the charge that numerous people were injured by the police, and state what remedy they have?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman refused an inquiry at Mitchelstown where someone was killed, and he refuses it now. How many people is it necessary to kill before an inquiry is granted?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE RESIGNATION OF MR. MONRO.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I wish to ask whether there is any truth in the Report that Mr. Monro has resigned, and whether his resignation is owing to a difference of opinion between him and the Home Secretary; and, if so, upon what subject there has been a difference of opinion between them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I regret to say that it is true that the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has tendered his resignation, and that that resignation has been accepted. It is also true that differences of opinion have arisen between him and myself in respect to questions of administration and legislation affecting the Metropolitan Police.
  MR. STUART: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what those differences of opinion are?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not prepared at present to state what those differences of opinion are.
  MR. STUART: I will repeat my question to-morrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. CAINE: I leg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what Amendments to the Licensing Clauses which are on the Paper the Government propose to accept?
  MR. RITCHIE: I intend to accept the following Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby:—
  Clause 6,page 4,line 25, after "agreement" insert "Provided always that nothing in this
  736
  Act contained shall he construed as altering the existing law affecting the renewal of licences, or as giving to the holder of any licence any right or privilege other than that now enjoyed by him."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are the Government prepared to accept my attempt to deal with the question of licensing in Ireland separately from England, and thus save the time of the House? What objection is there to allowing a private Member to pass through a Bill on this subject? Will the Government consent to re-commit the Local Taxation Bill in order to insert an Irish clause?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government do not see the necessity for doing this, and prefer to deal with the question as a whole.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why do the Government persist in wasting Government time, which is extremely precious at this period of the Session, when the matter can be dealt with for Ireland in the time of private Members? Why need they do this if they do not object to the principles or proposals of my Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My view has always been that the Bill of the hon. Member is unnecessary, and it deals only with a part of the policy of the Government, or deals with it only in a fragmentary manner. I have no objection to the Bill making such progress that it might be passed if that of the Government does not pass into law.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: When will the Select Committee on the Infant Life Protection Bill be moved for?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not in a position to answer until I have had an opportunity to make inquiry.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to ask for some definite information as to the time when the Irish Estimates will be taken?
  MR. SEXTON: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Land Purchase Bill is to have precedence of the other Government measures?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I must press the Leader of the House to say whether he really considers there is any prospect of the Irish Land Bill being passed this Session.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In reply to the question put by the hon. Member for East Mayo, I wish to say I am not in a position to give any pledge in regard to the matter referred to; but I will under-

  737
  take that due notice shall be given. With regard to the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill, that will be postponed pro forma till next Monday.
  MR. SEXTON: My question was put seriously. Do the Government intend to press on the Bill?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is now intended to follow the precedent set in 1886, when a great meeting of the Liberal Party was held at the Foreign Office, and on the same day the right hon. Gentleman himself moved the adjournment of the House for the purpose of extracting from the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian some account of what had passed at the Foreign Office. Does the right hon. Gentleman now intend to give the House a short account of what has passed at the meeting at the Carlton Club? At all events, we are entitled to press for an answer as to what is intended to be done with the Irish Land Purchase Bill.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: What I did in 1886 was to move the adjournment of the House, not for the purpose of extracting from the head of the Government what had passed at a private meeting, but for the purpose of ascertaining what action the Government would take with regard to a Bill which was at that moment actually under discussion in the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I thought I had made my statement sufficiently clear. I am not in a position to make any statement as to the course of public business at the present moment; but no inference of one kind or another ought to be drawn from that fact.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us at least on what day we may expect a statement from him?
  MR. PARNELL: With reference to the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that he will give us notice when the Irish Estimates will be brought on, that promise was kindly meant, but it would rather indicate that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to take them in their order. Lest he should be under the impression that that is what we desire, I wish to say that it is our desire that they should be taken this Session in their order, as they are reached, and should not be postponed as they have
  738
  been on previous occasions, with the result that they have come on so late that discussion was impossible.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in the management of the business of the House, and in withholding from the House a statement of the intentions of the Government as to the course of business on the day on which it had been announced that a statement would be made on that subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot put that Motion. I consider that the subject is not a "definite subject of urgent public importance;" and I shall decline to put the Motion at any risk to myself. I consider it is an abuse of the Rule of the House, a Rule which is not intended to be used for such a purpose as the Motion has in view. Notice has been given that an announcement will be made of the arrangements for public business, and to discuss the subject on a Motion for adjournment would be to anticipate the announcement of which notice has been given.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether the leader of the House will undertake, either on Friday or on Monday, to state the intentions of the Government as to the Land Purchase Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will endeavour at the earliest possible moment to give to the House the information it is entitled to receive. I hope it may be possible on Monday, but I am not able to say now.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understood you had stated, Sir, that the difficulty in the way of a Motion for adjournment, such as was made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in 1886, was that notice had been given that an announcement would be made as to the course of public business. What we have endeavoured in vain to do is to extract from the Government information as to the time when the promised announcement is to be made. We understood the First Lord of the Treasury had promised to make it this week; and, if it is not made to-day, then it must be made to-morrow, if that promise is to be kept. If we are not to have the

  739
  opportunity of bringing on a Motion to obtain information on this subject, we are, at least, entitled to a definite statement as to when the announcement will be made.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware that it is the custom of the House or of Parliament to require a Minister to state more than he is fairly in a position to state. I have stated to the House that it is my wish and my resolve to communicate to the House the proposals which we have to make with regard to the public business at the earliest moment. I said last Monday that I hoped to do so in the course of a few days. I think the right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in stating that I undertook to do so this week. I will endeavour to do so at the earliest possible moment. I cannot do so before next Monday; if it is possible I will do so then.

MOTION.

  POLICE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary Matthews, Bill to make provision respecting the Pensions, Allowances, and Gratuities, of Police Constables in England and Wales, and their Widows and Children, and to make other provisions respecting the Police of England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Matthews, the First Lord of the Treasury, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Stuart Wortley.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 338.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 244.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (ii.), in order to insert the words: "(ii.) The sum of three hundred and fifty thousand pounds shall he applied in England for the purpose of agricultural, commercial, and technical instruction, as defined in Section eight of 'The Technical Instruction Act, 1889,' and in Was either for the said purpose or for the purposes defined in Section seventeen of 'The Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889.'"—(Mr. Arthur Acland.)
    Question again proposed,
    "That the words '(ii.) The Bum of three hundred and fifty thousand pounds shall be applied for such extinction of licences in England' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR W. LAWSON: The principle involved in this sub-section is the most important principle in the Bill, and the one which hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House mean to fight most determinedly. We maintain that it is not the business of the Government to give special facilities for promoting the consumption of strong drink. I think I am quite in order in quoting on this matter a few words written by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to the Rev. Peter Thompson, on the 14th of. May, 1890, when he said—
    "May I ask you also to believe that whether our proposals are good or bad they have been made solely with the view of showing our sympathy with the temperance movement and of taking some steps towards remedying the evils of which you speak."
    The Government have said over and over again during the last few weeks that this Bill has been brought in on temperance principles, therefore we must discuss it on temperance grounds. Often and often, in addressing public meetings on the question of the drink traffic, have I quoted the language used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, when he said in this. House that drinking brought upon this country the accumulated evils of war, pestilence, and famine; and I think that if anything can justify such strong language it must be that which the right hon. Gentleman so strikingly described. Now, Sir, if I believed that the Bill brought in by the Government would diminish the amount of drink in this country no one would support it more strongly than myself. No one would more arduously support such a measure, whether brought in by a Tory Government or a Government composed of Members sitting on this side of the House, and I may add that I would gladly stump the country in favour of such a measure. After all, Sir, we do not discuss this question as a matter of pains and penalties; we discuss it because we regard the drinking system, promoted by the existing licensing law as a serious national evil. We say it is not

    741
    the business of the Government to give special facilities of consumption of strong drink. The late Sir Wm. Gull said that strong drink was the most destructive agent in this country, and we who object to the traffic in strong drink know that wherever that traffic is done away with you have all the benefits that could be wished by those who advocate sobriety and good order. In Liverpool, and in some other parts of the country, there are districts in which this drink traffic is not allowed, and I am informed that those districts are most popular as affording residences for the working classes. Wherever you do away with the drink shops you have peace and order and sobriety. I remember, however, that the gallant General who commanded the Red River Expedition, related an anecdote of a soldier who was asked whether he was not more healthy and happy without the drink. The man replied that he was a good deal more healthy, but he did not know that he was more happy. There can, however, be no doubt that if we would only get rid of this traffic in drink the general health and happiness of the people would be greatly promoted. Parliament has already admitted that we have a right to let the people decide whether they should allow this system to continue. I was reading the other day that there were certain districts in Africa in which no drink traffic was allowed, and they were called "uncontaminated zones." I think that that is a very good expression; and what we want in this country is that those who desire it should have uncontaminated zones. It will be remembered that, on the 27th April, 1883, the House, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Barrow, passed a Resolution declaring that the best interests of the nation urgently required some efficient legislation, by which, in accordance with a Resolution already passed and reaffirmed by the House, the legal power of restraining the issue and renewal of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be vested in those who are most deeply interested in that question. But although that Resolution was agreed to by this House nothing has been done in reference to it. We know that a certain place is said to be paved with good resolutions, but although, during the seven years that have elapsed since that
    742
    resolution was passed, we have had both Liberal and Tory Governments in power, neither of them has done anything to give effect to that Resolution. When the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board brought in his Local Government Bill he told us the Government had resolved to deal with the licensing question. I well remember the speech he made on that occasion. He stated that there was a prevalent opinion in the country that some reform was necessary in reference to this question, and I am willing to admit that the right hon. Gentleman then had in view the desirability of carrying out the principle of the Resolution I have just referred to. He did not do it in the way I thought best, but in the most imperfect and unsatisfactory manner. Still, it was an admission that the people ought to be represented and to have the power over those licences. I would point out that if you pass this Bill as it stands, and give this money over to the County Councils, almost every election will turn on the question whether it is to be expended on the brewers or not, and you will have all the evils of that mixing up of Local Government with the drink question, which you wisely said was the great difficulty to contend with when you first approached the question. We had a Division on the question whether the Councils should have this power, and the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who had brought in the Bill voted themselves against it. The reason was, that they could not get compensation. That was the point. And here I may say that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side are more consistent in this matter than they have been in some others. Lord Salisbury, in his celebrated Newport speech, went at length into his views as to how this drink business should be dealt with. First of all, he laid down a general principle. He explained that unlimited facility for drinking beer was a doctrine which lay at the root of all liberty; and that if it were sacrificed, we should find very soon that other matters would be sacrificed also, and that those doctrines of civil and religious liberty for which our fathers fought so hard and did so much to establish, would be frittered away. No doubt the noble Lord meant that we should lose the opportunity of getting

    743
    beer. As for civil and religious liberty, it was once said, "Oh, Liberty, what crimes have been committed in your name!" I think we might say in more colloquial fashion, "Oh, Liberty, what bosh has been talked in your name!" The noble Lord went on to say that the Local Authorities would be good authorities to manage the licensing question, because he believed the terror of having to provide fair compensation would furnish no inconsiderable motive to induce them to observe a wise and cautious moderation in the exercise of their important duties. What the noble Lord meant was that the Local Authorities should have nominal power to protect themselves; that they should be weighed down with impossible conditions, and prevented from exercising their powers by the fear that their constituents would be offended if they did what was right. On this principle, no doubt, the Bill of 1888 was framed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ritchie). The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do how this Bill was condemned in the country. He remembers the meetings, and he remembers the resolutions and letters which Members, and I believe he himself, got, telling them the licensing clauses ought not be proceeded with. The consequence was those clauses were withdrawn. Well do I remember the afternoon when the right hon. Gentleman came down to withdraw them. I listened very attentively to him. I noticed that not a word of repentance fell from his lips. He did not say he disapproved of the principle he was abondoning. Since then I have often been blamed for what I have said about the Government, and my reply has always been—"The Government are still lying in wait like a band of robbers to tax the people and give the proceeds of the tax to the brewers." I do not say the publican, because he is pretty much a slave and a bondsman to the big brewer. It is the big brewer who is at the bottom of all this business, and whose interests the Government are looking after. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when making his Budget Speech, announced to the astonished world the scheme now embodied in this Bill. "I will mention a process which will give much compensation and conciliation to the brewer." There was a question
    744
    placed on the Paper to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Somers.) From that question it appears that there are in the town of Burnley 177 public houses, and that of these 165 are tied houses, leaving only 12 free houses in the whole of the town. This shows where the money is going. Do not let us hear any more about the poor publican with a wife and 13 children. It is the big brewer rolling in wealth whom the right Gentleman seeks to benefit by this Bill. A pamphlet was written four or five years called Temperance Legislation and Licensing Reform. The author was Mr. James, a member of the Executive Council of the Licensed Victuallers' Defence League, and he said that one of the most grinding, tyrannical, and demoralising systems that ever existed in this country was the bound house system. It is for the brewers, some with scores, and some of them with almost hundreds of houses, that the right hon. Gentleman comes down and asks the House of Commons to vote money. When the people of this country understand this Bill, I think they will be most extraordinary people if they submit to what is going on. The worst houses are to be bought out first—the unnecessary houses, as they are called. You are asking the public to give money for what is unnecessary. Could there be anything more shocking than that? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was quite right when he called this a Publicans' Endowment Bill; but I think he would have been more correct if he had called it a Brewers' Endowment Bill. No wonder the brewers are alarmed. Small blame to them that they are. I went to a meeting last night, and there I found a brewer's agent, who had been sent down to fight against our resolution against the Bill. I will tell the Committee how the thing is being worked. I have here a circular which I obtained this very afternoon. It is marked "strictly private," and "not for publication." It is sent out by the Licensed Victuallers' Defence League of England and Wales, and in smaller letters it is stated that this League is "acting in concert with the Central Brewers' Protection Society." I will read a few choice bits. The circular stated

    745
    that all public meetings might be attended by members of the public, and went on to say—
    "As soon as it is ascertained that a public meeting is to be called it is desirable that arrangements should be made, if necessary by a paid man, who can easily be obtained for a few pounds, and every licensed victualler in the district should be strongly urged to attend the meeting with his family and his friends, and any persons who can be spared from his establishment."
    The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) is well aware that that means the "chuckers out." The publican and his wife and 13 children and barmaids and chuckers out are to go to these meetings and support resolutions which are to be sent to the right hon. Gentleman. How pleased the right hon. Gentleman will be when he gets them, and how he will rejoice in having the voice of the people on his side. We all know how the other night he got a telegram from Glasgow, and how he waived it aloft and said, "The people are with me." Twelve publicans in a bar parlour! It is very strange to see how misunderstood the Government is. Being great temperance reformers, they bring in a Bill solely in the interests of temperance. They stump the country with the object of promoting sobriety; they come down to the House every night and declare that their sole object is the promotion of temperance; and yet the only people they can get to support them are the brewers and their families and chuckers out. It is very curious, but I have no doubt they feel proud of their supporters. I remember that when Lord Folkestone stood for one of the divisions of Middlesex a large placard was issued in his favour. The words it contained were, "Vote for Folkestone and Religion." It happened that the placard was put up in front of a great public-house, and on a board upon which the ales sold in the house were advertised. The placard did not come down quite to the bottom of the board, and one line of the advertisement on the board was visible. The result was that the placard appeared to read, "Vote for Folkestone and Religion. Warranted pure by the Brewers." No doubt the brewers are very good men, but I do not see why they should be endowed with public money. Surely the taxes we raise from the poor people of this country—the taxes which are
    746
    produced by the labour of this country—are intended for something else than to secure and consolidate what Mr. Justice Grantham called "the unholy profits of this trade." It is really a little too strong for the Government to tell us that they are doing this in the interests of temperance. They have no sense of humour. Do they believe that all these drink traffickers, these brewers, these chuckers out are realty working in the interests of temperance? Do they think, also, that their fellow-countrymen, who for a generation past have been giving their lives to the promotion of temperance among the people, are all either knaves or fools, and that those who started as temperance reformers six weeks ago are the only persons who know how to promote temperance? Are the religious communities of the country to be ignored? Perhaps the Government holds with the Times on this question. The Times said about 10 days ago—
    "This question is eminently one to be determined by the judgment of Parliament, and not by the passionate declamation of religious bodies and temperance associations."
    That is rather an extraordinary statement to be made towards the end of this nineteenth Christian century, in a country which spends millions of money in the endowment of religion, and to a House of Commons which very properly opens with prayer every day. Are people's opinions to be ignored because they are religious? That is the view of the Times, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will state whether it is his view also. I will go further, and ask, "Are the electors of this country to be altogether ignored?" The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (Marquess of Hartington) made a speech yesterday at a meeting of the Women's Liberal Unionist Association, and he said—
    "Those who have succeeded in raising this agitation appear to me to have elicited a far stronger and more pronounced opinion on the part of a very large body of electors in the country than it has ever been in the power of the Home Rule party to do."
    The Home Rule Party may not be strong; but if we are stronger than the Unionists on this question it shows what a hold the question has taken upon the people of the country, and how dangerous it would be to ignore the feeling against this Bill. The secret of the whole thing is that the Government dare not throw the brewer

    747
    over. They have thrown in their lot with the brewer. So be it. I shall say when the end comes, "Your blood be on your own heads." I will conclude my speech by reading a passage from a much better speech than I ever made—a capital speech, to which I would respectfully call the attention of the Committee, and to which I hope the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale will listen with great attention. It was a speech delivered in May, 1888, at a great meeting, over which I myself presided, so that I know the quotation to be accurate. The meeting was held to denounce the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) as regards compensation in the Local Government Bill of that year, and the speech was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). I would ask the Committee to remember that the proposition we have before us now is virtually and substantially the same as that made in 1888. My hon. Friend said—
    "I think that this is the most wicked proposal ever made by any Government."
    Now, I want the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale to listen to this—
    "I want Lord Hartington to face this position, because he is the most potent factor we can have in all questions, and that is the reason I am making my appeal in all candour and honesty. I want him to understand that this means the placing on the ratepayers of England a burden equal to one-fourth of the National Debt. That is a terrific responsibility for the Party leaders to take upon their shoulders, and I shall be no party to it. I wash my hands"
    —I have heard of somebody else washing his hands—
    "I wash my hands here to-night of the whole transactions, and when the measure comes on again after Whitsuntide there is one thing which must be understood plainly. This is not a question for the Closure—I am now speaking of another Party leader—this is not a question on which Mr. Smith is to sit 'on the fence.' This is one of the greatest issues of the century, and it will have to be deliberately, carefully, and thoughtfully fought, and any attempt in Parliament to stifle the fullest discussion on this momentous question cannot be tolerated. I have spoken as my heart has prompted me."
    To-night, perhaps, he will speak as his head prompts him.
    "I shall do my best to convince individual members of the Unionist Party, and what I warn them of is this, that if these infamous clauses are allowed to pass they are simply, instead of settling this question, giving it a chance of being settled, starting an agitation
    748
    which will convulse everything else, and will make it impossible for the people of England to attend to ordinary politics."
    Mr. Courtney, I have kept the Committee too long. [Cries of "Go on."] No, I am not going on, because I cannot improve upon that speech. I trust that speech will be published and spread broadcast throughout the country. I trust it will be read by thousands, and that it will encourage many who are true opponents of the liquor traffic to fight with renewed vigour for the ultimate* overthrow of the evil system which this Government are now endeavouring to introduce among us, and which, I believe, when the people of this country understand they will visit with a reprobation which has scarcely been equalled.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am sure that whatever others may do I shall not blame the hon. Baronet for his intervention at this stage of the proceedings, or for the length of his speech. I acknowledge that this Amendment is directed at the very root of the proposal to which the hon. Member objects. I am perfectly prepared to accept the hon. Baronet's estimate of himself, and to recognise that he is an extremely good man.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: No, no; I said an old man.
    MR. RITCHIE: I think the hon. Baronet said that as people called him an extreme man he was not ashamed of accepting the term; that he thought it a very good thing to be extreme, and, for instance, he thought it a good thing to be an extremely good man. I am quite prepared to accept that, and to admit that the hon. Baronet has done much in the course of his life for the promotion of temperance. I am also prepared to admit that nothing which we are doing can at all compare with the efforts the hon. Baronet and his friends have made in the cause of temperance. But I rather take exception to the hon. Baronet's description of our proposal as the great plan of the Government for promoting temperance. We have never contended that this proposal could be considered in any proper sense as a proposal for the complete settlement of the question. What we have contended is that it is a

    749
    step in the direction of temperance. Notwithstanding all the hon. Baronet has said as to the pressure from brewers and publicans, who, he asserts, are behind us, I maintain that the only object that the Government have in making these proposals is to take a step in the direction of temperance, and to endeavour, to some extent, to meet the demands which have been made by the Temperance Party for a reduction of the opportunities which are afforded to people of becoming intemperate. If it is any satisfaction to the hon. Baronet I can assure him that the great pressure he referred to as having come from the publicans and brewers has been utterly and completely non-existent. The Government never received from either the publican quarter or the brewing quarter the slightest hint that any proposal such as this brought forward by the Government was desired by their trade; and if the Government have gone wrong on this question, as no doubt the hon. Baronet thinks they have, they must take upon themselves the sole and complete responsibility for having done so, without pressure either from the publicans and brewers on the one hand, or the Temperance Party on the other. The attention of the Government had been forcibly drawn to the large increase in the consumption of drink, and we felt that it was legitimate to obtain some contribution from that source which would assist the constituted authorities in dealing, even in a small degree, with the great question which the hon. Baronet has so much at heart. The hon. Baronet charged the Government with promoting the sale and consumption of strong liquor. Surely that is an unjustifiable assertion.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: My impression is that my remarks referred to all Governments, and not only to the present Government.
    MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Baronet, speaking of the introduction of these licensing clauses, said "It is not the duty of the Government to promote the sale and consumption of strong drink."
    SIR W. LAWSON: I alluded to all Governments.
    MR. RITCHIE: In connection with this proposal he evidently believes that to increase the duty on strong drink tends to promote its sale and consump-
    750
    tion? We will go through one or two of the proposals in the Bill, and I ask, first of all, Does the hon. Baronet believe that an increased duty on strong drink tends to promote the sale and consumption of such commodity? One of the proposals of the Government is to increase the duty, and I understand that it is an axiom that an increase of duty does not promote but restricts the consumption, and that, in point of fact, when a Chancellor of the Exchequer has to consider the question of the increase of a duty, one of the most important considerations present to his mind is whether or not that increase will, by diminishing the consumption, defeat the end he has in view. So that I think the hon. Baronet will hardly be prepared to maintain his assertion that, so far as this proposal of the Bill of the Government is concerned, we are doing something to promote the sale and consumption of strong drink. I think he will, on the contrary, acknowledge that, so far as it goes, it is a restriction on the consumption.
    SIR W. LAWSON: I said nothing about it.
    MR. RITCHIE: Exactly, but I have reminded the Committee of what he did say. I say that one of our proposals is to increase the duty on drink, and that so far from promoting the sale of drink by that means we restrict it. Does the hon. Baronet contend that to prevent the increase in the number of houses for the sale of drink promotes the consumption of drink? If so, he differs very largely from the great body of temperance workers, who have always contended that drunkenness and the consumption of drink are increased by the number of opportunities given for it. When the Government say that there shall be no new licences except under rigorous restrictions, surely the hon. Baronet will acknowledge that the Government are taking a step in the direction of temperance, and not in that of promoting the consumption of drink. Then, again, whatever the merits or demerits of the Government proposal may be, licences are to be purchased for the purpose of extinguishing them, and the money used in the way in which the Government intend to appropriate it, will also diminish the number of opportunities for the sale and consumption of

    751
    drink. So that there is not one of our proposals which is open to the accusations of the hon. Baronet; on the contrary, I maintain that they have the merit of being distinctly in the direction of decreasing the sale and consumption of drink. The hon. Baronet has said something about public opinion, and he ask me whether we are prepared to set at naught public opinion, temperance opinion, and religious opinion? For my own part, I am the last person to attempt to disregard an expression of public opinion. I consider that any one who has to take a part in the Government of a country is blind unless he endeavours to recognise what is the public opinion, and to take account of it. But it does not follow that a Government is always bound to act according to hastily expressed public opinion. Unquestionably no Government can shut their eyes to the current of public opinion; if they do so, they are guilty of folly. I hope that the hon. Baronet does not imagine because there has been a very considerable demonstration in Hyde Park—why, I myself demonstrated there—and because the whole of the very powerful organisation of the Temperance Association with which the hon. Baronet is connected has been put in motion, and many resolutions have been passed, that therefore the Government are bound to recognise that as the expression of the opinion of the majority of the public, especially having regard to the fact that there is abundant evidence to show that resolutions passed at many of these meetings entirely and absolutely misconceive not only the object but the actual proposals of the Government. I should like to know how many men, women, or children who have attended these meetings know anything about these proposals, or have ever seen them. I am certain of this, at least, that in a very large number of instances the proposals have been entirely misunderstood. There is one thing which the hon. Baronet and his friends have recognised in connection with this, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has also recognised and acted upon, and that is this, that it is not advisable to enter into full details of all the proposals of the Government; that half the battle is won if you only give the proposals a bad name. And so
    752
    at various meetings our Bill has been called a Public House Endowment Bill. Any name more inappropriate could not be given to the proposals of the Government, but it is quite sufficient for those who attended the Hyde Park meeting, and spoke from platforms, to call this Bill a Public House Endowment Bill; they do not want to know anything more about it. The Government proposal cannot in justice be designated by that name. What is it the Government propose? Why, that out of money which would not be raised at all if not raised for this purpose—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because we could not have made the proposal. I imagine right hon. Gentlemen will not assert that it is the duty of the Government to raise money which they do not require. [Sir W. HARCOURT: The Wheel and Van Tax.] What has the Wheel and Van Tax to do with it? The right hon. Gentleman must not throw a red herring across my path. Money is wanted for a specific purpose, and that money must be raised. I assert that this £400,000 or £500,000, or whatever the amount may be, would not have been raised except for this purpose. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think about it, we assert that our proposals are that out of money raised from drink by increased taxation, we empower bodies elected by the free votes of the people, whether as Town Councillors or County Councillors, to do that which they have been in the habit of doing out of the public rates for public improvements, that is to say, to buy up public houses. What public improvement could be, from the hon. Baronet's point of view, a greater improvement? This is called a Publicans' Endowment Bill. Surely, if it can be so called, the fund must be one out of which those who are to be endowed have a right to have payments made to them. ["Oh!"] Well, I do not know what endowment means if that is not so. There is not a single publican or brewer or distiller in this land who can compel the County Councils to spend one penny of this money upon any one of the houses in which he is interested. This money is placed in the hands of a popularly elected body, who may use it or not, exactly as they please. It has been again and again asserted that by this Bill we enable a publican to be paid for

    753
    his house any sum he may demand. Anything more absurd than that could not be conceived. The publican has no claim at all. If he is paid any sum of money it will be only that sum which a popularly elected body chooses to give him. How can that be called endowment? I heard someone one say sotto voce "increase of value." [Mr. MUNDELLA: Hear, hear.] The Member for Sheffield says that. Let us examine that for a moment. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to have nothing to do with any proposal for closing public houses because it would increase the value of those which are retained? [Mr. MUNDELLA: No.] No? So far as regards the public houses that remain, it does not matter one jot by what process the increase of value is caused. It does not matter whether the increase of value is caused by the sweeping away of licences or by any other cause. Is the question of increase of value to be a bar to taking any step in the direction of diminishing the number of public houses? Now, I wish to say something upon the question of public opinion. The Government recognise the importance of gauging public opinion on a matter of this kind. The hon. Baronet spoke of religious communities and their opinion. Well, with the exception of some isolated branches, the position which the executive of the Church of England Temperance Society took up has been supported by an immense majority of the Society. Then, with regard to Dissenting communities, I am constantly receiving communications from distinguished members of those bodies showing that there is a very large body of opinion amongst them adverse to the position taken up by the hon. Baronet and his friends.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Give us the names.
    MR. RITCHIE: I did not intend to do so; but I will trouble the Committee by giving names. Last night I received a letter from a gentleman, with whom I am not personally acquainted, but who has been very prominent in the promotion of a great many very good and philanthropic movements—Sir George Hayter Chubb. [Opposition laughter.] Well, I understand that Sir George Hayter Chubb is a very prominent member of the Dissenting community. He writes to me—
    754
    "Dear Sir,—You may possibly have seen in the Times of the 2nd instant a short letter from me stating that a paragraph which appeared on May 30th was incorrect, and that the Wesleyan Methodist Committee of Privileges was not unanimous in its vote to oppose the Government Licensing Bill. It is right that you should know I have since found that other members of the Committee who were not present when the vote was taken are in favour of the Government proposal. I have also received letters from Wesleyan Methodists holding the same view as myself, and in particular one from Mr. B. W. Fayle, of Syngefeild, Parsonstown, Ireland, from which the following is an extract, which, with Mr. Fayle's consent, may he made public, should you so desire: 'I am a Methodist of the third generation, and a local preacher of 50 years standing. I am also a County Magistrate, and a Licensing Justice, and I have to deal with that question very extensively; at least 100 cases come under my review in the year. I have to adjudicate very often in matters of the violation of the Licensing Laws, and I fearlessly assert that a more equitable or far-reaching piece of legislation was never proposed; and if the Government are inclined to withdraw the measure, it will be the greatest blow the temperance cause ever got, and it will heap the greatest condemnation on those people who oppose the measure; and if it is withdrawn, I feel assured that men will have hoary heads before such another measure will be introduced. It is an entire mis-apprehension to suppose a Justice has the power of withholding the renewal of a licence except on statutory grounds. The present Pill gives the. Local Authority power to close a public house by giving the publican compensation, not 1d. of which comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer outside the trade, the 6d. per gallon on whisky, and 3d. per barrel on beer furnishes the fund, and thus the trade itself bears the burden. The abolishing of the issue of new licences will at once act. If this measure becomes law I shall set myself to the task of withdrawing licences in objectionable places in this neighbourhood. Assuring you that I shall be happy to be of any further service in the matter,
    I am,
    Yours very faithfully,
    GEORGE HAYTER CHUBB."
    [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Sir George Hayter Chubb is a very distinguished member of the Wesleyan Methodist Body, and although he may be wrong, as hon. Gentlemen think the Government are wrong, on this question, his opinion is at least worth quoting. [Mr. CONYBEAR: Only one man.] But what I am pointing out is that the meeting at which this resolution against the Government proposals was passed was by no moans unanimous.
    MR. STOREY: He does not say that any beside himself objected.
    MR. RITCHIE: He says—
    "It is right that you should know I have since found that other members of that Committee who were not present when the vote was taken are in favour of the Government proposal."
    What I said was that he not only expressed his own opinion, but asserted he expressed the opinion of other members of the Governing Body. I have several others here. [Cries of "Read."] I do not feel myself justified in taking up the time of the Committee. I hope they will take my word that I have several other letters. Well, so far as public opinion is concerned, public opinion is not always expressed in one way on this matter. Often meetings called for the purpose of condemning the Government have ended in blessing them. ["Name."] A meeting of the members of the Cardiff Town Council was called for the purpose of expressing their opinion upon the licensing proposals of the Government, and by a majority of 18 to nine they expressed their approval of the proposals. There was an open air meeting in Barnsley, in which the proposals of the Government were enthusiastically supported, and I have had sent me the Derby Telegraph. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby recognise the name? [Sir W. HAROOURT: Yes.] He will admit, I suppose, that that paper supports the Party to which he belongs. On the 16th of May the Derby Telegraph published' an article on this subject in which they said—
    "And with regard to Mr. Ritchie's proposals we feel ourselves constrained to admit that they meet a difficult subject in a broad and common-sense method. We believe we are far more sincere in our desire to see the Government turned out than Mr. Caine is, but we do not expect to hear them ordered to quit over their compensation scheme, To be perfectly candid, we have no desire to see their expulsion in connection with a legislative scheme, which, all things considered, we believe to be equitable. May we go further and humbly express the opinion that Mr. Caine will find a very great section of the Liberal Party holding the same opinion."
    There, I am glad I have at last arrived at an authority the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will recognise. I have also the report of a meeting at Gateshead, called and presided over by the Mayor for the purpose of denouncing the Government proposals, and the
    756
    Mayor, on a show of hands, was con strained to admit that opinion was equally divided. There was a temperance meeting at Birkenhead for the same purpose, at which an amendment was carried by a majority. At Liverpool the Government licensing scheme was endorsed at a large temperance meeting. At many other places temperance meetings called to denounce the Government measure have carried resolutions by large majorities supporting the proposals of the Bill. This shows at least that public opinion is not all one way. [An hon. MEMBER: How many cases?] I have given several instances as illustrations. I think I need not go back upon the list.
    MR. CAINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he knows of a dozen cases?
    MR. RITCHIE: These things are not all brought before me, though certainly I have a very much larger number of them than I have brought with me. I have only taken the most striking illustrations. The hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson) said a good deal about our proposals in the Local Government Bill of 1888, and he referred to a speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) upon that Bill, contrasting that with the views no w expressed by the hon. Member. I should have imagined this is an argument in favour of the present proposals. It is only fair to argue that if the hon. Member saw in our proposals now the principle he denounced in 1888, he would have acted in the same way now as then. But, far from that, the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who has been a great worker in the cause of temperance, has expressed his approval of those proposals, believing that they are a distinct and memorable step in the direction in which he desires to go forward. I can, of course, understand opposition to the Bill coming from quarters which will only be satisfied by the complete sweeping away of all public houses as a remedy for the evils we all recognise. The more I see of the arguments of the hon. Baronet and his supporters the more do I see that the real issue between us and those quarters is whether public houses are to be reduced in number until they merely supply the

    757
    wants of the localities, or whether the present condition of things shall remain until proposals are made by which public houses shall be swept away altogether. If the hon. Baronet imagines that the time is likely to arrive within a period which any of us are likely to see when public houses shall be altogether swept away, in my opinion he is entirely and absolutely mistaken. I do not believe that, however much we may give the control of these matters to the Local Authorities, the time will ever arrive when those bodies will be able to face the storm that would arise in case they attempted to deal with this subject in the drastic manner advocated by the hon. Baronet. The question that the Government put to themselves was whether they should sit still and do nothing to mitigate the evils which they, equally with hon. Members opposite, recognise until the time arrives when the matter can be dealt with in the way the hon. Baronet desires. The Government have come to the conclusion that it is their duty, instead of taking that course, to endeavour by some moderate proposal such as we have made to deal with this great question of the licensing of public houses, though even slightly. We do not profess that our proposal is a large one, but we deny that it will in any way interfere with that which the hon. Baronet desires to promote. We are prepared to safeguard our proposal in every possible way, and to accept the Amendment which stands upon the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby, which, if inserted in the Bill, ought to dispel all fears entertained by the hon. Baronet and his friends—I say it ought to, I do not say it will—all fears as to the way in which this Bill may hamper Parliament in dealing with this question when it comes to be dealt with in a larger and fuller manner. We insert in the Bill provisions which will prevent public houses now existing from being considered to be of increased value, for the purposes of any future legislation, owing to the operation of this measure; and, speaking honestly and sincerely, I cannot conceive on what grounds and with what object the so-called Temperance Party are opposing the Government in so bitter and hostile a manner. I deeply regret that the Government should be at issue with the
    758
    very people whom we desired to conciliate. I do not expect hon. Members on the Front Bench below the Gangway to accept my statement; but I hope that those who know me will believe me when I say that it is a matter of bitter regret to the Government to find themselves in opposition to those whom they sought to conciliate by this proposal. The hon. Baronet has asked why in this case the Government do not abandon their proposal. We do not intend to abandon it. We believe that the operation of this Bill will be entirely in the direction of that which the friends of temperance have at heart, and that, when the time comes for doing that which I have always been in favour of, namely, transferring, under proper conditions, the licensing power to popularly-elected bodies—it will be found that the present proposal of the Government will have operated in the direction of temperance.
    (7.10.) MR. CAMERON CORBETT: The right hon. Gentleman has expressed regret at finding himself in opposition to those whom he sought to conciliate, and I can assure him that a great number of those who are opposed to the Government proposals oppose a Unionist Government with the greatest reluctance. Many of us have felt so strongly in favour of the Unionist cause that we have been willing to see a large number of Temperance measures we have had strongly at heart postponed, and we have been the more ready to acquiesce in this believing in the steady growth of temperance sentiments outside the House, and that delay only strengthened the temperance position. There is not one of those who belong to that section of the party who would not gladly have accepted this measure if they had felt that it was the smallest advance in the right direction. We, however, could not disguise from ourselves that its provisions will build up a wall in front of temperance progress. This Bill has met with the unanimous support of the liquor interest. That it has the all but unanimous condemnation of the Temperance Party throughout the country has been only emphasised and made more clear by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has sought to bring before the House solitary individual

    759
    instances in connection with the Temperance Party whore support has been given to the Bill. The one individual who, on the executive of the Wesleyan Church, supported the Bill has been specially mentioned in a letter in the Times, and has been brought before the House to-night. As to the amount that is set aside to buy up licences, analysis will show that with that sum it will take half a century to buy up 1–10th of the public houses. This ground of complaint is not lessened by the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to the deputation from the Church of England Temperance Society. The President of the Local Government Board remarked that there were licences that would be of little or no value if the houses were properly conducted. It follows that public money is to be used to buy up houses because they have been badly conducted. We are told the Bill will not strengthen the case for compensation: but could a County Council buy out the worst licences because they were nuisances, and afterwards as the Licensing Authority and acting on public grounds refuse the renewal of a licence to a well-conducted house because it was not required in the public interests? Would it not appear a flagrant injustice that a badly-conducted house should be treated on more liberal terms than a well-conducted house? In fact, the putting of a premium on bad houses would tempt publicans to compete in the misconduct of their houses for the sake of being bought out on their own terms. I have heard it denied that the publican will be bought out on his own terms, but I think there is a great deal of truth in the statement that if a County Council finds that a public house is a nuisance and should be done away with, in all probability the publican is not anxious to leave, and the inducement to him to do so must be on the most liberal terms. We are apt to be misled when we are told that public houses have been acquired by Local Authorities, and that that forms in any degree such a precedent for compensation as we would have furnished in this Bill. Up to this time no publican has received payment, simply because it was held that there were too many public houses in the neighbourhood.
    760
    Licences have been granted on the theory that public houses were required to meet the wants of the community, and now, for the first time, it is said that public money is to be spent in buying them up simply because the number of public houses is in excess of the public demand. I do hope the Government will even yet take warning. I hope the bye-elections which have taken place in the country when the question of compensation has been before constituencies will not be without effect. Remember Ayr and Southampton. The Ayr election turned entirely upon the compensation question, and the estrangement of the Temperance Party lost the representation of Ayr for the Unionist cause. I do trust the Government will take warning from recent elections and not follow a course which will seriously endanger the Unionist cause we have at heart by pressing these clauses, but will still enable those temperance Unionists who are prepared to postpone the temperance cause to the claims of unionism to co-operate with them in the main object for which the Government was elected.
    MR. ISAACSON: I regret very much the attitude temperance advocates have taken up. I have called a meeting of my constituents in Stepney, and I took a sort, of plébiscite, the result of which is that I do not hesitate to say this Bill is there regarded as being, in every sense, a temperance measure. To-day I have received a letter from a lady, the honorary secretary of a temperance society, who, after complimenting me for sending her a subscription, protests against the ignoring of the fair claims of publicans to a reasonable amount for goodwill, but thinks that the utmost that should be conceded is a fixed tenure for five years, and that it is wrong that they should have a permanent interest in a national disgrace. She has no pity for rich brewers and distillers, but does not wish to hurt the publican as a trader. By shutting the door against this Bill, the Temperance Party will throw back their cause for 20 years. I was present at a meeting in the East of London which was largely attended by publicans, and I did not find that they had any desire to claim compensation on the scale repre-

    761
    sented by the opponents of this Bill. The hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth takes the part of the publicans against the brewers, and there is possibly good reason for it. No doubt the publican has been for many years a butt in every sense of the word. I know a recent case in which a man invested his savings of £500 in a house, the goodwill of which was valued at £2,000; the brewer, who was to supply the beer, advanced £1,200, and a distiller £300; and under this scheme the brewer and distiller will take the compensation and the publican will never recover his £500. This is the weak part of the Bill. The clauses will have to be amended so as to protect the publican as against the brewer and the distiller. The Government need not care about brewers who have turned their business into a limited liability company; their concern ought to be for the common domestic shareholder. It is the publican who ought to be considered, and under the Bill he is not considered. Well, now, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow, in the speech which he made on the introduction of the Bill, mentioned the prices of public houses in his own neighbourhood. He put the value at a sum of £5,000 or £6,000 apiece. Now, I have taken a great deal of trouble to ascertain at what cost a number of these public houses could be bought up, and I will venture to assert that I could clear away 100 public houses in the East End of London at a cost of £250 each. In that part of London where the population is greater than in any part of the Metropolis the public houses are very close together. I should be glad to subscribe a sum of money sufficient to clear away one house, in order to show my sincerity in the cause of temperance. If this Bill enables us to clear away these houses at so small a price, surely it is a Temperance Bill. I attended a meeting in the East End of London the other day, and there I was told by men who looked at this matter from a business point of view that the public houses were much too close together, and that many publicans would be only too glad not merely to be bought out, but to get back the money they had invested in the public houses, so that they might go into some other business. I attended, too, the
    762
    meeting in Hyde Park, and listened to all the speeches that I possibly could. I found that exactly the same argument was used at each platform. The publicans were denounced for doing the mischief, but now we are told that it is the brewers and the distillers. I think that the vigorous and spirited speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will clear many hazy ideas from the minds of hon. Gentlemen who object to the Bill solely from a party point of view. I only wish that hon. Gentlemen would ascertain the feeling of their constituents on this point. If the Bill gave the publicans a vested interest and undue advantages I should oppose it without the slightest hesitation. But I believe that it will do a vast amount of good in the country, and that it will give great assistance to the temperance cause, and, therefore, I trust that hon. Members will be found voting in the right Lobby when we go to a Division.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of voting according to the views he has just expressed. There are Amendments on the Paper which limit the compensation to the actual holder of the licence, and I suppose that the hon. Member who has just spoken will vote for those Amendments. I should like to hear more speeches of the same sort from those Benches. It would have been better for the Government to have done nothing than to have brought in proposals which will throw back the temperance cause for half a century. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board stated that in view of the enormous increase in the drink bill of the nation the Government felt that they could not sit still with folded hands and wait for the introduction of a larger measure, but they had better have done that than bring in this Bill, and we cannot forget that similar proposals were made before the Drink Bill was known. The right hon. Gentleman said that no pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government by the drink trade.
    MR. RITCHIE: I was speaking of the initiation of the measure.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I quite accept the statement of the right hon.

    763
    Gentleman that the initiation of this measure was due to honest enough motives. But I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot disguise from himself any longer the fact that the people in whose interests this measure was brought forward, as he says—the Temperance Party—have universally reprobated it. In fact, they detest it—and although one Wesleyan Methodist has been found who approves of it—Wesleyan Methodists are occasionally crotchety—it will be found that temperance reformers generally are opposed to it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot blind himself to the fact that the great body of temperance reformers throughout the country are against it, and that, on the other hand, the proposals of the Government meet with the warmest support and appreciation of those people who have always been opposed to temperance reform. In whose interests is this legislation proposed? It seems to me there are six distinct interests, all separate and, more or less, conflicting. The first is that of the licencee; the second, that of the consuming public; the third, that of the general public who are not customers: the fourth, that of the taxpayers; the fifth, that of the owners of the property behind the licencee; and the sixth, that of the manufacturers of alcoholic beverages. Now, I believe firmly that as regards five out of six of these classes their interests will not be served, but will be prejudiced by this Bill; and I hope that I shall be able to show that in the course of the few remarks I am about to make. Let us take first the case of the licence holder. How do the proposals affect him and what is his case? I speak now for the country only, and not for the towns. Possibly in the big cities of the Empire different conditions may prevail, but I have been a licensing magistrate for nearly twenty-five years, and I think I can speak with some authority as to the public houses in the country. So far as the bonâ fide hotelkeeper or grocer are concerned, I believe it is absurd to apply the same law to such as to a shop where merely drink is sold. I think the law should be quite distinct for such different cases. Twenty-five years ago the publican was a free man doing a free trade, and I appeal to hon. Members who are Licensing Magistrates
    764
    whether I am not right in saying that the very reverse is now the case. In those days there was a fair and honest competition. It was a free publican's interest to supply the best class of articles at the cheapest possible rate, but now a change has come over the trade, and during the last 25 years—and certainly in a marked degree within the last 12 to 15 years—the great majority of the houses in the country districts with which I am acquainted have been bought over the heads of the free publicans and converted into tied houses. In the County of Gloucester there are four companies which possess no fewer than 664 tied houses. In one village there are seven houses, all belonging to one company. In another village there are five tied houses belonging to different companies; as a rule, the publican is a mere servant of the owner of the house. In some cases he is even paid wages; more frequently he is paid according to the profits made and the amount he sells. And hon. Members must know how frequently it happens that when a publican is brought before a Bench for some breach of the Licensing Laws, the solicitor who appears to defend him throws him over immediately a suggestion is made that the licence may be endorsed, and promises at once "that a new and respectable tenant shall be obtained." As a matter of fact, these publicans are in some cases as described in Mr. James' pamphlet, in a state of servitude. Now, I have always contended that the publican is entitled to fair consideration. I have always said that I would give every man who is the holder of a licence, subject to good behaviour, a 10 years' life interest. If that were done, there would be no question of turning a man, his wife, and 13 children suddenly into the streets to starve, because he would be allowed 10 years in which to find out another trade, by means of which he could earn a livelihood. I repeat, I would give every publican, subject to good behaviour, and subject to his life, a 10 years' licence, and by the operation of such a scheme we should year by year reduce the number of licensed houses in the country without a single sixpence expense to the National Exchequer. There was a case which came before the Liverpool Chancery Court the I other day. It was the case of "Caine

    765
    v. Hands," and it transpired that the defendant had refused certain beer from the plaintiff on the ground that it was not good. Chancellor Bristowe, however, held that Caine, the brewer, was entitled to enforce his covenant on all points, notwithstanding the complaint as to the quality of the beer. And let it be remembered that these tied houses do not merely confine the tenant to purchasing the beer of one firm alone. The system provides that he shall purchase his wines, spirits, and sometimes even his aerated waters, and, in fact, he is given no liberty at all. Now, the second man whose interest is to be considered is the customer. I have already instanced the case of a village in which there are seven licensed houses. These seven shops are doing what three shops could do equally well, and it is the customer who has to pay the expense involved by the greater number of establishments. Let us take a case of the village in which there are five houses—they are rated at £49 2s. 6d. in the aggregate. They were worth two or three hundred pounds a piece—at the outside £1,500—but, owing to the competition of the brewers, they have been sold for £4,000. Who has to pay the interests? It is, I venture to say, the unhapy customer. You create a monopoly, you have only one tap, and the interests of the customer are in no way consulted. Thirdly, I come to the case of the general public outside. What, I would ask, is the proportion of the population which uses public houses. I am speaking, of course, for the country, and, providing that one in every seven is the head of a family, by the time you have deducted nine-tenths of the women and children, all the temperance fold, all the upper class, all the professional class, 75 per cent, of the tradesmen, a proportion of the more highly-cultured of the working classes, one is driven to the conclusion that not more than one-fifth of the population, say 400 in a village of 2,000 inhabitants, enter the public house at all. Then how about the interests of the other four-fifths? I am no fanatic teetotaller. I would give people reasonable facilities to do what they think right, so long as they do not infringe the liberties of others; but I do suggest that we ought to allow these four-fifths to
    766
    have some voice, and we ought not to force on them these public houses when they do not want them. If they believe honestly that this trade is the cause of crime, poverty, and misery, which exists in their midst, we ought not to prevent them putting a stop to the cause which produces such effects. Why should not they be able to do as they wish in this matter? Next we come to the position of the taxpayer. This is not a question of £300,000 or £400,000; it involves more likely a sum of £250,000,000. We have had some fallacious arguments put before us in this connection. The Under Secretary for the Treasury, in a speech at Marlborough the other day, said that the money was to be provided by the trade themselves, whereas he knows every penny will come out of the pocket of the consumer; while the Attorney General, in a speech at Ventnor on the 22nd May, said—
    "He had received numerous letters from Conservatives and others, begging and imploring him to use his influence towards the withdrawal of the proposals. He had read them carefully and replied to each one carefully. … If the Government proposals involved payments from current rates, the action of temperance people would be justified. Thus taking his stand entirely on the ground that the money to be used for compensation was not public property!"
    What I would point out is that the extinction of a few licences would necessarily enhance the value of the remainder. And now I come to the case of the property owners. We will say there are 20 houses, each of the value of £200, but suddenly one is given a licence, and the value of that one house goes up 300 per cent. to £600, while the value of the remaining 19 is reduced 15 per cent, to £170. The £600 house holds a monopoly, and makes a lot of money, but you do not attempt to compensate the owners of the 19 houses. If the monopoly is removed the £600 house will again become of the value of only £200, but the other 19 houses will recover their position and become each of the value of £200, so that the aggregate value is unchanged, and I should like to know why the tax-payer should compensate the owner of the one house. The unfortunate tax-payer has to play the game of "Heads I win; tails you lose"—he is to compensate losses and not to participate in profits. I maintain

    767
    that the property owner is the only man who will benefit under this Bill. I maintain that this House has a perfect right, under the existing law, to deal as it thinks best with the liquor traffic. Though we have given a monopoly, we have, I maintain, been always extremely careful to guard that monopoly by making the licence yearly. I maintain that these proposals are an insidious way of counteracting recent decisions of the Law Courts by raising such a barrier as will effectually prevent public houses being decreased by magisterial action. It is perfectly impossible to conceive that any Bench of Magistrates would be so unjust, or unfair, as to take away a man's licence merely upon the ground that there were too many, while the County Council were giving money payments out of a public fund with the identical object. The Home Secretary said it would be an argument for the Bench to shut up a public house without compensation if the owner had refused fair terms offered by the County Council. I never heard of anything more unfair than that. English Magistrates are too honourable to act in such a way. I denounce these proposals as being in the interests of a gigantic monopoly. I appeal to good men on both sides of the House not to allow this to be a Party question. I appeal to my own leaders to make a bridge for the Government to retire easily from proposals which are against the religion, morality, and good feeling of the whole country. I appeal to my leaders to make it easy for them to withdraw. This is too serious a matter to be risked by mere Party considerations. I believe the proposals are fraught with the greatest danger to the highest and best interests of the country, and I believe it will be found that as they are realised and become known they will be opposed by all sober men.
    MR. LLEWELLYN: There is a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member in which I cordially concur, especially as regards "tied houses." For my own part, I far prefer the innkeeper who owns his house to the tenants of large companies. The houses of the former are generally far better conducted than those of the latter. In cases where a man has been obliged to increase the
    768
    value of his premises, in order to retain his licence—I mean where outhouses and buildings have fallen into disrepair, and the man is obliged to put his hand in his pocket—surely such a man is entitled to some consideration. I hope the Committee will not be misled by what has been said with regard to the excessive value paid for some houses by large companies. I know of one case where a property realised double the reserve price put upon it. Such prices are ridiculous, and it would be absurd to think that the County Council would take them into consideration, or be misled by them. I think that where a man has been called upon to improve his property at his own expense the House will agree with me that he is entitled to compensation.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: The disclaimer of the Government of any association with the licensed victuallers shows that they are ashamed of their clients in this matter.
    MR. RITCHIE: Why?
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: You disclaimed any connection with the licensed victuallers. Why?
    MR. RITCHIE: What I stated was in answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth, who said that the reason we had brought this measure forward was because of the pressure which the licensed victuallers had brought to bear. I explained that there had been no pressure whatever from either publicans or brewers in connection with the proposals.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman unfortunately stated the reason why they brought forward this proposal. It was because of the increased consumption of drink. What surprises me is, if there was no pressure from the trade, how it was that proposals analogous to them were made two years ago when there was no increase but an actual diminution in the consumption of drink.
    MR. RITCHIE: The reason we made the proposals two years ago was that we were then instituting a great scheme of Local Government. We were transferring the municipal duties of the Justices to an Elective Body, and I considered that we should not be presenting a complete scheme to the House if we did not transfer the granting of

    769
    licences from the Justices to the Elective Bodies.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: If the right hon. Gentleman had simply proposed the transfer of the administration from the Magistrates to the County Council no opposition would have been raised on this side of the House; but he superadded the restriction that the County Council could not exercise the power of stopping a licence without compensating the publican, thus imposing an obligation which the Magistrates do not lie under. What was the impelling motive of the Government in imposing that restriction?
    MR. RITCHIE: Justice.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Oh, justice! The House will appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's position, and I will not press the point further. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to deny that there was a strong expression of public opinion against the Bill. He has been pressed to specify the instances in which public meetings have declared in favour of the proposals of the Government, and he mentioned four, together with the Cardiff Town Council. The right hon. Gentleman, however, refrained from stating the number of resolutions which have been received from public meetings opposed to the Government proposals. The right hon. Gentleman complains that these meetings did not understand what they were discussing, because they constantly referred to the Bill as one for the endowment of public houses. He says that there is no endowment of the licence under this Bill; because the licencee cannot compel the County Council to purchase. But the licencee can decline to allow the County Council to stop a single licence except on the terms he himself chooses. If he chooses to put a ridiculous price on his licence, then the County Council either must pay that ridiculous price or things must remain as they are.
    MR. RITCHIE: Only his own licence.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Is it to be supposed that a man will not put a ridiculous price on his licence. As every man always does, he will put the most liberal estimate upon his own property. There is another point. Take, as an illustration, the case of the village referred to by my hon. Friend (Mr. Winterbotham), where there are six public houses. It does not
    770
    matter, for the purpose of my argument, whether they all belong to one owner or not. The County Council buys one of the licences at £500, and the value of the remaining five licences is immediately increased, and the County Council would have to pay that increased value, or the licencee would refuse to sell.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): The hon. Member has not noticed that in Clause 9 it is proposed that no licence which it is desired to purchase should acquire any additional value by virtue of the Bill.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I think the hon. Gentleman must have misread his own Bill, because on the Second Reading of the Bill the President of the Local Government Board himself stated that the clause in question has reference only to subsequent legislation, and not to the tying down of the purchase money under this Bill. But even supposing the clause is extended by Amendment in Committee, so as to prohibit the County Council from paying for a house any increased value which accrues to it from the purchase of rival houses, the owner in that case would refuse to sell unless he got his price. He would prefer to keep his licence and reap the additional value himself. Therefore the Bill will be entirely unworkable. Surely, if one of the six licences is purchased for £500, the remaining five will be worth £600 each. I do not say that the increase in value would be the exact arithmetical proportion in the case of houses wide apart; in such a case it is to be hoped there would be some diminution in the total amount of drinking; but where the houses are close together, the increased value consequent upon the extinction of a rival house would very nearly be in arithmetical proportion. The surviving licences would, therefore, be made more expensive and more difficult to purchase than before, and the County Councils would refuse to continue the operation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer derided the Mover of the Amendment on the ground that he has not provided any machinery for the working of his proposal. What sort of machinery has the Government provided for the working of their proposal? Why, it will become

    771
    clogged as soon as it is started. The only way in which the scheme of the Government can be worked is by charging some additional duty on the remaining houses corresponding to the increase of value accruing to them through the purchase of rival houses. I believe, indeed, that some such step ought to have been taken long ago at the time when the Magistrates commenced to restrict the issue of licences. When there was free trade in licences, and as long as there was no restriction of the issue, there was no monopoly, but directly restriction was applied the monopoly began. The full value of that monopoly thus granted ought to have been charged on the publican by the State, so that the landlord would get only the fair rent of the house. An illustration was given in the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. Three houses were built at a cost of £1,000 each, and they let at £60 per annum each. The owner of one was fortunate enough to get a licence, and the letting value of his property was immediately raised by the sum of £140 per annum, tor it was let at £200 per annum. The State, which gave this monopoly, ought to have charged the £140 to the owner of the licence, who would thus have had his £60 a year as before. Because licences have had an enormous monopoly given to them at under value, they say they are entitled to compensation or to a permanent continuance of their licences. A large number of generous landlords have let their lands at very much below their market value; but what would be thought of the tenants if, when a new owner raised the rents to the market value, they said "Oh, no; we have been in the enjoyment of these low rents for many years and it is unfair they should be raised, and we have a vested interest." The Legislature would not recognise that the rent could not be raised. The Legisature are very careful of quasi-vested interests of publicans and brewers, but they do not care a button about the quasi-vested interests of tenant farmers. The Legislature ought now to put up the value of these licences, whether there is compensation, purchase, or extinction or not, to the full market value of the monopoly granted, so that the landlord would get for his house what
    772
    is the fair actual value of his house and1 no more. (8.25.)
    (9.0.) MR. LENG: The Committee has no doubt observed a considerable change in the tone of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. When he introduced the Bill he was, buoyant, hopeful, and jubilant; but to-night his tone was doubtful, hesitating, perplexed, and apologetic. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have been very much disappointed with the reception given to the Bill. He expected it would be hailed as an important auxiliary contribution to the cause of temperance, instead of which it has been repudiated by all the advocates of temperance.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. LENG: In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the genesis of the Bill; in the second place, he disputed the accuracy of the designation of the Bill—a Publicans' Endowment Bill; and, in the third place, he called in question the assertion that public opinion is adverse to the measure. Now, as to the origin of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman denies that the Bill was brought in on account of any pressure put upon the Government by the brewers and publicans. I at once accept his statement. I give the right hon. Gentleman and the Government credit for not having acted under any influence of that kind; but the right hon. Gentleman and the Government must have been very much disappointed in finding that it is from the publicans and brewers that almost the sole support for this measure is received. The right hon. Gentleman claims that it is a temperance Bill, but how is it that the Temperance Societies—that those who have taken a leading part in the advocacy of temperance for many years, one and all repudiate and oppose the measure? It is very remarkable that the plan adopted by the Government has never been suggested by the advocates of temperance. It seems to have been evolved entirely from the inner consciousness of the Members of the Government. When measures of this kind are introduced of a statesmanlike character we generally expect that reference will be made to experience, that

    773
    precedents will be quoted, and that the plan will be shows to have worked well in other countries or in other places. It is remarkable that the Government have in their possession and have given to the country very valuable information with regard to the liquor traffic legislation in the United States. In answer to a Despatch from the Head of the Government, they have received from our Representative at Washington, who in turn received them from British Consuls in all the leading cities of the United States, very valuable Reports with regard to liquor traffic legislation. I have read these Reports with much care; but I looked in vain for anything to justify the plan that has been proposed. Application has also been made to the Colonial Governments for information on this subject. Some answers have been received; others can easily be obtained. In the Colony of Victoria a very valuable experiment has been made. That colony resolved to reduce the number of licences to a fixed number, according to population. They adopted a system of compensation, but, compared with what is introduced in this Bill, that was a wise system. It went on the plan that, as the number of licences were to be very largely reduced, and the value of the remaining licences would be increased, these licences should contribute to the Compensation Fund. If some plan like that had been proposed, it would have been entitled to consideration. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the term "endowment," but the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Bryn Roberts) has distinctly shown that we cannot reduce licences without adding a great deal to the value of the licences that remain. We have already had experience of another plan in the House. A former Government, sitting on those Benches, introduced a plan of time compensation—giving notice that after a certain number of years a licence should entirely lapse without claim to compensation. Although that measure was not accepted, there has been a very large growth of opinion in the interval in its favour, and, had the Government brought in a proposal to give compensation in time rather than in money, it would have been more favourably received than their present plan. In the Foreign Office Reports there is very satisfactory evidence that if we
    774
    are to give money compensation at all, it would have been far better to have gone on the system of higher licences. What I contend is, that the benefit from any system of reduction should not go to the publicans or the brewers, but to the public. If the Forms of the House had allowed, I should have proposed an Instruction to the Committee or an Amendment to the Bill, that the public, and not the private, individual should get the benefit of the increased value of public houses by the diminution of the number. The whole question of pecuniary compensation is beset with difficulty, but, of all the plans that could have been adopted, it seems to me that the present proposal is the least defensible and the most objectionable. The third point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was as to the expression of public opinion. It is very remarkable that, in the latest published enumeration of the Petitions presented to the House, there is a list of Petitions extending over 29 pages. This list was only from the 16th of May to the 2nd June; if it were brought up to this date I have little doubt the list would be twice as large. These Petitions come from Corporations and boroughs in England; and burghs in Scotland; Police Commissioners, Parochial Boards, and other Local Boards. The whole of these Petitions from these bodies are against the Compensation Clause, and not one in favour of it. They come from the inhabitants of cities and towns in public meeting assembled or otherwise. The whole of that class of Petitions is against the Compensation Clause and not one in favour of it. They come from office-bearers or members of religious congregations, societies, Presbyteries, Sunday Schools and Bible classes. The whole of these are against the Compensation Clause, and not one in favour of it. They come from Temperance Societies, Temperance Lodges, Bands of Hope, and other Temperance Associations. If the Bill is such a temperance measure as the right hon. Gentleman would lead the House to suppose, is it not singular that there is not a single Temperance Society in the country petitioning for it, and that every Petition of that class also is against it? Then they come from Political Associations. I take very little account of these; but there are a considerable number of Petitions from employés on public works.

    775
    Every one of these is also against the clause. They come from Womens' Associations meetings. In ordinary politics I am one of those who are not anxious that women should interfere; but if there is any question on which they are entitled to express their opinion, it is with regard to public houses; and every Womens' Association that has petitioned the House on this subject has petitioned against the Bill. The total number of Petitions is upwards of 1,000, every one of which is against the Bill, and not one in favour of it. I think this fact ought to have considerable influence with the House. I am rather surprised that throughout the discussion it has been regarded rather as a matter of congratulation than otherwise that the County Councils should be entrusted with the disbursement of this money. From my observation and experience of Licensing Magistrates connected with Town Councils in Scotland, I think it is most objectionable that Boards which should be elected for the many important and useful objects connected with the administration of county affairs, and connected with the administration of city affairs, should be degraded by having anything to do with the administration of licences. It brings a most disastrous element into municipal elections. It will do the same with the county elections. The moment the publicans have an interest to put in certain men and keep certain other men out of representative bodies, it brings a malign influence to bear upon these bodies. If the question of licensing is to be given to elective bodies it would be infinitely better, both in towns and counties, that special Boards should be constituted for this special work. I will only trespass further on the patience of the House by reading a brief extract from the letter of a gentleman who has filled the office of Licensing Magistrate in my own constituency. That gentleman writes—
    "The authorities before they can extinguish a licence will have to 'enter into an agreement' with the licence holder, and presumably pay him a satisfactory price before such extinction can be effected. This seems to me to be an excessively weak part of the proposal. Publicans will not give up their licences, or 'enter into an agreement' to do so, except on very high terms, and you will readily perceive this when I tell you that £1,000 is no uncommon price to be paid for the good will of a public house business. The fact is licences can only be re-
    776
    duced in one of two ways—either by compulsion or a high licence duty, as in America; if the former plan be adopted, and if the principle of compensation be recognised, then a fixed principle of compensation must be laid down for the guidance of the authorities, otherwise endless difficulties would obviously rise; but the fact is public opinion will not tolerate the granting of compensation for licences which were got for nothing from the public representatives."
    This is another of my objections to the proposal, that it is altogether unprincipled in respect that there is nothing set forth to guide the County Council or the Town Council as to the mode of procedure, as to the extent to which licences are to be reduced, or as to the manner and the amount of compensation to be paid. I thank the Committee for so attentively listening to my remarks.
    SIR E. REED: I had not intended to take any active part in this Debate, and I only rise now for the purpose of making an explanation concerning a matter which, in my temporary absence from the House, the President of the Local Government Board referred to. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Cardiff Corporation decided by a large majority in favour of this Bill. I have no doubt that is the reading which the right hon. Gentleman has given to what took place in the Cardiff Corporation, but that is not at all my rendering of what happened. A Member of the Council proposed that the Corporation should petition against the Bill, but an amendment was moved to the effect that the Cardiff Corporation had enough to do with its own business, and that dealing with this Bill was no part of its business. The amendment was virtually in effect the previous question. It is quite true that some of those gentlemen who supported the Amendment made some observations in favour of the Bill, but the decision which the Corporation came to in adopting the amendment is not, I submit, a decision in favour of the Bill but a decision against the Corporation dealing with the Bill at all. It seems to me that there is a very substantial difference. I am strongly of opinion, judging from my knowledge of almost every member of the Cardiff Corporation, that had the main question been divided upon, there would have been I a majority in favour of it. That is only

    777
    my opinion; but certainly I do not think that the fact that an amendment discountenancing any action on the part of the Council in regard to the Bill was moved can be accepted as a decision of the Council in favour of the measure. That is the explanation I wish to give, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will either disprove the interpretation I have put upon the proceedings of the Corporation or relieve the Corporation from what, I venture to say, they will, and the public will, regard as an imputation upon them.
    MR. RITCHIE: It is necessary, after what the hon. Gentleman has stated, that I should say a word or two. A resolution was moved condemning the Bill, whereupon an amendment was proposed approving of the Bill. Every Member who spoke in support of the amendment, spoke in favour of the proposal of the Government. No one reading the speeches can for a single moment entertain any doubt as to what was the issue upon which the Cardiff Corporation voted. I could quote, if necessary, the words of the speakers, to show that they were in favour of the principle of the proposal of the Government. The division showed that 18 were in favour of the amendment, and nine against it, and all I can say is, that the fact that only nine Councillors out of 27 could be found to support the motion is a pretty good indication of the feeling of the Council.
    SIR E. REED: I hope I may respectfully differ from the right hon. Gentleman and say that the division had nothing whatever to do with the principle of the Bill. I can understand that the impression conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman's mind by a perusal of the reports of the debate in the papers, is such as he has stated, but I have no hesitation in stating that a careful study of the matter will establish the truth of what I have said, namely, that the Cardiff Corporation have expressed no opinion on the measure, but have only expressed their disinclination to deal with it.
    MR. CALEB WRIGHT: I desire to state what has taken place in the Leigh Division of Lancashire with respect to licensing. In that division there are 85 licensed houses; 59 or 69 per cent. of
    778
    these belong to brewers and spirit merchants. Of beer-houses there are 149; 94 of these belong to brewers or spirit merchants. In the Return I moved for two years ago, and which was mentioned in the House the other night, the number of licences refused in that division is stated to be 48, but that is an error. I was on the Bench at the time, and the licences refused numbered 60. And this has been a great boon to the neighbourhood. The policy of refusal has led to a reduction in the amount of drunkenness. The Superintendent of Police in his Report to the Licensing Magistrates last year showed that there was a decrease of 140 on the previous year in the number of persons summoned for drunkenness, the number being the lowest recorded during the last eight years. Why, when the Magistrates are reducing the number of licences year by year without any compensation, should this Bill be introduced to pay compensation? The Superintendent goes on to say that this result is creditable to the Division, considering the rapid increase of population, and he says it may account for the large number of transfers of licences through inability of holders of licences to get a respectable livelihood. Well, but these people who cannot get a respectable livelihood are to be compensated! The changes in tenants of licensed houses owned by brewers are of frequent occurrence. When a tenant has committed a breach of the law, he is turned out, and the licence is transferred to another tenant. I could mention a number of such changes in Leigh Division. There is an instance of a public house having changed tenants eight times in eight years, and the house is owned by a brewer; one tenant was fined £5 for encouraging drunkenness, and others were fined for selling spirits diluted. But all these were men of high character, of course. I never knew an applicant for a licence being other than a man of high character. We were always told by the Clerk to the Justices that we could not refuse a licence to a man of known good character, when the house was suitable, and the men who applied were men of excellent character, but in the public Returns for the Division, we find that in the last eight years, 97 prosecutions have been brought

    779
    against publicans—all of good character. Believing that if the licensing clauses are retained in the Bill they will greatly strengthen the hands of the publicans and the brewers, while they weaken those of the Temperance Party, I shall record my vote against this ill-advised proposal.
    MR. J. LLOYD MORGAN: This is a question upon which my constituents feel as much, interested as upon any question which has engaged public attention during the time I have had the honour of a seat in this House. I must say that on most questions my constituents have not troubled me very much, but upon this subject I, day by day, receive representations and resolutions condemning, in the strongest possible manner, these clauses in the Bill now before us. I am bound to say I listened with some surprise to speeches delivered by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who said; Surely you will give us credit for sincerity when we say these clauses were introduced in the interest of the cause of temperance. If they are under that impression then they have never made a greater blunder. These clauses are condemned throughout the whole country, and by every branch of the Temperance Party, except the Church of England Temperance Society, and not only so, but by all classes of people who are anxious to promote and encourage the cause of temperance. The discussion this evening has taken a different turn to what it did on Tuesday night when the Amendment was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I am not complaining at all of that, for I believe this is a good opportunity to offer as much and as strong an opposition as we can to the clause. This Amendment proposes to strike out the clause, and substitute another clause which shall empower County Councils to use the money in a different manner. Now, in reference to this proposal I wish to speak particularly from a Welsh point of view. The latter part of the Amendment deals specifically with Wales and the questions of technical and intermediate education. An Act for the promotion of intermediate education was passed last Session, and it has just come into operation, and very naturally the Welsh people are taking a
    780
    deep interest in the subject. But they unfortunately find that there is one great difficulty in the way. Committees have been constituted under that Act; they have met in most counties—certainly they have in mine—but when we find them coming together to put the Act into operation, and to consider the amount of the endowments at their disposal, they discover that they have not the funds necessary to carry the Act into efficient operation. Applications are made to them for the establishment of schools in different centres—applications reasonable enough—which they would willingly accede to, but they have one serious obstacle in their way—want of money. The rate is not sufficient to enable them to put the Act into thorough operation, and the endowments over which they have control do not enable them to establish more than two or three schools where perhaps half-a-dozen are required. I have pointed out that the Welsh people, at any rate, are strongly opposed to the clause we are now considering. I can speak of my own constituency, and, in doing that, I believe I represent the feeling of the Welsh people generally. I am very glad to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, has been able to explain, what to me was at first inexplicable, namely, the action of the Cardiff Town Council. I say that in Wales we have the strongest feeling against the application of money in this way, and even if this Bill does become law, I am sure that, so far as Wales is concerned, it will become absolutely a dead letter, for if the County Councils have the money they will not apply it to any such purpose as is contemplated in this clause; they dare not do so if they have any respect for, or expectation of support from, their constituents, who, I know, would at the proper time visit such a Council with the severest censure expressed in a very practical way. So, then, the position we find the Government in with regard to Wales is this:—The Welsh people want this money for one purpose, for the cause of education; they do not want it for the purpose for which the Government propose to give it them. It appears to me, therefore, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham is, so

    781
    far as it refers to Wales, a wise and important one. The position the Government take up is this. We will give you this money for a purpose for which you will not use it; but you shall not have it for the purpose for which you do require it. Now that appears to me to be an utterly indefensible position, and I hope the strongest opposition will be offered to the clauses, and I shall give my hearty support to the Amendment.
    MR. M'LAREN: The forcible speech we have just heard ought to do something towards convincing the Government that in Wales, at least, the feeling is very strong in opposition to these clauses. Can there be anything more absurd than the position the Government take up in giving this money for purposes for which it is not required, and denying it where it is really needed? One great defect in the proposal is that it absolutely ties the hands of County Councils to one specific object for the money. An ordinary and reasonable proposal would be to give the County Councils free hand for the purpose; give them a certain discretion, and if among the purposes for which you think the money ought to be devoted the extinction of licences is one, then say so, and let the Councils apply it to that, or to an alternative purpose. Why insist that Welsh people should use it towards the extinction of licences? Why not let them have freedom to use it for educational institutions? The result would be instructive, I think, if Wales had such an alternative purpose. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham is confined to educational purposes, but I should have preferred a wider Amendment, which would leave the Councils at liberty to do as they thought fit. It is a peculiarity of the Local Government Board that they never can view with equanimity the devolution of any powers to Local Bodies; they always view such bodies with jealousy. We are told that we object from a Party point of view, but this cannot be said with regard to those Liberal Unionists who oppose these clauses. We have had a very powerful speech from the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow, who is a supporter of the Government, who regrets to have to break his
    782
    allegiance, and he has warned the Government that they are likely to lose a large amount of Liberal Unionist support. The hon. Member for Barrow has told us distinctly, on another occasion, that this will cause a great split in the Liberal Unionist ranks, and I am inclined to think that, when we consider the general uprising created by the introduction of this Bill, we may recall the words of a well known Irishman, not a Member of this House, that "Somebody has thrown down an apple of discord which has burst into flame and flooded the country." These proposals have flooded the country with a storm of indignation. I do not know why, except from an impression that there would be a loss of dignity in receding from their position, the Government do not withdraw these clauses. The President of the Local Government Board claims that this is an honest effort in the cause of temperance, and he mentioned an Amendment for safeguarding these licences from having any vested interest given them they do not now possess; but our objection is not that this proposal may give a licence a greater legal value, but that it gives it a moral value beyond that it now possesses. The increase in value cannot be prevented by any words the Government may put into the Bill. It seems to me the Temperance Party ought to know what the effect of the Bill will be; their leaders here and outside have devoted years to the study of the question, and should know it, if anybody does. The Government profess to believe the Bill is brought in in the interest of temperance, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand why the measure should be met with such bitter opposition. But I should like to know is he, or the Temperance Party, likely to be the best judge of the operation of the Bill? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is a good friend of temperance. I know nothing to the contrary; but he has not given it his special attention; he has not made it his life's work, as many Members here have done. If he, with the best intentions, finds himself on one side and the Temperance Party on the other side, which is likely to be the right side for the temperance cause? I do not know where the Government find

    783
    support, except among those interested in the liquor traffic. We have had a mistake corrected, into which the right hon. Gentleman fell. The Cardiff Corporation did not pass a resolution in favour of the Bill. It simply amounted to this: that, by 18 to 9, the Cardiff Corporation declined to pass a resolution condemning the Bill; but if this proves anything at all, it proves that there were some members of the Corporation who would have liked to have passed a resolution in favour of the Bill, but that they did not dare to put such a resolution upon their Minutes in view of the feeling they knew to exist among their fellow-townsmen. One serious objection to the measure has been made more serious by words used by the right hon. Gentleman tonight. He said he was in favour of transferring the Licensing Authority to popularly-elected bodies, meaning, obviously, County Councils. Now, I do not think there are any popularly-elected bodies more unfit for such powers than County Councils; and if this Bill is passed, it is the first step towards such a transfer. Their area is far to large; they cannot understand in a large county the details of the licensing question in various localities. The elected body, to deal with such a question, is a body elected over a small area and for the license question specially. I do not want to repeat the argument that owners, and not occupiers, of public houses will be compensated. I take it that is admitted. But when we speak of brewers and distillers, we are apt to think of individuals and small firms; but, unhappily, the brewing interest is now far greater, and divided among thousands of shareholders. I should like to know how many Members of this House are shareholders in breweries and distilleries. I should like to see a Return. It would be an interesting one. I am inclined to think, if strict views were taken, it would be difficult for those hon. Members to vote in favour of this clause, because they possess a pecuniary interest in it. I think the Government would be wise to adopt this Amendment; it would have the assent of all sections; and if our votes here could be taken by ballot, I believe it would be carried by a large majority. It would be to the
    784
    interest of all to have this money devoted to technical education under the Act passed in the closing days of last Session, and which I supported. This measure has not been largely adopted, simply from the lack of funds and the indisposition of County Councils to levy a rate for the purpose. Place, however, a large sum like this at the discretion of Councils, and you will find the Act will be largely adopted and carried out successfully. It is easier to get the Act into operation in boroughs than in counties; in boroughs the people are familiar with Mechanics' Institutes and other means of instruction, and are more alive to the advantages of technical education. In counties the teaching of agriculture is urgently required. The Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture has made great efforts to get the Act into force in that county; but it was found that the Council would not agree to levy a rate, and were not likely to take it up, and so the Chamber fell back upon voluntary subscriptions and a subsidy from an endowed grammar school. But if the Cheshire Council had the money at their disposal, they would start a series of agricultural schools and dairy schools throughout Cheshire. I think Cheshire was the first county that took up the question of agricultural instruction, and what has been done in this direction has greatly improved the manufacture of cheese and butter. But the farmers generally will not take up the Technical Instruction Act. I earnestly hope the Government may re-consider their proposals and devote this money to the purposes of the Act. Other counties are far more generous, and spend scores of thousands on agricultural education. We have here a magnificent opportunity of putting our schools throughout the country on a satisfactory footing, and of making them equal to the schools of France, Belgium, and Denmark; and I think if the Government accepted this Amendment, they would establish for themselves a claim to greater gratitude than can possibly result from their present proposal.
    MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I do not think that I recollect any question upon which there has been such a unanimous opinion as is instanced in the opposition

    785
    to this Bill. Ever since it has been printed I have done little less than present Petitions and acknowledge resolutions against it. Indeed, I have only received one resolution in its favour, and that was passed by a meeting of licensed victuallers, who, of course, advocate the Bill not for the direct benefits they will derive from it, but on account of the indirect benefits which are involved in the recognition of their right to compensation. You call this a temperance measure; but how is it that every single body connected with the temperance movement in the country—with one exception—has taken up the cudgels against the Bill? That exception is a portion of the Church of England Temperance Association, which, I fear, has shown itself to be "Church first and temperance afterwards." I am afraid the nature of this Amendment has been somewhat lost sight of in this discussion. I heartily re-echo the observation of my hon. Friend who said that if this Bill were passed tomorrow it would remain a dead letter in Wales. I go further. I believe that the popular feeling in Wales is so intensely against this Bill that no County Council would dare to touch the money provided under it with a pair of tongs, or with the tips of their little fingers. But there is a purpose for which we really do want this money. Wales is eager for education, but it is badly provided with the material means for obtaining it; and the Government now have an opportunity of providing those means. If we could take a, plébiscite of the inhabitants, I think it would be found that 99–100ths of the population would vote in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham; and the adoption of that Amendment would enable you to legislate in accordance with the wishes of the people of the Principality. I am sorry to say it is a common saying in Wales that the present Government do their best to find out what the Welsh people do not want, and then, having found out that, they do their very best to give it to them. Why should the Government endeavour to force legislation down the throats of the people which they dislike? The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day said that there was no machinery in existence by which
    786
    the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham could be put in force even if it were carried. But he was speaking without book, because the machinery is there. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have perused the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, for which I give the present Government full credit. It provides most ample and perfect machinery for giving effect to this Amendment. It provides that a halfpenny rate shall be paid to a certain body to be constituted for educational purposes, and that rate shall be met by an equal sum from the public Exchequer. I am confident that if the Amendment were carried we should not find the slightest difficulty in the matter of machinery for working it. It is the money that we require, and I appeal to the Government on the ground that Wales is unanimously in favour of this Amendment, to agree to it. I say it is monstrous that you should force upon the people that which they do not want, and at the same time refuse them that which, without distinction of class or party, they all demand.
    MR. B. COLERIDGE: I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He seemed to deal with two points, and two points only. Firstly, he argued that the people were with the Government; and, secondly, he denied that this was an "endowment of publican" proposal. In support of his first proposition the right hon. Gentleman showed that amongst all the Temperance Bodies of this Kingdom only one had voted in favour of the Bill, and that in the case of the Town Council of Cardiff there had been a divided vote. If that is the idea of hon. Gentlemen opposite of people being with them, why, then, I wish them joy. Secondly, he urged that the large meetings which had been held in opposition to the Bill were entirely in error in running away with cries which had no meaning, and one cry which he asserted to be meaningless was that this Bill constituted an endowment of the publican. I always understood endowment to mean a free gift of money, and I venture to say that if this is anything it is a free gift of money to the publican. First, we are asked to give the money on the

    787
    footing of annual licences being a vested form of property. But all persons, whether legal or lay, with one eminent exception, are of opinion that a publican's licence is renewable annually, and is revocable without his having any legal right to compensation. What class of houses is it proposed that the Local Authorities shall have the power of buying up? Why, just those badly-conducted or superfluous houses which the Justices have the right to close at their discretion. If there is anything settled it is this: that in the case of ill-regulated houses, and in the case of houses for which there is no need in a locality, there is an absolute discretion in law for the Justices to take these licences away, and you are now going to give them money for that which has no legal existence at all. Now, whom are you going to compensate? In most cases the persons who will be compensated under the Bill will be not the publicans, who are in general mere care-takers, but the brewers. We all know that the allurement held out to investors in Brewery Companies is that all the beer is supplied to tied houses, and in the course of the Debate to-night we have been told that 80 per cent. of all the licensed houses in the United Kingdom are tied, and that in the greater number of cases the publican is a mere care-taker, and that the real owner is the brewer. Now, I can quite understand a free and voluntary gift of an eleemosynary character. I can quite understand persons giving free gifts out of their own pockets to poor and deserving persons. But in this case the money to be given is the taxpayers' money; and, in the second place, I never met anybody who had met anybody else who had seen or heard of a brewer who was poor. About a year ago, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to place an additional burden upon the brewers, a deputation from that body waited upon him to protest against its imposition. The right hon. Gentleman saw through the position at a glance, and he asked the members of the deputation whether they could honestly say that they were too poor to bear the increased taxation, upon which all of them went away sorrowful, for they had great possessions. These, then, are not the men to whom public money should be
    788
    given. You are making a free gift out of other persons money to what is, perhaps, the richest class of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, I can understand your doing this by way of gratitude for past services, but gratitude has also been described as "expectation of favours to come." I think hon. Gentlemen opposite are rather too timorous and faint-hearted with regard to the ties which bind them to the brewers. I can assure them that if they were to accept this Amendment they would, nevertheless, have the support of the brewers at the next election. But they seem to look upon this as a bargain between themselves and the brewer. They say to them, "We will give you so much money in return for the support which you give us." I think there is no consideration for the bargain between the Government and the brewers; and, therefore, the Government might, out of mercy to the intelligence of the House, spare us these continued references to their duty to the House and the country which are so often made by the Leader of the House. I own I am astonished that a country with such a wide franchise as we possess, a country which is supposed to be at the head of the industrial countries of the world, should refuse to accept this Amendment, and to approve the devotion of this money to that purpose which, I believe, almost every other European country, as well as America, has devoted money to. Speaking on behalf of an industrial constituency, I must say that we feel that we are sadly behind other nations in the industrial race; and, therefore, I do hope that if this money is to be taken out of the taxpayers' pockets the Government will see that it is applied in a manner which will aid us in the industrial race which all the great civilised nations of the world are now engaged in running.
    MR. AMBROSE: The hon. and learned Member who last spoke has referred to this Bill as in the nature of a bargain between the Government and the brewer, but he has not attempted to show what is the nature of that bargain, and I challenge him to point out anything of the kind. This is neither a public house endowment Bill nor is it a bargain. I grant that licences are renewable annually,

    789
    and that Magistrates have power to refuse the renewal. But it must be borne in mind that while the Magistrates have absolute power, the decision in "Sharp v. Wakefield" only goes so far as to say that the power must be exercised in a judicial manner. They must not exercise their powers in an arbitrary manner. Indeed, I believe the Magistrates of this country have too much esprit de corps to act in such a manner; they have always acted on the principle of renewing a licence unless there be a distinct case made out either that the house is ill managed, or that it is cot required in the neighbourhood. You may say that the publicans have no vested interest, but that is not true. They have an absolute interest in the licences for the term, at all events, of one year; and, coupled with that, is the expectation that in the ordinary course of things the licence will be renewed. This interest, although a little uncertainty attaches to it, is recognised, and it is a marketable commodity. I heard the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth, in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, state that the decision of the Magistrates absolutely increased the market value of the interest of the publicans in their licences. How, then, can it be said that this is an endowment proposal? I have dealt with the right of the Magistrates to refuse to renew the licence. You may have a Bench of Magistrates saying that, in their judgment, the licence ought to be renewed, and you may have the Local Authority—the County Council or the Local Board it may be—come to the conclusion that the licence ought not to be renewed. What is to be done under these circumstances? You cannot compel the Magistrates, exercising judicial authority, to refuse to renew the licence if, in their judgment, it seems to them just to grant it. On the other hand, if the Local Authority thinks the licence is unnecessary for the neighbourhood, all that this Bill does in such a case is to empower the Local Authority to buy up the licence, and so close the public house. Under these circumstances, surely hon. Gentlemen cannot say that this is an endowment of public houses. We are anxious, in promoting this Bill, to promote the cause of temperance, and I hold that
    790
    this cause can be best promoted by reducing the number of public houses in this manner. You propose to extend the powers of the Local Authorities, and especially County Councils, while you leave the Magistrates' discretion absolute. Does the hon. Member mean td say that if, in the case of a difference of opinion between the County Councils and the Magistrates as to the necessity for a licensed house, the Council buy up the house, their action amounts to the endowment of a publican? If the publican is anxious to sell it will not matter to him whether he sells to the County Council or to anyone else; he knows that he can easily find 20 purchasers, and the mere refusal of the Local Authority to buy would mean the continuance of the business, even if, it be a nuisance to the neighbourhood. We are bound to bear in mind that this Bill has been brought forward in the interests of the temperance cause. It gives powers to the localities to suppress public houses, and I must confess that I am at a loss to understand the honourable intentions of hon. Members on the other side, of the House in the opposition they are offering to this measure. I cannot understand the grounds on which they object to a measure which proposes to enable the Local Authorities to buy up the public houses, the evil results of which Members opposite so strongly object to. Up to the present time there has been little or no restriction in the granting of new licences, but under this measure there are ample powers for enforcing these restrictions. I must add that I honestly regard this Bill as a measure for the promotion of temperance, and I believe that it will have the effect of bringing about a considerable reduction in the number of our public houses.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I object so strongly to the whole principle on which this Bill is founded, mixing up, as it does, local and Imperial finance, and devoting special sums for special purposes from the Imperial resources, that I shall be very sorry if any proposal in this Bill is carried at all. The great want at the present moment is that a vastly larger amount of public money should be devoted to such national objects as improved technical education and the increased efficiency of intermediate education. While the pro-

    791
    posals under discussion have been described by the President of the Local Government Board as very small, they will, in my opinion, ultimately involve a national outlay of something like £200,000,000, an expenditure which I trust this House will not agree to sanction.
    MR. LONG: The remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down opens up a wide field. He was good enough to apologise to the Committee for intervening, but I do not think any apology was necessary from the hon. Gentleman, who has spoken on a subject with which he is so well acquainted. The hon. Gentleman hardly does the Government justice, I think, with regard to the Welsh Education Act of last year, and I have no doubt Welsh Members will admit what the hon. Member for Poplar kindly seems inclined to admit, that the Government, in the midst of great pressure of business, voluntarily gave their assistance to the measure. I have the very best reason for knowing that had it not been for the action of the Government the Bill would not have passed into law. I think, therefore, that the remarks of the hon. Member were rather unfair.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The reason I mentioned it was this. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government took the whole credit of the Bill, and I only wished to show that there was a combination of credit. I quite agree with what the hon. Member now says.
    MR. LONG: I am very glad to find that we are in agreement now. I think his most temperate and practical remarks will commend themselves to my right hon. Friend at the head of the Education Department. But I would like to remind the Committee that this is not the Second Reading of the Bill. We are now in Committee, and we have decided the principle of the Bill on the Second Reading, namely, that certain funds should be provided for the extinction of licences. Amendments in the direction of education go beyond the scope of ordinary Amendments, and would, if accepted, deprive the Bill of its principal feature. An hon. Member has said that he regarded the Bill with apprehension because, if County Councils were empowered to buy out the owners of
    792
    licences now, it would be impossible in equity to extinguish licences in future without purchase. But surely, if hon. Members opposite at some future time are in a position to legislate for the extinction of licences in a different way, the present measure would be no obstacle to their action. The hon. Member for Stepney has quoted an actual case in support of his contention that there is nothing in the Bill which will enable the publican to obtain his share of the compensation together with the brewer and the distiller. If the words in the Bill are not already broad enough to include the publican, the Government will be prepared to make the necessary Amendment, so as to leave the matter perfectly clear. The intention of the Government is, that any money paid for the extinction of licences should be paid amongst all who have a share in the property, without detriment to the smaller owner. The hon. Member for Carnarvonshire said that if, under the Bill, the County Councils bought up licences they would only enhance the value of those that remain. The Bill does not propose to limit the value of the property to be purchased, because it is desired that the County Councils shall go into the matter as perfectly free agents, able to make the best terms that they can. But this is a point which has been well raised, and the Government will consider it before they come to the part of the Bill which refers to the matter. The hon. Member for the Cirencester Division has made one of the most interesting speeches, delivered on this subject. But the hon. Member asked the Committee to believe that the Bill is hostile to the views of those who advocate temperance, and is indeed distinctly a publican Bill, because it is condemned by the Temperance Party and advocated by the publican interest. Why is this so? From the very first the Temperance Party has attacked the proposals of the Government with all the virulence they can command, and the publican interest has been driven, not altogether willingly, to take up the cudgels in defence of a measure which, if not very friendly, is, at all events, equitable. But I am not concerned to justify our action in the eyes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for between them and the Government there is admitted to

    793
    be a wide gulf on the liquor traffic question. We both wish to advance the temperance movement; but hon. Gentlemen opposite will not even admit that the Bill represents in any sense an advance of the temperance cause—though licences are extinguished, and it is made impossible for fresh licences to be issued—because money is to be paid to the publican. The hon. Member for Cirencester made a great point of the fact that there are so many tied houses, and that the occupiers are liable to dismissal at six months' notice. But as a matter of practice, in the vast majority of cases, the occupiers retain the same premises for a very long time. They continue in their premises from year to year, and notice is never unfairly served upon them. Then it is said that very many breweries have been turned into public companies; hat they own all the houses in particular districts; and that they will greatly benefit by some of the houses being bought up—the cost of distribution being decreased, while the monopoly is maintained. I should like to point out that at the conclusion of his remarks the hon. Gentleman gave the answer to his own contention, for he told the Committee that in many cases the brewers had paid very large sums of money for the houses they had acquired—that they had paid big prices to keep out competition. Well, if they are prepared to pay these large prices we may question whether they will be willing to sell at the price the County Councils will be willing to pay. We have heard a great deal about the millions of expenditure which the Government proposals will involve. The hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Winterbotham) says that this is the thin end of the wedge—that hon. Gentlemen do not so much object to this £350,000 as to the hundreds of millions which will be the final result of this initial expenditure. The enormous total of numerous millions is not arrived at by taking the average, or even a moderate proportion of the public houses. It is arrived at, as far as I can ascertain, on the basis of the most valuable public houses, and by supposing that every public house will be closed. That I maintain is preposterous. Do hon. Members opposite really believe that all
    794
    those millions will be spent before a sufficient number of public houses is closed in this country? not the most determined opponents of the liquor trade, such as the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth and the hon. Member for Barrow and their supporters, think that some substantial good will be done by reducing the number of public houses; and are they unwilling that that good shall be done because a certain sum of money must be paid by the County Councils before those public houses are closed? With regard to the point that this is not public money, I would observe that when that expression was used there was no idea of contending that all taxes were not public money. What we merely meant to lay down was that this is a new additional tax specially proposed by the Government for a special purpose, and imposed upon a section of the community in order to be devoted to that particular purpose; and also that that tax is not to be imposed upon the whole country. Some hon. Members opposite shake their heads, but I defy them to prove that the party who object to the consumption of alcoholic liquor will suffer under the devotion of the money to this particular purpose. If they object to it, all they have to do is to refrain from indulging in those luxuries out of which the money will be obtained. One other remark I want to refer to. The Member for Denbighshire asserted that in Wales the powers conferred by this Bill will not be exercised, and he added that if the members of any County Council make use of those powers they will be turned out. I trust that that is an inaccurate description of what will be the action of the County Councils; but even if it is a true one no substantial difficulty will arise. After all, what would be the worst outcome of such action on the part of the County Councils? If they refuse to put the Act into operation the worst result will be that the money will accumulate, and then what an opportunity will be afforded to hon. Gentlemen opposite when they come into office o make provision for all those objects which are so near to their hearts. They will not only be able to bring into action such energy as they may possess, but they will have the satisfaction of knowing that they have

    795
    an accumulation of funds wherewith they can carry out their own views.
    MR. H. H FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in the speech he made in the earlier part of the evening, recognised that the question before the Committee was one of the main questions in the Bill; that the question whether the words "extinction of licences" should stand part of the clause was one of vital importance, deserving the fullest consideration of the Committee. He took the opportunity of delivering what I may regard as the official defence of the Government scheme. Well, I must say—and I have the greatest possible respect for my right hon. Friend—that I was very much disappointed with his speech. I know that if he has anything like a good case no man is better able to make the best of it than my right hon. Friend; and I must confess I did believe after the attitude the Government have taken, seeing that they have nailed this clause to the mast, and are determined to go on with the Bill through evil report and good report, and seeing that they have recognised that there is a considerable amount of public feeling on this question, that the right hon. Gentleman would have made a broader and a more complete defence of the present proposal. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was exceedingly narrow, as he confined himself to the motive of the Government, and to one particular object which he thinks this clause will secure. His defence of the motive of the Government was that the Bill was brought in to promote the cause of temperance. Now, I am not going to cast the slightest discredit on the motive of the right hon. Gentleman; but I will put to him, as a man of strong common sense, and of considerable experience in public and official affairs, what are the probabilities of the case. Is it reasonable to suppose that those who have always been advocates of temperance are opposing a measure intended to promote the cause of temperance, while those who have not previously been distinguished by sympathy with the temperance cause are advocating this measure because it will
    796
    promote that cause? The right hon. Gentleman talked about the ignorance and want of thought of the temperance advocates on this question. Will he apply that criticism to the acute mind of Cardinal Manning? Does Cardinal Manning understand the temperance question? Is he not above all political partisanship on this question? ["No, no."] Will any hon. Member opposite who dissents rise and state his opinion, so that Cardinal Manning may be able to answer it? It is a matter of notoriety that on the temperance question Cardinal Manning has maintained an absolutely impartial position. There are also Church of England men, like Archdeacon Farrar, Canon Wilberforce, and the Archbishop of York, who view the Government proposal with disfavour. And you have practically the whole of the Nonconformist bodies of the country taking up a strong position in opposition to the Bill. The argument of the Government is that all these men are deluded. It is not a question as to> whether they are right or wrong, but that they are deluded into the belief that this measure will not promote the cause of temperance. What would have been thought by our forefathers 50 years ago, if that argument had been used to the leading opponents of the Slave Trade in the West Indies, supposing a proposal had been made which its promoters intended would put an end to the slavery, but which they believed would have no such effect? I do not cast the slightest doubt on the motive of the right hon. Gentleman. I accept literally the statement that it is the desire of the Government to promote the cause of temperance; but I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not clear that the overwhelming public opinion of the country differs from him on this question, and that the men most competent to form an opinion have come to the contrary conclusion? The right hon. Gentleman referred to one section of the Nonconformists, about which I know something, with reference to their action in this matter. I endorse every word which the right hon. Gentleman said as to Sir George Chubb. No doubt Sir George Chubb was an opponent of the view which prevailed at the meeting at which I myself was present, and I admit

    797
    that there are a considerable number of those who share Sir George Chubb's views on religious questions who also share his views on this question; but, speaking with some knowledge on this matter, and from the number of resolutions which have been placed in my hands during the last six weeks, I assert that the overwhelming majority—I am within the mark when I say that nine-tenths—of the Wesleyan ministers and laymen in this country who take a deep interest in the temperance question are opposed to the present measure. But I do not rest this on the ground of Wesleyan Nonconformists only. I ask the right hon. Gentleman—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has asked the same thing—to give me the name of some responsible leader of English Nonconformists, Baptist or Independent, some man whose name carries weight, who has put that name to a declaration in favour of the principle of this Bill. I pass on to another point. The right hon. Gentleman found fault with the phrase "public house endowment." That phrase was coined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, and as it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to take part in the Debate on this Amendment I will not presume to anticipate what he will say, because he is well able to defend his own child. Bat it is said that the specific tax with which the Committee is now dealing does not form part of the general Revenue of the country, but is some specific imposition raised for a specific purpose. I object to that doctrine absolutely, not only because it is incorrect in fact, but because it is unsound in principle. The Revenue of the country is one and indivisible. From whatever sources it is raised it passes into one common treasury; and when the House of Commons is spending money, whether on the Army, the Navy, the Civil Services, or in expenditure of the kind we are now considering, it is equally the money of all the taxpayers of the country, no matter from what source it may be drawn. Two years ago, or last year the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer added very largely to the taxes upon the succession of property, and he added at the same time very largely to the expenditure on
    798
    the Navy. Well, would the right hon. Gentleman contend that he has earmarked that duty, and that in future it is only to be applied to that purpose? Nothing of the kind. It has gone into the common purse. But the present case is much stronger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, told us that it is the duty of the Finance Minister to raise as wide a revenue as he could on spirits; and all Members will agree that if he is raising a less duty from spirits than spirits will bear, and keeping the duty on tea and everything else, he is practically raising the duty on tea and reducing that on spirits. It is clear that spirits will bear this additional 6d. per gallon; and, that being the case, the increased tax ought to go into the general Revenue, and we ought to be relieved from some other tax that is pressing' heavily on the masses. What was the one motive and reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave in justification of this Bill? He said it would diminish the number of public houses. Am I putting it unfairly to the right hon. Gentleman when I say that this is not really the basis on which his case rests? There are several answers to that plea, but I will meet the right hon. Gentleman on his own ground. The right hon. Gentleman asks, "Is it desirable to decrease the number of public houses?" It is desirable to diminish the number, if we can do so, at such a rate and to such an extent as will effect an appreciable diminution. If we only diminish the number by a few here and there, we do not do anything for temperance; we only enrich the owners that are left; and certainly £350,000 a year spread over the public houses of the country cannot effect any appreciable diminution in the number of public houses. What the Bill does, and what we object to, is that while it will not promote the cause of temperance in diminishing the number of public houses it will add to the value of those that remain; and if we added to the value of the whole of the public house property, we shall be giving it that endowment to which reference has been made, and we shall render it more difficult to deal with this question in the future. The argument on the other side is that the decision of "Sharp v. Wakefield" must

    799
    be reversed; that a licence is everything except strictly legal, that it has a market value, and therefore if the public want the article they must pay for it. The only concession the right hon. Gentleman has said he is prepared to make is to the Church of England Temperance Societies, when he said that he was prepared to accept some Amendment to insert words providing that the Justices should have precisely the same power in future as they have at present. But I do not know that there is anything in the. Bill to take this power away. I contend that no Bench of Magistrates in the Kingdom will, after this Bill is passed, shut up one public house or refuse to renew a licence. But who is going to receive this money? The right hon. Gentleman says that for the first time on this side of the House there is some interest shown in what he calls "the poor publican." Well, Sir, I do not agree with him. I have heard throughout the Debates we have had on the temperance question a strong opinion expressed on the Liberal side that the man who is deprived of the means of carrying on his living has an equitable claim for compensation. But our contention is that as the Bill stands no compensation will be given to the "poor publican," but that it will go to the brewers only.
    MR. RITCHIE: The Government are perfectly prepared, if the necessity is shown, to insert words which will enable the County Councils to consider the claims of the licensed occupier.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Has the occupier suchan interest in the premises as is capable of being dealt with under the Bill? We have been told again and again that nine-tenths of the licences in the country are in the hands, not of the occupier, but of the brewer. The brewers have speculated in this class of property, and they have been deriving such an enormous profit from it that they are recouping themselves year by year. I see in the prospectus of the Walker Brewery Company the statement that, in addition to immense profits being shared, ample provision is set aside for the depreciation of property and for the extinction of leases or goodwill. In these circum-
    800
    stances, it is unjust and unfair to call upon the public to provide this money. The Investment Register on "Brewery Companies and Legislation" says—
    "A cloud of uncertainty has now been removed from the prospects of the 'licensed trade,' as the legislative proposals for the present Session are before the world. There had been a slight apprehension amongst all concerned in the welfare of the 'trade,' such as brewers, distillers, and even brewery shareholders. The worst is now known, and on examination of the several proposals which have been made by Mr. Ritchie and Lord Randolph Churchill it becomes quite certain that nobody is going to be hurt."
    Then, after having criticised at considerable length the proposals of my noble Friend—who I regret is not here to defend his views—they proceed to deal with the Government proposal. They say—
    "For our present purpose, however, in the interests of brewery shareholders, the most important thing is that in both legislative projects compensation holds a leading and conspicuous place."
    The article proceeds—
    "Although this principle was dropped in 1888, so as to save the remainder of a very important Bill, the Government returns to it as a sound and rational thing, and the country has become educated up to it. There is every probability of its being carried this time, as the Government has taken a firm and decided position, from which it is not in the least likely to retreat with such a majority as Lord Salisbury commands. The double proposals make it certain that the whole weight of the majority will go in its favour. Brewery shareholders may, therefore, be congratulated on the sense of security which this equitable concession will bring to them, and while there is time to act we confidently recommend investors to buy all well-selected shares that can be had at moderate prices, and not to part with any good brewery securities which they may already have in possession."
    MR. LONG: What are you reading from?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Investment Register. Again they have an article on Brewery Investment, in which they say—
    "There is generally a solid foundation of freehold property, to begin with, in the brewery itself, and in a proportion, at all events, of the tied houses. With this there is a fixity of tenure, and no chance of disagreeable surprises from leases falling in, and landlords coming forward to claim the unearned increment of a confiscatory rent. This is the first solid security for the capital invested. The next is in

    801
    the permanency of the trade. From time to time there is apt to be a misgiving on this point. The aggressive character of total abstinence and temperance advocates causes an occasional apprehension as to the future. There is, however, no reason to fear that any harm will happen to brewers as a whole … The large breweries now hold the held, and so much do these contribute to the welfare of the country and the stability of the national finances, that no Government can afford to be hostile to the brewing interest, or to sanction any measures likely to be detrimental to its productivity."
    I will only tremble the House with one other quotation. The Financial Times said on May 3rd:—
    "Mr. Ritchie's Licensing Bill, which was issued yesterday, is sure to receive attentive perusal and a very wide circulation, for, if carried in anything like its present form, it will add immensely to the value of licensed property of the better kind."
    Now, these people know their own business quite well. They thoroughly understand what this measure will do. We understand what it will do, and it is because we appreciate the force of their negotiation, and because we believe that this Bill, if carried, will strike a fatal blow at all temperance legislation for the future, that we give to it our strenuous opposition. Practically, the Bill amounts to the abolition of the Justices' power, root and branch, and to the assertion that no public house shall be deprived of its licence unless compensation is paid, not to the man who is carrying on the business, not to the man who is deprived of his living by legislative action—and, speaking for myself, I say that under such circumstances a man has a strong claim on the Legislature for compensation—but to the brewer or owner, to the shareholders in these large companies. You will compensate them for the termination of property from which they have already derived enormous revenues, those revenues being based on the contingent nature of their property. The fact that every brewery share in England has risen in value since the Bill was brought in is a most eloquent condemnation of the measure.
    MR. PROVAND: It has been said upon the opposite Benches that this is a measure in favour of temperance, but, with the
    802

    exception of a small section of the Church of England Temperance Society, it is condemned by all the friends of temperance. It is argued that the measure will result in the lessening of the consumption of intoxicating drink, and yet every person connected with the trade is in favour of the Bill. The sum set aside is utterly inadequate to allow of anything substantial being done in the direction of temperance. Several estimates have been made of the cost of buying up all the houses in the country. The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) has estimated the cost at £300,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), when he proposed the adoption of the Gottenburg system, estimated that he could buy all the public houses in Birmingham for £1,200,000. As these licences represent somewhere about 1 per cent, of all the licences in the country, the cost, according to that estimate, of buying up all licences will be £120,000,000. But another estimate was made with regard to Birmingham by another Birmingham man, who was fitted, from his position, to form a very accurate idea of the value of public houses. This was a Mr. Edwards, who was then the secretary of the Licensed Victuallers Defence League. Reviewing the figures of the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Edward said the calculations were clever, but altogether wrong. The right hon. Gentleman, he said, estimated that in a town with a population of 400,000, the licences could be bought up for £1,200,000; but, he added, £3,000,000 would not be sufficient to do so. He adds:—
    "Such an achievement, applying, as it should, to all persons directly interested, and to the £130,000 of capital invested would make all previous achievements of a compensatory nature insignificant."
    He says it would involve a complete re casting of our whole fiscal system, and adds, "£400,000,000 would not cover it." That is the estimate of a man well qualified to give an opinion on the subject. We have also the estimate of Mr. James, President of the Plymouth Licensed Victuallers' Protection Society. He estimated that the worst, and, conse-

    803
    quently, the cheaper, half of the licences in this country could be bought for £70,000,000, which would make the value of the whole about £200,000,000. I find that the average of these four valuations is £250,000,000. Of course, it is not contended that all licences will be bought up. The Government speak of buying up a certain number, and it is certain that all the money they allocate for the purpose would be entirely insufficient to make any impression whatever on the licences. Consequently £350,000 would merely be a beginning. They would be compelled to resort to fresh taxation, and we should, therefore, have fastened round our necks an amount like a new National Debt. The temperance question would then be left in a great deal worse position than it is in at present. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board spoke of some temperance meetings which had passed resolutions in favour of this Bill; but he did not allude to the meetings that had passed resolutions against the Bill, although he must have had sheaves of resolutions sent to him in opposition to it. Have those whom this Bill will benefit, the brewers and publicans, called a single public meeting? No such thing. I believe no public meeting of any kind has been called in any part of the country in favour of the Bill. Although the Government appear as if they would like to defy public opinion, they cannot defy it permanently. It is of little use to say to the Committee that this Bill is an unjust or impolitic Bill, but I have no doubt it will stay in the recollection of the public whether it is passed or not. The electors are much alive to this question, and when they have the opportunity of placing their views on record, the Government will discover that public opinion is as much opposed to them on this question as it possibly can be.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have expatiated on the poverty and the woes of the unfortunate publican whose case they are popularly supposed to be championing. But they have not tackled the point which has been put to
    804
    them from both sides of the House. It has been clearly demonstrated that the lion's share of the amount voted will go not into the pockets of the publicans, but into those of the great brewers and distillers and the shareholders in great brewery companies. I should like to see any hon. Member on the other side of the House, who is not himself either a brewer or distiller or a shareholder in a brewery company, get up and urge that those classes are entitled to derive any benefit from this system of compensation out of the public purse. They know perfectly well that any such attempt would be received with indignation by the people of this country, and they, therefore, take good care to avoid the subject, and confine themselves to flaunting in our faces the piteous tale of the desperate condition of the unfortunate publican, knowing all the time that it is a sham and a humbug. Assuming the position of the publican to be pitiable, how do Members opposite answer the argument that the publicans in 99 cases out of 100 are weekly servants of the brewers and are constantly being compelled to relinquish their means of livelihood at the dictation of the owners of the tied houses without a farthing of compensation? The publicans are not entitled to any compensation. They are the holders of a monopoly under which, without the exercise of brains, and without any considerable capital, it is possible for them to amass vast fortunes not out of the wants and necessities, but out of the degradation and misery, of their fellow-countrymen. Wherever monopolies have been attacked and extinguished—whether you take the salt monopolies in Queen Elizabeth's time, or the tobacco monopolies in other times—you will find that compensation has never even been asked for. This monopoly differs in no whit from those to which I have referred because it extends not for a period of 14 years, but for 12 months. It has been taken by the

    805
    publican with the full knowledge that the licence is to be held for a year and no longer. Therefore, to come down to this House and pretend you are interfering with vested interests and are inflicting hardship on these men for which they need compensation, is the merest fraud and sham. Let us deal out the same measure of justice or liberality or generosity to these men as is dealt out to others of a similar class. These men hold their licences for one year certain, and may, therefore, be considered as tenants for one year. If yon will look through the annals of landlordism in this country you will find the landlords deal out very hard measure indeed to their yearly tenants and think nothing of turning them out at very short notice. I should like to know what compensation is given to the publican who has been, perhaps, boycotted out of his livelihood by the Primrose Dames. It is well-known that in such cases no idea of compensation is ever thought of by the landlords, and yet I venture to say such men are a thousand times more entitled to compensation than the publicans would be under any conceivable circumstances. Let us clear away all this cant and humbug, and deal with these yearly tenants on the same principle as that on which all you landlords deal with your yearly tenants. If you once intro duce the thin end of the wedge of compensation to publicans, I should like to know where it is to end. There are plenty of other classes who will be able to establish on this basis a much stronger demand for compensation. Legislation has again and again been passed which has had the effect of ruining a large number of private individuals. Take the case of the private schoolmasters. An instance came under my notice a few days ago in my own constituency. An unfortunate man came to me and asked me for employment. He had been in a respectable position as a schoolmaster, but, by the op3ration of the Education Act, he had been deprived of his employment, and for years past had been compelled to take other employment, and, this failing him, had eventually been obliged to beg his way from house to house. There is a piteous case for you! What sort of compensation do the Government propose for relieving the
    806
    miseries of the hundreds and thousands of unfortunate men of that description? None at all. This is a measure of jobbery and robbery—of robbery because it proposes to rob the whole of the public for the benefit of the publicans; of jobbery because the Government know perfectly well it is the price they have to pay for the support of the publicans.
    MR. CAINE: I beg, Sir, to move that you do report Progress.
    Mr. LLEWELLYNrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIESMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  BARRACKS BILL.—(No. 234.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  INLAND REVENUE REGULATION (RECOMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 255.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I do not know whether it is of any use making an appeal to hon. Members opposite, but may I say that this is merely a Consolidation Bill, that it meets with general concurrence in the House, and it has passed Committee. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green has given notice of two Amendments; but I think he will be satisfied with the explanation I can give him. I am quite aware that 12 o'clock has struck, but I do not think there is any objection to the Bill on its merits.
    MR. T. M. HEALYI would gladly support the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman if the Government would act reasonably,

    807
    but they will not. I have a most admirable Bill before the House, a Bill which meets the general wishes of every part of the House; it has even the support of the hon. Member for South Tyrone——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    Committee deferred till to-morrow.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.—(No. 284.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for SECOND READING read.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I hope I may be permitted to say that this Bill is introduced with a view to remove considerable defect in procedure under the Housing of the Working Classes Act; and a further Bill consolidates the law applying to England, Scotland, and Ireland. If the House will agree to the Second Reading we propose to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee where the details will be fully considered.
    Objection taken; SECOND READING deferred till Monday next.

  ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 298.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. T. M. HEALT: On a point of Order, Sir, I wish to ask why it is that this Order is marked in italics "to be referred to a Select Committee?" what do right hon. Gentlemen know of that? It is a matter for the House to determine, and I think it is an illegitimate and objectionable mode of trying to induce the House to pass the Second Reading.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): The explanation is that the Bill is of a semi-private character.
    MR. SPEAKER: The examiners have reported that the Standing Orders which
    808
    govern Private Bills are applicable to this Bill, and so it must be referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The notice was not down yesterday.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Examiner had not then reported.
    Second Reading deferred till to-marrow.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 167.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: On the last occasion when this Bill was mentioned a wish was expressed that it should be extended to Ireland. I stated that I feared this was impossible, but that if it were possible I would gladly do so. I find, however, that this cannot be done. I hope the Committee may now be taken.
    Objection taken.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (PROCEDURE) BILL.—(No. 245.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committe report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

  MOTIONS.

    ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS (CHRIST'S HOSPITAL, WEBB'S CHARITY).
    MR. JAMES STUART: Under the Endowed Schools Acts of 1869 a scheme for the re-organisation of Christ's Hospital has been laid on the Table of the House since the 8th ult., and to a part of this scheme I have to ask the House to express, dissent. I will occupy but a short time in showing why I ask the House to pass

    809
    this Resolution. The question is not one into which Party politics enter. In the district of Shoreditch I represent, and in parts of the parish outside my constituency, there is a very strong feeling on the subject, wholly irrespective of political opinions. In 1661 money was left by will by Thomas Webb, and of this will I hold in my hand a copy made by the Vestry Clerk of Shoreditch. In this will the testator says:—
    "I give and bequeath certain lands in the parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch to the President and Governors of Christ's Hospital and their successors for ever to the intent that the said President and Governors shall keep out of the profits and rents three poor children born in the parish of St. Leonard to be from time to time nominated and recommended by the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of that parish. And to the further interest and purpose that after the expiration of the said under-leases when the rents and profits of the premises will prove of greater value than they are now the said President and Governors of the Hospital shall for ever afterwards maintain and keep out of the said rents and profits six poor children at least born in the parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch."
    This was in 1661, and in the years from that time to 1790, the funds from the charity came to a very small sum, sufficient to support three children. In 1789 certain leases fell in, and in 1790 application was made to Lord Chancellor Thurlow and a degree given by which the number of children was increased to six, the income of the charity having increased to £130, and the cost of keeping' each boy being £19 4s. 6d., so that the cost of the children was within a small sum of the total amount of the charity. Lord Chancellor Thurlow, after giving the decree gave as an obiter dictum that when the funds of the charity would allow of it, application should be made for a still further increase. In 1850 leases fell in again, and the annual income of the charity increased from £130 to £1,300, and the number of inhabitants in the parish concerned had multiplied by 10 during the interval of time, so
    810
    that the size of the charity and the number of population had grown together. The cost of each child at Christ's Hospital is at this moment £50, so that the children together cost £300. [Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND expressed dissent]. Well, whatever the cost may be, it is considerably loss than the £1,300 a year the charity now amounts to. There has been a re-organisation of the funds of Christ's Hospital, and the proposed scheme now lies on the Table of the House, and to this my Resolution refers. I want to call the special attention of the House to the fact that, in the quotation from the will of Thomas Webb, it is provided that if the rents and profits of the property increased, as Thomas Webb expected they would increase, provision should be made for six poor children at least. Now, if the fund—now £1,300—had been provided for the expense of the maintenance of six poor children, it might be urged that the residue should belong to Christ's Hospital, and not to the parish of St. Leonard; but the words "at least" and the obiter dictum, indicating the opinion in the mind of Lord Thurlow, show—and the same impression will be created in the mind of anyone reading the terms of the bequest—that the meaning is that the smallest number of children to be maintained is six, and that it might be a larger number. Now, the parish of Shoreditch does not ask that the whole of the £1,300 should be appropriated for the benefit of the parish; but they recognise that if six children were allowed by Lord Thurlow, when the income of the fund was £130, and the cost of maintenance £20 each child; now that the income of the fund is 10 times that amount and the needs of the parish 10 times as great, it is rather hard that, in the recorganisation scheme for Christ's Hospital, no attention should be paid to the words "at least" in the will. This is the more hard under the circumstances, inasmuch as Christ's Hospital is a large and wealthy Corporation, and the parish from which this fund is derived is one of the poorest parishes in London. I perfectly admit there may be property belonging to a wealthy Corporation upon which the

    811
    parish in which the property is situated may have no claim. I admit there may be distinct and terminable claims of a parish upon such a fund; but I say the character of the bequest we are dealing with goes beyond a terminable claim, and leaves open the claims of the parish to re-consideration when the fund has reached 10 times its original value. The claims of the parish have been brought forward in a Petition from the vestry in which members of all parties and denominations have joined. These claims have been urged for many years, and there is a very strong and widespread feeling that the parish has been dealt with unfairly in this Christ's Hospital scheme. The claim is not in any sense for the whole of the fund; but I do say that it is a fair thing to ask that they shall have the maintenance of a larger number than six children; that the claim founded on the change of circumstances which have increased fund and parish tenfold should be recognised. All we ask is, that the scheme shall be referred back to the Commissioners for amendment before it receives the Assent of Her Most Gracious Majesty, that some concession shall be made in the direction I now represent. There has unfortunately been too much of a tendency in these schemes of the Charity Commissioners to divert funds from the benefit of the poor. This is an instance, and I am not at all sure that the whole of the scheme is not open to the same charge. There are objections to the main scheme for Christ's Hospital, but I refrain from bringing up the whole question. I limit myself to the matter which is the subject of my present Motion affecting my constituents in one of the poorest parishes in London. I know that the scheme, which I will not for a moment venture to discuss now under this Resolution, does transfer funds to the maintenance of boarding schools out of London and divert funds from the Metropolis; and I do not know whether Metropolitan Members may combine against these proposals at a later period; but I urge now the unfairness of neglecting the claims of one of the poorest localities in London in favour of a wealthy Corporation, and I earnestly hope the House will support me in what I hope I have established as a good claim.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be 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, until due regard had been had to the claims of the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, for an increased share of the endowment known as Webb's Charity."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    MR. CREMER: My remarks shall be brief, and I apologise to the House for intruding upon their attention at this late hour, but the importance of the subject justifies me in seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend. I contend that the Charity Commissioners in this scheme have not had due regard to the interests of the people of Shoreditch, and have, in fact, violated the Instructions contained in the Endowed Schools Amendment Act. I hope the House will not be alarmed at the appearance of this cumbersome volume, as my reference to it shall be but brief. In the Act, it is distinctly stated "That it shall be the duty of the Commissioners in every scheme abolishing or modifying the privileges or educational advantages to which a particular class of persons are entitled, or inhabitants of a particular area, or otherwise, to have due regard to the educational interests of such class." Now, I say, that in framing this scheme, the Commissioners have not had due regard to the interests of the inhabitants of this particular area. It may be recollected that, three or four years ago, a Committee was appointed by the House to inquire into the course pursued by the Charity Commissioners in reference to the method in which they had dealt with endowments left for the benefit of the poor. That Committee sat for two Sessions, and collected a very considerable quantity of evidence, which was laid before the House, and, in due time, followed by a Report, from which I propose to quote a few short extracts. The Committee seem to have gathered from the evidence that the Charity Commissioners

    813
    had been somewhat lax in their method of dealing with endowments left for the benefit of the poor, and if they had not violated the provisions of the Amended Endowed Schools Act altogether, the Committee evidently had the impression that the Charity Commissioners had not paid due regard to the interests of people in particular localities, and this impression appears in the following passage in the Committee's Report:—"The Act provides that it shall be the duty of the Commissioners to have due regard to the educational interests of the class of persons prejudicially affected by the scheme. Schemes have been narrowed by judicial interpretation, and, therefore, they require to be strengthened." I contend that the Charity Commissioners, in framing this scheme, have disregarded this provision, and also the recommendation of the Committee which sat upstairs. If, therefore, the Charity Commissioners have not acted strictly in accordance with the Act of Parliament, and carried out the desires of the Committee upstairs, I think we have presented a very strong case in support of this Motion. I further propose to point out that what is proposed by this scheme will not remove the grievance of which the people of Shoreditch complain; and I hope that hon. Members will recognise that on the present occasion we are not merely representing Radical or Liberal electors, but that we are speaking in the name of the whole ratepayers of the district. This is not a Party question. Hon. Members on the other side are just as much interested, and many of them are just as anxious to safeguard the interest of the poor, as we on this side. What has been done in Shoreditch to remedy the grievances of which we complain? In the first place, the Local Authorities have several times urged on the Governors of Christ Hospital that there should be an increase in the number of children educated out of the funds provided by Webb's Charity, and their application has been invariably refused. The Charity Commissioners have been approached for leave to apply to the Court of Chancery to increase the number of children, in the same way as was done in the case of the charity to which my Colleague has referred. In that case it will be remembered Lord
    814
    Chancellor Thurlow increased the number of children from three to six, and if it was right for the parishioners or the Local Authority to apply to the Court of Chancery at that time, surely the Charity Commissioners must have an exceedingly weak case when they persistently refuse to allow a similar application to be made when Webb's Charity has so largely iucreased in funds. I think, under any circumstances, in fairness to the people of this poor district, they ought to have allowed the appeal to be made to the Court of Chancery, but, as it happens in every instance, the Commissioners, like the Governors of Christ's Hospital, have rejected the prayer of the Memorials presented to them. A few days ago a public meeting was convened in Shoreditch on this subject. It was called upon a requisition signed by 30 Liberals and 30 Conservatives. I think the inhabitants of Shoreditch acted wisely in taking this question out of the region of Party politics. Some gentlemen on the other side of the House, who take a clerical view of endowments generally, may be interested to learn that the Vicar of Shoreditch and the whole of the Clergy resident there joined in the requisition, and many took part in the meeting to which I have referred. Then I have here Petitions which have been prepared hastily—in two or three days—but which have been signed by no fewer than 3,044 adult residents of Shoreditch. No Sunday school children have been allowed to append their signatures to the Petitions. They are as bonâ fide an expression of opinion as were ever presented to the House. The Conservative Association has worked heartily, and co-operated with the Liberals, in getting signatures to the Petitions, so that I think I have justified my statement that this is not a Liberal or Radical question, but that it is one in which the entire people of the ancient Borough of Shoreditch are concerned. Now, what is it the Petitioners desire? They consider that the number of children to be benefited by the Charity should be increased from six to 25. That is not an excessive demand, when it is remembered that the income of this Charity has risen from £130 to £1,300 a year. I think we may take it

    815
    that each child costs £50 a year, although perhaps that amount will be lessened under the scheme prepared by the Charity Commissioners, because the scholarships to be devoted to girls—of which there are three—will involve an outlay of less than £50 each. But taking the general cost at £50 only, £300 of the income of the Charity will be thus expended on Shoreditch children, and the Charity Commissioners propose to take away the remaining £1,000 from the inhabitants of this poor district and use it for the general purposes of their new scheme. The people of Shoreditch regard this is an act of spoliation and robbery on the part of the Charity Commissioners. I think we have a reasonable ground for claiming that this endowment, which was left for the inhabitants of Shoreditch, shall be applied for the benefit of the children of the district, and that if this £1,000 is not to be used for the education of Shoreditch children, it certainly should be devoted to some other purpose advantageous to the welfare of the locality. I hope that the House, notwithstanding the appeal which, I understand, will be addressed to it from some Members on these Benches to reject my proposal, will see that it has been made in a spirit of equity and justice and fair play. Shoreditch is one of the poorest districts in the Metropolis, and I hope the House will agree to the Resolution which we have submitted to it.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HAET DYKE,): I have no complaint to make of this matter having been brought before the House, nor of the speeches of the hon. Members who have spoken upon it;but before I proceed further I should like to express my sincere regret that the hon. Members, who urge the adoption of this Amendment, are somewhat in a difficulty. They have stated that they have no wish to destroy this scheme as a whole, but that they are only appealing for justice for the particular district which they represent. But here comes the difficulty: This scheme has arrived at a stage at which
    816
    it cannot be amended, according to the procedure of the Act, and though it might be possible to excise from it entirely that portion which relates to Shoreditch, the result of so doing would, unfortunately, be to leave those whom the hon. Member for Shoreditch represents in a worse position than they will be under the scheme. It has been suggested that this scheme inflicts serious injury on the poor. I do not deny that the best inheritance of the poor is a good education, but I suggest it is an astonishing and monstrous proposition that by this scheme the poor are unjustly deprived of that inheritance. What has happened during many years? Many attempts have been made to deal with this foundation; appeals have been made by the Corporation of the City of London and the Governors of Christ's Hospital to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The scheme has been amended in the direction ordered by the Judicial Committee, and as it now stands it represents an enormous sacrifice of patronage and privilege on the part of the Governors of the Charity for the sake of the education of the poorer classes. Therefore, the assertion that the scheme in any way detracts from the interest of the poor is entirely contrary to the fact. With regard to the scheme itself, the hon. Member who introduced this Motion has given an accurate description of the Trust up to a certain point, and therefore I need not follow him in that part of his speech. At this moment, the income of the Charity provides something like £1,196 per year. In 1852 the Governors of Christ's Hospital took special pains to find out their legal position. With regard to a proposal to increase the number of children provided for under the Trust, they obtained legal opinions, and were advised that they had no power to add to the number of the children. They appealed to more than one high legal authority, and the view which I have described was confirmed by the opinion of the present Lord Selborne. The Governors of Christ's Hospital are not bound in any way to maintain more than six children out of the funds of this Charity. It seems impossible to frame any scheme which will not give rise to some sense of grievance. The Charity Commissioners

    817
    are bound to adhere to the conditions of the Act under which the schemes are framed. Their policy has been to observe the restrictions which they found laid down as to the number of children to be on the foundation, and if they had adopted any other policy it would have been impossible to frame any scheme at all. As it is, it has taken several years to mature the scheme. It is proposed that 179 children for Public Elementary Schools shall be placed on the foundation subject to the reservation as to the 49 that now enjoy the privilege. The hon. Member urges that Shoreditch has been left out in the cold; but the reply to that is that Shoreditch will enjoy the benefit of the scheme as a whole in common with the rest of the Metropolis. So far as I understand, the Commissioners had no choice whatever with regard to this matter. They have been obliged to act on certain lines. They have not only acted in accordance with the scope and intentions of the Act, but they have also been guided by the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission and the Reports of subsequent Commissioners, who were in favour of removing the restrictions upon the use of educational endowments. The Report of a Committee in this House which sat in 1887 says—
    "The Committee think that the general policy of the Commissioners should be to remove and not to retain such restrictions as may be calculated to limit the use of the endowments."
    I concede there is a strong feeling on the part of the constituencies of hon. Members of all shades of political opinion in regard to this matter. No man could be more anxious than I should be, if possible, to remove the difficulty in which the hon. Member is placed. I can only say that the scheme is for the benefit of the children of the poor in the Metropolis, because, at present, the children who are placed upon the foundation need not be Londoners at all, but may be drawn from all parts of the country. The essence of the new scheme is that the benefits shall be secured for the people of London generally. Before I sit down, I hope to be able to show that this scheme holds out a splendid educational prospect. It proposes that a large number of places in
    818
    the Hospital shall be retained for children from public elementary schools. It affords a day school for 600 boys, and a night school for 400 girls. This surely is a splendid prospect for the poor of the Metropolis. There must, of course, be grievances in such a great scheme; but, looking at the vast interests involved, I do hope that the House will support the scheme as now framed, and will reject the Motion of the hon. Member.
    MR. BRYCE: I wish I could vote for the Motion, if for no other reason than that its adoption would have the effect of throwing out a scheme which I am afraid will prevent us utilising these funds in the most desirable manner. To my mind, the class most in need of educational assistance is the upper poor and the middle class. But I know it is not proper for me to attempt to argue this question on the present Motion. If my hon. Friend asked me to vote for his Motion on the ground which he stated, I am bound to say that I think the arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat appear to be absolutely conclusive, for he points out that the Commissioners have in this matter acted entirely on the lines of the Statute which governs their proceedings, and that they have also acted in conformity with the recommendations of the Schools Inquiry Commission, and of a Committee of this House. It would be most undesirable now to revive the system which the Act of 1869 put an end to. No doubt it is reasonable for the people of Shoreditch to feel aggrieved. Certainly, my hon. Friend has taken a proper course in this matter; but I venture to say that the House would set a dangerous precedent if they adopted the Motion, for they would immediately stimulate small localities to set up claims adverse to the general interests of the whole community. On this ground lam afraid I must vote against the Motion of my hon. Friend.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: As one of the Governors of the Charity, I wish to say that we have taken a great deal of trouble with regard to this case. No doubt the Webb bequest provides for the education of six children only. We have taken counsels' opinion, and we have been advised that we have no power at all to increase that number.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: By whom were you so advised?
    MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: By the late Lord Chancellor. The result of the adoption of this Motion will be to throw the whole of the scheme back for perhaps another 12 years. We have been long trying to frame this scheme in a manner which will give general satisfaction; and I think it would be a great pity if now the House were to adopt a Resolution which would practically render futile our labour for the past 12 years. While sympathising with the hon. Member for Shoreditch I appeal to the House to pass the scheme, which has been approved by the Charity Commissioners.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I quite agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch has taken a proper course in this matter; but I must ask the House for a minute or two just to consider something of the history of this scheme, It has been before the Charity Commissioners for the last 12 or 14 years, and it has been delayed by vested interests of the most extraordinary character. Claims of a complex and complicated character have been put forward, and scheme after scheme has been completed and destroyed, until those who took an interest in the question began to regard as almost hopeless the task of framing a satisfactory scheme. At last, however, the House has before it a scheme which deals with the largest sum with which the Charity
    820
    Commissioners have ever had to deal, namely, a sum of £60,000 a year. Through the delay which has taken place no fewer than 3,000 children have been deprived of the education of a lifetime, and you will continue to deprive these children of this education, if you adopt the Motion of my hon. Friend. The Commissioners have to deal with all the parishes on the same principle, and if they admit the special claim of the people of Shoreditch they will have to go into the claims of other parishes, and the whole scheme must be taken to be at an end. I sincerely trust that the House will pass this scheme, and I may add that I should regard it almost as a national calamity if it should fail.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I wish to ask whether, in the event of this Motion being either carried or lost, it will be open to me to bring forward on a future occasion a Motion praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the scheme, not on this point only, but on general grounds?
    MR. SPEAKER: Yes; I think it will be competent to the hon. Member to raise on another occasion an objection to the whole scheme. The present objection turns upon a special point, namely, the alleged grievance of Shoreditch.
    (1.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 115.—(Div. List, No. 132.)

    BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir William Houldsworth, Bill to amend "The Boiler Explosions Act, 1882," ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Sir Henry Roscoe, and Mr. James Maclean.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 339.]
    It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTIONS) BILL.—(No. 117.)
  SUPERANNUATION (WAR DEPARTMENT) BILL.—(No. 118.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Borught from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Earl of Camperdown.) (No. 119.)
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 52.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, at the end of Clause 12 I propose to add the words of which I have given notice. The object of this Amendment is to check the practice of making false statements as to the age of a child. It depends upon the age of a child who is brought before a Magistrate whether he is sent to an industrial or to a reformatory school. Consequently, it is to the advantage of a child that his parents should make him out to be younger than he really is, and this Amendment is to do away with that practice. The clause empowers the Court to make inquiry as to the age of a child, and to issue an order, but empowering a child to be discharged from a school on his being proved, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State, to have attained the age of 16. This will enable the Secretary of State, if the child might have been originally committed to a reformatory school, had his true age been known, if he is of opinion that the further detention of the child is desirable, to order him to be transferred to a reformatory school, there to be detained subject to the provisions of the law relating to reformatory schools. Of course, he would not consider it desirable unless the child had been guilty of bad conduct. The Royal Commission on
  634
  Industrial and Reformatory Schools proposes that the age, as ascertained by the Magistrate, should be considered the true age. The Committee disagree with that view, and I hope the noble Viscount sees no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 12, page 5, to add at the end of the Clause the words—
  "Unless the child might have been originally committed to a reformatory school had his age been known, in which case the Secretary of State, if he is of opinion that the further detention of the child is desirable, may transfer him to a reformatory school, there to be detained subject to the provisions of the law relating to reformatory schools."—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I do object to this Amendment, and the objection I have is of a serious character. I quite agree that the alteration made in Standing Committee was in mitigation of what had been proposed by the Royal Commission; but I think the noble Lord proposes to go a step further than that, which is, I think, very unwise. I understand he proposes that if a mistake has been made in the age, and the child was really over 14, and might, therefore, have been sent to a reformatory in the first instance, the Secretary of State may make an alteration in the order and send him to a reformatory school.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Not exactly. He has power under the Bill, at present, to send children to a reformatory school in certain cases.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: But there is this requirement, that the child who is to go to the reformatory school must have been convicted. I do not think it would be for the Secretary of State to convict, and, therefore, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment. I could not possibly allow it to pass to-day, because it would not do to give power to the Secretary of State to convict. The child ought, of course, to be convicted by the Magistrate.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I understand it is merely a question of age. He must, at all events, be found guilty of an offence.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: No, this is a totally different question. That is quite against the theory of industrial schools. Before sending a child to a reformatory school, he must have been convicted, and I

  635
  object strongly to the Secretary of State having power to convict. A child sent to an industrial school is not convicted, though the Magistrate must be satisfied of his guilt.
  LORD MONKSWELL: The child would, undoubtedly, be subject to conviction if he were of the age provided, but, as he represents himself, or is represented to be, below that age, the Court finds him guilty, and then sends him to the school. I must say I fail to see the objection. It was a somewhat strong measure for the Committee to state its opinion after what had been done by the Royal Commission. It was considered that the age of the child, as ascertained by the Magistrate, should be considered the true age to all intents and purposes.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: If any mistake has been made, it must be corrected by the Magistrates. The Secretary of State cannot set it right. I am quite sure it would not do to give that power to the Secretary of State.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Then I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Amendments made.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I move the omission of Clause 30 and the following clauses. My Amendment is to relieve the Bill of no less than 11 clauses, establishing truant schools all over the Kingdom. I maintain that these truant schools are absolutely and positively useless, if not mischievous. Probably the noble Viscount will defend them upon the Report of the Commission. The ground upon which they were recommended was that they would afford means for classification. If the noble Viscount defends these truant schools upon the authority of the Report of the Commissioners on which the Bill is founded, I beg to call his attention and the attention of the House to what appears on the face of the Report upon the subject. The reason the Commissioners recommend the increase of truant schools is that they think it necessary there should be further classification of juvenile offenders beyond that permitted by the industrial and reformatory schools in order that the younger should be kept separate from the older offenders. Now, in the first place, it is not necessary to establish new
  636
  schools all over the Kingdom in order to separate the children. The industrial schools can afford the necessary separation as the law now stands; of course, I do not speak of aggravated cases of more hardened offenders. Aggravated cases of juvenile offences are not the subject of this Bill at all. They do not come under the provisions of the Industrial Schools Bill, and therefore any recommendations of the Commissioners do not apply to such cases. The Commissioners very fairly state the arguments which came before them in favour of and against this proposition; but there seems to me not to be the slightest reason given for the creation of a new set of schools all over the Kingdom for the class of children they describe in their Report. The class of children referred to—I am quoting from the 35th page of the Commissioners' Report, which recommends the creation of these truant, schools—are those "whose only offence has been truancy," with whom are very strangely coupled "those who have been unable from poverty to attend school." They make a distinction between those whom they call actual truants, and those who are truants and something more. Really, my Lords, there is no end to the ingenuity of hobby-mongers. The specialty of a truant school, as stated by the Commissioners to be their meaning of the term, is that they are schools for short detention. The proposal is that truant children shall be kept there for a short time and then licensed to go to the ordinary schools. Would it not be much better to whip them and send them back to school at once? What can be the reason for multiplying schools for such a purpose all over the country? Our expenditure on public elementary schools has already grown to an enormous extent, and I think quite sufficient without extending' it in a new wav. The good sense of the country upon the matter is shown by the fact that only six of these truant schools have been established throughout the Kingdom; and out of those six the Commissioners have condemned two, leaving only four subject to their approval. They condemned those two on the ground that the treatment in them was a great deal too penal. I saw them myself. As a member of the Commission, I went round the country, and I found that the treatment of children in

  637
  these truant schools is to confine them to their bedrooms, to reform them by solitary confinement, absence from play, entire deprivation of liberty. This treatment is, I suppose, by way of making school more attractive in the eyes of these truants. I should think, myself, it would have the exactly contrary effect. Your Lordships are not bound by the Report of a Commission, and I hope the House will exercise its own judgment on the recommendation of this Commission. I certainly protest against it. The supposed success of these schools, if there has been any, can be attained just as well in a day industrial school; and if the noble Viscount supports this class of institutions, I hope he will give us a better reason for establishing them than that which is given in the Report. I therefore move the omission of Clause 30.
  Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 30.—(The Lord Norton.)
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: My Lords, I am very glad my noble Friend has moved the omission of this clause. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this Bill raises a question of great importance with regard to many of its provisions. It proposes to constitute a number of entirely new detaining schools. That, I think, is rather a strong measure; and, when we view the proposal in the light of experience, I think it is very objectionable. I will ask your Lordships to permit me to make a few short observations. County Councils and Borough Councils have some reason for objecting to this Bill on the ground of cost. They are now constituted the authorities for the management of truant schools and day industrial schools. There are further provisions, against which I shall have nothing whatever to say, for sending children out to board provided they can find proper persons to receive them and undertake their care. I will now only deal with the two questions of day schools and truant schools. I am very much afraid that one consequence of creating these schools will be the overlapping of authority, causing confusion in their administration, and, further than that, I think it may bring the different authorities who are concerned in these schools into serious conflict on many occasions. But it is not only that I am afraid of. A worse result may occur if
  638
  the Bill is carried out in its entirety' that of bringing into conflict no less than three different Departments in London. Those who are acquainted with such matters of administration in the country are aware that great difficulties sometimes arise as between two Departments; but if you are to have three to deal with, the Home Office in the first instance, the Local Government Board in the next, and the Educational Department in the third, I am afraid great confusion will arise in the County and Borough Councils if this Bill is carried out in its entirety. Now, my Lords, I want to mention what the feeling is which exists in the country upon these matters. Those of your Lordships who are members of County Councils must, I am sure, regard with jealousy and vigilance every proposal to increase expenditure. If all these schools are to be supported, and compulsorily supported, the cost will be very great. By Clause 26, reading it shortly, every County Council and Borough Council shall, not "may" as hitherto, contribute to the maintenance and management of any industrial school where children are retained by the order of any Court acting within the limits of their authority. In my own county (Durham)—not an unimportant county, and where the necessity for the retention of poor children exists in a very considerable degree—we have gone to the expense of £20,000 in establishing a county industrial school, and I can assure your Lordships that we view this sort of proposal with the greatest possible jealousy. If we are to be compelled to undertake the management of any number of industrial schools which may be set up, we may find our own school, which has been erected at a very large cost, empty, the children having been drawn away to another, and we shall be compelled to support them in other schools to the extent of, I think, a 2s. 6d. rate in each county. We cannot, wonder, therefore, that County Councils view these provisions with no great favour. If they think, as they ought to do, that it is their duty to watch expenditure and keep down cost, they will naturally regard such a proposal with great jealousy. I do not want unnecessarily to detain the House at this stage of the Bill, and I think I have said; enough to show that it is passing through

  639
  your Lordships' House without that close scrutiny which I think it ought to receive. That, my Lords, is one of the difficulties which arise when we refer our Bills to the Grand Committees instead of dealing with them in the House. Everything is threshed out there, and your Lordships and the public outside know absolutely nothing of what occurs within the walls of the Committee Rooms. Old Bills are brought forward and passed through, and new Bills are substituted for old Bills, and nothing is known of what has been done in Committee. That fact, my Lords, has been proved by what has occurred within the last few days in the Committee of which I am a member. What I desire to point out here, my Lords, is that we shall be making an expenditure which will be absolutely unnecessary, and which will be viewed with great jealousy and, probably, with considerable hostility; and that, if you overlap authorities in the way the Bill proposes you will have an antagonism of authority where there ought to be cordial co-operation in every Department. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but I do think that is a part of the Bill which should more properly form the subject of a separate measure, because you are now bringing the duties of the Educational Department of this country into opposition in some degree with the work of the County Councils. I am not at all sure that that which is perhaps the most valuable power that we possess as Magistrates, of committing children to these schools, will not be considerably interfered with, and that by this Bill we shall not be largely deprived of that power. Upon that point I will add a very few words. The greatest difficulty we find, and I know that those Members of your Lordships' House who are Magistrates will confirm what I say, and that which requires the most tender handling is the power which is conferred upon us under the compulsory clauses of the Education Acts, and the great lever in our hands in dealing with truancy is this power of committal to industrial schools. That is a very difficult matter to deal with, because it arises from so many causes. It may arise from the necessities of the parents as much as from the fault of the children themselves, and every case ought to be dealt with upon its own
  640
  merits. If you deprive us of the power I have mentioned, you will find a difficulty if that truancy be continued, because the great fear of the parents is that the children may be committed to the industrial schools with all the consequences of that committal. That power will, I believe, be largely taken away from the Magistrates. I think the powers of the Magistrates will be greatly curtailed by the very fact of the careful definition contained in Clause 10, of the causes for which children may be sent to the schools. If that power which the Magistrates hold in terrorem over parents is taken away, you will find very great difficulty in carrying out compulsory education. Considering the importance of the subject, I have ventured to make these few observations; and I think that noble Lords who have served on County Councils, or who have passed a considerable part of their lives in the administration of the law, will attach some weight to what I have said. I can assure your Lordships that there is no Member of this House who, considering the character of this Bill, views it with greater perplexity than myself.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I do not think it can be said that this Bill has not received consideration at the hands of your Lordships' House. It was brought forward last year and read a second time. It then went back to the Committee on Law, and was very much discussed there. It has gone through the same process again this year. Having been discussed in Committee we are now at the Third Reading, and there has been no objection to the principle of the Bill. I, therefore, do not think I should be in order if I were to go into all the points which have been raised. One observation, however, has been made with regard to the power of sending children to industrial schools. A largo number of children have been sent to industrial schools who, in the opinion of competent judges, ought never to have been sent there. We have provided in this Bill that the County Councils shall have a locus standi to appear before the Magistrates before the child is committed; so that if they think a child is going to be sent to an industrial school who ought not to be sent there, they may appear and state their objection to the Magistrate. Now, with regard to truant schools, I would

  641
  only make this observation: that neither the clause about truant schools nor that about day industrial schools is new. They have both been in operation long ago. We have a considerable number of truant schools—six, I believe, altogether—in the United Kingdom, which have now been in operation for a long time, and ten day industrial schools, which have also been in existence for a considerable time. They are not by any means a new class of schools, and the Commissioners have inquired into the circumstances and have reported upon management. It is all very well for my noble Friend Lord Norton to say they do not answer, but from the Report of the Commission we find they do answer exceedingly well. There are six of them established in large towns, including London, Liverpool, Swansea, and Brighton, where, as I have said, they are found to answer extremely well. The Report states that the attendance of the boys at the truant schools has been considerably better than at other schools, as, for instance, under the London County Council. There is no doubt the Royal Commission found fault with the penal discipline in some of the schools, and that the others which have not that penal discipline have produced just as good results. The consequence will be, no doubt, that that penal discipline will be set aside. Judging from the Report, the Royal Commissioners think they have done a great deal of good. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not insist upon striking this clause out of the Bill. They simply provide for the continuance of the old system, which has been found by a majority of the Royal Commission to have worked great good down to the present time.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, before the Bill passes, will the noble Viscount be kind enough to tell me in which clause power is given to the County Councils to appear before the Magistrates? I see there is a clause relating to notice being given to them, but not with regard to their appearance.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: That clause was put in to enable them to appear before the Justices. That was undoubtedly the intention.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It struck me that it was desirable there should be precise words to that effect. Perhaps the noble Viscount will look to that.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 58.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD LEIGH: My Lords, I have an Amendment to move upon Clause 9, Sub-section B, that the words "in addition to or" be omitted. The effect of this will be to do away entirely with the preliminary imprisonment of children sent to reformatory schools. I believe I am correct in saying that in no country throughout the world but England is it found necessary, or believed to be necessary, that children should qualify for the reformatory schools by passing through the prisons. I remember 35 years ago accompanying a well-known head of French reformatories, M. de Metz, to discuss the subject with the then Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, and M. de Metz at that time expressed himself strongly against children being sent to prison at all. In every reformatory in England there are registers kept showing the history of all the boys; and if any of your Lordships would refer to those registers, as I have done on many occasions, you would find that something like 75 per cent, of those children have parents who have absolutely and entirely neglected them, and are not fit to have the management of them. And if you would refer, also, to the same register, you will find that when the children leave the schools something like 90 per cent. of those who have passed through the reformatory schools are doing well and earning their livelihood in an honest manner. I think, therefore, it is clear, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that it is not the fault of these poor children themselves that they have had to go to the reformatory schools, but that they have been really suffering punishment for the faults of their parents. I am convinced that the gaols are not fit places of punishment for children, and I think I may

  643
  speak with some authority as being an old Visiting Magistrate of my county prison. I have never found that a child who had been passed through the prison was benefited or improved by going there, but that, on the contrary, he left the gaol much worse in character than when he went into it. It is upon those grounds that I strongly object to children being sent to gaol befors being sent to a reformatory school. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 9, Subsection (b.), line 32, to leave out the words "in addition to or."—(The Lord Leigh.)
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, the present Bill differs a good deal from the existing law in one or two respects. Under the existing law it is required that the offender shall undergo a preliminary imprisonment of at least 10 days before going to the reformatory school. It was thought, after inquiry by the Royal Commission, unnecessary to go as far as that and to that extent. I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down. I am very glad that this provision should be done away with, that it should be necessary to send the child to prison before he went to the reformatory school at all. This Bill, therefore, has been drawn upon different lines, and that proviso making it necessary for the Magistrate to send the child to prison before going to the reformatory is entirely done away with by this Bill. But now the noble Lord wants to go further. The clause to which he objects is in thesewords—
  "Where a youthful offender is convicted of an offence punishable with penal servitude, or imprisonment, and either appears to the Court to be not less than 14 years of age, or is proved to have been previously convicted of an offence punishable by penal servitude or imprisonment, the Court may, in addition to, or in lieu of, sending him to a reformatory school, send him to prison."
  I think, my Lords, that is a very proper power to give to the Magistrates. It seems to me it is quite right they should have that power. The compulsory enactment is done away with, but power is left to the Magistrate, if he thinks it right, to send the offender to prison in addition to the reformatory school—to send him there first. I hope, therefore,
  644
  the noble Lord's Amendment will not be carried.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I have given notice, of an additional clause, the effect of which is this: that where the punishment of children by imprisonment is necessary, it should not be imprisonment in the common gaols, but in places suitable for the purpose. I am supported in that view by the answers to a Circular which has been sent round to all the Petty Sessions in England. I think, also, by the Report upon which this Bill is founded. Now, the addition I want to make to this clause provides for children, if they are imprisoned at all, being sent to "suitable places for the imprisonment of children," which, to my mind, should be a properly fitted lock-up in connection with the police stations attached to every Petty Sessions in the country, or else the Government should provide proper places in the neighbourhood of a few Reformatories in different parts of he Kingdom. That represents no great cost. Aggravated cases of juvenile crime do not come within my proposition. They will, of course, be treated in a different manner from ordinary juvenile offenders. In ordinary cases of juvenile crime imprisonment should not be in a common gaol. I am fortified in that view by the opinion of the Commissioners. If the noble Viscount will refer to the 27th page of the Report of the Commissioners, he will see that the Commissioners give the arguments brought before them in favour of using common prisons for children, and the arguments brought before them, which were much stronger against using common prisons for children. They suggest that all punishment of children should be short, sharp, and apart from the subsequent schooling. The argument against using common prisons for the purpose of a great number of witnesses was that the system was mischievous, that it deprived the gaol of all its terrors as a means of punishment, tended to harden and corrupt young offenders by inevitable contact with older criminals, cast a permanent taint upon their characters, often preventing them from obtaining employment, and added to the difficulties of their restoration to a respectable life. Those are very strong reasons, my

  645
  Lords, against sending young children to a common gaol. The arguments the other way, in favour of sending young offenders to prison, are confined to only aggravated cases of juvenile crime, which, as I say, do not come within the purview of this Bill at all. Therefore, those arguments are not directed against my proposition at all. As I have said, the whole weight of the Commissioners' opinion is that imprisonment is not a proper punishment for young children, at least not in a common gaol. It is the opinion, also, of the Commissioners that in the great majority of ordinary offences committed by boys whipping is altogether a far better punishment than imprisonment. But if imprisonment is the sentence passed by the Magistrate, then there should be suitable places provided for it. That is the whole proposition that I have to make to your Lordships, and I hope that the noble Viscount may be willing to accept the addition to this clause which I propose.
  Amendment moved,
  After Clause 9, insert as a new Clause: "No such youthful offender, except in case of aggravated crime, shall he punished by confinement in a common gaol; but, if sentenced to imprisonment, shall be kept In a lock-up connected with the Petty Sessions where he has been sentenced, until a suitable place of confinement be found for him connected with some certified reformatory."—(The Lord Norton.)
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: My Lords, I have no doubt the House entirely sympathises with my noble Friend in his desire not to subject children even for a probationary period, by whatever name the punishment may be called, to the contamination of a prison. But I want to know where these places are to be found. At present they do not exist. And I want also to know when a child is ordered to be shut up and is not to be let out for a certain period what is he to do? He may be there for seven or 14 days; and I should like to know who is to look after him during that time? I venture to think there may be other places than a prison where a child may be detained and looked after, where he can be punished without the necessity of being contaminated by being sent to prison. The law requires that a child who is to be sent to prison must be sentenced first, but to enact that a child must not go to prison, but to some other
  646
  place, before you know that such other place exists, or arrange for what the child is to do, or who is to take care of him when he is sent there, is, I must say, rather wild legislation.
  LORD NORTON: If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to point out that the proposal to imprison for short terms young children in lock-ups is not a new thing. It is done at the present time in Scotland; and if such places are not to be found I propose that the Government should make the necessary provision at police stations, or connected with some few reformatory schools themselves.
  THE EARL OF POWIS: My Lords, I think it very undesirable that youthful offenders should be kept for an indefinite time in lock-ups. There are a great many police stations and lock-ups where there is no suitable accommodation for children, and where there would be nobody to look after them. The noble Lord who moves this Amendment speaks of having special lock-ups constructed in certain places to be used for this purpose, but this clause would confine the imprisonment to the particular lock-ups connected with the Petty Sessions where the child was sentenced. The "suitable places" which he proposes do not exist, because places of that kind which do exist are used merely for keeping adult prisoners at the present time for a day or two until they can be removed to the county gaol. It might very well be that a week or 10 days might elapse before the child could be sent to the reformatory school which the county is connected with, or subscribes to, and as a considerable delay might take place before he could be so got rid of, it would be necessary that there should be some one to take care of him. Therefore, my Lords, I think it would be very undesirable that a child should be kept in a lock-up which was certainly not built or intended for the purpose of keeping children in confinement for any considerable time.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I have already pointed out to your Lordships that it is only under certain circumstances that the Magistrates would ever think of sending children to prison; they would not do so if they could possibly help it, unless they were compelled. But when a child is sent to

  647
  prison, he must have the protection which the prison laws give him. When the children are in prison they are protected by the law, and it is the duty of the prison officials to see that proper precautions are taken in respect of their health, clothing, and food. When we come to these imaginary places which, according to the noble Lord's suggestion, are to be built at some time or other at somebody's expense—I do not know whose—I cannot imagine what security we shall get that proper discipline would be enforced, and that the children would have that protection which a prison affords under the Prison Acts, Acts which have been very carefully drawn. The noble Lord quoted the evidence which is given on page 27 of the Report of the Commissioners, but he entirely forgot, I think, the object for which the Commissioners quoted that evidence. It is for this reason: They say that on no subject are prison managers more unanimous in opinion than in regard to the conviction and imprisonment of children being sent to the schools. I must ask the House, therefore, not to accept this Amendment, because I think that, in the interests of the children themselves, it would be an extremely hard measure.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: I am very sorry to trouble the House so often, but I should like to say a few words on Clause 22. It is only two or three days ago that I presented a very important Petition from the Mayor and Corporation of Chichester against this clause. That clause makes it for the first time compulsory upon every County Council and every Borough Council to contribute to the expenses of management of every such school, at the rate of not less than 2s. 6d. per week. Up to this time these contributions have been optional, and I want to know very much, from the noble Viscount, what are the grounds upon which that optional payment has now been converted into a compulsory subscription. This is a very serious amount, as it involves a large amount of expenditure for the purposes to which your Lordships are asked to give your sanction. I, therefore, hope there may be some reason given for that which has hitherto been an optional payment being now made compulsory. I would call attention to the fact that in
  648
  all the other clauses it is stated that the County Councils "may" do so and so, but in this particular clause the little word "shall" which is introduced in substitution for it, is very potent, indeed.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I may explain that' this is practically an arrangement with the Treasury, which, I think, would be to the advantage of the County Councils. They gave up their right as between the Councils and themselves inter se to the contributions from the parents, and, therefore, they say they think it right that they should have the power to make these payments compulsory. The matter was considerably discussed in Committee. By the arrangement with, the Treasury, the sums of money contributed by the parents, which used to go to the Treasury, are given up, and this, charge was substituted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL. (No. 96.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (PLEURO-PNEUMONIA) BILL.—(No. 105.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading of this Bill, I mast claim your indulgence while I endeavour to point out what are its leading objects and scope. I need not detain your Lordships with any lengthened explanation of the great danger and loss which accrue not only to the owners of cattle but to the public generally from the spread of pleuro-pneumonia. At the present moment the various Local Authorities in the country have the carrying out of the Act of 1878, and of the several Orders, dealing with this disease. A want of uniformity of action has not infrequently arisen by which the energy of one Local Authority has been set at naught through the supineness of another. There has been also considerable hesitation in slaughtering cattle

  649
  at the right moment, and, consequently, the disease has been allowed to spread, and there have been outbreaks, which might have been prevented, owing to cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and which ought to have been slaughtered, being allowed to come in contact with other animals, and those animals which had been in contact with affected animals being permitted to be sold. It was found necessary, in 1888, to issue a further Order, by which cattle which had been in contact with animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia were ordered to be slaughtered, compensation to the amount of three-fourths of the value of an animal actually affected with the disease, and the full value of animals slaughtered because they had been in contact with affected animals, was ordered to be paid. That compensation had to be paid by the Local Authorities. Notwithstanding the Order of 1888—whether it was owing to the want of uniformity among the various Authorities or to the concealment of existing disease, or to the movement of affected cattle to and from the fairs and markets throughout the country, no effectual result has been obtained. There is also great force in the argument that this compulsory slaughter of cattle is carried out for the general good, and, therefore, that it is reasonable the public should bear a share in paying the compensation required. Unfortunately, in the month of May last there was a considerable increase in the number of out-breaks of pleuro-pneumonia. There were no less than 57 in May, as compared with 25 in April last, and 33 in the corresponding month of May last year. Therefore, I think it is clear that, unless stringent measures are taken at once, we run a considerable risk of this disease taking a firm hold of the country, in which case our difficulties would be very great. The President of the Board of Agriculture, seeing the necessity of decided action, has determined to grapple with this disease in the most effective way that Parliament will allow, and that is by taking over the executive power from the various Local Authorities, and exercising it himself. But this action naturally involves the payment of compensation by the Government, upon the principle that "whoever kills must pay."
  650
  I can well understand that we should be very chary of depriving Local Authorities of any powers they may have, but it is quite clear it would never do for the Local Authority to slaughter and the Government to pay, neither would the Local Authority agree that the Government should slaughter and that they should pay. Unfortunately, it is only too true that there has been, and probably is, a great deal of concealment of this disease; and I quite agree with what fell from the noble Lord, Earl Spencer, the other day, on the great difficulty which Local Authorities meet with in tracing out the causes of an outbreak, and even in searching places where the disease is supposed to exist. Under this Bill, therefore, greater powers of inspection are taken. By the 1st clause it is enacted that the Board of Agriculture shall cause all cattle which are affected with pleuro-pneumonia to be slaughtered, and it may also, if it thinks fit to do so, cause any cattle which have been in contact with affected cattle to be slaughtered. The words dealing with the question of contact are purposely made very wide, because it has been found in the past that in many cases animals which have been not very far from affected animals have not been slaughtered at the time, but have been sent away, and after a short time they have fallen victims to the disease, and have become themselves centres of contagion. It is hoped that in this way the Government will have a clear hand in dealing with cattle which have been thus in contact with diseased animals. Then it is enacted that the old rate of compensation shall be paid, and provision is made for the appointment of additional Inspectors. By the help of those Inspectors it is hoped that the Board will be able to trace the disease better than can at the present moment be done by the Local Authorities, who, after all, cannot trace the disease beyond the limit of their own jurisdiction. Then, by the next clause, with regard to the funds, there is £140,000 allocated for the purpose of carrying out the Acts as regards Great Britain, and if there shall be in any year a deficiency it is provided that it shall be made up out of the Local Taxation funds. But it is hoped there will be no occasion to do that. Then

  651
  Clause 3 orders that the Inspectors of the Local Authorities shall, in addition to the powers and duties they now have, report immediately any case of pleuro-pneumonia to the Board of Agriculture. The effect of this will be that, the moment the Board is made acquainted with an outbreak, they will send down their own Inspector, they will themselves take the case in hand, and will carry out the provisions of the law. Then Clause 4 gives more power to the Inspectors. At the present moment an Inspector, when he goes into a place or shed where he has reason to think there may be disease existing, but concealed, has to give his reasons in writing. Under this clause the Inspectors will have power to enter into any shed or place where they have reason in their own minds to think there is concealment of disease, and to act at once without any let or hindrance. The 5th clause applies to Ireland. I need only say that the sum of £20,000 is allotted to Ireland, and the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council there take the place of the Board of Agriculture here. Clause 6 deals with the accounts. Clause 9 gives the 1st September as the date on which it is proposed that this Act shall come into operation. I have endeavoured, my Lords, briefly to point out to the House the chief points of this Bill, which may be summarised under three heads or principles; the substitution of a Central Authority in place of many Local Authorities, in order to secure uniformity of action; the consequent payment of compensation out of the Imperial funds, in order that the cost of carrying out an object which is for the public good shall not fall entirely upon the local funds; and, lastly, the increased stringency of inspection, in order that concealment of disease may be more easily detected. I feel sure that these principles will meet with the approval of the House, for your Lordships will agree that the safety and soundness of our herds is not merely a matter of individual advantage, but of great national importance. But if the State comes forward to help in this matter may we not look to agriculturalists and others in the country to lend their aid. A measure of this kind can only be successfully worked with the assistance of the public. It
  652
  cannot be carried out solely by the cars and firmness of the Central Authorities, but much will depend on the manner in which it is supported throughout the country. I have said that our great danger is the concealment of the disease. The policy of the pole-axe has succeeded in the Netherlands, and there is no reason to suppose that it will not succeed in this country if the Authorities are supported by public opinion and public spirit. The Board of Agriculture will have to rely greatly on the sympathetic action of the Local Authorities, especially in the first instance, and their knowledge and advice must always be most valuable. Some time will elapse before this Act comes into operation, and it is important that there should be energy shown between now and the 1st September next. Unless stringent efforts are made to stamp out every outbreak which may occur we may have to regret a very serious spread of the disease, and of course our difficulties and expense will, in that case, be enormously increased. But I am quite sure that we shall meet with the assistance of those who do not always give support to our measures, like the noble Earl opposite, whose experience and authority is so great in these matters, and that they will assist us in our endeavours to remove a dark spot, which seems to threaten the somewhat more hopeful prospects of agriculture at the present time. I beg to move that this Bill be road a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I am sure the thanks, not only of your Lordships' House, but also of every one who is interested in agriculture in this country, are due to the Government for having brought in this Bill. The only word of complaint that I have heard in connection with it, is that, in one single point, it does not go far enough, and the only observations I shall have to make to your Lordships will be upon that point. The noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill, said very truly that the danger of the spread of pleuro-pneumonia, and the loss we have suffered from it throughout the country, has been from unsystematic management, and from

  653
  failure in administering the law. If the Local Authority in one county has adopted one way of carrying it out, another Local Authority in an adjoining county has put a different interpretation altogether upon the law. I could give your Lordships an extraordinary instance which only occurred last mouth of the way in which the law is regarded in some places. I quote from a newspaper giving the incident, which occurred in a neighbouring county to my own, the county of Forfarshire. It states that—
  "It was reported that pleuro-pneumonia had broken out at a farm in Car86 Gowrie, among a herd of cattle valued at £2,000. Nine of them had been killed by order of the Local Government Authority; the authorities directed that 20 more should be brought into Forfar for sale on Monday, and that the remainder should be sold in lots."
  I believe, my Lords, that this actually took place; that 80 cattle out of 101 cattle, contaminated by contact with others suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, were actually sold, and allowed to disseminate and act as centres of disease, and whoever has bought them, now has in them centres of infection. That is the way in which some counties carry out the law, and we have found that in the county with which I am connected, where we work the Act according to the Orders of Privy Council, we could not contend with the opposite system which other counties chose to adopt. The necessity, in my opinion, and in the opinion of those who have been working this Act in the past, is that the power of the Inspectors should be strengthened for the purpose of finding out existing cases, or detecting cases of concealment of the disease. The noble Earl took credit for Clause 4, which enables the Inspector to enter without notice in writing, which has hitherto been necessary, into any shed or place where he suspects the disease exists. That is very well as far as it goes, and is no doubt a great improvement; but the great difficulty we have in carrying out the Act is in Clauses 66 to 78 with regard to penalties for offences. Under those provisions the owner of a diseased animal must take all practicable means of giving notice of this disease, and as the matter stands we have found in Aberdeenshire that we cannot get a conviction under the Act. A dairyman finds he has a cow suffering from pleuro. Well,
  654
  he has nothing to do but to palm off this diseased cow upon some other dairyman, or some innocent farmer who comes into the market, and so that animal goes forth into another part of the country, and soon afterwards there is an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia. We have tried time after time to secure convictions, but because, under the Act, the man who has caused the mischief is able to plead that he was not aware of the presence of the disease, or that the animal was affected, and that he took all practicable means of giving notice, we are unable to obtain a conviction. I shall therefore venture to move in Committee a new clause, providing that any person who neglects to give notice to the Local Authority or to the Inspector shall be liable for expanses under Clauses 60 to 66. That would put the onus upon the owner of the diseased animal, and it would put an end to the system of concealment which has been the cause why this disease has not been extirpated long ago. There is one other point I should like to mention. The noble Earl has not said enough, I think, with regard to the value of this measure in one direction, and that is to the owners of pedigree cattle. The existence of pleuro-pneumonia in this country has greatly depreciated the value of that kind of stock, and has entirely excluded it from the foreign market; because the knowledge that the disease exists in this country prevents us from selling to the foreigner, and the best market which was open to owners in this country, that is the foreign market, is therefore closed against us. I shall therefore venture to move the Amendments of which I have given notice.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I am sorry to have to trouble your Lordships with a few remarks on this subject, but I am afraid it has been my fate to have been very much mixed up with subjects connected with diseases of cattle, and I am therefore anxious to say a few words on this very important measure which my noble Friend Lord Jersey has introduced to your Lordships' House. I confess I think it is rather a reflection on veterinary science that no remedy has been found for a disease of this kind. I know that the veterinary schools of this country have greatly improved of late, and that there are many able men who are devoted to their profession

  655
  connected with them. At the same time, I think it must be admitted that it is a reflection upon scientific bodies that the only way of getting rid of a terrible and disastrous disease is the use of the pole axe. My Lords, I am afraid we must admit, according to all experience in this and other countries, that there is no safe remedy for this dangerous and disastrous disease, and all the best authorities declare that the only way of getting rid of it from a country is to slaughter not only all the animals affected with the disease, but all animals that have been in contact with them. I, therefore, my Lords, am strongly in favour of a serious effort being made in this country to get rid of the disease. I daresay your Lordships have seen an interesting Report of the Departmental Committee on this subject. Those who have read that Report will see that it bears strong evidence to the necessity of some central action. The noble Earl has very well put the reasons why central action is necessary. It is necessary, because Local Authorities in various parts of the country, even some of the very best Local Authorities, are afraid of charging the rates with the heavy expenditure which would be entailed if they carried out thoroughly the orders of the Privy Council under this Act by the slaughter of many valuable cattle. I know that many of those authorities have doubts as to the efficacy of the measure: but the great inducement to them to hesitate is the heavy expenditure that would be thrown on their county if they slaughtered a large number of cattle that have been in contact with diseased cattle, and it has been said very truly that while one county may be very stringent in carrying out the Orders in Council another may be very lax. The noble Marquess quoted a case which certainly would be a perfect scandal if he is correctly informed as to what occurred upon a farm in Forfar, and I think that some steps might well be taken with regard to what was done by the owners of the cattle in sending those animals to market. But, my Lords, I think, as the noble Earl said very truly, there is justification for coming on Imperial funds for this compensation, because the benefit derived is a benefit to the whole community, and not only to the particular locality, which, although the greatest
  656
  possible care may have been exercised, may still have the misfortune to have the disease introduced into it. Therefore, I think there is justification for the Central Authority intervening and taking charge of this very grave matter. Now I wish to say with regard to this Bill what struck me, when the measure was first introduced, was that I should have preferred to see it framed in a different way. I should have preferred to see the Local Authorities charged with a certain amount of the cost of carrying out the orders. That, I believe, was the system in vogue in Ireland, where half was paid by the Central Authority and half by the Local Authority. It is very true, as my noble Friend says, that the power of ordering the slaughter ought to be with those who pay the rate. It is very difficult for the Central Government Department to intervene when a Local Authority is lax in carrying out the order for slaughter for which they have afterwards wholly to pay. I heartily agree with my noble Friend in that respect. But if the Central Authority pays half I think it would have a right to intervene and call upon the Local Authority to slaughter. I am aware that there is considerable difficulty in the matter, and perhaps the noble Earl or some Member of the Government will say whether there is any very great objection felt to this method of providing the compensation. This method of carrying out the compensation which I have in my mind would have this advantage: that it would induce the Local Authority to be very much more careful with regard to the administration of the Sanitary Laws and Regulations in reference to infection among cattle. They would be much more careful with regard to the Regulations they make, whereas I very much fear that if the Local Authorities find that the compensation is to come out of Imperial funds some of them might be very careless in their administration in that respect. Then there is another point to be remembered, another objection, and it is this: that if, unfortunately, this disease becomes spread over the country the Central Board will have immense difficulty in carrying out the execution of the order. I know that in the case of cattle plague, when it was introduced

  657
  into the country not many years ago, the Central Authority were able to check it without difficulty; but then the disease was at a minimum and was confined within a small space. But if this disease is spread all over the country and appears in every county throughout Great Britain I am afraid the Central Authority will have very great difficulty in seeing that the orders are carried out without the assistance of the Local Authorities. I think I should myself have preferred to have seen the Local Authority invested with the power of carrying out the orders. In that way the position of the Central Authority would be very much strengthened, because, if they found that the Local Authority failed in their duty in carrying out the orders, they would receive general support in issuing the most stringent orders from headquarters. The noble Lord was good enough to refer to some remarks which I made at the Royal Agricultural Society the other day. I certainly did think it my duty to speak strongly before that body on the subject, and I stated that one of the matters of the greatest possible difficulty was to trace the origin of the disease. We have, unfortunately, had lately seven outbreaks in Northamptonshire, and in all of them the mischief has been traced to one day at Northampton Market, and, I believe, to some shed-cows coming from London dairies. We have had the greatest possible difficulty in endeavouring to trace these animals, and I sat myself for five hours one day for the sole purpose of trying to trace out those animals. We never got near the tract in regard to four of the cows, because in every one of those cases the dealers absolutely refused to say whence they had obtained their cattle; but in the fifth case where we thought we had traced the matter out we were not able to run the fox to ground, because at the last moment the information broke down and we were unable to trace the cases to an actual pleuro-pneumonia centre. I believe, my Lords, the Central Authority will be able to trace the disease much more effectually than the Local Authorities, and, therefore, I welcome the Bill on that account alone. But there is another point, and a very serious one. It is this, that unless the Central
  658
  Authority have the most stringent powers I am afraid they will not succeed in carrying out the desired object. I am aware that there is a very great interest connected with this part of the subject, I mean the dairy interest. I have a great regard for that interest, and I feel that it must be respected and not unduly interfered with. At the same time I feel convinced that it is from the cow-sheds in large towns that this great evil principally arises, and that we must look to them as the source of this disease. In London, and throughout Great Britain, it is the habit of dairymen to kill their cows or to send them for slaughter after they cease to be of value for milking purposes. But in Dublin, which is another centre, a different system prevails. There the system of the dairymen is to send out the young stock which they breed in the spring, and they become centres of infection when sent through the country round Dublin. I remember when I went to Dublin in 1869–70 I used to see every spring in Phoenix Park centres of pleuro-pneumonia from the presence of young cows which had been sent out from Dublin. I may mention that I lost 15 cows in one case in that way myself; but we were able to check that to a great extent, though there was enormous loss, because we insisted on the authorities of the park very strictly refusing to admit any cattle at all without a licence. I am afraid the practice I refer to still exists, and I think it will add greatly to the difficulty of stamping out the disease in Dublin. In London, and other large towns, it will certainly be in the interest of all honest traders in the dairies to try and stamp out this disease. I very much fear that merely giving powers of inspection will not be sufficient; and I cannot help thinking that before long either the Board of Agriculture, by Order in Council, will be obliged to prohibit the sending out from large towns of shed-cows during the operation of stamping out the disease, or some other step will have to be taken to check the outflow from these large dairies. I know it has been said that Local Authorities have power to defend themselves against these dairies; but I think this mode of defence is very inefficacious. We thought in Northamptonshire that we might prohibit the importation of

  659
  animals from London during the outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia; but we found that cattle from London were smuggled into some other county where there was no disease, and that unless we prohibited altogether the importation of cattle into the county we could not secure ourselves against the importation of these cows. I cannot help thinking it would be to their own interest for the dairy trade to agree to strong restrictions, and that for their own sake they will make some sacrifice. If they do not, then sooner or later, if this measure is to be carried out throughout the country, some stringent order from London with regard to these cows which spread the disease will have to be made. I do not believe there will be any great sacrifice required, because nearly all these animals are fit for the batcher. They are only bought for grazing, and the increased price which may be obtained by sending them into the country would probably be inconsiderable. I do not know what answer the Government may be disposed to make to that suggestion or to another proposition that has been made in certain quarters for branding these diseased shed-cows. I think it would be very desirable before the discussion closes that we should hear a statement from the Government of their views with regard to that matter. In all measures of a rather heroic kind it is absolutely necessary to be strong enough. Half measures will always fail. I therefore should advocate, during the time the Minister of Agriculture has these powers in his hands, the adoption of the strongest possible methods for arriving at the source of disease and getting rid of it. I know that some people think the disease is so insidious and is concealed so long in these animals that it is almost impossible to get rid of it. I do not believe that we shall get rid of it in a short time; but if we firmly and strongly carry out these orders I do not see why we should not succeed in getting rid of it, just as they did in the Netherlands. There that was absolutely done, though even in that small country the disease went on for several years before they succeeded in stamping it out. I most sincerely hope that the Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be, will be successful in the great task the Government has undertaken. It is
  660
  not an easy task, and the country must not be disappointed if it takes some years before any wide or satisfactory result from this legislation is forthcoming.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, being of a somewhat consistent turn of mind, I hail with the greatest satisfaction the Bill under discussion. I say this because more than three years ago, when addressing a meeting of farmers in Sussex, in discussing the subject of pleuro-pneumonia, I suggested that the only way of getting rid of this terrible disease was for the Government to take the matter into its own hands, order the slaughter of the animals, and pay compensation for the cattle so slaughtered. I believe that is the only way of stamping out the disease and getting rid of it altogether. I have been the more induced to come to this conclusion from the experience I had in 1877, at the time of the out break of the cattle plague in this country, of the result of the stringent measures which we then took. I am not quite sure that we were altogether justified in what we did, but in a very short time we stamped out the disease. I quite agree with my noble Friend Earl Spencer that the two cases are not exactly parallel, that is to say the cattle-plague at that time was confined to a very small area, this Metropolis and the adjacent part of the country only, whereas now we have to deal with a much more extended area of disease, pleuro-pneumonia having been developed over, I think I might almost say, the whole of the country. Therefore, though in 1877 it did not take so very long a time to get rid of the cattle plague, we cannot hope to eradicate pleuro-pneumonia in as short a period as was sufficient on that occasion. I am perfectly sure that the only way of getting rid of the disease is by stamping it out by the process which will be put in action by this Bill. I quite agree in what my noble Friend stated, that it is very desirable to have uniformity of action. That point was referred to by Lord Huntly. He said, very truly, that it was desirable that should be secured, because where one authority may put in force stringent measures under the Act their energetic action was probably neutralised by the way in which an adjoining county carried them out, and I hope this Bill will have

  661
  a good effect in that direction. The noble Lord also said the Bill does not go far enough. I should have liked to hear in what manner he wished to extend the operation of this Act. The noble Earl stated that many persons have been in the habit of concealing diseased animals upon their premises, but I would point out that that is an offence against the law as it stands at present. In the 31st section of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 41 and 42 Vict., cap. 94, it is provided by Sub-section I that—
  "Every person having in his possession or under his charge an animal affected with disease shall, as far as practicable, keep that animal separate from animals not so affected, and shall, with all practicable speed, give notice of the fact of the animal being so affected to a police constable for the district, county, borough, town, or place, wherein the animal is"
  which is so affected; and then, later on, by the 60th section of the Act it is enacted that
  "Any person guilty of offences against this Act is liable"
  to certain penalties. So that, at this moment, it is contrary to the law for people to keep diseased animals on their premises when they are aware of the fact that the animals are diseased without giving notice. I do not go quite as far as my noble Friend opposite Earl Spencer in saying that these dairy cows should be branded. I doubt whether, in this country, it would be possible to carry out that suggestion. One of the evils now that we have to contend with is that, when a dairyman has a cow which he finds is not likely to be of much more use to him in the milking way, or finds that it is not in the best of health, he sends it away to——
  EARL SPENCER: I did not make the suggestion which my noble Friend mentions on my own part; what I intended to say was, that it was one of the suggestions which had been thrown out, and I think we ought to hoar what is to be said against it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My answer is that I think it would not be practicable in this country to brand all dairy cows. But the clause in the Bill which I set great store by is Clause 4, and that clause goes further than my noble Friend suggested. It gives power to the Inspector to enter and examine any cowshed, land, or
  662
  other place. It is not that there is no such power at all now, but the Bill extends the power possessed at present, and gives in fact unlimited power to the Inspector to inspect. Clause 4 says—
  "For the purpose of ascertaining whether pleuro-pneumonia exists in any cowshed, land, or other place, an Inspector of the Board of Agriculture may enter such shed, land or place."
  He may enter whenever he pleases and without giving notice, and I think that is an enormous advantage over the law as it stands at present. Then, when the Inspector has gone into these sheds, land, or dairies, wherever the cows may be, his duty would be then to report to the Minister of Agriculture, and if, by the Report, it is brought to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture that the disease exists in any particular place, he will compel the slaughter of the animal so affected. Therefore, it gives an unlimited power to the Minister of Agriculture to ascertain whether the disease exists if it is suspected to exist; and, secondly it gives him power to order the slaughter of the animals, compensating the party to whom the animals belong. That is a very strong power, but I do not think it is too strong to meet the danger of another outbreak of this terrible disease. I trust, and I believe, that the Local Authorities will in future act in concert with the Department of Agriculture, and endeavour to discover any cases of disease in their own immediate neighbourhood; and I think that they are much more likely to do it when they know that animals that are diseased, and have to be slaughtered, will be compensated for by the Government, than at present, when it appears to be to the interest of everybody to conceal the existence of disease, and not to have animals killed for which compensation must be paid in the way now provided for. My Lords, I think the united action, or partly united action, which my noble Friend has suggested, of the Local Authority having part power and the Government having part power, would be not a wise proceeding. I think the whole responsibility should be left in the hands of the Government to stamp out the disease, and pay for the loss of cattle in doing it; and, if firmly carried out, I believe the passing of this Bill into an

  663
  Act will be one of the greatest boons to the agricultural community that we have seen for many years.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I may be, perhaps, excused for saying a few words, as I am connected with the agricultural County of Norwich, where, unfortunately, agriculturists have suffered seriously from this disease of pleuro-pneumonia. We are there, unfortunately, particularly exposed to it, because our mode of conducting business requires that, as farmers, we should buy a number of store cattle, which bring, in a great measure, this terrible disease to this country from Ireland. There does exist among us a very strong belief that this disease is, to a great extent, propagated from Ireland. Now, I do not say I assent to that at all upon any evidence which I possess, but I mention the fact in order to justify the inquiry which I addressed to the Government as to what has been going on in Ireland latterly in regard to this important subject. I see from the Report of the Commissioners—made about two years ago, I believe—that an extensive slaughter of cattle took place in Dublin. No less than 1,486 animals were slaughtered, and 530 of those animals were found to be diseased. Now, Dublin was, in my time, when I was Lord Lieutenant, a perfect hot-bed of disease, as it also was during the term of office of my noble Friend Earl Spencer, and I cannot consider anything more important in getting rid of this disease than that the Government should continue to enforce in the most vigorous manner the stamping out of this disease in Dublin. With regard to Ireland generally, I have no personal experience of the mode in which these Acts are carried into effect; but from the nature of the country, and the manner in which the animals are kept, I should anticipate a great deal more difficulty in enforcing the orders of the Local Authorities in Ireland than in this country. If that be so, I welcome this Bill as giving to the Government more complete powers of dealing with the disease. What I desire to impress upon the Government is that we in England expect they will use these powers in Ireland vigorously and effectually; because, with a large number of cattle coming from Ireland, all our exertions and sacrifices in money will be of no avail whatever unless the
  664
  most stringent measures are taken in Ireland to deal with the disease there. My Lords, there are undoubtedly some persons who doubt the efficacy of this measure for stamping out the disease. One cannot help feeling some apprehension upon the subject, but I quite concur with the Government in thinking that a vigorous effort should be made to deal with it. Above all things, half measures are useless. They merely distress agriculturists and cause a waste of public money without attaining any practical result. If the thing is to be done, it should be done once for all vigorously, and thoroughly persevered in; and if it should turn out that we cannot effect our object, we shall have done our best. But we shall never effect it by adopting half measures, and by one country doing one thing and another another. Therefore, my Lords, I think the Government deserve praise for having, to use an agricultural expression, "taken the bull by the horns," and having themselves resolved to deal with the matter. There is one point which is greatly exercising the minds of many persons, and it is mentioned in this Report, namely, the "old cases." In old cases there may be found instances of the extraordinary length of time which the disease appears to take to incubate. It does seem extraordinary to many people that the disease should break out among a herd after the animals have been isolated for several months, and have never apparently been exposed to contact with diseased cattle at all. That seems to have given rise to the opinion which prevails in the minds of some agriculturists that the disease may spring up spontaneously without any contagion. I do not pretend myself to speak with any scientific authority in the matter, but I think such cases may be explained on the theory that cysts had formed in the lungs of the cattle affected; that is to say, that an animal may have had the disease in a slight form and became nearly cured without the disease having been noticed; the diseased part becomes healed over, and the animal may be perfectly well apparently for months. It then, perhaps, takes cold; that breaks the cyst which had formed in the lungs, and makes the animal at once evidently diseased. That seems to be the explanation of the extraordinary length of time

  665
  at which, after cattle had been exposed to contagion, they become affected with the disease. I mention the subject because many agriculturists are apprehensive that the disease may break out of itself on account of the great length of time at which, after isolation, it breaks out; but if this explanation is the true one, it will set at rest those doubts. It is extremely important that any doubts of that kind should be dispelled, because unless we can convince the agricultural community that they should give us their hearty co-operation in carrying the measure into effect we shall fail. I quite agree with what has been said by the Marquess of Huntly in reference to penalties. In the case, for instance, of large dairies, if a man is not disposed to give notice, the amount of money which he has at stake in the dairy and the loss which he will certainly incur, even though he receives compensation, are so large that he may be inclined to evade the law. I do not believe that any penalty you can impose will prevent his doing that, and I do not think you should trust to penalties alone. What we want to do is to diffuse correct information on the subject, and by obtaining general co-operation from everybody interested in the matter, we shall be enabled to stamp out this disease which has inflicted more grievous loss on agriculturists.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to allocate the Compensation Fund which is to be devoted by the country for the purpose of paying for the cattle slaughtered? I ask in reference to the allocation to the various counties. We hive heard from noble Lords of outbreaks in some of our counties, and I may mention that there has been a very serious outbreak in my own county. I should like to know whether it is to be on the principle of "first come first served." It might be that a very large sum would be required for a single county, and I only want to know who is to allocate it, and upon what principle. At the same time, I, too, should like to add my humble thanks to the Government for having dealt with this question in so efficient a manner. My noble Friend opposite has, I think, done great service with his great knowledge of the subject in having pointed
  666
  out the difficulties that any Government will meet with in grappling with this disease. My noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley has told the House that which is no doubt perfectly true, that one of the greatest of those difficulties will arise from the length of time which is occupied in the incubation of the disease in the animals. Whatever amount of inspection you practise, you may send the cleverest man in the country, and I defy him to tell you, unless there are present the outward symptoms, how long it may be before the disease breaks out. No man can blame a farmer for parting with his animals, and weeks after they have been sent away the disease may break out among them. I am very glad that my noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley has really hit the right nail on the head in what he has said. He has explained the difficulty which even an army of Inspectors will find in taking necessary steps for the purpose of carrying out the measure. There is no doubt that the great foci of disease are these sheds in the neighbourhood of great towns; and the difficulty of finding out whether they are infected or not, will be met, and perhaps largely met, by the increased powers of inspection given; but no amount of inspection, from the very nature of the disease, will absolutely protect you, and, therefore, the country must not expect that we shall be enabled to stamp out the evil within a very short time. I hope the noble Earl will inform me how the money is to be allocated, and upon what principle.
  LORD WENLOCK: I sincerely hope the Government will not be induced to act upon the suggestion thrown out by Earl Spencer, namely, that the compensation should be provided between Her Majesty's Government and the Local Authorities. I was surprised to hear him make that statement, because I should have thought his experience would have proved to him that any arrangement, which required communication between the Local Authorities and the Government, might cause delay, which would give time for the disease to spread itself all over the country. I hope the Government will at least be firm and stick to their guns on this occasion. I hail with satisfaction the fact that they have at last

  667
  determined to grapple with this disease, and I think the country will very much regret if the Government recede from the position they have taken up in the matter. I beg to thank them for bringing forward this measure, and I sincerely hope it may meet with the success it deserves.
  LORD BELPER: I should like to ask a question upon one small point, and that is with regard to the date when the Act comes into force. The Bill fixes that date as the 1st September. Supposing an outbreak occurred in the latter days of August, and was reported, and the slaughter of the animals did not take place till after the date fixed, that is to say, if the animals were not slaughtered before the 1st September, I should like to ask whether the compensation would be paid by the Local Authority or by the Government? It is a very small matter to the Government, but it would be a very large one to the Local Authority which might, have ordered the cattle to be slaughtered. In the one case there might be an inducement for keeping back any information in order that the date of slaughter might fall after the 1st of September. I venture to put that question in case the noble Lord has not thought of the point.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: Several questions have been asked, and, in endeavouring to answer them I think the House will understand that I must speak with some reserve and no authority upon these matters. First, with regard to the questions of the noble Lord opposite, I can only say that I should think the Board, would desire to act in a liberal spirit. Beyond that I cannot go. There is no question of allocating this sum between the various Local Authorities, but the Board of Agriculture will have £140,000 allotted to it by Parliament, and it will use that money for the purpose of meeting the cost of every outbreak which may occur. If the expenditure should be more than £140,000 in any year, the Board will meet the deficiency out of the Local Taxation Accounts. Each case will be met by full payment out of these funds. With regard to the suggestions of the noble Lords the Earl of Kimberley and Earl Spencer, I may say that the Board of Agriculture is not responsible for what takes place in Ireland.
  668
  They have no jurisdiction in that country; but I will endeavour to find out before we go into Committee what is being done there. Then, with regard to the question of inspection of dairies, I can only speak my individual opinion; but I agree with the noble Duke in thinking it would be a very difficult matter to carry out the suggestion of branding dairy cows. Of course, it will be my duty to bring these matters before the President of the Board of Agriculture. With regard to the question of dividing the compensation, I can, perhaps, take upon myself to answer that in this way. People are, no doubt, generally willing to receive more than they are promised, but would strongly resent a proposal to give them less. Therefore, I do not think that the Board of Agriculture would in any way countenance the division of compensation. With respect to the matter which Lord Wenlock mentioned, I would point out that if you divide the powers of carrying out this measure between two bodies there must be some delay in communication, and possibly some friction, and, while that is going on, the opportunity of effecting the object for which the intervention is required is lost. But, my Lords, there is one thing of which I am quite sure, and that is that the Minister of Agriculture will be thankful for the Debate which has taken place in this House, and for the outspoken manner in which so many noble Lords have expressed their desire of seeing this measure carried out in an efficient manner. I can only say that I think the present Minister of Agriculture is the right man to act energetically if you give him the power. My Lords, I propose to refer the Bill to Committee of the whole House on Monday week. It is a matter of such general interest that I think your Lordships will agree it should be dealt with in Committee of the whole House.
  A noble LORD: My Lords, I would venture to suggest to my noble Friend that Monday week would hardly be a good day to fix for going into Committee on this Bill. I do not suppose there are likely to be many Amendments proposed; but I would point out that Monday week will be the commencement of the Agricultural Show at Plymouth, and I think,

  669
  therefore, that possibly many of your Lordships may be absent.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, having had much experience on the question of compensation for the slaughter of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia, I desire to make a few observations on the subject. On one occasion, in 1850, I had nine animals in Ireland which had come from the centre of England, I think Market Harborough, so deeply affected with pleuro-pneumonia that they had to be destroyed. Frequently it was found that no other animals were injured, but we now hear from a noble Lord that in a single instance 83 animals have been killed. I can only say that a tenant of mine, who lost several cattle by pleuro-pneumonia, was very much reduced in circumstances in consequence of the small allowance that was made to him. My Lords, I believe that a Minister of Agriculture should have the power to apportion the funds applicable, so as to make some regular allowance to those who lose their cattle, for I believe that as far as the Local Authorities are concerned, they may differ in every district throughout the country. In regard to moving cattle there has been great difficulty everywhere, in consequence of the difference in regulations and the want of unanimity between the various Local Authorities. You must establish some principle of action, and then do all you can to carry it out for the purpose of eradicating the disease. Skilled inspectors are necessary. It was my misfortune once to have to kill an injured animal on my own authority, and because the veterinary surgeon whom I called in happened not to be an Inspector, I was obliged to pay £10. If the proper veterinary surgeon had been called in, and had certified the disease as rinderpest, I should have escaped payment. No body or authority, save the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture, should have the power to discriminate and say whether it is possible to save the lives of animals. I am afraid there has been a great conflict of authorities in this matter, and that such conflict will arise has always been my great fear in the establishment of local bodies.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAF- MUTE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (No. 101.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): My Lords, I regret very much that I have not been able to bring this Bill under the consideration of your Lordships' House at an earlier period of the evening, because it is one which I trust will appeal to your Lordships' sympathy and assent. The House has been during a considerable portion of the evening considering the manner in which youthful offenders should be dealt with—that is to say, devoting its attention to the welfare of children of criminal, or, to say the least, not of the best character. But the Bill which I present this evening is for the benefit of another class altogether, namely, children suffering under natural affliction, in that they have been born blind or deaf and dumb. Your Lordships will recollect that in 1885 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole question of the condition of blind and deaf-mute children in the United Kingdom. Of that Commission my noble Friend Lord Egerton of Tatton was Chairman, and I regret to say that a telegram has been just received from the noble Lord stating his inability to be present this evening, because his countenance and knowledge would have been of the greatest possible value in any discussion which may arise on this measure. Now, my Lords, the Bill of which I now move the Second Reading is founded mainly upon the Report of that Commission. That Report deals not only with the question of the education of blind and deaf-mute children, but also with the treatment of adults, and the different systems which are now in use with regard to the care of such afflicted persons in after life not only in Great Britain: but on the Continent. The Bill to winch I ask your Lordships' assent this evening refers only to the educational portion of that Report. In the main, the Report made three recommendations in reference to the education of blind and deaf-mute children. One of those recommendations was that the compulsory clauses of the Education Act

  671
  should be extended to these children; the second recommendation was that the school authority should have power to defray the expenses of the education of such children at the different institutions in the country, of their boarding out, and of their journeys to and from such institutions if they happen to be at a distance, away from their own parishes, and the third recommendation was that in the case of these children there should be an increase in the education grants. With regard to the first of those recommendations, namely, that the compulsory clauses of the Education Act should be extended to these children, I should not like to say that even under the present Act those compulsory clauses do not extend to this class of children. My impression is that under the existing compulsory clauses the School Board Authorities might be bound to find means for the education of these afflicted children, and that when those means of education have been found and provided, that the compulsory clauses should be put into effect as regards them. But, on the other hand, I believe there may be some doubt whether under the interpretation of these clauses those provisions can be carried so far. I am inclined to think, too, that further doubt may be cast upon their possible interpretation in that way by the 69th clause of the Education (Scotland) Act of 1872. There is a provision there that fees may be paid for the education of the blind; but there is no such provision with regard to deaf mutes. That would, I think, go far to show that a special provision is required. But, whether there is any doubt on the question or not, I think that it is quite obvious that even if these compulsory clauses were intended to be put into effect, it would not be found possible to do so. It has, in fact, been found impossible to give effect to them, because, scattered throughout Scotland there may be very few of these children in certain districts, and in order to provide for them it might be necessary to send them to some central point where means could be provided for their education. Even if it were possible for the School Boards to deal with them under the clauses I have mentioned it would not be desirable, because I think the whole tone and tendency of the Report of the Royal Commission goes to show
  672
  that, especially as regards the deaf mutes, they would be better educated and cared for in scattered institutions than they could be directly under the School Boards. One of the objects of this Bill is to remove any doubt with regard to the compulsory powers being intended to apply to the education of these children, but, coupled with that compulsion, it is absolutely necessary to give to School Boards powers, which they do not now possess, of providing funds for sending these children to such institutions, and for boarding them out and defraying the expenses of their journeys. I am quite willing to admit that these powers are somewhat novel, and that, under certain circumstances, some slight cost might be incurred. The powers are novel in two respects. First, there is the power enabling School Boards to contribute to schools already established. The second power, which is new, is that which enables an Educational Authority to pay for board and lodging. If there is any risk in establishing a new principle by this it ought, I think, still to be done; but I do not think there is any such risk, because these powers are so strictly limited to cases of blind and deaf mute children that they cannot possibly be extended under this measure to any other class of the community. I think your Lordships will agree that after so much consideration has been given to the subject by the Royal Commission, and it having been found absolutely impossible to carry out their recommendations in any other way, it is necessary to approve of these proposals. The third recommendation of the Commission was that additional grants should be given in the case of these children. On this point I have to say that it has not been thought necessary to make such a provision in the Bill; but should it appear necessary that such additional grants should be given, the Department is perfectly willing to give power with consent of Parliament, and under proper precautions, for grants to be given in each necessary case. Those propositions constitute the object of the Bill, namely, that the School Boards should be allowed to provide the education specially required for these afflicted children in the way which may be found most suitable to their needs, and that the compulsory powers of the Education Act should be exercised

  673
  in regard to these children. The other provisions of the Bill I need not enter into; they are simply for the purpose of carrying out its object. I would, however, refer to Clause 5, which provides that in case of the non-attendance of a child at school it shall be admitted as a sufficient excuse that the child is a deaf mute under seven years of age. The compulsory school age in Scotland is five, but the Commissioners recommend that in the case of deaf mute children the compulsory clauses should not be applied under the age of seven. Then, by Clause 3, reference is made to children up to 16 years of age, but it is not proposed that the compulsory powers should be put in force over the age of 14. The clause only gives powers to School Boards to make contributions up to the age of 16. Another clause has regard to the religious opinions of parents, and it is provided that a child shall not be sent to an institution without the consent of its parents, and there is general power given to the Educational Department of seeing that these provisions are not carried out in a vexatious manner. With regard to the powers of charging the rates with boarding-out expenses, I think they will not be very far-reaching or involve great cost. Under the possible supposition that the School Boards are bound to provide for the education of these children, under the existing Acts that could not be done without incurring the great expense which must ultimately fall on the rates. The expense will not be very large, I think, if this Bill passes. As far as I know the number of blind children of school age in Scotland is 240, and of deaf mute children 781. But a large number of those children are at present at schools to which they have been sent by charitable persons, or in other ways provided for, and it may, on the whole, be said that only about half remain to be educated, and, therefore, about 500 children would come under the provisions of this Act. Of those 500 some are probably not fit subjects for education at all, either mentally or physically. Therefore, my Lords, even supposing these charges were considerable, for so small a number of children, no great addition could fall upon the
  674
  rates. I do not think, therefore, in that respect I need expect any opposition from your Lordships' House. My Lords, I venture to think that although, as I stated before, the Bill is not a very large one, affecting, perhaps, not more than 500 persons in the whole, it is a measure which appeals specially to your Lordships' consideration. By the Royal Commission the condition of both blind and deaf-and-dumb children was inquired into. But those classes of children are essentially different from each other in the nature of their afflictions, and your Lordships will at once recognise that blind children are not cut off in the same way from outside influences and surroundings in the same way or to the same extent as deaf mutes, and, as a rule, their deprivation from loss of sight is often made up for by greater intelligence and greater quickness of perception in their other senses. In the Middle Ages your Lordships will remember that deaf mutes were generally treated as imbeciles. The first effort which was made to treat them as intelligent human beings was in Spain in 1570, when a charitable monk took four deaf-mute children, under his care, and made an attempt to give them an education. In this country a similar attempt was made a hundred1' years afterwards at Oxford with more or less satisfactory results. Since that time charitable institutions for dealing with these children have been established in all the countries of Europe, and different methods have been tried of treating them. But, my Lords, this is the very first attempt which has been made in the United Kingdom to provide by enactment that education shall be secured to these afflicted children. For that reason I am glad to have had the opportunity of bringing in this Bill as regards Scotland. If it should pass through Parliament this Session some legislative recognition will have been made of the fact that children, however afflicted, must be given an education which will enable their faculties to be^ more developed, and thus, so far, alleviate the unhappy condition under which, through no fault of their own, they are compelled to pass their lives. I beg to move that the Bill be read a seecond time.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

DURATION OF SPEECHES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS BILL.—(No. 4.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this subject has been introduced now for several years. I happen to know that a Member of the other House is extremely anxious to introduce there a Bill of this description. It is, I know, your Lordships' habit in this House to cultivate brevity of speech, and only last Thursday a noble Lord who is connected with the Haddington County Council proposed that no speaker should exceed 10 minutes in that assembly. Long speeches lead to no good results. In many congresses and conferences members are not permitted to speak for more than 10, 15, or 20 minutes. The High Commissioners of the Established Church in Scotland have proposed that the duration of speeches should be limited to 15 minutes. Of course, in Committee, or anything of that kind, that would be unnecessary. My Lords, I have only further to point out that the sounding of a bell is not so very offensive, and even then if no other speaker rises the speaker addressing the House might continue his remarks. I really think there is not one of your Lordships who would wish to have the privilege of speaking for two or three hours, and it is not the characteristic of speeches in your Lordships' House, that they should be expanded to any great length. I believe, my Lords, that this Bill would do a great deal of good. We know that an undue extension of speeches may do the greatest possible harm.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I am under the painful necessity of moving your Lordships that this Bill should be read a second time this day six months. I do not think the noble Lord has done justice to himself or to the House, because he has not given any description of the provisions of the measure. I do
  676
  not know whether your Lordships have read the Bill, but it proposes a kind of procedure which certainly would not add to the dignity of this House, or stimulate the despatch of business. The examples which the noble Lord has cited in the Preamble of his Bill are the Social Science Congress in Edinburgh and the diocesan conferences at Lichfield, Nottingham, and Derby. I am quite unable to follow what is to happen if such a Bill as this were to pass, because I see it is proposed that the clerk should sound a bell, as is done at those conferences. Then, I observe that it is intended to allow a Privy Councillor to speak for half an hour (and under certain circumstances an hour), while other noble Lords would only be allowed half that time. I think that an invidious distinction. I do not think the noble Lord can really desire that such a Bill should pass into law; and I feel it my duty to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. When the Question comes to be put, I hope the noble Lord will challenge my opinion audibly, so that I may know whether the noble Lord desires to divide.
  LORD DENMAN: It is proposed in the House of Commons to give Privy Councillors an unlimited time and other Members much less. This day six months will be a very inconvenient postponement, and I hope your Lordships will not agree to it.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On question that ("now") stand part of the Motion, resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this day six months.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (BOROUGH OF BELFAST) BILL.—(No. 91.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, the Bill I am asking your Lordships to read a second time is very simple and is designed to regulate the registration of voters in the borough of Belfast, and deals with other matters connected

  677
  with that borough. By the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, the boundaries of the borough of Belfast were extended so as to include seven townlands in the County of Antrim and 14 in the County Down; and the electors in those places have thereby become electors for the Borough of Belfast. By an arrangement existing before that Act came into operation the expenses of the Clerk of the Peace were paid by the Grand Jury of Antrim, but when the borough was extended by including townlands in the County Down, the County Antrim objected to pay the expenses of registering voters living in those townlands. There was no power to compel them to do so, and, as a matter of fact, I believe the Clerk of the Peace has been out of pocket for that reason since 1887. That is obviously unjust, and the Bill is intended to remedy it. The Bill provides that the accounts of expenses shall be laid before the Recorder of Belfast, who shall certify the sums to be paid. The amounts to be contributed by the two counties are to be calculated according to the proportions which the voters in the town lands bear to the total number of voters in Belfast. The accounts, certified by the Recorder, are to be laid before the Grand Juries of Down and Antrim and Town Council of Belfast, and those bodies are to present for such sums as are due to the Clerk of the Peace and Town Clerk respectively. There is another provision, giving authority for the use of the Antrim Court House. The Sheriff has to be asked for permission every time it is used: that has been done by mutual arrangement, and in future it will be dispensed with. I have only to add that this Bill has passed the House of Commons without opposition, and the Lord Privy Seal has authorised me to state that there is no objection to it on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I trust it will receive your Lordships' assent, and I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 75.)
Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Clifford of Chud-leigh and the Lord Morris to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Custody of Children Bill and the Protection of Children Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
THE NEW BARRACKS.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the new barracks about to be erected, care will be taken to provide proper accommodation for baths for the soldiers, said: My Lords, if I had any reason to suppose that Her Majesty's Government were likely to give a negative reply to the Question I am about to put, I might perhaps detain your Lordships at some little length in pointing out how necessary it is that proper accommodation should be given as regards baths for maintaining Her Majesty's Forces in health. As I have reason to believe that the answer which will be given on behalf of the Government will be thoroughly satisfactory, I see no reason for detaining your Lordships on the subject, except to observe that when the somewhat large outlay for providing accommodation for Her Majesty's Forces which has been too long delayed is carried out, we have reason to hope that every precaution will be taken for their construction, according to the best scientific rules which have been laid down. I beg leave to ask the noble Earl the question which stands in my name.
  THE EARL OF POWIS: Before my noble Friend the Under Secretary for War gives an answer, I should like to call attention to two paragraphs in the Report to the War Office of the architects who were employed to report upon these new barracks. The architects say that provision should be made for ventilation and for small larders with air openings attached to the living

  679
  rooms in each, of the quarters. I think none of your Lordships, in building a new cottage, would think of building a pantry without ventilation to the open air, where the residents might keep their meat, milk, and butter. Architects are very often, I am afraid, apt to think more of the appearance of rooms in the way of decoration than of the substantial advantages derived from sanitary arrangements, and I think, my Lords, it would be a very good thing if provisions of this kind were made. We are building these barracks and providing rooms for the accommodation of sergeants and corporals, respectable men on whom the maintenance of discipline in the Army mainly depends. Those who understand the difficulty of recruiting and keeping men in the Army in these times know that it is not easy to keep soldiers with the colours as long as we could wish for the advantage of the Service. I hope, therefore, the Secretary for War will not think it is an extravagant matter to provide a small larder for each quarter. There is another paragraph in which I do not concur in which they say there is no occasion for providing a separate scullery for each quarter. I think that to give to two families only one scullery is a very good receipt for breeding quarrels between neighbours. To have two families washing their crockery and clothes in one scullery at the same time, must, I think, lead to considerable confusion and conflict, and I think that with two families of children running about the same scullery, the destruction of each other's crockery would be very considerable. Therefore, I hope that the allowance of accommodation in that respect will not be curtailed. There is another question which the noble Earl has put, with regard to baths. In all large towns baths and washhouses are comprised in the same establishment; and in the large camps, such as Shorncliffe, Aldershot, or Colchester, and in those large sets of barracks which it is in contemplation to put up under this Act for one or two regiments, I think it would be a matter worth the consideration of the Secretary of State for War whether it might not be advantageous and economical to build public wash-houses for the soldiers. In London the poorer people find that it is more economical to pay 1d. an hour, or whatever the charge is, for the use of the wash-houses than to
  680
  consume their own fuel and have the inconvenience of the heat and steam from the hot water in their own apartments; and I think it would prove to be the same thing in these barracks where there are enough soldiers collected together to make full use of a common wash-house. I think, also, it would be found that a small payment, which would go towards providing the coals, would be a very great comfort and convenience. I do not ask that this should be done without consideration, but I merely suggest that it might be worth the attention of the Secretary of State for War and that the matter might be gone into and considered.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, in reply to the question of the noble Earl, I can assure the House that the War Department are fully alive to the advantages of giving every facility for ablution to the soldiers, and it is proposed to provide baths in the new barracks. The baths will be made of slate, that having been found to be the best material for the purpose, as it is clean, durable, and cheap. It is intended that these baths should be each in a separate room; and, further, where there are opportunities for it, it is proposed to give every facility for open-air bathing during the summer months. It is now under consideration whether it would be practicable or desirable in the new barracks to introduce steam for heating purposes. I cannot say at this, moment whether that can be carried out. The question of expense may raise a difficulty in the way of its introduction. But if it can be done, the steam raised will be made available for purposes of heating water for washing. With regard to the points raised by Lord Powis, if I had known that the noble Earl intended to raise them, I should have been very glad to have inquired into the matter, so that I might have been able to go into the question with him. But they are rather questions of small detail in a large matter; that is to say, the provision of married soldiers' quarters. The difficulty with those quarters is that some men have large families and some have small ones, and it is very difficult to construct quarters that are suitable for families of all sizes. I can, however,

  681
  assure the noble Earl that I shall be very glad to go carefully into the points which he has spoken of this evening with the view to making the soldiers and their wives as comfortable as possible in their new married quarters.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.