Sitting of 16 June 1890

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.—(By Order.)
  MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.): I beg to move—
  "That the Order [June 2nd] that the Bill be committed be read, and discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection. That all Petitions against the Bill presented Three clear days before the Meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. That Three be the quorum."
  I have also to move a corresponding Motion in relation to the Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill for legalising certain dues and charges in reference to the Scilly Islands. In making these Motions, I am asking the House to sanction some further inquiry into the circumstances and proposals of these Bills, before the assent of Parliament is given to them. I do not ask the House to refuse them altogether, but only to refer them to a Select Committee, and the reasons which induce me to do so are these: in the first place, the circumstances are exceptional, and not of the ordinary nature of the Provisional Order Bills, such as are passed every day without discussion; and secondly, if I may be permitted to refer to the Motion wich I moved upon the Second Reading of the Pier and Harbour Bill——
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): No.
  MR. CHANN1NG: If the Government dissent, of course I will not, but I think it would expedite business if I were allowed to do so. I will confine myself, then, to the first Bill, and the reason why I desire that it should be referred to a Select Committee is that it sets aside the principles of legislation which was sanctioned in 1888, and again

  995
  last year, without an adequate cause. As the President of the Local Government Board objects to my mentioning the second Bill, I will defer my observations in regard to it, until I can bring them more regularly before the President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. RITCHIE: I only interposed because it is out of order to discuss another Bill now.
  MR. CHANNING: This Provisional Order Bill has grown out of the 49th section of the Local Government Board Act of 1888, which was passed with the view of giving a separate constitution to the Scilly Islands, and which provides for the performance within the islands of the duties of a County Council. The spirit and letter of the Local Government Act of 1888 provide that the persons elected to the County Council shall have the right of discharging the duty of electing their own Chairman, and the object of Section 49 of the Local Government Act, and of similar clauses in the Scotch Act of last year, was to provide the same machinery, rights, privileges, and powers for outlying county electors. It is obvious that the Scilly Islands could not be included, so far as local government is concerned, with the County Government of Cornwall, and, therefore, it was necessary to secure a separate and distinct Government for these islands. At the same time, I maintain that the Local Government Act never contemplated what this Bill does, namely, the conversion of the Scilly Islands into a Crown Colony with a permanent Chairman. Shetland and Orkney occupy a similar position to the Scilly Islands. They have been given a County Council, but they have a right to choose their own Chairman, and to arrange their own affairs exactly like anyother county in England and Scotland. It has not been suggested in regard to those islands that any single individual shall have conferred upon him the rights of a statutory chieftain. The Duke of Sutherland possesses an infinitely stronger claim from his territorial rights in Sutherlandshire than Mr. Dorrien Smith possesses in Scilly, but a suggestion to make the Duke of Sutherland the statutory Chairman of the County of Sutherland would have been scouted. All I ask for is inquiry. In the pre amble of the present Bill, at page 4, the
  996
  lease by which Mr. Dorrien Smith holds the Scilly Islands is referred to, and the rights, "powers," "franchises," and "jurisdictions," which have been handed over to him by the Duchy of Cornwall, and they are specially reserved for Mr. Dorrien Smith under Clause 31 of the schedule. I do not know what the terms of that lease are, and, therefore, I ask for inquiry, in order that we may ascertain whether in any way they confer a right upon Mr. Dorrien Smith to control the electors in the management of their ordinary business, and whether they contravene the rights and privileges which the Act of 1888 confers upon county electors. I shall be told, of course, that the people of the Scilly Islands have not petitioned against this Bill. That is perfectly true; but I venture to think that the House may draw from that very fact some ground for an inquiry into the matter. Certainly the fact is established that the Bill contravenes, without assigning a reason, one of the principles of the Act of 1888. There are one or two matters connected with the history of this proposal which it is desirable that I should mention. When the proposal for giving a County Council to the Scilly Islands was first discussed, the suggestion of Mr. Dorrien Smith was that the Council should not be elected by ballot, but by open Vestry; but the Local Government Board very properly insisted that the elections in the islands should be con ducted on the same principle as those upon the mainland, namely, by ballot. I think it may be inferred that the proposal to make Mr. Dorrien Smith permanent Chairman was meant as a solatium. It is no secret that in the original draft of the Bill Mr. Dorrien Smith desired to have himself called "lord paramount" of the island, and it was only when it was pointed out that that was a title which would be in conflict with the rights of the Duchy of Cornwall that the claim was withdrawn. This shows, to some extent, how these questions have grown up, and I think I have shown, at all events, a primâ facie case for referring the Bill to a Select Committee. It will be said that the inhabitants have not protested against the Bill. Their position is peculiar. Mr. Dorrien Smith is proprietor of the islands,

  997
  under the Duchy, and his power is absolutely paramount. The people are afraid to oppose his wishes in any respect whatever; but I think the House of Commons, has a right to go into the matter and ascertain what his rights are. In regard to the second Bill, there are one or two questions I would like to put if the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to answer them now; but, if not, I will defer them.
  MR. RITCHIE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better put them now.
  MR. CHAINING: They refer to the Pier and Harbour Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: As they are not connected with the subject-matter of the Bill now before the House they had better be deferred.
  MR. CHANNING: Then I will conclude by moving the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order [2nd June] that the Bill tie committed, he read, and discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committtee of Selection; that all Petitions against the Bill presented Three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that Three be the quorum."—[Mr. Channing.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): I should have no wish to complain of the action of the hon. Member in making this Motion, if he could show that there has been any serious departure from the provisions of the Local Government Act. But I must remind the hon. Member and the House that provisions are contained in that Act for dealing' with the special requirements of any district in which it might be necessary to set up a County Council; and an examination into the circumstances of the Scilly Islands showed the framers of the measure that such special powers would be necessary when the time should arrive for establishing a County Council there. It is to meet an anomalous condition of things that such a course has been taken. I cannot help expressing my regret that the hon. Gentleman in moving the Motion, actuated only, as he
  998
  told the House, by honest and sincere motives for the interests of good Local Government, should have made statements in reference to Mr. Dorrion Smith which, I think, he will find very few people to endorse.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the hon. Gentleman pardon me? I did not say a single word that could reflect upon the action of Mr. Dorrien Smith. I most fully recognised his efforts to improve the condition of the people of the islands.
  MR. LONG: The hon. Gentleman said that representations had been made to him which induced him to believe that the people of the islands were in a state of fear, and that they were unable to represent freely their own case. I leave the House to judge for itself whether that does not imply that the government of Mr. Dorrien Smith is of such a nature as to frighten the people of the Scilly Islands. I must, therefore, repeat my regret that the hon. Gentleman was not able to make the Motion without indulging in an imputation of such a nature against Mr. Dorrien Smith. Section 49 of the Local Government Act says that Provisional Orders shall be, as far as possible, in consonance with the principles of the Act, and that is what the present Order is. Anybody who knows the Scilly Islands and has made himself acquainted with the condition of things there will be aware that it is simply ridiculous to say that the position of the Duke of Sutherland in the County of Sutherland can be compared with the position of Mr. Dorrien Smith in the Scilly Islands. The present Provisional Order has passed through all its forms. The hon. Gentleman says that the fact of there having been no Petition against it ought not to weigh on account of the peculiar position occupied by the inhabitants. Now, every pro vision contained in this Order was laid most carefully before the people of the islands, and every opportunity has been afforded for the presentation of Petitions, and no objection has been raised except by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Gentleman has not given any ground for departing from the in variable rule in connection with Pro visional Order Bills, and the point he has raised could be as well dealt with on the Second Reading as in Committee.

  999
  The rights of the county electors in the Island of Scilly will not be in any way interfered with. Mr. Dorrien Smith is practically the Governor of the islands, and anyone who has taken the trouble to visit them must be satisfied that he has done his best for the interests of the inhabitants and that his rule has been a most beneficent one.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I gladly recognise the able manner in which the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing) has dealt with this matter; but in regard to the remarks which have fallen from the Secretary to the Local Government Board, I think it is desirable to make it quite clear to the House that there are sufficient grounds for our opposition to the Bill in its present form. The hon. Gentleman has complained of the way in which the hon. Member for East Northampton dealt with the matter as far as Mr. Dorrien Smith is concerned; but, after the ample tribute which has been paid to the beneficent action of Mr. Dorrien Smith and his family in connection with these islands, I think it is unfair to take my hon. Friend to task for his reference to the condition of the people of the Scilly Islands, which is undoubtedly an important factor in the case. The hon. Gentleman twits my hon. Friend with having no support from the people, and he says that, being fully cognisant of what was going on, they had an ample opportunity of petitioning. He aided that, as they have not done so, it is a proof that they are in favour of the Bill, or that they do not care sufficiently about it to oppose it. I must say that the absence of opposition affords proof, to some extent, that the liberties of the people of these islands are scarcely worth fighting for; but I have had letters from different persons living in Scilly which state that the inhabitants are in a state of fear, and believe that any action on their part would result in their being forced to relinquish their holdings and being turned out of the islands. All I can say is, that if the inhabitants are so timorous and so wanting in pluck it will only serve them right if they suffer in future. They will only have themselves to thank, and nobody else. But, so far as the proposal to establish Mr. Dorrien Smith as the permanent Chairman is concerned, that is a matter
  1000
  altogether apart from local feeling. It is a distinct departure from a fundamental principle recognised in the Local Government Act, and I failed to find in the speech of the Secretary to the Local Government Board a single justification for this extraordinary departure from the settled policy of the Local Government Act. The only reason assigned by the hon. Gentleman is that Mr. Dorrien Smith is the Governor of the island—an autocrat on whom the welfare, liberties, and prosperity of these people depend. That, I think, is a strong reason why we should not increase and extend the power of this gentleman by constituting him Chairman of the Council and the future controller of their destinies for all time to come.
  MR. BOLITHO (Cornwall, St. Ives): List autumn the Local Government Board sent down an experienced gentleman to inquire into all the circum stances of the case. That gentleman took evidence, and the present Bill is the outcome of his inquiry. No doubt there are anomalies in the case, but the Scilly Islands themselves are an anomaly. For my part, I hold that the Government have been wise in placing a clause in this Bill as an incentive and stimulant to the temporary owner of the property to reside amongst the islanders and give them the benefit of his influence and advice. If any man deserves encouragement and support in connection with the Scilly Islands it is Mr. Dorrien Smith. When he came into this inheritance he found the people in a deplorable and impoverished condition. He has encouraged their industry, especially in the growth of flowers, and they are now frugal, industrious, contented, and prosperous. They are not afraid of speaking their own minds, and I know from experience, that if they felt dissatisfaction, neither Mr. Dorrien Smith nor anybody else would prevent them from expressing it.
  (3.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 179.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
  MR. CHANNING: I have a similar Motion on the Paper in regard to another Bill; but, after the Division which has just taken place, I do not propose to proceed with it. I should like, however, to hear from the President of the Board of Trade why the dues on exported shell fish and flowers are not regulated and

  1001
  controlled by the Provisional Order for which the right hon. Gentleman is re sponsible, and why these dues are left to the absolute discretion of Mr. Dorrien Smith?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): It is impossible in the schedule attached to a Provisional Order to schedule every article, but I believe that in this case the schedule has received the approval of the fishermen them selves. If the hon. Gentleman requires further information, and will put a question upon the Paper, I shall be happy to answer it.

  REGISTRARS' FEES (MIDDLESEX).
  Address for—
  "Return showing for each of years 1888 and 1889, the Fees received by the Registrars of Middlesex, the number of transactions, the expenses of the office, and the net amount paid to the surviving Registrar and to the Queen's Remembrancer (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper) No. 242, of Session 1888)."—(Sir John Lubbock.)

  EAST INDIA (ACCOUNTS.)
  Address for—
  "Detailed Particulars respecting the under mentioned Items in the Home Accounts of the Government of India, of which no particulars appear in Parliamentary Paper No. 171, 9th May 1890:—
  The Persons to whom payments were made, the Amounts paid in each in stance, and the reason for making such payments of Compassionate Allowances, £2,457 14s. 6d. (page 9);
  Like information respecting Compassionate and Miscellaneous Pensions, £4,987 7s. 6d., and Gratuities, £585 (page 11);
  Like information respecting Gratuities granted on retirement to members of the Uncovenanted Services of India, £2,057 2s. 1d. (page 11); and
  The circumstances under which the following Charges were incurred: 'Cost of Stores lost in transit in India,' £7,808 4s. 1d. (page 13)."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

  WHITGIFT HOSPITAL (CROYDON).
  Copy ordered—
  "Of the Correspondence which has passed between the Charity Commissioners and the Governors of the Whitgift Hospital, Croydon, on the subject of the disallowance by the Com missioners of the amount expended by the Trustees in the restoration of the tomb of Archbishop Whitgift (the founder of the Hospital), in the Parish Church, Croydon."—(Mr. Spencer Balfour).

QUESTIONS.

  COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Treaties, of Commerce concluded in 1862 and 1865 with Belgium and the German Zollverein preclude the conclusion of any preferential commercial arrangement for mutual advantage between the United Kingdom and Her Majesty's. Colonial or Indian possessions, and if these foreign restrictions upon domestic commerce are extended by the most favoured nation agreement to every other foreign State; and in such case if, having regard to the well-known Report of the Privy Council of Canada
  "that trade should be as free as practicable between the various portions of the Empire, having regard solely to their own interests, and unfettered by any obligation to treat others with equal favour,"
  as also to repeated expressions of opinion to like effect in the Dominion Parliament, and in Australasia, an undertaking can be given that advantage shall be taken of the opportunity afforded by the forthcoming expiration upon due notice of several foreign Treaties of Commerce to denounce and determine such inter-British commercial disability?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am not prepared to admit that the Treaties to which the hon. Member refers would have, in all cases, the effect suggested in the first part of his question, but he will find the clauses referred to in the Paper presented to the House of Commons, dated 17th April, 1888. (C 5369.) This Paper also includes a Memorandum by Sir E. Hertslet, on the subject. No doubt this important matter will be considered when new Commercial Treaties are about to be concluded with foreign States.

  THE NEW CODE.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having regard to the limited accommodation afforded by the training colleges in the past, and the admitted excellence and efficiency of large numbers of certificated teachers

  1003
  who have been trained outside those institutions, he will amend the nomenclature and cancel the distinctions of Article 73 of the New Code?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I have already had regard to the limited accommodation afforded by the training colleges in the past by undertaking that the change shall not be retrospective, and I have recognised the admitted excellence of that large number of certificated teachers who may not enter a training college, by not allowing the distinction, even in the future, to affect the principal teachers, and I am further willing, so far as the difficulty is one of nomenclature, to amend the terms of the Article, and, to that extent, meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman.

  MAGISTRATES' CLERKS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the following remarks by the Lord Chief Justice in delivering judgment: in the recent case of "Dixon v. Wells":—
  "A practice seems to have risen up of Magistrates' clerks hearing complaints and taking summonses to any Magistrates to be signed, they being ignorant of the case and not knowing whether there is a primâ facie case or not. A looser practice and more likely to lead to injustice I cannot conceive…It may often happen that summonses are issued without any case whatever. I cannot regard a summons so issued in direct defiance of the Act as a summons issued under it."
  And whether, especially in the interest of poor persons who cannot pay for professional assistance, he will issue a Home Office Circular to Magistrates' clerks drawing their attention to the matter, and to the observations thereupon of the Lord Chief Justice?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have seen a report of the case in question. I have consulted the best authority within my reach, and I am advised that there is no reason to suppose the law is not well known which makes the issue of a summons an act of judicial discretion, depending on the nature of the information or complaint laid before a Justice, and incapable of being delegated to his clerk or anybody else; and that it would not be desirable to issue
  1004
  any Circular which either limited this discretion or suggested any other rules than those which follow from Jervis's Act.

  INDIGENT EMIGRANTS TO AMERICA.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I had intended to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the rejection by America of certain indigent emigrants recently conveyed to New York by the Cunard Steamship Company, and to that line being required by the United States' Authorities to bring them back to Liverpool; and if he can state the nationality of these persons who are unfit for America, and, in the event of their being foreigners, if their repatriation can be effected, having regard to there being less space in the United Kingdom than in America for superfluous foreign workers? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, I will postpone the question.

  ARMOUR PIERCING PROJECTILES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the armour-piercing projectiles, which to the amount of £13,080 were last year purchased from foreigners, could have been obtained from Sheffield; if the braid and cloth ordered from abroad, to the extent of £6,367, were unobtainable at Bradford, Huddersfield, or Limerick; and if the wood for £20,654 worth of butts and fore-ends could have been purchased, if not at home, at least within the Empire?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Special negotiations were entered into with a Sheffield firm for the armour-piercing projectiles, but their terms were too high. Trial orders for braid and cloth are in the hands of English manufacturers, but no progress has been made during the last 11 months, so that we cannot at present get these goods in England. As regards butts and fore-ends of rifles, I regret that at present no walnut has been found of suitable quality, except that which is grown on the Continent of Europe.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. HOWARD VINCENT,
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid: The difference in price of the armour-

  1005
  piercing projectiles obtained from foreigners was £14 each. An attempt was made to secure a reduction of price from English firms, but no satisfactory arrangement was made.

  THE LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the London County Council dispute the right of ratepayers or electors to inspect Minutes of proceedings of Committees of the Council, notwithstanding "The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882," Section 233, which gave the right to burgesses to inspect "the Minutes of proceedings of the Council," which was made applicable to County Councils by "The Local Government Act, 1888," on the alleged ground that proceedings of Committees of the Council are not "proceedings of the Council" within the meaning of the Act; whether he is aware that the bulk, or nearly all of the proceedings of the Council, are by Commit tees of that body, and that such Commit tees may consist of the whole or parts of the Council; and whether the Local Government Board recognise the above construction of the statute to be correct; and, if so, whether it was intended by the Local Government Act that the ratepayers should have no right to inspect Minutes of proceedings and acts done by the Council by delegation to Committees of the whole or part of their body?
  MR. RITCHIE: I was not aware that the question as to the right of ratepayers or electors to inspect the Minutes of proceedings of Committees of the London County Council had been raised prior to the notice which was given of the question by the hon. Member. I am aware that a large proportion of the proceedings of the County Council are by Committees of that body, but I am in formed that all proceedings of Commit tees which are important are reported to the Council, and that the Minutes containing those Reports are open to the inspection of county electors in London. The view which the County Council have adopted is that the proceedings of Committees of the Council are not proceedings of the Council within the meaning of Section 233 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which is applied to County Councils by the Local
  1006
  Government Act, and I am advised that this construction of the statute is correct. The County Council in this matter are in the same position as a Municipal Corporation.

  THE ZAMBESI.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was defined to be the eastern boundary of the British sphere of influence south of Zambesi when, that sphere of influence was formerly proclaimed: and whether Ngamiland was included in such sphere of influence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I understand that my hon. Friend chiefly wishes for information respecting the western boundary. The eastern boundary was the Portuguese Province of Sofala. That on the northwest was, as was stated in the answer of the 13th to Mr. Baumann, only roughly indicated. The question of Ngamiland is under discussion and no opinion can be given.

  HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the salary of the High Commissioner for South Africa at various times since the creation of that office; what proportion of it has been paid by the Imperial Government and Cape Colony respectively; and what is the proportion of such payments, and the total salary, at the present time?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): When the High Commissionership was first created the Governor of the Cape, who has always held the appointment, was merely High Commissioner for the tribes on the Eastern frontier. He received £1,000 a year from Cape funds, in addition to £5,000 a year also from Cape funds as Governor. Sir Bartle Frere, who in 1877 was first appointed High Commissioner for South Africa, also received £1,000 a year from Cape funds, as did Sir Hercules Robinson. In 1889 a Cape Act was passed, No. 38 of 1889, increasing the High Commissioner's salary from colonial funds to £3,000 a year. Sir Bartle Frere was paid £1,500

  1007
  a year as a personal allowance from Imperial funds. Sir Hercules Robinson received and Sir Henry Loch receives £1,000 from the same source. These Imperial allowances were granted in each case upon personal grounds, and do not necessarily attach to the office. The total salary being £9,000, the proportion of the Imperial payments to the total salary at the present time is 1 to 4 if the salary of the High Commissionership is meant, or 1 to 9 if the total emoluments of Sir Henry Loch are meant.
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that the result is this, the Colonial Government pays £3,000, and the Imperial Government £1,000.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Yes, Sir.

  SCARCITY OF SMALL SILVER CHANGE.
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the increasing difficulty of getting small silver change, such as sixpences, in London; and whether he is aware that, owing to their bulk, and the difficulty of distinguishing between them, the new 4s. and 5s. pieces are most unpopular, so much so that in some clubs the cashiers rapidly accumulate sums of from £20 to £25 in these coins, of which they cannot get rid?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked this question. Yes, Sir, I have heard of the alleged in creasing difficulty of getting small silver change, such as sixpences, in London; but I have repeatedly stated in this House that the Government have no means of increasing the amount in circulation. There are at this moment in the Bank of England 3,760,000 shillings and 3,000,000 sixpences ready for circulation. Any bank can obtain them. Clubs, shopkeepers, or individuals have only co ask their bankers to supply them, and they, in their turn, can set them into circulation. With regard to the second question, namely, the crowns and double florins, I am not aware that they are most unpopular, except, possibly, in clubs. On the contrary, large demands continue to be made for them; £70,000 worth were asked for lately within a very few days. If it is said that the cashiers of the clubs cannot get rid of these
  1008
  pieces, but accumulate them to the amount of £20 to £25, I presume that if they keep a good balance at their bankers, and send them these coins, asking the bank to give them shillings and sixpences in exchange, the banks would not be unwilling to oblige such valuable customers.

  ADMIRALTY SURVEYS—CASE OF PATRICK LAMR.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances narrated in the "Admiralty Surveys Report for 1889," under which last year, at personal loss to him self, Patrick Lamb indicated to the Admiralty Surveyors a rock suspected, but theretofore not located, about 20 miles from Cape St. Mary, Newfound land; and whether, in view of the statement in the Report that
  "The importance of the knowledge of its existence will be at once seen when it is remembered that many mail steamers pass this way on their course to the St. Lawrence, and that, though in ordinary weather the largest ship would cross it in safety, the heavy seas of an Atlantic gale, in such an exposed position, would infallibly cause her to strike, with, in all probability, immediate foundering as the result,"
  Patrick Lamb has received, or will receive, some reward or distinction for his conduct?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Patrick Lamb has received a reward of £20 from the officer in charge of the survey, in accordance with the in variable practice whenever information is received that leads to the discovery of dangerous rocks, which would otherwise not have been noted on the charts. Many rocks have been noted on the charts in this manner. Each such case is considered on its merits, and in this instance the reward granted was thought to be adequate.

  IRELAND—INCOME TAX.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will agree to the Return as to Income Tax (Ireland), which stands on the Paper for to-day?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have made inquiry, and find that the information cannot be obtained. It is not possible, therefore, to give the Return.

  SUPPLY OF NEWSPAPERS, &c., TO WORKHOUSES.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Boards of Guardians in Ireland are empowered, as similar Bodies are in England, to defray out of the rates the cost of supplying the inmates of workhouses with newspapers, periodicals, and books; whether he is aware that the President of the Local Government Board in England has directed that the Inspectors of the Local Government Board shall he instructed, in connection with their visits to work houses, to give this subject their special attention, and to report to the Board as to the views and practice of the Guardians with, respect to such supply; whether he will give, if he can do so legally, similar directions to Local Government Board Inspectors in Ire land; and whether, if the law in Ireland is in this respect different from the law in England, the Government will intro duce a measure for the assimilation of the law in Ireland to the law in Eng land on this subject?
  MR. DILLON: I have also to ask whether any expense incurred by Poor Law Guardians in Ireland for the purpose of supplying reading matter to the inmates of workhouses is disallowed by the Auditors of the Local Government Board; and, if this is the case, whether ho will take steps to have the Rules of the Local Government Board altered in this particular?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have ascertained that there is no enactment expressly empowering Boards of Guardians in Ireland to provide the inmates of workhouses with newspapers, periodicals, and books. When such expenditure is incurred, it is a matter for the Auditor to determine if such shall be allowed. The Local Government Board believe that literature of this nature is usually supplied by private contribution. Inquiries will be made, and there is every desire that the practice in Ireland should be on all fours with that in England.

  POST OFFICE AT MANOO.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Post-
  1010
  master General whether he has considered the Petition presented to him by the inhabitants of Manoo, in the County of Fermanagh, praying for the establishment of a Post Office in their district?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I have considered the Petition referred to by the hon. Member, and I should have been glad to comply with it, but I find that the cost involved in the establishment of a Post Office at Manoo would be out of all proportion to the revenue from the six letters a day to be benefited. Under the circumstances, I regret that a Post Office cannot be opened at Manoo. There are three Post Offices Kish, Edeney, and Lisnaritck, within three miles from Manoo.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS IN DONEGAL.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now state the cause of the delay in granting the sum of £116,000, recommended, so strongly by the Light Rail way Commissioners, and approved of unanimously by the Grand Jury of the County Donegal at the last Spring Assizes, in favour of the Stranorlar and Glenties line; and whether it is a fact that no objection to the proposed line has been received from any quarter? I also wish to ask whether the Government have yet decided on the route for the North-West Donegal Railway line to Falcarragh; and, if not, will he direct a sworn inquiry to be held at Milford or Ramelton, in order that the inhabitants of these towns might produce evidence in favour of the proposed line from Letterkenny viâ Ramelton, Milford, Carrigart, Creeslough, and Dunfanaghy?
  MR. LEA: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury have decided to give the Donegal and Killybeg Light Railway Company a free grant under "The Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889," for the construction of their rail-way; and, if so, whether a similar grant will at the same time be made to the line from Stranorlar to Glenties, in the same County of Donegal, opening up the congested district of the Barony of Boylagh; whether the last-mentioned line was recommended by the Com missioners appointed under the said Act; and if, under the circumstances, the

  1011
  Treasury will give at least equal facilities to the Glenties line as to the Killy-beg line?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I can under stand the desire of hon. Members and their constituents to know whether light railway schemes affecting their districts are likely to be aided under the Act of last Session. I would point out, however, that the Treasury and the Irish Government are engaged in negotiations and deliberations under quite novel and somewhat difficult circumstances. The fact is, there are more schemes than money, and, therefore, it is necessary that we should proceed very cautiously, in order to select the best schemes, and those which will best meet the requirements of the districts as a whole.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We have vainly endeavoured to extract some idea as to what month in the coming year it will be possible to get an answer to this important question. The Government have now had nine months to consider the matter; how soon next, year may we expect an answer?
  MR. JACKSON: I hope within the limit of the time mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman to be in a position to give a favourable answer. I am afraid that the answer I have given must cover the other questions upon the same subject which stand on the Paper. Various schemes have been under consideration in regard to West Donegal, but none has yet been authorised.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it true that there is a considerable amount of friction between the Irish Office and the Treasury on the subject; that the Irish Office take one view and the Treasury another?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not like to suggest that that question is in the nature of a fishing inquiry, but there is no ground for it.

  CORK LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent Report of the Government Inspectors with reference to the Cork Lunatic Asylum, and to the discussion thereon at the meeting of the Board of Governors on the 10th instant; whether it is
  1012
  the fact, as stated by one of the Governors, that the Asylum was built to accommodate only 500 inmates, and that the number of inmates is now 1,000; whether the Inspectors reported that the Asylum had reached the utmost limit to which it should be allowed to grow, and that every effort should be made to decrease the number of inmates; and whether the Government propose to take any action either as to this portion of the Report, or as to the complaints made in the Report as to want of cleanliness and proper sanitary arrangements in the establishment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a fact that the Cork Asylum was originally built to accommodate only 500 patients. But since then, from time to time, very considerable structural additions have been made, though not to an extent sufficient for the accommodation of the present number of inmates which at the beginning of this month was 1,038. The Inspectors did express an opinion to the effect indicated in the third paragraph. The Inspectors' Report is under the consideration of the Government.

  IRISH COURT RULES.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the jurisdiction exercised by the English Courts under the Judicature Rules of 1875 over defendants domiciled in Scotland or Ireland was taken away in 1883; whether a similar jurisdiction is still exercised by the Irish Courts under the Irish Judicature Rules of 1877 over Scotchmenand Englishmen; and whether, if so, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to have the Irish Court Rules assimilated to the English Rules as regards jurisdiction over persons domiciled outside of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The power of the English Courts to order service of a writ on a defendant resident in Scotland or Ireland would appear to have been abridged in one particular class of cases only by the Rules of 1883, namely, in actions for the breach of contract, which, according to the terms thereof, ought to be per formed in England. No similar restriction was made by the Rules of the Irish Court, but by the 33 rd section of the

  1013
  Irish Judicature Act it is enacted that whenever application is to be made for leave to serve a defendant resident out of the jurisdiction
  "the Court or Judge to whom such application shall be made shall have regard to the amount or value of the claim or property affected, and to the comparative cost and inconvenience of proceedings in Ireland or in the place of the defendant's residence, &c, and no such leave is to be granted without an affidavit giving the necessary information on those points."
  I am informed that the Irish Rules are at present under revision by the Judges of the Supreme Court, who have the whole question of the Rules of Court for that country under their consideration.

  EVICTIONS AT FALCARRAGH.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has sanctioned the employment of the Forces of the Crown for the eviction of 46 families on the Stewart and Swineys estates, in the Falcarragh district of the County Donegal; whether any of the evictions have yet been carried out; whether he can state the total number of persons who will be rendered homeless by the eviction of these 46 families; whether this district is one comprised within the congested districts proposed to be dealt with by a Bill now before the House; whether any of these people have been the recipients within the past year of relief in the shape of seed potatoes; and whether, under all the circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that eviction at this time of the year will deprive these families of the crops now in the ground, and thereby deprive them of their only means of subsistence during the coming winter, the Government propose to take any steps to avert the danger of famine to these people during the coining winter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With respect to the inquiries in paragraphs one and four, I beg to refer to my reply on these points to the question put on the subject by the hon. Member for South Donegal on the 9th inst. Up to June 14, 25 of these evictions had, I understand, been concluded, and it was expected that five more would have been carried out that day. The Report before me does not show the number of persons comprised
  1014
  in each family to be evicted. I am in formed that none of these people have been recipients during the past year of relief in the shape of seed potatoes, neither are there any crops planted on the farms from which they have been evicted, nor is there any reason to expect famine as suggested in the question.
  In answer to a further question by Mr. DALTON,
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR said: Protection has been applied for and granted in respect of the execution of eviction decrees in the case of certain tenants on the Olphert estate, where the Plan of Campaign is in operation. I am in formed that these tenants have not been the recipients of relief for their families, or of seed to crop their land in the last 12 months.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it true that an old woman of 80, who was unable to make her way outside, was treated with brutal violence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no Report that confirms that statement, but I shall be glad to inquire.

  LADY BURNETT SCHOOL, BANCHORY.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a scheme for the future administration of the Lady Burnett School, Banchory, sanctioned 24th February, part of which is to provide additional accommodation; whether he is aware that there is a public school within half a mile, with accommodation for 340, with an attendance of only 160; whether the School Board of Banchory has been consulted by the Department before this expenditure for additional accommodation was sanctioned; whether, with one exception, the whole members of the Banchory School Board are opposed to the extension of the Lady Burnett School as unnecessary and wasteful; and whether, in the circumstances, any steps will be taken to remedy the evil complained of?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I am acquainted with the scheme for the administration of the Lady Burnett School. The additional accommodation for which the scheme makes provision, consists of a class-room, the necessity for which was repeatedly urged by Her Majesty's Inspector, not in order to

  1015
  increase the attendance, but in order to provide for the satisfactory teaching of the numbers actually attending. The endowment was under private Trustees, and the Department could only approve of a scheme with their assent, and on their initiative. The School Board had no control whatever over the funds of the endowment, nor any share in the management of the school. The objection of the School Board was known to my Lords only after the scheme had been approved. My Lords do not think that the additional accommodation ought in any way to interfere with the public school, but they are now in correspondence with a view to restricting the attendance at the Lady Burnett School to girls and boys under a certain standard, so as to prevent such interference.

  THE LOSS OF THE NESTA.
  MR. NEVILLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a fact that the captain, officers, and the crew of the Nesta, which was run into and sunk by H.M.S. Surprise, obtained, as their proportion of the amount paid by the Admiralty £162 in respect of their claims of £1,083 17s. 10d. for lost effects; and whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty can allow some further compensation to these men?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The total sum paid by the Admiralty by way of compensation for the loss of the Nesta was £8,250, or the maximum amount claim able under the "Merchant Shipping Act of 1862." This sum was paid to the owners and they distributed it as they thought right. No further compensation can be paid in this case, as I think ample compensation has already been paid.

  ARMY PENSIONS—CASE OF MICHAEL STANLEY.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of an old soldier, named Michael Stanley, who, having served in the Crimea in 1854, and after wards in India during the Mutiny, in the 3rd European Light Cavalry, was after wards sent to British North America and Jamaica, where he contracted fever and ague, from the effects of which he is still suffering; whether he is aware
  1016
  that Stanley is deaf and unable to work, and has spent most of his time during the last few years in the workhouse; and whether he has applied to the War Office for his deferred pension, and has been refused; and, if so, on what grounds?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Stanley did not fulfil the conditions entitling a soldier to a deferred pension, but his case is being referred to the Chelsea Commissioners in order to ascertain if any thing can be done for him.

  THE LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the delay which takes place in the offices of the Land Commission; if he is aware that a letter addressed to the Secretary is hardly ever answered under three weeks, or a month; that copies of fair rent and other orders and of valuers' and Sub-Commissioners' Reports cannot be obtained without prolonged delays; that the Land Commission have now a printed form of circular in which they apprise persons requiring such copies that, owing to press of business, a long delay must elapse before they will be ready; and whether some additional clerical assistance could be provided?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that no delay which can be avoided occurs in their offices, and that the statements in the second paragraph of the question appear to be made under some misapprehension. They state that, as a rule, copies of documents are furnished within a few days after applied for, and that only in exceptional circumstances have any delays occurred. At times as many as 1,000 requisitions are received within a few days, in which case the circular referred to is issued. It does not state that "a long time must elapse," but that a little time may, before the application can be complied with. Any exceptional influx of business of this nature is met by the clerical staff working over time, and I am not aware that there is any necessity for the course suggested in the last paragraph.
  MR. M. HEALY: Have the Land Commission made application for additional clerical assistance?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think not. I do not gather from the Report that they deem the staff inadequate.

  POLICE DOCTORS.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland "whether the office of doctor to the police at Kilconnell, New Inn, and Woodlawn Police Stations (County Galway), held until his death by the dispensary doctor (Dr. Deely), has now been divided, Dr. Rutherford being appointed to Kilconnell, Dr. O'Farrel to New Inn, and Dr. Leonard to Woodlawn; why Dr. M'Merney, who succeeded Dr. Daly as dispensary doctor, and who applied to be appointed police doctor, got neither of the three stations, though he lives within two miles of each of the three, whereas Dr. Rutherford lives at Ballinasloe, eight miles from Kilconnell, Dr. O'Farrell at Loughrea, 10 miles from New Inn, and Dr. Leonard at Athenry, 18 miles from Woodlawn; whether there is any question as to Dr. M'Merney's qualifications and capacity to discharge the duties of police doctor; whether he is aware that frequent com plaints have been made recently as to the irregularity of the visits of Dr. Rutherford, who holds the appointment of visiting physician to Ballinasloe Lunatic Asylum, that Dr. O'Farrell is the son of a local Crown prosecutor, and has never previously held any public appointment, and that Dr. Leonard is over 70 years of age; and why the ordinary practice of appointing the dispensary-doctor police doctor, till recently a rule of the force, has been departed from in this case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the facts are as stated in the first three paragraphs, except that Dr. Leonard resides at a distance of only 12 miles by train from the place mentioned. The public service will not be served by discussing the qualifications of individual candidates. No complaints have been received as to the appointment of Dr. Leonard, who is not over 70, but only 61 years of age. Dr. O'Farrell, for the last two and a half years, has been a Constabulary Medical Attendant. The rules referred to in the last paragraph were abolished in 1883, and no such rule is now in existence.
  MR. M. HEALY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman interfere, and see that a doctor living on the spot is appointed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see why I should interfere with the Constabulary Authorities in the exercise of their discretion.
  MR. M. HEALY: Was not Dr. M'Merney passed over because he is a Nationalist?
  [No reply.]

  ISSUE OF SUMMONSES 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 ho 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: I under stand that the legal proceedings referred to are still pending. It would therefore not be proper for me to make a statement on the subject.
  MR. FLYNN: Why did the police institute these prosecutions instead of the owner of the farm who was entitled to do so?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no in formation on that subject. If the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper I will ascertain.

  LICENSING REGISTERS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the clerks of Licensing Magistrates are compelled by law to keep a register of the names of the owners of the freehold of licensed premises, and of the persons to whom licences have been granted; and, if so, whether he will cause a Return to be prepared of the owners and occupiers of

  1019
  licensed premises in each city, municipal borough, and Petty Sessional Division respectively, in England and Wales?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I suppose the hon. Member to refer to the register provided for by Section 36 of the Licensing Act of 1872. That register does not necessarily show the name of the freeholder. A Return such as the hon. Member suggests could be obtained only by applying to all the clerks to Licensing Justices throughout the Kingdom would take a long time to obtain and present, and would, in my opinion, be of doubtful utility.
  MR. STOREY: Might I call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that Clause 6 of the Bill we are now discussing turns upon the compensation to owners, and Amendments have been put down dealing with the case of the occupier? How can the House fairly discuss this question as between owner and occupier unless the Government furnish us with the information which is in their hands as to owners and occupiers? On a recent occasion I asked the First Lord of the Treasury this question, and showed him the very Return we are now asking for in connection with Sunderland.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have pointed out to the hon. Member that the Return could only be made with great difficulty. If, however, it is possible to get the information in time for the discussion it shall be done.
  MR. STOREY: I shall be very glad to show the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the register kept by all clerks to the Licensing Justices.

  IRISH PUBLIC WORKS.
  MR. FOLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any money, and, if so, how much, has been expended in Ireland up to the present time in pursuance of the policy of the Government, announced by the Member for South Paddington, when Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House in 1886, and of the Report of the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works which was made the same year; and whether the Treasury are committed to any expenditure in pursuance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission; and, if so, to what extent and on what works, and when are the works
  1020
  likely to be commenced, and if the construction of the line from Galway to Clifden is included in any such expenditure?
  MR. JACKSON: It would not be possible for me to give a precise answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question. Such information could only be given after very careful inquiry, in answer to specific heads of inquiry. I presume, however, that the hon. Member desires to know whether a railway from Galway to Clifden is to be made. I am not able to answer this question at present, beyond saying that such a line is within the list of those scheduled by the Government, and I hope it may be found possible to make satisfactory arrangements for the making and working of such a line.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give some exact answer to the question. These questions are put down day after day, and we are unable to extract any answer from the Government. Surely it is possible to say how many millions of money have been spent upon public works since that celebrated declaration of policy.
  DR. KENNY: Has a single shilling been spent on works?
  MR. JACKSON: It is not possible for me to give any accurate information on such short notice on a question of this kind. There might be a difference of opinion as to whether certain expenses are in pursuance of the policy of the Government announced in 1886. I am perfectly willing to give any information that I can if the hon. Member will put his question in a form which can be answered.
  DE. KENNY: Has any money at all been expended? That is a specific question.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes; I certainly can say that some money has been expended in connection with the preparation of certain schemes for drainage in Ireland. The Bills were introduced last Session, but the Government were unable to pass them.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Has there not been an expenditure on the drainage of the Suck?
  MR. JACKSON: A Bill has been passed authorising the expenditure of a contribution of £50,000.

  DEDUCTIONS FROM MINERS' WAGES.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at some coal mines in York shire the deductions made from the coal getter's wage, under "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," Section 14, Sub section 2, are often in excess of the amount actually paid to the check-weigher; and whether he will instruct the Inspector of Mines to inquire and report as to the disposal of any surplus?
  MR. MATTHEWS: So far as any information has reached me, I gather that at the request of the men employed at certain collieries in Yorkshire, the owners have been in the habit of making certain deductions from the wages of the men, which have been handed over to the treasurer of the men for the purpose of paying the expenses of the checkweighor as authorised by the Coal Mines Regulation Act. With regard to any surplus moneys arising out of such transactions, that is a matter to be dealt with by mutual arrangement between the owners and the men, and is not one in which I have any power to interfere.

  NEW TIPPERARY.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a body of people, who had assembled in New Tipperary on Wednesday last, and had lighted a bon fire to express their joy at Mr. O'Brien's marriage, were charged and batoned by the police, who extinguished the fire and carried off a flag which the people had set up; and, if so, on what grounds they acted? I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, on the occasion of this charge, when the police batoned these people, they struck two women; whether, on the flagstaff having been thrown down into the fire, a woman who was endeavouring to extinguish it was struck by a policeman; whether it it is true that a policeman presented a revolver in the face of a man who was standing inside his own hall-door; and whether the flagstaff, having been re-erected by the Nationalists, has been again cut down by the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the various supplementary questions,
  1022
  I shall be glad to give the hon. Member any information if he will put them on the Paper. I may say, however, that I gather that the flagstaff the hon. Member alluded to was not in the same place as the bonfire, but in another part of the town. With regard to the question on the Paper, lam informed that fires were lighted in the public streets and caused obstruction. It is not the case that people were charged and batoned; as a matter of fact, no batons were drawn by the police.
  MR. SEXTON: Did the Local Body of Town Commissioners raise any objection to the celebration?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that they did, but I imagine the police in the ordinary discharge of their duty would not wait for such a representation.
  MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that is the common practice to light bonfires at night in country towns in Ireland, and can there be any obstruction of the streets when the entire population of the town, without exception, are parties to the lighting of the fire?
  MR. PARNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of brutal treatment merely for the purpose of putting out a bonfire?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot regard as brutal the putting out of lighted bonfires in the public streets. Of course, if the entire population are engaged in having an evening round the bonfire, it cannot be said they were incommoded by it. But there may have been persons in the town who were not parties to what was going on.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Were not the bonfires lighted after dark, when all traffic was ended?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know what the practice may be in country towns in Ireland, but certainly the practice in England is to light bonfires after dark. But traffic in England is not ended after dark.
  MR. DILLON: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been in an Irish country town?
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion): Was not the reason for the police putting the bonfire out that it was lit in honour of Mr. O'Brien's marriage?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I think not.

  CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS IN SCOTCH POOR HOUSES.
  MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is lawful for Parochial Boards in Scotland (should they deem it expedient) to appoint a Roman Catholic chaplain in poorhouses in Scotland, and to allow him a suitable remuneration, or whether it is illegal to appoint as chaplain any person other than a clergy man of the Established Church?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There is no statutory provision on this subject; but I am not prepared to say that it would be illegal for a Parochial Board to remunerate a Roman Catholic clergyman for his attendance on inmates of that persuasion in cases where the number of such inmates is considerable.

  POLICE SHADOWING IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 23rd ultimo, two policemen named respectively Gurry and Linane, followed Mr. John Cullinane, Mr. R. Prowen, and Mr. B. Gill into the shop of Mr. J. A. Carew, of Tipperary; that when they retired into an inner room they were again followed by the policemen; also when they proceeded upstairs to the private drawing room, on the invitation of the proprietor, the policemen followed, and burst in the door which had been closed against them, and remained in the room for the time of 25 minutes against the protests of the proprietor of the house, using insulting language; and by what authority do the police follow these gentlemen, and had they any warrant for breaking open the door of the house?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The two police men referred to entered the house because Cullinane is a man who is actively engaged in organising boycotting and other illegal practices in the district. The shop referred to is a public house. The police did not enter into any private room, but that part of the house which is open to the public. They did not burst in any door, neither was any insulting language used by them.
  MR. DILLON: On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman state that Mr. Cullinane is actively engaged in organising boycotting in that district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He is not only engaged in illegal practices, but I believe he is the paid agent for these purposes of an Organisation with which the hon. Member is connected.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: What reason has the right hon. Gentleman for stating that Mr. Cullinane is the paid agent of an organisation engaged in boycotting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Reasons which I believe to be adequate.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman state them to the House?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I will now ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether com plaints have reached him that on the 7th inst when Mr. Gill, Mr. John Kelly, Mr. 0. B. Dalton, and Mr. Cullinane stood on the street of Tipperary to ask Mr. Ronan, Chairman of the Town Commissioners, how his sick child was, two policemen named Gurry and Linane stood between them and remained there in spite of those gentlemen's protests; that when they went into the shop of Mr. Ronan to pursue their inquiries, the police tried to force their way in against the protest of Mr. Ronan's relative, Mr. Kernick, to whom they said, "How dare you talk to us, you puppy;" and subsequently they followed, using such language as, "We are in nice company now," "Don't mind that class," "Go on Jack, we know you," "Get on Gill, we know your character;" and if he can state how long it is intended that these gentlemen shall be thus followed by the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabu lary Authorities report that the con stables mentioned were following Mr. Cullinane in consequence of the active part he is taking in organising boycotting and other illegal practices in the districts. The police state that they did not interfere with the conversation, nor is it the case that they attempted to enter the house, as alleged. They also state that no protest was made to them by any of Mr. Ronan's relatives, and that the language attributed to them is without the slightest foundation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Cannot the constabulary be instructed to keep away 10 yards or so, which would prevent their hearing the conversation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no desire to make the following by the police unnecessarily disagreeable—quite the contrary; but if conversation, organising, and boycotting are permitted in the public streets, the following would be rendered useless.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are we to under stand that the instructions to the constabulary are that they are to keep within earshot?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think that depends on the character of each case.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: When the right hon. Gentleman stated that the police did not interfere with the conversation of gentlemen in Tipperary, did he mean that with a policeman stationed on his right hand and another on his left a gentleman's conversation is not interfered with?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think I made the statement suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I said that no un necessary interference was intended.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it left to the discretion of the policemen to decide whether they shall remain within earshot of those whom they are following?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think not; I imagine that those who give the constabulary instructions would take notice of the particular circumstances of each case.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my question?
  MR. CONDON: Were specific instructions given to the Police Authorities to shadow my wife and another lady in Cashel, and to detail men to walk side by side with them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I only lay down general lines of policy in the matter. With regard to the last paragraph of the question on the Paper, of course these gentlemen would not be followed if they gave any indication whatever that they proposed to abstain from boycotting.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: If affidavits are sworn to the effect that the language stated in the question was used by the police, will the right hon. Gentleman take notice of it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will take notice of any matter to which my attention is called.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I will ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has been advised by the Irish Law Officers of the Crown that the police are legally entitled to follow about persons against whom they have no warrants, and against whom no proceedings whatever have been taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I apprehend that the manner in which the police are carrying out their duties is perfectly legal.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: That is not what I asked. Has the right hon. Gentleman been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that this course is legal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman means to ask whether I have, in a formal manner, obtained the opinion of the Law Officers, I must remind him that it is contrary to the universal practice to make public the confidential reports of the Law Officers. But if he means to ask whether I have taken pains to satisfy myself that the course pursued by the police in Ireland is legal, I have so satisfied myself.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: That was not my question. I am aware that it is not customary to give the House the confidential opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, but it is customary to tell the House whether the Law Officers have been consulted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to ask whether I have had a case stated for the opinion of the Irish Law Officers?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes; that is my question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not had the opinion of the Law Officers on a case stated, and it is not usual to have a I case stated unless there is some doubt as to the legality. I have taken pains to convince myself that there is no doubt, and, therefore, I have not made a formal request to have a case stated.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the instructions issued to the police on the Table of the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, it depends on the facts of each particular case what course is pursued, and I appre-

  1027
  hend that there is no general regulation covering the peculiarities of each case.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he had given such instructions?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman stated he had himself given general instructions. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will state what those instructions are?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am responsible for the general course pursued by the constabulary in Ireland, and I have no desire in any way to minimise that responsibility; but I am, naturally, not consulted as to the particular course to be taken by particular constables in proceedings with regard to particular individuals.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman add to his general instructions a direction to the effect that the constables are to keep out of ear shot. That is a most vital question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I am desirous of limiting as far as possible this method of dealing with crime, and I shall be most glad——
  MR. DILLON: You have no right to call it crime.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And I shall most gladly take advantage of any presumption that may arise in favour of any individual who is shadowed; but, having in view the terrible suffering produced by wholesale boycotting, I can not undertake altogether to dispense with it.
  MR. CLANCY: I will ask whether Mr. M'Crae, of Dundee, has been shadowed from Newbridge to Clongorey, and whether the rigid hon. Gentleman has any reason to suspect Mr. M'Crae of crime?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have never heard of Mr. M'Crae. It may argue myself unknown.
  MR. GILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state to the House in what manner this shadowing operates to prevent boycotting?
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will order the police in Ireland to discontinue the system of shadowing individuals? In asking this let me express a hope that as the right hon. Gentleman admits himself having directed this system, he will, after the
  1028
  Debate that has taken place, order it to be discontinued?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that I can do more than repeat the answer I have just given. No individuals are "shadowed" in Ireland unless they are known to be actively engaged in promoting boycotting and intimidation, or other crime. I am desirous, as far as possible, of limiting this method of dealing with crime, and will most gladly take advantage of any presumption that may arise in favour of any individuals so shadowed; but, having in view the terrible suffering produced by wholesale boycotting, I cannot undertake altogether to dispense with it.
  MR. DILLON: Then I say it is a brutal and abominable outrage, and if there is bloodshed it will rest on your head.
  MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman said he would gladly take ad vantage of any presumption in favour of the people who are shadowed. Will he also take advantage of the English presumption that every person accused of crime is innocent until ho is proved to be guilty?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that these people will not repeat the crime?
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentle man has no right to charge us with having committed crime.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. DILLONcontinued to address the' House, but the uproar was so great that what he said did not reach the Reporters' Gallery. He was, however, under stood to say:—The right hon. Gentle man has accused men of crime who are as innocent as the right hon. Gentleman himself is of crime. I ask him whether he will stand up and apologise to me for what he has said?
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman ought to apologise.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. DILLON: He must apologise to me.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is committing a breach of order which, in his excitement, possibly he has not noticed. But I am bound to point out to the House that when I rise it is customary for hon. Members to resume their seats. I was only going to ob serve that this series of questions are

  1029
  taking rather an argumentative form, and are really becoming a sort of Debate which gives rise to great excitement.
  MR. GILL: Balfour should not tell lies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I am at all responsible for producing the condition of heat in which the House finds itself by the character of my answers I greatly regret it, and I will substitute for the word "crime" the words "boycotting" and "intimidation" I have no doubt as to the description that should be applied to those offences; but as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does not consider those offences to be crimes, I will substitute the words themselves.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: With regard to this new method of shadowing, which the right Gentleman says is for the purpose of preventing intimidation, I will ask him whether lie proposes to apply it to the land agents who are suspected of putting pressure on tenants under threat of eviction to agree to buy under the Ashbourne Act.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be glad to stop intimidation in Ireland by whomsoever or on whomsoever. With regard to the statement that "shadowing" is a new practice, I understand that it was largely indulged in by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he was Chief Secretary.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to lay on the Table an account of the cases in which the practice was indulged in by his predecessors?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider it.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: As the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the word "crime," perhaps he will find it consistent with good taste to apologise for the insult offered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not with draw the word "crime." I stated that the offences against which this practice was used were largely boycotting and intimidation. I consider these to be serious crimes, but I was unwilling to beg the question by the use of a particular term.
  MR. OLNINGHAME GRAHAM: I may ask whether, in view of the extraordinary excitement manifested by the Front Opposition
  1030
  Bench on this matter, the right hon. Gentleman or the Home Secretary can state whether this shadowing was not indulged in after the disturbances in London two years ago; and whether, on that occasion, the Front Opposition Bench gave tongue at all?
  MR. JOHNSTON: I rise to order. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gill) has several times accused the right hon. Gentleman of telling lies.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am not aware of such observations made across the floor of the House, but if they were made, I should consider them as being highly un parliamentary; and, in the interests of order, if any further information is desired I appeal to the House that it may be asked for in the form of regular questions, so that conduct which is improper and unbecoming may be avoided.
  THE EARL OF CAVAN: As shadowing has been customary in the case of deputations sent over to Ireland from England will the right hon. Gentle man take care that in the case of the other deputations, against the members of which no offences are alleged, there shall be no renewal of this practice?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the noble Lord is mistaken in supposing that the deputations have been shadowed. I rather think too much importance has been attached to their proceedings.
  MR. DILLONsubsequently rose and said: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and express my regret for not resuming my seat. I was labouring under very groat irritation at the time.

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps he proposes to take upon the definite and categorical charges of misconduct, violence, and cruelty advanced against members of the Irish Constabulary Force on duty at Cashel, on Tuesday the 27th ultimo and succeeding* days, by the Cashel Town Commissioners, in a Report of that body, an abstract of which was forwarded on Friday last to him? I may say that I have received a telegram from the Town Clerk of Cashel saying he can produce persons to give evidence who took no part in the meeting, and also adding he is authorised to

  1031
  state that the Commissioners whose names are not appended to the Report were from home when the signatures were affixed, or they would have signed it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen the Report of the Cashel Town Commissioners to which the hon. Gentle man refers; but I am obliged to his courtesy for sending me an abstract of it. I do not know that it is necessary for me to give any answer to his question beyond that which I gave in answer to a similar question put by him on Thursday last. But I would point out to him that in two, at least, cases of alleged violence on the part of the police the name of the con stable incriminated appears to be known. Under these circumstances, it is open to the persons aggrieved either to bring an action or to prosecute. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has before him papers relating to the alleged action of the Member for East Tipperary, and is considering whether there is evidence requiring him to institute proceedings against him. It is possible, therefore, that there may be legal inquiry bearing upon the Report of the Town Commissioners, on which they will be able to give evidence upon oath.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not the case that when such an action was brought the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Exchequer Division and changed the venue to the North of Ireland?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In connection with this disturbance, has any person been treated in hospital or infirmary either in Tipperary or Cashel?
  MR. SEXTON: Have not 16 or 17 specific charges of misconduct been made against the police by the Commissioner of the town? I should like to draw attention to the facts of one charge, namely, that strange policemen, who were imported, had their numbers re moved from their uniforms so as to prevent identification. Does not this show collusion between individual con stables and the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that some eight constables imported from Waterford did have their numbers removed. In boroughs the police are numbered. I cannot say I think the proceeding was wise.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that his views are communicated to the officer responsible for the act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He will see my answer in the Press. As to the question of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, I will make inquiries. So far as my know ledge goes, nobody has had to remain in hospital.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police officers in Ireland, like himself, affect not to read the newspapers?
  MR. CLANCY: If actions' are brought against the police will the Government defray the cost of the defence?
  MR. M. HEALY: And will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the Bench trying the case shall not be packed with his Removables?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine the cases would go before a Jury, and not before Resident Magistrates.
  MR. CLANCY: But do the Government intend to bear the cost of defending the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that question without notice. Probably, if the prosecutions were successful, the Government would not. The ordinary course will be pursued.
  MR. PARNELL: Will the Government undertake not to pay the cost of defending the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can only repeat that the ordinary course will be pursued.

  IRELAND—CENTRAL CONSTABULARY BARRACKS, BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the money for the erection of Central Police Barracks in Belfast was voted; when the agreement with the Corporation of Belfast for the site was completed; and whether the work of erection has yet begun; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
  MR. JACKSON: Funds are provided in the Estimates for the current year; but have not yet been voted. The agreement for the acquisition of the site has not yet been completed, and as possession cannot be obtained till the 30th November next, the works cannot be begun.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a pattern maker named Barton, till recently employed in the Woolwich Arsenal, was discharged on the 3rd June, at one day's notice, on the ground of alleged slackness of work, without any extra pay or other compensation; how long had the man been employed in the Arsenal; did he, in the course of his work, receive severe injuries, which caused the loss of two fingers of his left hand, some 13 months ago; is it not the practice that when men have to be discharged for slackness of work at the Arsenal those who have met with accidents are by preference retained; whether, after his accident, a foreman sent for him and requested him to sign papers debarring him from receiving compensation for his injuries, and on the man asking what compensation he would receive that information was refused; what time was allowed him for deliberation or consultation with his friends as to whether he would be well advised in signing for or against compensation; did the fact that this man took the chair at a meeting in support of Mr. Martin Edmunds, the Liberal candidate for Woolwich, and formed a Union of Arsenal Labourers, constitute an offence in the eyes of the Arsenal Authorities; and whether he will now consider Barton's case, with a view to his re instatement or compensation for the injuries he has received?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The pattern maker, named Barton, was discharged as stated with other men, after a service of one year and eight months. Thirteen months ago he lost the little finger of his left hand. There is no rule as to the retention of men who have met with accidents. Barton was discharged in a necessary reduction as one of the men with shortest service, and therefore least claim to be retained. At the time of his accident he was, according to custom, called upon to decide whether he would continue on his then rating or accept a reduced rating and have his case put for ward for compensation. He was given the remainder of the day for decision. As to this, I may perhaps explain that if a man continues able to earn his full
  1034
  wages the Treasury will not regard it as a case for compensation. The fact of the man taking the chair at a political meeting was not even known to the authorities in the Arsenal. It is not considered that Barton has any claim on the Department.

  MEETINGS OF POST OFFICE EMPLOYÉS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the invitation of a Member of Parliament by Post Office employés to assist them in their deliberations at a meeting other wise legitimate will constitute a breach of the Rules of the Service?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): As I have stated more than once, one of the conditions on which I relaxed the Rule respecting meetings concerning official questions outside the Post Office buildings, was that they should be confined to Post Office servants, and to those Post Office servants only, who were directly interested in the matter or matters to be discussed. I must leave it to the hon. Member's own intelligence to decide for himself whether it would be in accordance with this condition to invite a Member of Parliament to attend.
  MR. CONYBEARE: As the right hon. Gentlemen's answer precludes hon. Members from attending these meetings, I beg to ask whether he proposes to take any action against some two or three hundred Post Office officials, whom I had the honour of addressing at the Southwark Radical Club last night?
  MR. RAIKES: I must ask for notice of that question.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to state what hon. Member or Members it was, and when he alleges that they at any meetings incited Post Office employás to contravene the Rules of the Service?
  MR. RAIKES: I do not remember making any such statement. I said that I hoped I might rely on the co-operation of hon. Members not to do such a thing.

  IRELAND-CHARGES AGAINST THE POLICE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether civil processes for damages have been issued by Mr.

  1035
  Thomas Barry, P.L.G., against District Inspector Ball and Sergeant R.I.C., Currabeha, Fermoy, in which the defendants are charged with assaulting and wounding the plaintiff; and whether, since plaintiff announced his intention of proceeding by civil bill for the assault, he Las been served with a summons for having obstructed the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As legal proceedings are pending it would not be proper for me to enter into details of the case, though I may say that the Report I have received does not agree with the allegation in the question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is this man to be kept in gaol in order to prevent him proceeding with his case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt every facility would be given him.
  MR. CLANCY: Is this one of the cases in which the Government will defend the police?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The point is this This person was assaulted by the police, and he took proceedings in order to vindicate himself. The police retaliated by prosecuting him. Now, I ask what are the dates of the respective proceedings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Member knows he can easily ascertain the dates for himself.
  MR. FLYNN: Has this man been served with a summons under the Crimes Act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say. I will ascertain.

  IRISH DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire land whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the correspondence between the Grand Jury of the County of Cork and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on the subject of the nomination by the Grand Jury of representatives on the Board of the District Lunatic Asylum?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no object to be gained by such a course. The Grand Jury were entitled to 11 representatives. They submitted 20 names to the Lord Lieutenant from among which their representatives might be selected.

  THE CHARGE AGAINST SERGEANT LORD.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the Report furnished to him in the case of charges of forgery and fraud made by John Maher, of Lorrha, against Sergeant Lord, of that station, the fact is stated that some time after Maher had made his com plaint to the Inspector General of Constabulary he was waited on by Mr. Doolan, J.P., with an offer of the money that Lord had previously refused to pay him; and whether, in view of this pre sumptive evidence that the amount claimed was due, and that Sergeant Lord was guilty of fraud on the Police Authorities by returning as a voucher a forged receipt for the money that had not been paid, the Government will direct the Attorney General to consider the case with a view to the vindication of justice?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Police Authorities are making inquiry into this matter.

  THE POSTMEN'S MEETING AT CLERKENWELL.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if all the postmen who attended the meeting on Clerkenwell Green are to be required to give a written declaration that they will abstain from attending similar meetings, as considerable doubt exists on this subject?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL: The postmen in question will be required to promise that they will not again act in defiance of Official Regulations; but it may, perhaps, be well again to point out to the hon. Member that these relate only to meetings for the discussion of official matters, and that postmen are as free as any other persons to attend public meetings, where questions of public interest are discussed, outside the hours of official duty.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a meeting of postmen to discuss the subject of their wages comes under the Regulations as to discussing official questions?
  MR. RAIKES: Certainly, Sir. I do.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. JORDAN (Clare, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu tenant of Ireland if he will give the names of the local managers of the two national schools in Clare to which Michael O'Brien's children were refused admission, namely, Armagh, 8528, National School, and Mullagh, 3928; and the name of the manager of Coore National School to which O'Brien is referred as being conveniently situated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Com missioners of National Education report that the Rev. J. Cahir, P.P., is the manager of each of the three National Schools mentioned.
  MR. JORDAN: Is it not a fact that since the question was raised five children—two of them children of a police man,—have been admitted to the Armagh school?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information on that point.

  HOLDERS OF TOWN PARKS IN IRELAND.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will introduce into the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill a pro vision to give relief to the holders of town parks in Ireland, so as to enable them to have fair rents fixed in respect of their holdings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the hon. Member is aware, the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill does not deal with the question of fair rents, nor can I extend its scope by introducing any such questions into it. Adequate relief seems to be given to the holders of town parks by permitting them to purchase under the Act.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Are we to take it the holders of town parks are to expect no further reliefs from the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think that a relief which enabled them to become owners of the holding at a reduction of 20 per cent, on the rental is not an inconsiderable measure of relief.

  CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will state the maximum number of hours'
  1038
  duty and overtime performed by a telegraph clerk in the Central Telegraph Office for the seven days ending 8th instant; whether clerks on duty for five days from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m. are brought on overtime on the sixth day and also on Sundays; whether clerks, after performing duty from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., are placed on overtime from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and in some cases to even a later hour; whether these clerks are again on duty at 8 p.m. thus performing 15 hours out of the 24 hours; whether there is less work performed in June than in July or August; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking, with out delay, as many probationers from the Telegraph School as will give substantial relief to the overworked clerks?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the first question of the hon. Member, I have to state that the maximum number of hours of duty and overtime combined performed by a telegraphist in the Central Telegraph Office during the seven days ended the 8th instant was 81¾ A part of this was, I understand, performed under a private arrangement as substitute for two other telegraphists. The answer to the next three questions is in the affirmative. But, except as regards the Sunday duty—which comes round once in four or five weeks—the performance of the over time is quite voluntary. Practically, there is not much difference between the amount of work performed in June as compared with the other two months mentioned by the hon. Member. A statement of the comparative number of telegrams in each month will be found in the Appendix to the Reports of the Postmaster General, which are laid before Parliament. I do not myself think it desirable that a telegraphist who has been on duty for 11 hours should resume work at so short an interval as four hours. This was one of the points very fairly urged by the deputation of telegraphists whom I received a short time ago, and I shall be very glad if I can take measures to mitigate what I certainly regard as a hardship.

  PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the warders in English prisons are required during the hours

  1039
  when they are off duty to appear in uniform outside the prison walls?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Prison Directors that there is an Order requiring the warders in English Convict Prisons when off duty to appear in uniform outside the prison walls. No General Order has been made by the Prison Commissioners on the subject applicable to local prisons. I am not aware that the practice entails any hardship on the men.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is the Rule universally enforced?
  MR. MATTHEWS: So far as I am aware it is.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I will now ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu tenant of Ireland whether he will consent to receive evidence from warders in Irish prisons showing that the Rule which re quires them always to be in uniform, even when off duty does entail hardship upon them; and whether, if particular facts are laid before him, he will indemnify any warders who may give such, evidence against dismissal or other punishment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that they entertain no doubt whatever that the present arrangement is not attended with any hardship.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I can give the right hon. Gentleman evidence that it does entail hardship. If the facts are laid before him, will he indemnify warders who may give evidence and guarantee them against the brutal ill-treatment of the Prisons Board? I must press this question.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can lay his facts before the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CONYBEARE: But I am asking facilities for bringing the facts forward.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must be aware there is nothing to prevent his laying his facts before the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I will repeat my question another day.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that the rule was not enforced until a suit of clothes was taken into prison to Mr. W. O'Brien?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether that statement of the date is accurate.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I was in prison at the time, and I know it to be the fact.

  CLERKS IN THE CUSTOMS.
  MR. P. M'DONALD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an examination for clerkships in the Customs has been held since 1877; and when it is expected the next examination for that Department will be hold in Ireland?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Examinations for out port clerkships, the only special examinations for clerkships, that are held for the Customs Service, were held in August, 1880, and in April, 1886. Fresh appointments to such offices are not at present required, and it is not probable that any examination will be held for some time.

  ALLEGED POLICE "SHADOWING" AT AEKLOW.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN(for Mr. J. REDMOND, Wexford, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the fair of Arklow on the 10th instant, two respectable men, named Peter M'Carthy and Henry Birthwistle, were shadowed by Constable Johnson through out the whole day, and the constable on one occasion shoved against them and endeavoured to provoke an assault; whether John Millen, who was offering-mats for sale, was also shadowed, and afterwards arrested; and whether he will state the crime of which these men were suspected?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Peter M'Carthy and John Millen were closely watched by the police at Arklow fair on the occasion mentioned. Both of them had previously been convicted of intimidation, and there was ground for supposing that they were at the fair for the purpose of boycotting. Millen was arrested under the Pedlars Act for hawking without a licence, a charge to which he pleaded guilty. It does not appear that Henry Birthwistle was watched, except for a few minutes when he was in company with M'Carthy.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask what is the rank of the officer in Ireland who is allowed to dictate the degree of shadowing that is to be practised by the police?
  MR. GILL: As this is a matter of importance, I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will state to the House in what manner this method of shadowing operates to prevent boycotting in Ireland, because it is not the fact——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of argument.
  MR. SEXTON: Having given instructions on this matter, has the right hon. Gentleman not informed himself of the rank and responsibility of the officer who dictates this shadowing?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think I am bound to keep in my mind the names of all the officers who give instructions in this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question on the subject on the Paper.

  THE CASE OF JOHN MURPHY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the case of John Murphy, an emergency man, charged at last Conna Petty Sessions (County Cork) with "discharging a revolver on the public road," whether the mitigated penalty of £2 10s. and costs imposed on him by Colonel Longbourne, R.M., was reduced still further by the authorities; and, if so, by whom it was reduced, and for what reason; are the authorities aware that this man was convicted of sheep stealing; and will inquiries be made in future before granting licences to carry revolvers or other firearms?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The proceedings in this case were at the suit of the Excise Authorities. I understand that a recommendation for a remission of the penalty has been made to them, but I am not aware of the result. It is not a fact that Murphy was convicted of sheep stealing. He was accused of that offence, but the charge was dismissed.

  MARRIAGES IN MALTA.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is understood that mixed marriages that have taken place in Malta otherwise than in accordance with the rites of the Roman Catholic
  1042
  Church will, by the intended project of law, be declared valid only in cases, where the ceremony has been performed by a clergyman of the Church of Eng land; and whether the intention is to declare all such marriages in the past valid, whether the ceremony has been conducted by Church of England ministers or by ministers of other bodies?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: As regards the validation of past marriages in Malta, it is not intended to make any distinction between marriages celebrated by clergymen of the Church of England and those celebrated by ministers of other religious denominations.

  EVICTIONS ON THE OLPHERT ESTATE.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the presence of the forces of the Crown have been applied for at the evictions of the remaining tenants on the Olphert estate, in the Falcarragh district; and whether he is aware that these tenants, like the tenants on the Swiney and Stewart estates, have been recipients of relief during the past 12 months of seed to crop their lands and of food for their families, and that when rendered homeless they will have no escape from starvation except the workhouse of the Dunfanaghy Union, of which the evicting landlord, Mr. Olphert, is chairman?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Protection has been applied for and granted in respect of the execution of eviction decrees in the case of certain tenants on the Olphert estate, where the Plan of Campaign is in operation. I am informed that these tenants have not been the recipients of relief for their families or of seed to crop their land in the last 12 months.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. FLYNN (for Dr. TANNER): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the modus vivendi agreed upon by the French and British Governments will he enforced by the latter in the face of the refusal of the Newfoundland Legislature and people to sanction the arrangement?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The objections of the Newfoundland Legislature seem to be mainly founded on a mistaken

  1043
  notion that the modus vivendi tends to impair their rights, or to admit claims on the part of France hitherto not acknowledged. This is not the case, as all rights on both sides are expressly reserved. Some understanding as to the mode of procedure for this reason is absolutely necessary, and Her Majesty's Government must act upon that which has been arranged with the French Government. But Her Majesty's naval officers will endeavour to carry it into effect with all possible regard for the interests of the colony and of the individuals who may be affected. I may add that from recent telegraphic correspondence it would seem that the Joint Committee of both Houses of the Colonial Legislature, while protesting against the French claim to erect any lobster factory, were prepared to admit in practice the main provisions of the modus vivendi in deference to the wishes of Her Majesty's Government.

  CATHOLIC PRISONERS IN DERRY GAOL.
  MR. CONYBEABE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state for each of the months since September last the number of Catholic prisoners confined in Derry Gaol and the terms for which they have been imprisoned; whether any Catholic clergyman has, during that period, been permitted to visit such prisoners; has any Catholic service been conducted in the prison chapel during that period; and whether he still refuses to sanction the appointment by the Bishop of the Diocese to the prison chaplaincy of such clergyman as the Bishop may see fit to nominate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I received notice of this question too late to obtain information. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down for to morrow.

  DERRY GAOL.
  MR. HARRISON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an official from the English Prison Department visited Derry Gaol in the autumn of 1889 with a view to professionally examining into its sanitary condition; if so, whether he is prepared to lay this officials' Report upon the Table of the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member will put the question down for this day week, I shall be able to say whether or not I can lay the Report on the Table.

  SCOTCH CROFTERS.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask whether the Government are prepared to extend to crofters in Scotland the same facilities for becoming owners of their holdings as are proposed to be conferred on the tenants in Ireland under the Purchase of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill presently before the House?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Government are not prepared to extend to crofters in Scotland similar provisions to those contained in the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Bill.

  OFFENCES UNDER 38 AND 39 VIC., CAP. 86.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether each of the sub-sections of Section 7 of the Act 38 and 39 Vic, cap. 86, constitute a separate offence under that section and are cumulative in their application, or whether each of said sub-sections are merely different modes which, singly or together, constitute the offence set forth in said section, liable to a penalty not exceeding £20 or three months' imprisonment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The question is one of abstract law; but, in my opinion, the sub-section constitutes a separate offence, for which a prosecution could be instituted.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.
  MR. DIXON—HARTLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Treasury to contribute to industrial schools in the same manner and to the same extent as heretofore?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA SURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The passing of the Industrial Schools Bill now before Parliament may involve some re adjustment of the rate of payment to these schools, but no such re-adjustment will be made without full notice to this House.

  OFFENDERS AGAINST THE VACCINATION ACTS.
  MR. CHAINING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie is aware that William Cheney, of Rushden, who was sent to Northampton Gaol on 29th May for seven days in default of a fine for non compliance with the Vaccination Acts, was compelled to work three hours a day on the treadmill in company with men convicted for thefts, to pick two pounds of oakum daily, and to use a plank bed, and was given as prison food black bread and water and skilly only; whether he is aware that Cheney was suffering from a weak leg owing to rheumatic fever, and that the oakum given him to pick tore his fingers, and was ordered to be removed by the head warder as unfit for punishment work; whether this scale of punishment and diet is permissible under the present law; whether he is aware that, in some similar cases, compensation has been recovered from Governors of gaols when an action for damages has been brought; and whether, if the treatment specified is legal, he will take steps, either by legislation or by representation to Prison Authorities, to mitigate the prison treatment of prisoners under the Vaccination Acts?
  MR. MATTHEWS: W. Cheney was sentenced by the Magistrate to seven days' imprisonment with hard labour in default of payment of a fine and costs; and, under the warrant of commitment, he received the scale of punishment and the diet which are prescribed by the Prison Statutes and Rules. I am, however, advised that the Magistrate exceeded his powers in awarding hard labour under the Vaccination Acts, and I have requested the Treasury Solicitor to consider the matter of Cheney's complaint.
  MR. CHANNTNG: Will the question of compensation be considered?
  MR. PICTON: Since this is not the first case in which a misunderstanding has arisen about prisoners under the Vaccination Acts, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inform Magistrates all over the country that they can not inflict hard labour in such cases.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I really think that the knowledge that the Vaccination Acts do not authorise hard labour is very general.

  LOCAL TAXATION BILL.
  MR. SUMMERS: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is true, as stated in some news papers, that the Government have ex pressed their willingness to appoint a Select Committee next year to inquire into the subject of compensation; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of withdrawing those clauses in the Local Taxation Bill which provides that payments may be made by the County Councils for the extinction of licences, and postpone the consideration of the subject until after the Select Committee has reported?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: A large section of the Government's supporters are desirous that a Committee should care fully examine the licensing question, and notably some proposals of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington. The Government are perfectly willing, if the House should desire it, to appoint a Committee for this purpose, and, as far as they are concerned, they will afford facilities for the inquiry. It is, however, quite impossible for the Government to postpone the consideration of the clauses referred to until the Report of such a Committee is issued. I can only say, in regard to the Bill before the House, that it does not refer to the question of compensation in the sense which I attach to the word. It rather gives power to Local Authorities, if they wish, and not otherwise, to enter into negotiations for the purchase of licences, and it does not—I say it with all respect to those who differ from me—touch the principle of compensation.

  MR. MONRO'S RESIGNATION.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Home Secretary if he will state, for the convenience of hon. Members, whether the Police Bill, which has been circulated among Members to-day, is in the same form as when it was submitted to the Chief Commissioner of Police?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think it is right for the hon. Member to inquire into all the different stages

  1047
  through which a Bill has passed; and, therefore, the only reply I can make is to decline to answer his question. I hops hon. Members will not think this is a laughing matter. It may, no doubt, be necessary for me, when the discussion to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby referred comes on, to make a statement to the House, and to give information, as I am always happy to do, in reply to questions which may be legitimately asked, in regard to certain points and certain matters contained in the draft Bill which was first sent confidentially to the Chief Commissioner for his consideration. I do not think a question on this subject, put in a general form and without notice, ought to be answered.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If the rule which the right hon. Gentleman has just laid down is to be a general rule, I would ask him to consider whether in the letter which he read the other day in this House he did not use that Bill for the purpose of laying the blame on Mr. Monro, the Chief Commissioner, in reference to that Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: Order, order!] Who is calling me to order? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture has not yet been appointed Speaker of this House. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. CHAPLIN: I never opened my mouth.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I would submit to the Home Secretary that an answer to the question which has been put to him is due to Mr. Monro.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The answer which I gave to the House I certainly did not imagine to be unfavourable to Mr. Monro, inasmuch as I read entirely Mr. Monro's own letter. I hope I may, without committing an indiscretion, say that the Bill submitted to Mr. Monro was at least as favourable to the police as the Bill now on the Table of the House.

  THE INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury—and if he is unable to answer now I would ask him to consider it with a view to giving an answer to-morrow—whether he can fix a date for taking the Indian Councils Bill, especially as I understand it was one of the matters the Prime Minister
  1048
  referred to the other day as of primary importance?
  MR. J. MACLEAN: Would the Government consider the expediency of putting down this Bill as the first Order of the Day on a particular date, instead of relegating it to the fag-end of the evening, when provisions of importance cannot be adequately discussed?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already said that I am fully aware of the importance of the measure to which the hon. Members refer. I fully realise its very great importance, but at the present moment it is impossible for me to name a date. I will include this subject in the statement I shall have to make to morrow.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS IN IRELAND.
  MR SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works in Ireland, when applied to for a loan under the Public Works Loans (Tramways) (Ireland) Act by the Mitchelstown and Fermoy Railway Company, on 24th August, 1889, replied, under date of 27th August, 1889, asking for the nature of the security proposed; and whether, after having been informed of the nature of the said security, they wrote under date 10th September, 1889, saying they were precluded by a Treasury Minute from making such advances?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the reply of the Board of Works, dated 14th September, stated that "the Treasury have decided to make no further loans on security of shares."
  MR. CLANCY: Are we distinctly to understand that up to the present date no grant has been sanctioned for any rail way scheme in Donegal under the Light Railways Act of last year?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member's question means whether any formal assent of the Treasury has been given, my answer is in the negative.
  MR. CLANCY: Are the West Done gal Railway Company justified in announcing to the public that on the 26th of June next, at a special meeting of the Company, the confirmation will be pro posed of an agreement between them and the Treasury for the construction of a light railway from Donegal to Killybeg?
  MR. JACKSON: There is nothing in consistent in that announcement with what I have stated. I think the railway company are taking a very sanguine view in assuming that the negotiations will be successful.
  MR. CLANCY: Is this the Barton-Price scheme?
  MR. JACKSON: I think my answer is in the affirmative.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now say whether the Government intend to ask the House to pass the Land Purchase Bill this year; and what proposal, if any, they will make in regard to the business of the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have every reason to believe that I shall be in a position to-morrow to make a statement to the House relative to the present condition of public business, and to give notice of proposals for the further facilitation of that business. In that statement will be included the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Bill, and therefore I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer his question till to-morrow.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What day will be fixed for the discussion of the question of the condition of the Metropolitan Police? The right hon. Gentleman promised to fix a day, and I submit that that day cannot be too early. Further, I would ask whether the correspondence will be laid upon the Table at once with reference to the resignation of Mr. Monro? Of course, the correspondence read by the Home Secretary will be laid, but I refer to further correspondence.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It would be more convenient that I should answer the question to-morrow in connection with the other statement that I may have to make.
  MR. CAINE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whateer it is in tended to take the Local Taxation Bill from day to day throughout this week?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope so, Sir.
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask when the Government Bill relating to police superannuation in Scotland will be introduced, and whether it will be in the hands of hon. Members before the clause
  1050
  in the Local Taxation Bill comes on for consideration?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is in course of preparation, but I am not able to state the exact day on which it will be introduced.

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

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): With reference to the question which just now was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, I have to say that if it should meet with the assent of the House, and not otherwise, the Government think there would be an advantage, after we have finished Clause 1, in postponing Clauses 2, 3, and 4. Clause 2 deals with Scotland; Clause 3 with Ireland; and Clause 4 with superannuation. Then Clause 5 deals with the extinction of licences in England. It seems to me, therefore, that it will be an advantage if we proceed to further consider the matter as it has been set out in Clause 5. I understand it is desired that the Bill for the superannuation of the police in Scotland should be in the hands of Members before Clause 2 is discussed. As I have already said, the proposed arrangement will only be made with the concurrence of the House generally.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: If the right hon. Gentleman got up to propose the postponement of all the clauses it would be a very reasonable proposal, especially after the announcement we have heard about the Committee, be cause, whatever the First Lord of the Treasury may say, we know, and everybody knows, that no Gentleman on those Benches ever argued this Bill except upon the principle of compensation. To say, therefore, that compensation has nothing to do with the Bill is absurd. Therefore, if the whole subject of compensation is one which demands a Committee, the proposal of

    1051
    the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been to postpone this clause and Clause 5. If, instead of that, the Government intend to force on this Bill, they ought to take it in its regular course.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): Under these circumstances, we shall adopt the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman and take the Bill in its regular course.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If I understand the recommendation of my right hon. Friend near me, it is not that we should proceed with the Bill as it stands, but that, in consequence of the intimation given by Her Majesty's Government as to inquiring into compensation at a future date, we should postpone the legislation as to compensation until we have inquired. That is the recommendation we should be inclined to make.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends as to whether there is not a marked difference between a general inquiry into the licensing question, including the question of compensation, and the proposals in this Bill. If nothing is to be done in the way of diminishing the temptation to intemperance until we have inquired into this great licensing question and the House has come to an agreement upon it, then I think the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will assume a great responsibility in postponing for so long a period a reform in which we desire to make some advance.
    MR. CAINE: I move to report Progress. The whole of the circumstances surrounding this Bill appear to be entirely changed. We now have information that the Government intend to bring forward proposals——
    MR. W. H. SMITH: What I stated was in answer to a question. Intimation had come from various quarters of the House that it was desirable that an inquiry should take place, and I said that the Government would be willing if the House wished it. We do not want it.
    MR. CAINE: I am aware of the words of the right hon. Gentleman, but there is absolutely no difference
    1052
    between a Motion brought forward by the Front Bench in favour of a Select Committee to inquire into any particular question and such a Motion brought forward by one of their supporters to whom the Government gives facilities. We have a right to know a good deal more than the right hon. Gentleman has told us so far. The First Lord of the Treasury states that he is willing to give facilities for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole question, and yet with that before us, and the probability of such a Committee being appointed next Session, the Government propose to go on with the Bill dealing with what a large number of hon. Members and a large number of the general public believe to lie at the basis of any reform of the Licensing Laws. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) has said, it is ridiculous to tell us that compensation is not discussed under this Bill. We are not only now told that this Select Committee is to be appointed, but we are also told that the Government wish to suspend certain clauses of the Bill. Do they think that we are going to tamely submit to Clause 1 being passed by the Committee while the other clauses are hung up in the mean time?
    MR. RITCHIE: We are not going to do that. It is merely with a view to facilitate business.
    MR. CAINE: I hope some detailed information will be given to us as to what the intentions of the Government really are. Who is to bring forward, this Motion for a Select Committee? When are the Government to give facilities for its discussion— today, tomorrow, or when? because if this House appoints this Committee——
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I said next Session, and I do not know who may bring it forward seven months hence.
    MR. CAINE: I do not wish to prolong the Debate. I shall certainly divide the House on my Motion unless some satisfactory explanation is given.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Caine.)
    SIR W. LAWSON: I rise to support the Motion of my hon. Friend the

    1053
    Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine.) It must be evident to the Committee that we stand in a totally different position to-day from what we were in before. A most remarkable statement has been made. The first intimation given of this new policy was made at a meeting' of Dissentient Liberals, presided over by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossen-dale (The Marquess of Hartington). The noble Marquess stated that he "understood from the Government that they were willing next year to appoint a Select Committee to consider the whole of the compensation question." I hope that the noble Marquess will get up and state to the Committee how he got this information from the Government. Why have not the Government been straight forward and come to the House with this information? The position is a most astounding one for the Government to be placed in. Here is a matter that is exciting more interest in the political world than has any matter in the past three years at least, and all we are told is that the Government themselves want more information. Why do they grant a Committee? No one has asked for one. We have our opinion: we do not want a Committee. Apparently this Bill is to proceed, although the Government say that more information is desired by somebody. There never was such a case of pronouncing sentence first and having the trial afterwards. It appears to me to be positively indecent. In my Parliamentary experience I have never known such an outrage, and I hope that the Committee will show its regard for honour and good sense by carrying the Motion.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I rise to say at once that I do not admit the accuracy of the report of the observations I made at the meeting the other day.
    SIR W. LAWSON: I took the words verbatim from the Times.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: My hon. Friend will see that no report has appeared in any paper which purported to be a verbatim report. I do not think it likely that I made use of the words that I was informed by the Government that it was intended to appoint a Select Committee. When my hon. Friend
    1054
    asks what is the source of my information, I cannot at this moment undertake to tell him with any accuracy. The fact is that I have heard for a long time discussion on the subject of the appointment of such a Committee—in fact, ever since the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) introduced his Bill— I have heard in all quarters of the House that it was a question of referring the proposals of the noble Lord to a Committee for consideration. Of course, it is quite possible that I might have had discussion with members of the Government, and I certainly never understood that they were adverse to the proposal of a Committee. But I had no authority from the Government at had time to state that they had decided to appoint such a Committee. I do not think, therefore, that the expression was one that I am likely to have used.
    MR. RITCHIE: There is no doubt whatever that the proposition with reference to a Committee emanated from the noble Lord the Member for Padding ton. It has been on more than one occasion mentioned as being desirable. The position of the Government in the matter is this—that if there is a desire to investigate the question of compensation, and how it ought to be applied, they do not see that it would be their duty to negative such a proposal. With reference to what the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth said as to the effect that such an announcement has on the position of the Government with regard to this Bill, I would admit that he had some ground for his remark if the Government had alleged that in any real sense their proposals were a settlement of the licensing question. As a matter of fact, the Government have again and again said that they regard the ultimate settlement of this question as only possible upon the lines of handing over the Licensing Authority to County Councils. It will be obvious that if such a proposal were made the whole question involved by compensation would have to be considered. But, so far as this Bill is concerned, the Government have always said that, pending the settlement of the question, they desire that some steps should be taken with the view of meeting the wishes of the Temperance Party by diminishing the opportunities for obtaining drink. We have denied that

    1055
    compensation, as it is understood, is within the four corners of this Bill, or that anything in this Bill will fetter the action of Parliament, or of a Committee, when the whole question comes to be considered.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has only repeated what he has said over and over again in the course of the discussion on this Bill, but that is not the question. We want to know how we stand with reference to this Committee. The First Lord of the Treasury and the noble Marquess have assumed an air of complete innocence with regard to the Committee, but that is not the way it was presented to mankind two days ago. The fact is that the Government were in a great difficulty. They wanted a majority. The Liberal Unionists were in a difficulty as to how they were going to vote, and the noble Marquess went down to the meeting to induce a number of Members of Parliament and the country to be satisfied with this Bill by assuring them that the Government were going to appoint a Committee. All the Government news papers said:—"Let us pass this Bill, because we are going to have a Committee on compensation, which will settle the whole thing." It was felt that as the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale had pledged the Government to a Committee, all the Liberal Unionists might safely vote with the Government on the Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury now gets up, and, with an air of supreme innocence, says that it is possible that seven months hence somebody may propose a Committee, and that is a substitute for the assurance of the noble Marquess. You cannot separate the noble Marquess and the Leader of the House, for they are carrying on together this business of purchasing public houses. The signature of the one is the signature of the other, and when the name of one is seen at the back of a Bill you know perfectly well that the other will be obliged to take it up. This Committee on compensation has been used as an argument for supporting the Bill. Either the Government, by themselves or their agents, are going to propose this Committee on compensation, or they are not. If they are going to do so it is a valid argument to report Progress; if they are not, then all the pretences
    1056
    that have been held forth to Members of the House on the matter are a mere delusion. We wish to know whether this Committee is a real thing or a sham.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentle man seems to know more about this Committee than the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale, or than I do myself. He says that it is a device by which votes are to be got for this Bill. I entirely deny anything of the kind, and surely the word of the noble Lord is sufficient when he says that he was not speaking for the Government. The noble Lord was aware of the fact—and stated how he became aware of the fact—that many hon. Gentlemen in this House, especially the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, were desirous, that a Committee should be appointed to consider the whole question of licensing. Now, that matter is one which is entirely independent of the Bill which is now before the House. No recommendation has been, or will be, made to hon. Gentlemen to vote for this Bill in consequence of that Committee. We are not responsible, nor at any time have we indicated an intention to make a proposal for such a Committee. All that we have said is that, so far as we are concerned, we believe that the examination of the question would be advantageous; we do not bind ourselves to a Committee, or to any reference to a Committee. We do not ask the House to vote for this Bill with reference to any recommendation in any way for a possible Committee, but we ask the House to dispose of the business of this Session before it enters, into the consideration of what the business of next Session will be.
    MR. ROWNTREE: The matter gets more perplexing the further we proceed. The Committee have a right to ask whether the announcement made at the meeting the other night was not made with some view of influencing votes.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I said distinctly not. [Hon. MEMBERS: How do you know.]
    MR. ROWNTREE: I think the inter position of the right hon. Gentleman is very interesting: but what I ask is whether, at a meeting which took place on Friday, this statement was not made with a view of influencing votes one way I or the other, in view of the Division which

    1057
    was to take place the same night. Secondly, I have to ask whether the report which was published, and which has been quoted, was not an official report issued by the Whips of the Party. But, quite apart from these questions, I wish to express the belief that it will be generally thought that temperance reformers in the country will be put in a very unfair position by the proceedings which have taken place if these clauses which they strongly object to are now going to be forced into law. It has been very properly stated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the proposals of the Government are no settlement of the temperance question. Yes, but there is something far more important than that. These proposals are, and have been, stated definitely by Ministers of the Crown to be a settlement of the principle of compensation. [Cries of "No, no."] Principal sup porters of Her Majesty's Ministry have asserted that over and over again. The Times has asserted it, and Ministers have asserted it. What did the President of the Board of Trade say at Bristol? The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "Brewers and publicans may surely not feel dissatisfied with die important recognition of the principle of compensation for licences taken away without any default of the holder."
    And that was said just on the eve of a bye election, just as the statement was made by the noble Lord the Member for Rossondale on the eve of an important Division. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ire land has spoken of this Bill as involving the question of compensation, and then in the speeches the President of the Local Government Board has made in the House he has twice quoted in sup port of the Bill Gentlemen who specially stated that they supported the measure because it involves the question of compensation. I maintain that the temperance reformers will be put in a most un fair position if the Government now attempt to assume that the Bill does not involve the question of compensation; indeed, such an announcement will only increase the heat and feeling of indignation with which the Bill is regarded in the country.
    THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The hon. Gentle man shifted his language as he went along. In the first place, he said the Government stated that the Bill settled the question of compensation, and after wards he said they held that the question of compensation was involved in the proposals. I will tell the Committee precisely how I regard the matter. We have not considered our proposal as settling the question of compensation, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and a large party out of doors, have read into this Bill that which is not there, and they have argued the whole time upon a principle which we have not admitted to be in our Bill at all. I have endeavoured to show, in replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition the other day, that they themselves are committed to the principle of vested rights and a legislative title. But I quoted the opinions of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to compensation. We replied to their various arguments, but the particular proposal which we make is entirely apart from the principle of compensation. We are; simply dealing with the extinction of licences as carried out in the same manner as that in which Municipal Corporations deal with the extinction of licences where they have purchased licensed honses for street improvements or other purposes. I am sorry to have got involved in any arguments of this nature, but this is the main point of misrepresentation. It is said that we recognise a vested interest for the first time by this Bill. But if it exists, we see that it has received recognition from Municipal Corporations, who, in the making of street improvements, have not waited until the end of the year, when the licence expired, and then told the Magistrates they were not going to require a licence in future, but have spent public money in acquiring the licence. They have spent the rates in buying these rights, because they knew that the community and the law would not have allowed them to do otherwise. Hon. Members must have forgot that this power granted to Municipal Corporations to buy up public houses must have received legislative sanction, because the provi-

    1059
    sions under which they bought must have been included in the improvement schemes. We, therefore, say that this Bill does not settle the question of com pensation; it acts upon the principle of the purchase of public houses, but lies outside the general question of licensing. There is a vast multitude of questions connected with licensing which lie out side this Bill, and we thought that in the various parts of the House there was a desire that so difficult a question should be submitted to inquiry. We do not want any further information for the purposes of this Bill, and, therefore, there is no necessity to postpone the consideration of this Bill to another Session. But if it is the desire generally of the House we feel that much light might be thrown on the various phases of a subject which is so extremely complicated. I repeat, however, that this Bill may and ought to proceed, and, if I may say so without offence to any hon. Members, will proceed quite apart from any question of this Committee.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been disposed to deny that this Bill embodies the principle of compensation, and to complain of us on this side of the House, who have contended that it does. Now, I have contended and argue still that in saying that it adopts the principle of compensation Ave are adopting the mildest term by which it is possible to describe this payment of public money. Possibly the right hon. Gentlemen the First Lord of the Treasury, who disclaims compensation, agrees with me that "the Public House Endowment Bill" is the true name that ought to be attached to the Bill, constitutes its true title, and alone describes its effects. When we are compelled to use the word compensation for Parliamentary and public purposes we mean payment out of taxation to be given to the owners of houses which have received annual licences as a condition of the non-renewal of those licences. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to-night argued that, setting aside the case of criminal misconduct, it would be monstrous to take away any licence without a guarantee for payment in return for it. That is what we mean by compensation. This is a Bill for compensation in that sense. We are
    1060
    not alone in this opinion, for a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman thinks with us. Sir M. Hicks Beach has stated, in addressing his constituents, "The brewer and the publican may surely not feel dissatisfied." By-the-by, on another point that right hon. Gentleman entirely differs as to the object of this Bill from the other occupants of the Government Bench. They said that the object of this Bill was not at all to satisfy the brewer and the publican, but that the object was to satisfy the Temperance Party. Of course we are bound to believe it. But then it is a very awkward circumstance for us, credulous and unsophisticated as we are, that a Cabinet Minister goes to his constituents and blows this out of the water, and says—
    "The brewer and the publican may surely not feel dissatisfied at the important recognition of the principle of compensation for licences taken away without any default on the part of the holder."
    After that the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman, fortunately for them in his momentary absence, get up and deny there is any compensation in this Bill. I will not enter into that question, as I wish to keep as strictly as I can to the Motion of my hon. Friend. He moves that we should report Progress, because we are not in condition to proceed with the discussion of enactments bearing on the question of withdrawal of licences, not for compensation, but only for payment of public money. That is his contention, and that is the contention I wish to support. The principal ground on which my hon. Friend bases his contention is that we have been told that a Committee is going to be appointed. I must frankly own the view which I, for one, cannot help taking, and which I believe is taken by not far short of 300 Members of this House, that the proposal of a Committee we look upon as an expedient simply and solely for relieving the Government from a difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury sees no connection what ever between the Committee and relieving the Government from a difficulty. Well, Sir, I place the most implicit belief on everything said by the right hon. Gentleman, even when that belief compels me to raise questions which I would rather not raise as to the acuteness of the intelligence and perception of the

    1061
    right hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Member for Rossen-dale shares what I will venture to call the blindness of the First Lord of the Treasury, and sees no connection between the suggestion of a Committee so benevolently made and the relief of the Government from a difficulty. However, that is not the main question, what the Government see or do not see, or what we see or do not see. We are at present strongly persuaded of the truth of this idea I have mentioned, and if we are wrong, then I hope you will remove it from our minds, that we may forget it. We are strongly persuaded of the truth of the view I have expressed, but, apart from that, the ground of the Motion now made is clear and strong. A question is raised about a Committee. At one time it appears to be a solid form before us, a real substantial thing; at other times it assumes a cloudy shape, and is in danger of vanishing into the thinnest air. But whatever it be, we have a right to know. Is there to be a committee or is there not? The right hon. Gentleman has said three things. He has disclaimed the intention of the Government to have a Committee, but he sailed very near the wind. He said that in important quarters of the House there was a great desire for a Committee. As I am acquainted with the sentiments of hon. Members in some degree from representations made to me, I can only say that those with whom I have the honour to act, and those who follow the lead of the hon. Member for Cork, do not entertain the desire stated by the right hon. Gentleman; but that, I suppose, is because they are not at all important quarters of the House. It is from my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale, backed by the apparently single voice of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington. My noble Friend is most anxious for a Committee, and the Government say that they pay deference to those important quarters of the House, and that if it is pressed for, they will support or will not oppose a Committee.
    MR. RITCHIE: If it is the general desire of the House.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not know what means of ascertaining the desire of the House the right hon. Gentleman has in contemplation. The First Lord of the Treasury added two other
    1062
    things. He said they would give facilities for discussing it—that is a pretty clear indication of the intentions of the Government—and he said, "We think the inquiry would be advantageous." That is going uncommonly near the point, and leaves very little standing' ground indeed for those who say the Government do not ask for the appointment of this Committee. No one, I think, can say that this Bill will not completely alter the position of the Committee if it is to be appointed. Is there any man who will rise on the other side of the House, and say that the Committee sitting after this Bill has passed would be in exactly the same position as if it sat before this Bill passed? If there is to be a Committee, that Committee ought to come to the question with a free hand. Appoint your Committee at once if you like. Why not; if the question is of this vital consequence, it is much better that we should appoint a Committee than waste the time of the Government in this most unnecessary, most unhappy, most gratuitous contention sprung upon us, after we had passed the middle of the Session, without notice in the Queen's Speech, and totally contrary to our expectations. It is one thing for a Committee to approach this question now, when no one can quote precedent or authority for saying that Parliament has given countenance to the doctrine denying the principle that licences can be taken away without compensation. You are now calling upon us to reverse that principle, and provide that no licences shall fail to be renewed apart from the default of the holder, except by payment out of the public money provided under the authority of Parliament. The two questions are vitally, absolutely, and entirely different. If you pass this Bill and then bring the Committee to consider it, they approach it with tied hands. In point of fact the principle will have been laid down which, in our opinion, decides the whole matter. But at any rate, whether that he right or wrong, can you deny that the position and the conditions under which the Committee will approach the question, must, even according to your point of view, be very materially affected by the passing of this Bill? If there is going to be an inquiry, we have a right to ask that the conditions of that inquiry shall

    1063
    be maintained identically as they now are, and that the freedom of the Committee shall be preserved to it, and pre served intact. On that ground we say it is contrary to sense, to prudence, to public interest, and to every principle involved in the case that we should proceed with those portions of the Bill which relate to licences while the question of the Committee is hanging over our heads undecided.
    SIR W. LAWSON: I think we ought to have some explanation from the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale, who made this statement, as to why it was made and with what object. The proceedings of the Committee, we are told, can have no effect upon anything; but I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that our hands will be tied if this clause is passed. We shall become, in fact, a "tied" House. It is, I think, rather humiliating to confess surprise at anything in this House; but I was a little surprised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting up and trying to persuade us there is no compensation in the Bill. Now I will read a short sentence from a speech of his own, and the Committee will then understand whether this Bill embodies the principle of compensation or not. In his Budget speech, when the policy was first introduced to the House upon which this Bill is founded, the right hon. Gentleman used these words—
    "If the brewers contend that it is out of their pockets and not out of the pockets of consumers this extra 6d. 1s paid, I respect fully point out to them that in our proposals we include the suggestion of a sum equal, indeed, to their contribution for diminishing the number of existing licences, a process in which I think they, as brewers, will find much compensation and consolation."
    I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I read that in a pamphlet which purported to be a a report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Budget, and the pamphlet was sent me, I presume, by his direction; he said he was going to provide a process by which he would give brewers much compensation and consolation. It is, then, I submit too late to tell the Committee there is no compensation in the Bill. No, Sir; the Committee knows how these things are managed, all this talk about purchasing houses for
    1064
    the public improvement. When a Tory is addressing a respectable meeting in which the Temperance Party is represented, he says this is merely giving to Local Authorities the power to improve their locality by purchasing unnecessary licences; but when he attends a really good Tory meeting of publicans and Primrose dames then he says it is "compensation" But the man who tries to ride two horses frequently comes to grief, and the right hon. Gentleman, in trying to ride the temperance horse and the publican horse, will find he cannot make smooth progress and retain his seat for long.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: As a Scotch Member, I enter my protest against the statement made to us. It is idle to say we are prepared to discuss this question now in the same condition in which we were before the important announcement was made to us in reference to the appointment of this Committee. We in Scotland have given evidence as to our feeling in respect to the compensation clauses of this Bill, we stand in a different position to others. The clauses referring to Scot land have still to come before the Committee, and we ought to be informed before we enter upon them what our position is. I desire also to enter my protest against the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in regard to the action of Licensing Authorities in Scotland, on the question of compensation. The right hon. Gentleman said that Corporations gave compensation when they took public houses for public improvements, but he knows perfectly well that Licensing Authorities have no power whatever in regard to city improvements. Houses are taken under the Lands Clauses Act, and there is no reference to the Magistrates, who have no right to interfere, and the Licensing Authorities consequently have nothing whatever to do with compensation in in such cases when public houses are taken. The right hon. Gentleman can not deny that the number of "on" licenses in Scotland have been largely reduced at the discretion of the Magistrates without any compensation whatever, and times without number the Magistrates have declared that they cannot recognise any private transactions with regard to

    1065
    licences, and have claimed the right to refuse the renewal of any licence accord ing to their discretion and their view of the altered circumstances in connection with the application. Licences may thus be refused in sufficient numbers without any compensation whatever, and, there fore, we have a right, if there is to be a Committee appointed, to submit the evidence from Scotland, and this, I am convinced, will clearly demonstrate there is no cause for compensation and for these clauses, so objectionable to the whole of the Liberal Scotch Members.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman, before any question was put from the Chair, made his statement as to a Committee and the postponement of Clauses 2, 3, and 4. Let me remind the Committee of what was done upon the Budget Bill. When we came to consider it the Government made a similar proposal, and we assented to it. When the Second Reading of this Bill came on we asked that the taxation clauses of the Budget Bill should be postponed, but the Government refused, on the ground that they were necessary and essential. Yet, now they declare their willingness to postpone these Clauses 2, 3, and 4 in definitely. This is an additional reason why we should know exactly what the Government mean, and where they stand. The First Lord says really it does not matter whether this Committee is appointed or not, and the noble Lord, in his innocent way, said he did not speak at Devonshire House on any sufficient information, he simply threw out the suggestion. Now, let me point out that whenever the Government are in a difficulty they appoint a Committee. When the difficulty arose as to the financial relations between Eng land and Ireland, they said, "We will give you a Committee." Again, when the point arose as to the bonding of spirits, and the favour shown to Gorman spirits, then a Committee was promised. Then, for the third time, when the Liberal Unionists are in a difficulty the noble Lord is instructed to go down to Devonshire House and make a statement on behalf of the other "tied" house, the Carlton Club. It is well understood that Devonshire House is a "tied" house in this matter.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see the relevancy of these observations to the Motion before the Committee.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Doubtless, Sir, I was misled by speakers who have pre ceded me, and I thought I was only bettering their instruction. When the hon. Baronet was allowed to ask a question of the noble Lord I did humbly predicate in my mind that a little more probing would not be more disorderly than the catechism which was allowed. The noble Lord says he had no authority for his suggestion beyond his knowledge that a general feeling prevailed in favour of the appointment of such a Committee. Now, I take leave to say it is absolutely essential, from the point of view of Irish Members, to know exactly where the Government stand. The first thing we noticed when the question of postponement arose was that the Irish Secretary departed from the House when I was about to ask him, if I could have found the opportunity, what was the object of the postponement of the Irish clauses. We have not yet spoken in Committee upon this Bill at all.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the question before the Committee now. There is a Motion to report Progress, on the ground that steps are going to be taken hereafter which will greatly affect further discussion.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, Sir; and I am endeavouring humbly to add a further argument to reinforce the strength of the position in favour of reporting Progress. My anxiety is to know upon what ground the Government wish to postpone the Irish clauses. Here I am glad to see the apparition of the Chief Secretary. My anxiety is germane to the question before us. The Government have expressed their willingness to postpone Clauses 2, 3, and 4. Irish Members have not taken part in the discussions on this Bill, and I now intervene, for the first time on the part of Irish Members, to ask why it is the Government desire to, or are willing to, postpone the Irish clauses. The President of the Local Government Board made a distinct offer to postpone Clauses 2, 3, and 4, which offer, after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, the First Lord withdrew. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby spoke for one important section of Members on

    1067
    this side; but we want to know what is the possible connection between Irish Customs and Excise and the business of police superannuation? We have police superannuation, and we are puzzled, and suspicious that the Government have something in their minds as to the distribution of the Irish Excise Duty. It may be there is a valid solid reason for postponing the Irish clauses, but let us know that reason. We have what the Chief Secretary calls "reason able suspicion," but we have no proof, no knowledge of the Government position; and so I think we are justified in supporting the Motion to report Progress.
    MR. LABOITCHERE: We ought to have some more clear understanding with respect to the appointment of this Committee. I do not see the slightest use of discus sing with the Government whether compensation is in the Bill or not, we might as well discuss with reasonable human beings whether the sun shines in the heavens or not. With regard to this Committee, which is the basis of this demand to report progress, we have no clear understanding. The First Lord of the Treasury gets up and waives the matter away, saying there was some vague idea that somebody wanted a Committee, that he really did not know quite who, and that he had had no sort of communication with the noble Lord. But what did the noble Lord (Lord Hartingtou) say? He said it was quite possible he had discussed the matter with the First Lord of the Treasury, and we are asked to believe in a vague way that the proposal emanates from the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). It is unfortunate that the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, because he happens to be absent from this House, should have all the responsibility thrown upon him. I take leave to believe that the noble Lord the Member for Paddington is not responsible for this. It is absurd to suppose that the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale when he called together his Party at their official meeting place, to consult with them as to a matter on which the immediate supporters of the Government were deserting them, and to bring the pressure of the Liberal Uniouists to bear upon the unfortunate Tories who were for a
    1068
    moment getting up their courage and trying to rebel—it is a little too strong for us to be told that the noble Lord, a cautious man, as we are always told, should actually make this proposal because he had heard a vague remark that possibly the noble Lord the Member for Paddington wanted a Committee. I see the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale is not here. I see the First Lord of the Treasury is not here. Where are they now? What monstrosity are they confederating together? What proposal is being made by the noble Lord to the First Lord of the Treasury? Is it something else that the noble Lord the Member for Paddington wants, and the First Lord of the Treasury is to be induced to agree to? We are told by the First Lord of the Treasury that the Government would consent to the Committee, and give a date for it if the House desired it. Now, "the House" is a very vague term. What does it mean? Is it to be a universal assent? Is it to be the assent of 300 Members on this side, or of the Liberal Unionists and Conservatives themselves? My impression is that the Conservatives may assent to it, but they will not desire it. They would have been delighted if this question had not been raised. They have to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for it, and, from all we understand, they are not thanking him very ardently for what he has done. Is it the Liberal Unionists who are desirous of having the Committee appointed? Are we to understand that the proposal is to be forced upon the House, with, very possibly, the Closure enforced, after which we will have to vote yea or nay? The reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow moved this was that he, like many of us, is anxious to save the time of the House. ["Oh!"] Yes; what the Government have been doing is this: they have been digging a pit for themselves; they are at the bottom of that pit, and we have been throwing a rope to them, and trying to get them out of it. They turn and sneer upon us, but I will give the Government a piece of advice. Withdraw this Bill, and appoint a Committee. Do not force any general scheme at this time of the Session. Possibly, when you move the Committee, I may oppose it altogether. I do not pledge myself to support any-

    1069
    thing brought in by Her Majesty's present advisers. Now you have got a Committee proposed, put aside this Bill, and bring it forward again after the Committee has sat, next Session. What you are doing at present is really putting the cart before the horse. You want to pass a Bill first, and then ask a Committee to discuss its principles. If you do not want to waste the time of the country, appoint your Committee, let it Report, and then bring in your Bill next year.
    MR. HUNTER: Before we go to a Division, I wish to make one observation. I hope that, whether or not it is the intention to withdraw all three clauses, we shall not adhere to Clause 2. We are not in a position to discuss Clause 2 in the absence of the clauses relating to compensation.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHT: The Committee is in an extraordinary position. So far as I under stand, the great majority of this Committee are in favour of inquiry first and legislation afterwards. I say the great majority, because I understand the followers of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale are in favour of a Committee. But the Government is in a distinct minority on this question, and if the House voted according to the opinions which have been expressed, it is quite clear that we should relieve the Government of a great difficulty.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid a second Motion to report Progress, he will answer the question which I put, as to why the Irish Clause of this Bill is postponed.
    MR. RITCHIE: There may be some discussion in connection with the Scotch Clause, and also in connection with the English Superannuation Clause, and it was felt better, in the interests of business, that we should complete the discussion on the application of the money to the acquisition of licences, by going on to Clause 5, which provides the machinery for England. In that way we would complete the discussion. There is no other reason for postponing the Irish Clause.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Are we to under stand that if the Irish Members desire
    1070
    to postpone Clause 3, that course will be agreed to?
    MR. RITCHIE: I say at once, if that were generally wished by the hon. Members for whom the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks, the Government would be prepared to accept that course.
    MR. BRUNNER: As there is hardly a Member of the House who will not feel his position altered by the statement that is to be made to-morrow by the Leader of the House, I desire to support the Motion to report Progress. We want an opportunity to resent the insinuation made by the right hon. Gentleman, that we are less desirous to diminish the temptations to drunkenness than are the hon. Gentlemen who follow him. If the Government will suspend this Bill, and re-consider their position, and then put before us proposals really directed to the diminution of the temptations to drunkenness, I have no hesitation, in saying they will be amply supported on this side of the House. If the Government insist on defeating this Motion of the hon. Member for Barrow, I trust, at any rate, they will consent to post pone not only Clauses 2, 3, and 4, but 5, 6, and 7; and then we shall come to the clause which provides for the renewal of licences. That clause, to my mind, is the only clause in the Bill which tends, to diminish the temptations to drunken ness, and that clause I promise the Government, will have, on this side of the House, thorough and fair consideration.
    MR. BOLITHO: I desire to say one word, and one word only. I am not ashamed to say that, hitherto, I have not given a vote as regards this measure; nor am I ashamed to say, also, that I could not find it in my conscience to support the principles of this Bill. Without at all going into the question of the Amendment put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, I may say that I have an Amendment on the Paper in very similar terms. Feeling, as I do, not only that a very large number of Members on this side of the House, but also on the other, desire to see this question settled on what I call a proper fair and legitimate basis, I have no alternative but to

    1071
    support the Motion of the hon. Member for Barrow.
    CAPTAIN VERNEY: Before the Committee proceeds to a Division, I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that nobody, either on the Front Bench or any of the Benches opposite, has answered the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, that the Committee would not be in the same position, in entering upon this question, if the Bill is passed. That is the distinct challenge that has been thrown down, and nobody has had the pluck or manliness to take it up, because nobody can take it up. Nobody can assort that the Committee would be in the same position if the Bill is passed. I hope hon. Gentlemen who are going to vote will bear in mind that the challenge has been fairly thrown down, and that no one has had the courage to take it up.
    MR. H. S.WRIGHT: I rise to reply to the challenge of the hon. Member (Captain Verney), who has just said that no one on this side of the House has disputed the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, that the position of the compensation question will be changed by the passing of this Bill. I venture to deny that it will be practically altered, for the following reason: namely, that the Bill does not create any new vested interest, but simply affirms an unalterable principle of justice in regard to this matter. That principle has been acted on in the past, and was very forcibly laid down by the right hon. Gentleman himself 10 years ago; and I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to that principle whenever the question of compensation, in some form or other, comes before the House and the country in some future comprehensive licensing measure, or in case it should now be referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. WADDY: I think we ought not to go on with this measure until there has been an inquiry. There is certainly something sufficiently interesting to justify inquiry by the Committee. I, for one, being of an inquiring turn of mind, am very anxious to have some sort of inquiry before we go on with the Compensation Clauses of the Bill. Therefore, on behalf of a very
    1072
    large number of Members of this House who wish to have all the facts put before them, I suggest that there should first be a Committee to obtain information upon which we might act afterwards. It would seem that one of the objects of our existence is to maintain in office Her Majesty's Government, and they are now in such a difficulty through what happened the other night that I suggest that this is really a providential occurrence, inasmuch as it affords them an opportunity of withdrawing from the mess into which some mischievous power has thrown them. If the Government would only accept this suggestion and agree to the appointment of a Committee they might begin to sit to morrow if they liked, and after their investigation this matter might be taken up again, but in the meantime there are other matters of great importance which ought to occupy our attention. As I understand that we are to have a statement from the Government to-morrow night I think we are justified in making this suggestion.
    MR. MUNTZ: It appears to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been under an entire misapprehension, and have evolved from their own inner consciousness the idea that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Committee. If we are to accept the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury the Government had no intention of appointing such a Committee; at any rate, we on this side had no knowledge whatever of any such intention. Having evolved this idea from their own minds hon. Gentlemen opposite have employed very elaborate arguments as to the sinfulness that would be exhibited by the Government in attempting to pass this measure previous to the appointment of a Committee. I hope the Government will proceed with the passage of the Bill and leave for the future consideration of the House the question of the appointment of a Committee, which has only been taken into consideration to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. CHANNING: I think the hon. Member opposite, who has said he and his friends had no knowledge of the intention of the Government to appoint a Committee, has some what

    1073
    misunderstood the remarks that were first made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman stated that there was no compensation in the Bill, and that among other subjects referred to the Committee would be that of compensation; but we all know that the Bill is a Compensation Bill, and that the course suggested would be merely putting the cart before the horse. We have heard the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade cited by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and I should also like to quote the words of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who said that the brewers and publicans would not be dissatisfied at the recognition of the important principle of compensation for licences in England and Wales. Here we have two of the most prominent Members of the Ministry actually contradicting the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the essential question with which we are now dealing.
    Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    (7.25.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 247; Noes 199.—(Div. List, No. 136.)
    Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    (7.35.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 206; Noes 245.—(Div. List, No. 137.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In rising to move the omission from Clause 1, page 1, lines 18 and 19, of the words "as hereinafter mentioned," in order to insert the following words:—
    "As may be hereafter provided by any Act providing for the transfer to County Councils of the right of granting licences and for the increase of Licence Duties in respect of those houses whose profits are increased by the extinction of other licences, and until such Act is passed shall be invested and accumulated as provided by this Act,"
    said: The announcement made by the Government to-night, that they intend to assent to the appointment of a Select
    1074
    Committee next Session to inquire and report on the question of compensation, and also upon other questions affecting the licensing laws, fully justifies the Amendment I have to propose, and will greatly strengthen my argument. I ask whether, if this Bill passes into law, and a Committee is appointed to consider the question of compensation, it is conceivable that any County Council would negotiate for the purchase of licences pending the Report of that Committee. I believe the Act will remain a dead letter. If this Bill is to pass into law it is most important, and, indeed, indispensable, if the County Councils are not to be at the mercy of the owners of licensed houses, and if public money is not to be wasted, that the powers of the Licensing Magistrates shall be transferred to the County Councils at the same time, and that power shall also be given to increase the Licence Duties on houses whose value is to be improved by the monopoly secured to them by the Bill. The Government will, I think, admit the importance or even the necessity of these two points, as they were both contained in their Bill of 1888, and it is very strange that they have been omitted from the present Bill, and that the Bill has been drawn on a line which precludes their being added as Amendments. I propose that the same method shall be adopted in respect of England until legislation on the important points I have adverted to shall have been adopted. Under the Bill as it now stands there will be two wholly independent authorities dealing with licences. The Magistrates will have the power of renewing annually or refusing to renew licences, and of issuing new licences. The County Councils will, on their side, be intrusted with power to buy up and extinguish licences out of public funds. The inevitable result of this double jurisdiction will be that the Magistrates will be paralysed in their action in respect of the cancelling of licences. They will refuse in the future to put in force their undoubted power of cancelling licences, even in the case of misconduct, still more in the case of an excessive number of licences. They will remember that Parliament has pointed out the method of purchase, and will consider that in future that new system relieves them of their responsibility. On

    1075
    the other hand, the County Councils, not being invested with the power to cancel licences, will practically be at the mercy of the owners of licences in their negotiations for the purchase of licences. They must submit to any terms that the owners or brewers may ask for. If some of the owners should be willing to sell, the County Council will find themselves in this difficulty—if the houses are bad ones, in the sense in which the President of the Local Government Board uses the term, the County Council will rightly think it a scandal to expend the public money in buying them up. If, on the other hand, the houses are good ones, they will think it almost as bad to buy up good houses, and to allow the bad ones to continue, and to enjoy the benefit of an increased monopoly. When the Bill was first issued I hastened to see what would be its probable effect in my own district in the country. I reside in a parish which affords a typical case of an excessive number of public houses—there are 11 licensed houses to a population of about 1,200. Many of thorn are of that class described by the President of the Local Government Board—the holders can only make a living by doing that which they ought not to do. Everyone admits that the number ought to be reduced. I agree with the hon. Member for Barrow that it would be useless to do away with only one or two of these houses. In order to produce a good effect there should be a much more substantial reduction than that; but what probability is there of the number of public houses in a district like this being reduced by the Bill? There is, first, the difficulty as to the means, for the proportion which will be available to the parish out of the fund which will come to the County Council will be only £22 a year. The whole share of Kent out of the money proposed to be allocated to the Councils would be £11,000 a year, of which this parish would receive £22, and with this it would take 150 years to buy up the public houses. Even assuming that the County Council deals with this district in an exceptional way, and devotes a larger sum to it than to other districts, what is the probability of their being able to carry into effect the operation in view? All the public houses I have referred to belong
    1076
    to the brewers, with one exception, and not to one or two big firms, but to a number of separate brewers; and my confident belief is that none of these brewers would be willing vendors. They have bought these houses for the purpose of distributing their beer, and they would be extremely unwilling to sell them, either to the Local Authorities or to anyone else. Many of the houses are of the character referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that is to say, only made to pay by doing that which they ought not to do. Some of the houses, no doubt, are well conducted and do not come within that category; but let me assume that the brewers who own the houses are prepared to sell them on their own terms to the Local County Council, there would then arise the difficulty of selection. How is the County Council to select houses for extinction? They must select the worst half or the best half. If they were to select the worst half, there would be the public scandal of public money being devoted to the purchase of bad houses, which ought to be closed without compensation. Such a purchase could not be for a moment justified. On the other hand, if it were proposed to purchase the better class of houses, the bad class would benefit by deriving all the profit of the monopoly. I venture, therefore, to think that the more the question is looked into the more difficult will it be for the County Council to work this subject of the purchase of licences. It would be a very different thing if the power of the Magistrates were transferred to the County Councils. If the County Councils were invested with the power to refuse to renew such licences their relation to the brewers and owners of those houses in the negotiations for their extinction would be a very different thing. I believe myself they would make short work with many of the houses referred to. They would refuse to renew licences, and no compensation would be found necessary to the brewers who owned them; and, in the cases of other houses of a better character, they would find no difficulty, with a little pressure, in compelling them to surrender licences on very reasonable terms. This leads me to the second part of my subject, namely, that power should be given to the County Council to increase the Licence Duty on those houses which

    1077
    are left in the immediate neighbourhood of those which have been extinguished. I think no one will deny that their value will be immensely increased. It is not necessary to suppose that where two houses exist and one is suppressed the other will sell as much liquor as the two; but it will sell a great deal more for the same expenses of management, and the profits, therefore, will be greatly increased, perhaps doubled; its value, therefore, will be doubled. That is the second part of my proposition, and, as an illustration of what I mean, I would refer to a case also in my own neighbourhood. In a hamlet not far from my house there are two licensed houses on opposite sides of the road, close to each other. They supply the country people immediately around, and no one can doubt that one of these licenses ought to be extinguished. They compete with one another in offering temptations to the people to drink. The two together do mischief, and one of them ought to be done away with, and I presume that if the Bill is to have any effect whatever, this is one of the cases in which it will apply. The houses belong to different brewers, and if one is done away with the value of the other would be largely increased, nearly doubled. I venture to think that the County Council would not be so unwise as to purchase one of these licenses un less it had also the power of raising the Licence Duty on the other. Ought this additional profit due to the expenditure of public money go to the owner of the house that is left? I think anyone will admit that there ought to be an increased Licence Duty levied on houses whose value is increased in this way; and I am surprised there is no clause in the Bill to this effect. The whole question of licenses ought to be re-considered. The great price of public houses is largely due to the monopoly we give them, and this monopoly is the creation of the State, and the licenses are quite insufficient in a vast number of cases. I feel certain that in a case such as I have mentioned a County Council would refuse to effect a purchase, on the ground that they would be adding greatly to the value of the adjoining premises without getting anything for it. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say he
    1078

    will be prepared to deal with the matter further next Session; but now is the time, when we are bestowing great benefits on the licensed houses, to exact something in return. If you lose this opportunity, you will not find it as easy with your friends, the holders of these licenses, to pass measures adverse to their interests. As a matter of general statesmanship, when you are conferring a great boon on a particular class, then is the time to take the opportunity of exacting from them something in return in the direction you think right and reasonable. You are conferring on the owners of licences three great advantages. You are recognising in them a vested interest—no one who heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday night can doubt that that is the effect of the measure. We hold that you are practically establishing these owners of licensed houses in every district in which they now exist, and conferring two other great boons on them. You are securing them from competition by statutory provision against the issue of new licences—exceptions being made in certain special cases. In the past they have had no security of that kind, and the competition in respect of new licences has only been limited by the discretion of the Magistrates. Now, for the first time, you are going to make a statutory prohibition against the issue of new licences. The third boon you are conferring on the publicans is the probability of competing houses being extinguished in their districts, for, wherever that takes place, the value of the licensed houses that are allowed to remain will be immediately increased in value. For these boons you get no equivalent. My belief is that the effect of the Bill as it now stands will be very small when it comes to be worked in the country. It is absolutely certain that in many parts of the country where the temperance agitation is strong the County Councils will object altogether to put the provisions into force, and in other parts of the country the County Councils will be unable to work the Act. The result will be that practically no licenced houses will be extinguished. I think, therefore, the wise course would be to

    1079
    adopt the terms of my Amendment, and postpone the putting in force of purchases of licences under the Act for the purpose of their extinction until the Local Authority has been invested with the powers magistrates now have of renewing or refusing to renew licences within its district, and until provision is made for increasing the Licence Duty of the houses which remain, and whose value will be increased by the increased monopoly conferred by this Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words "as hereinafter mentioned," and insert the words "as may he hereafter provided by any Act providing for the transfer to County Councils of the right of granting licences and for the increase of Licence Duties in respect of those houses whose profits are increased by the extinction of other licences, and until such Act is passed shall he invested and accumulated as provided by this Act."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'as hereinafter mentioned' stand part of the Clause." (8.22.)
    MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman has repeated arguments which have been used over and over again, but I cannot complain, because it is almost necessary to do so in Amendments which touch the vital principle of of the Bill, and I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to pardon me and not to think me wanting in courtesy if I use arguments in reply that have been used before. The right hon. Gentleman at the outset referred to the Committee, which he said the Government have resolved to appoint. I will content myself by saying in reply that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he supposes that the Government have resolved to appoint a Committee. The First Lord of the Treasury did, indeed, express a willing ness to consent to certain points in the Bill, which some hon. Members thought were obscure and were open to consideration, being submitted to a Committee, but, in particular, I think the idea of a Committee originated with the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, and in connection with his measure. It is only on the understanding that the House itself desires the Committee, in order that
    1080
    the various points urged on both sides with regard to compensation may be considered, that the Government will think of assenting to it. Certainly I may assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the intention of the Government to propose any Committee, neither is it their intention, nor do they think it in the interest of the cause they have at heart, that the proposal they make in this Bill should be postponed until a Committee has been appointed. Having said so much about the question of the Committee, about which I do not desire there should be any misunderstanding, I will now proceed to refer to some of the other arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman. He has again said that this Bill recognises and sets up a vested interest in public houses. There is nothing new in this Bill, which recognises a vested interest, apart from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has, in his speeches, recognised a vested interest. But, how ever that may be, I will again repeat that the Government have no intention of setting up any interest which does not already exist. They have stated over and over again their opinion that nothing in the Bill does this, and I again repeat that the Government have no intention of setting up any interest which does not already exist, and that, if there is any doubt on the subject, we are ready to accept Amendments to safeguard all the present powers of the Licensing Authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the opinion he shares with those near him as to the effect of the Bill in its operation, and has given illustrations to show that the result of buying up the licences of some public houses would increase the value of others. I admit there may be cases in which the buying up of one public house would increase the value of others. That, however, is a result which would equally take place if the Licensing Justices were to exercise the discretion which it is argued they have of refusing to renew licences. But my answer with reference to these matters, and the illustrations the right hon. Gentleman gave, is that the County Councils maybe trusted to exercise their discretion in matters of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think

    1081
    that when this money is placed in the hands of County Councils it will at once be apportioned throughout every village in their county; but I do not believe a County Council would act in the manner suggested. In regard, also, to the question of good and bad houses, there is no indication or instruction in the Bill to County Councils of the kind referred to. County Councils are elected on a popular franchise, and represent the wishes of the localities returning them, and the members may be presumed to be selected because of their qualifications for carrying on the work entrusted to them; and I imagine in this, as in other matters, they will exercise a wise discretion. I do not believe that the County Councils will act in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and although there may be cases in which it would seem useless to buy up one or two houses, because it would add to the value of others, yet there are large numbers of cases in which this power may be very judiciously exercised without creating any difficulty or leading to any of the dangers alluded to. Really, I think the answer to the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's objections has been given by himself. He said the County Councils would not be so unwise as to purchase the houses referred to. That, really, is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman. In the cases where there would be an injustice, or if it is not desirable that houses should be purchased, the County Council will turn their energies to other parts where the evil he dreads will not arise; and if the worst comes to the worst—if a County Council comes to the conclusion that they cannot act, and it is better to wait until they are charged with further powers—then the funds placed to the credit of the Council will accumulate, and no harm will be done. But it is a very different thing for the right hon. Gentleman to ask this Committee to pass a Resolution saying the Bill shall not come into operation until County Councils are charged with the control of licences. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as we have again and again said, an ultimate settlement cannot be found until a transfer of this control is made to these popularly-elected bodies. We have always advocated that; and when
    1082
    the right hon. Gentleman expresses surprise at not finding it in the present Bill, my answer is that the circumstances are wholly different to those in which, by the Local Government Bill, we proposed to transfer all the administrative functions of the Magistrates to the elected body. We should have been shutting our eyes to facts if we had not then made the proposal, and having changed the Licensing Authority—having altered it from a Judicial Authority bound by certain rules and considerations to a representative authority specially charged with giving expression to the will of the community as to the number of public houses to be licensed—we felt it was impossible to transfer this great interest to a newly-elected body without a change in the law, which, while recognising the licensing power created, recognised the change in the position of the new authority. We had to face the question whether or not some compensation ought to be provided when licences were taken away, because the people wished it.
    SIR W. LAWSON: Compensation?
    MR. RITCHIE: We provided that. We did, of course, propose compensation, whether we were right or wrong in doing so. I am bound to say that if the whole question at that time had been considered in a calm, judicial, impartial manner, it is not at all impossible that a settlement might have been arrived at on conditions that might have been generally satisfactory. But, however, that opportunity passed away, and now the right hon. Gentleman is surprised not to find a proposal of the kind here. But this is not a licensing Bill; we are not dealing with the transfer of the Licensing Authority; we are not charging the County Councils with any compulsory power at all; therefore, it is not necessary to consider the question of compensation, or how it shall be calculated. The right hon. Gentleman fears that the action of Magistrates will be paralysed, but is he serious in insisting upon that? It is essential to consider what has been the action of Magistrates in the past. I do not believe that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will be prepared to assert that the Licensing

    1083
    Magistrates have exercised their power, if they possess it, of refusing to renew licences to any considerable extent.
    MR. R. T. REID: It is constantly done in Scotland.
    MR. RITCHIE: I confess I am not familiar with the practice in. Scotland. I am speaking on the English portion of the Bill and the action of Licensing Authorities here.
    MR. CATNE: In Liverpool 199 licences have been refused in 17 years.
    MR. RITCHIE: I should like to analyse those figures. I am under the impression that in Liverpool at one time they had what is called free trade in licences, and, therefore, further explanation is required in order to elucidate the real significance of the reduction.
    MR. STOREY: And 117 in Sunderland.
    MR. RITCHIE: In what period?
    MR. STOREY: In the last 20 years.
    MR. RITCHIE: That is five in a year.
    MR. STOREY: Your Bill enables us to get rid of two.
    MR. RITCHIE: I should like to know how many refusals there were because of faults in management, breaches of the law, or endorsements on licences? ["None."] However that may be, this is the first time I have heard anyone seriously assert that the powers of the Licensing Justices have been exercised, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, in a satisfactory manner. The contention of the Government is—and nothing has been urged to show that the contention is invalid—that, looking to the number of licences which exist, the percentage of cases in which Magistrates have refused licences to properly-conducted houses is excessively small. And even if the Bill did paralyse the action of Magistrates in this respect, we might regard it, looking at other provisions of the Bill, with something like equanimity. But I entirely deny that it will have such an effect. The Government, as has been already mentioned, propose to put a pro vision in the Bill which states distinctly
    1084
    that, as far as Parliament is concerned, it is not intended that the operation of the Act should in any way hamper the Magistrates in the exercise of their powers. I do not believe that the insertion of any such words is necessary. I believe that the Bill itself will not have the effect of interfering with the discretion of the Magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton agrees it will not have that effect.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Not legally, but morally.
    MR. RITCHIE: Morally, without the words we propose to insert? I venture to assert that whatever can be said of the effect morally—and I dispute it—if these words are inserted expressly reserving the powers and discretion of Magistrates, there is no force in the contention that the action of Magistrates will be paralysed by the action of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the County Council will be completely at the mercy of the owner of a public house, as far as the price is concerned; but surely the right hon. Gentleman can hardly contend, when he is going into a shop to buy some thing which it is not necessary for him to buy, that he is at the mercy of the man who has the article to sell, and that he will have to give whatever price he demands? The right hon. Gentleman admits that there is no necessity for the County Council to buy a single public house, as he has spoken of the contingency of their letting the money lie idle.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I referred to the necessity of giving effect to a requisition from a district that the number of public houses is excessive.
    MR. RITCHIE: I altogether dispute that. The County Council has the executive control in the matter, and will not exercise their power to buy at what ever price the publican demands.
    MR. STOREY: Then your Bill is useless.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am using the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not using my own argument at all. I believe the Bill will be useful, and

    1085
    that a considerable number of public houses will be disestablished by the operation of the Bill. It is very inconvenient to carry on a conversational argument across the Table. I am endeavouring to show that, out of his own mouth, the right hon. Gentleman has answered his own argument. The truth of the matter, the main contention between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, is whether this Bill should come into operation at once, or whether all operations should be postponed until the whole question of licensing is dealt with, together with the proposal that an increased Licence Duty should be put upon the other houses. That, of course, is the principle of betterment. Hardly anyone has ever contended that the principle of betterment is not sound in itself, if it can be applied without injustice; but there are enormous difficulties in the way of doing so in this case. There will be great difficulty in saying exactly what house will be benefited by the closing of another. If a public house is closed at one end of a town it confers no benefit on a house at the other end of the town. The proposal is to postpone the question of the reduction of licences to a time not specified. The Government desire to make some progress at once with respect to this matter, and they are not content to allow it to remain in the position which the right hon. Gentleman desires. They believe that much good may be done by such operations as are shadowed out in this Bill, and that it will be a misfortune if the Committee prevent the Government from enacting in this Bill the proposals they have made for enabling popularly elected bodies to deal with the money placed at their disposal for the extinction of licences in such a manner as they think proper and right.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The question has been asked, why should the Government postpone all legislation on this subject? My reply is that, if the Government had brought in a Bill simply suspending the issue of new licences, it would have received general approval, and have been regarded as a common-sense measure on all sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the President
    1086
    of the Local Government Board has acknowledged that the proposals of the Government in 1888 were proposals for compensating the publicans. Those proposals dissatisfied the country, and the Government were obliged to drop them, but they have not learned the obvious lesson which that ought to have taught them. On behalf of a Lancashire constituency, I venture to say that the Government could not have made any proposals which would have made them so unpopular with the electors those as now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman complained, and, I think, most unnecessarily, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford had been guilty of repeating arguments previously brought forward.
    MR. RITCHIE: I do not know whether the right hon. Baronet was in the House at the time. I certainly made no such complaint. In point of fact, I said I did not see how he could well do otherwise.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Well, I am in the recollection of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said my right hon. Friend had been guilty of repeating arguments, and I think that came rather ill from the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that this Amendment raises an entirely new question. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the County Councils might be trusted to exercise their own discretion as to the degree to which they should put in force the provisions of this Bill. He seems to contemplate with remarkable complacency the probability to which my right hon. Friend called attention that the County Council will not exercise the powers entrusted to them by this Bill. I do not think, if I had proposed such a Bill, I should have regarded with complacency the prospect of the County Councils failing to exercise the powers given to them. I share the right hon. Gentleman's views that the County Councils will probably not exercise these powers.
    MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Baronet must not put words into my mouth. I never expressed that view. On the contrary, I said I be-

    1087
    lieved that they would exercise it largely for the benefit of the community. What I referred to was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, and I said he had answered himself out of his own mouth; because if the County Councils did not use the money, it would accumulate as he desired it to do under the operation of his Amendment.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I think that the Committee will agree with me that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to regard with great complacency the hypothesis that the County Councils would not, to any large extent, exercise their powers. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, judging from the information which has come to me, it is extremely improbable that the Lancashire County Council will avail itself of the powers under this Bill so strong is the feeling on the question. Indeed, the sum to be allocated to the county is so small that it would be inadequate for the purpose of dealing even with one or two places in my own neighbourhood. If this part of the Bill is to be absolutely a dead letter, I do not regard with any satisfaction the spending of the time of the House upon it; and if time must be spent on a Bill, I should like to see some result. A strong argument in favour of the Amendment is furnished by the proposal which has leaked out to-night of a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. The result of the inquiry might be that there would be found for the funds a better use than that proposed by the Bill.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in his objection to the proposals of the Government, nor in his reasons for sup porting the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. If it is a matter of course that the funds will accumulate if they are not used, I cannot help asking why all this fury and rage against the proposals of the Government—proposals which, at the worst, are innocuous. What is expected by the Government is that a certain amount of result will follow from these powers to be given to the County Councils; and if that result does follow,
    1088
    surely it will be a step in the right direction. We all desire, I take it, to see a gradual extinction of the present considerable number of public houses. I suppose that is the unanimous wish of the Members of this Committee; and, if that is so, then it is only a question of degree between hon. Gentlemen opposite and ourselves——
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It is a question of method.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: Well, it does not appear that very much turns on the question of method. The right hon. Baronet who has just spoken says the funds will accumulate, and if that is so, then no harm will have been done. It appears to me that the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford is to transfer the licensing authority from the Magistrates who now hold it to the County Council; and he thinks he sees in this Bill an endeavour to perpetuate the present system of licensing. I venture to differ from him in toto, Nothing has been advanced as yet to show that the County Councils would be better qualified to deal with licensing matters than are the Magistrates. But, at any rate, if the County Council is a body so admirably fitted to deal with this question as some hon. Members think, then they will be able, under this Bill, to show their capacity to the infinitesimal extent which it permits. I should like to go one step further. I wish that those who are so anxious to remove the licensing authority from the hands of Magistrates into the hands of the County Councils, would, before they embark on so great a fundamental change, say on what ground they think that the County Councils would do better than the Magistrates have done in the past. It has been stated that in Lancashire a large number of licences have been got rid of. If that is so, the Magistrates are doing what you desire, and why should you seek to substitute for them another authority? Is it not quite as likely that Magistrates, if they are worth anything at all—and I suppose there are some hon. Members who think they are not worth anything—is it not as likely that Magistrates who are in the habit of exercising judicial functions

    1089
    would be better able to deal with this question than a body which is subject to all the waves of popular opinion? Is it quite certain that a popularly-elected body would immediately diminish the number of public houses? I venture to assert that there is a good deal of public sympathy on the side of the public houses. I have had a great deal of experience as a Magistrate sitting in Petty Sessions; as Chairman of Quarter Sessions; and as Chairman of the County Licensing Committee; aid I have found myself, as I think, very inadequately supported by public opinion. I have always been on the side of refusing all licences where possible, and have not granted any now licences, and I have found public opinion against me rather than on my side. I am consequently not quite so sure of public opinion. I do not know how it may be in the North. Possibly there are a few unhappy exceptional cases where the Magistrates have acted unwisely, and where public sentiment is on the other side, but I venture to say that in the South of England it must not be assumed that public opinion is on the side of those who desire to reduce the number of licensed houses. As to the Amendment, the result of passing it would be simply to leave things unchanged until there is time for further legislation; and that I do not think would be at all satisfactory, because no steps would be taken in the cause of temperance; no public houses would be suppressed by County Councils, and we should remain precisely as we now are. On reflection I hope that hon. Members will come to the conclusion that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is not one which can be accepted, whatever may be their opinions on the general merits of the Government proposals.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not wonder that the hon. Member wishes this question to be kept quite clear of the waves of public opinion, for, politically, he lives in an atmosphere in which County Councils are unknown.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I am a member of one.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I was, of course, alluding to the hon. Gentleman as a
    1090
    member for a University. The speech just made reminded me that, when I was at the Home Office, I received a deputation of Magistrates from the County of Kent, including the hon. Member, who came to me in despair and said, "In Kent we are overwhelmed by the number of public houses; we do not know what to do; and we come to you, as Home Secretary, to take measures to diminish the number." I listened with great respect; but, when they had exhausted their eloquence in denouncing the public houses, I said, "Gentlemen, I am pleased but surprised to see you; but you, the Magistrates, create these public houses; you issue the licences and renew them. Why do not you reduce the number yourselves? You are the authors of the evil; why do not you put an end to it?" One gentleman, less discreet than the rest, said, "We are afraid to do it; we want somebody else to do it." I answered, "And so you want me to accept the unpopularity which you have not the courage to face." And yet the hon. Member argues in favour of keeping the jurisdiction in the hands of the Magistrates in the County of Kent, and against transferring it to the County Council, which would be influenced by waves of public opinion. I told the deputation that I thought the power ought to be given to the County Council, exactly because that wave of popular opinion would give a little muscle, a little spirit, a little courage to the Licensing Body—qualities in which the Magistrates of the County of Kent are apparently deficient. I am not the least hostile to the Magistrates in this matter. In my opinion, the Magistrates possess a strong sense of the existing evil. The President of the Local Government Board says that no one in the House has asserted that the Magistrates have done anything in this matter. I have ventured to assert that they have, and I have referred to a Return which does not come down to the present time by four years, in which it is shown that the Magistrates have shut up off-licences by the hundred, and fully-licensed public houses by the score. I defy contradiction to that statement, and, so far as the title to compensation is concerned, I hold that the off-licences should stand on the same footing as the fully-licensed

    1091
    houses. I have moved for a Return of the last four years, and I shall be greatly surprised if, with the growth of public opinion, with the knowledge of the law, which in spite of the Law Officers of the Crown, is spreading throughout the country, the Magistrates, knowing now that they have the power, do not exercise it far more freely and courageously than otherwise would have been the case. I do not assert that what has been done by the Magistrates is altogether satisfactory. They might have gone a great deal further. If they had allowed the police to know that they wished disorderly houses to be reported, this would have been done, and many houses would have been shut up. Every one living in the country districts is aware that the police know it is no part of their duty to report public houses, and this is the reason why many of them have not been shut up. The President of the Local Government Board has rung the changes on the question as to whether this Bill will or will not be used by the County Councils. I venture to say that there is not one Council in 10 which will dare to use it. The London County Council has already pronounced its verdict; and the Committee know that in this great Metropolis the Bill, if passed, will not be used. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire speaks with the highest authority on behalf of Lancashire. I speak on behalf of a smaller community, consisting of 100,000 persons, and the notion of proposing to the Town Council of Derby that they should use this Bill is ridiculous. From the moment this Bill passes the entire influence of the Temperance Party will be brought to bear on the County Councils throughout the country. An agitation will begin—it has begun already in the country—and the first object of the Temperance Party will be to make it impossible for any County Council to use the Bill for the purpose intended. The Unionist Party consider themselves to be very strong in the West, but the Committee have heard a voice from Cornwall this evening. Does anyone believe that a County Council in Cornwall will use this Bill? The notion is ridiculous; and, yet, here is the Government proposing taxation which everyone knows will not be
    1092
    employed. But the Government are going to save their honour, as it is called—it is not saving a great deal—on a silly matter of punctilio, knowing, as they do, that they are wasting the time of the Committee, wasting the money of the people, in raising it for purposes for which it is not wanted, and placing it in the hands of bodies which will never use it, because their constituents will not allow them. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Amendment involves the whole licensing question. But we can not deal with this question in a piece meal way. The Government cannot introduce a measure dealing with public houses and their purchase without raising the whole licensing question. What is the pressure which has induced the Government to hang out a flag in the shape of the suggested Committee? Because the Government know that their Bill has raised the whole licensing question. I shall be glad to know what was the decision arrived at when, as has been pointed out, the First Lord of the Treasury and the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale retired behind the Speaker's Chair. The Leader of the House and the noble Lord went out together, and they came back together; and I should like to know what decision was come to behind the Chair. It is said, however, that this money is to1 accumulate. What is the use of accumulating money when it is not known what is to be done with it? This is the finance of the great Liberal Unionist financier. This is the modern finance of the Conservative Party. A more ridiculous system it is impossible to conceive. The money, I suppose, will be put in a stocking and buried until some one finds out a better purpose to which to apply it. I think that this is an absurd proposal, and I shall support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech characterised by humour of a friendly nature-It has been listened to with great interest and with much less dissatifaction than is usually felt when he indulges at the expense of hon. Members on this side;

    1093
    but I confess that, after listening to it with the greatest care, I am at a loss to comprehend on which side the right hon. Gentleman was speaking—whether he advocated the Amendment or whether he was condemning the Bill without advocating the Amendment. The Committee have been told that if the money is not spent under this proposal by the County Council it would accumulate. But this is exactly the proposal of the Amendment—that the money shall not be set apart for a specific purpose, but accumulated until certain other processes had taken place. The right hon. Gentleman, however, denounced this process of accumulation. If the right hon. Gentleman's speech tended in any direction at all, it tended to the direction of proving that the taxation of the people for a purpose of this kind is bad, and ought not to be sanctioned by Parliament. But what I would point out to the Committee is that the principle was affirmed on the SECOND READING. The sum total of the speeches we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman amount to this: that in certain places and cases the County Council will not exercise their power, sometimes because they are not sufficient and sometimes because they dare not; because, as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded us, the question will be removed from the House of Commons to the counties, and the County Councillors will be told that if they use these powers they will lose their places. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman does succeed in causing the County Councils not to use these powers, what disastrous result will ensue? The only disaster will be that the money will be accumulated; and when the time comes for which the right hon. Gentlemen is so anxiously waiting, and when it will be his fortune to sit upon this side of the House, what an enormous advantage he will have conferred upon him. He will then have in his hand these accumulations, and what an opportunity will be afforded him and his friends to make proposals of a better and more satisfactory character. The point of view from which we regard the proposals is, that they will afford facilities for diminishing the number of public houses without any injustice to the owners of those houses. But whether
    1094
    we are right or wrong in that view, and if the County Councils do not exercise their powers, no harm will have been caused. The money will have been set apart, and it will form a very comfortable nestegg for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to deal with. I think we are justified in asking the Committee to resist this Amendment, and to adhere to the proposals of the Government. Nobody has pointed out that any real advantage will accrue from the powers of this Amendment. Some speeches have been made in its support, but only because they were against the principle of the Bill. Very little has-been said on the Amendment, but a great deal has been said against the principle of the measure; and we have had general speeches on the Bill over and over again in Committee. Well, Sir, it is sufficient for us that we do not share the doubts, apprehensions, and fears which are entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We do not see any sufficient reason to believe that there is any necessity to make provision for these powers proposed by the Amendment, and, therefore, we ask the Committee to stand by the proposals as we have submitted them to the House, and to reject the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has proposed, and which received such equivocal applause on the other side of the House.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: The Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend presents a test both of the sincerity and the earnestness of the Government as to their desire to extend temperance and diminish the number of public houses. What we complain of is that the power conferred upon the County Council is of no practical value whatever. No genuine results can flow from it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby made reference to the view which the County Council of London has expressed upon this matter. A few days ago I had a representation from the Town Council of Bradford. By a majority of 24 to five the Town Council of Bradford has passed a resolution praying the Government to abandon these clauses dealing with licences and compensation. We complain that this

    1095
    Bill establishes an enormous legal claim to compensation on the one side; while, on the other hand, the powers conferred on the County Councils to diminish the number of public houses of an improper and mischievous character are of no value whatever. Now, the Amendment of my right hon. Friend would clothe them with genuine and substantial power. While, on the one hand, they would be disposed to deal with some consideration for the publicans, on the other hand they would not be prepared to buy at extravagant prices the interests established in licences. If this Bill is passed, instead of the Magistrates being quickened in the exercise of the powers they now possess, I am convinced that it can not be for a moment pretended that the Magistrates will take upon themselves the unpopular duty of suppressing public houses. Supposing the County Councils want to get rid of some of these houses, the only power left in their hands is to distribute the money placed at their disposal. In the town of Bradford the annual sum would be about £3,000, which would only enable two public houses every three years, or three every two years, to be closed. Who can pretend that, out of 500 houses, such a dealing with the question is a genuine grappling with the evil? I can only say that the Government will be wisely advised if they abandon for the time being these provisions as to licences. We believe that in the country the Government will be held responsible for acting frivolously, so far as concerns their grappling with this licensing system. They are offering a gigantic bribe to the liquor interest, and conferring enormous profits on the brewers of this country. Until the Government have an opportunity of dealing with the licensing question on a larger scale, we should not have thrown at our heads a proposal of this kind, which will involve the country in an enormous burden, for the benefit of the brewers and publicans. I can corroborate what has been said by hon. Members as to the feeling outside. Since I have come into the House of Commons I have never had so many representations and Petitions on any subject as I have received upon this question; nor have I known proposals
    1096
    against which greater indignation has been expressed than those which we are now discussing.
    MR. WHARTON: It has been suggested that when I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill, I said I should be able to persuade the County Council of Durham to express approval of the Bill. If I said anything of the sort I should be guilty of overweening confidence and great impropriety. What I said had reference to the way in which this Bill would work. I said that the County Councils would propose a Licensing Committee, who would put themselves in communication with the owners of public houses—by no means always the brewers, as some seem to sup pose. They would make a selection of the public houses it was desirable to acquire, and they would then deal with the owners if the prices asked were reason able. If I said anything which pledged the Durham County Council, I should be unworthy to be Chairman of that body. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Clitheroe Division spoke for the County Council of Lancashire as if he pledged it. I do not think he meant it, because he had no right to do so. He spoke of the small sum which Lancashire would have to deal with. I do not see him in his place. If he were, I would remind him of a speech made at Birmingham in the year 1883, when a man, whose opinion he will respect, stated that £15,000 a year would suffice for a scheme similar to this. If that sum was sufficient for Birmingham with its teeming population, surely £50,000 is not a sum to be disregarded or refused by Lancashire. Now, Mr. Bright's scheme for Birmingham was entirely on all fours with this scheme. It was a scheme whereby £15,000 a year was to be obtained from the Drink Tax, to be applied partly in aid of local taxation, and partly in reduction of the superfluous public houses. With regard to the method in which this ought to be done, I say it ought to be left to the County Council. It is said that the County Councils would not adopt this scheme, and I do not know on what ground this is stated. At any rate,

    1097
    I do not believe it. I should be wrong to speak on behalf of my own County Council, but I should say that if they did not adopt the scheme they would have to reckon with the men who sent them there. I quite understand the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I do not believe it is the opinion of the country. I believe that when those who send representatives to the County Councils, see that this is a plan by which the superfluity of public houses might be put an end to, and that Gentlemen opposite have nothing to propose to effect that object, they will sustain Her Majesty's Government, and the common-sense of the country will adopt their plan. Of course, no one of sane mind supposes that we are going to do away with all the public houses of the country at one fell swoop, and when we hear of £250,000,000 being spent for this object it is hardly possible to understand how any man in his sober senses could have made such a suggestion as that. Here, at any rate, we have a scheme for doing away with the superfluity of public houses, and I believe that the good sense of the country will be disposed to adopt that scheme.
    MR. STOREY: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has told us he represents a County Council of Durham. I also have the honour to be a member of the County Council of the largest town in Durham, and when the hon. Member says that if we do not adopt this proposal we shall have to reckon with our constituents, I reply that if he and the Comity Council of Durham do deal with the purchase of licences, as proposed by this Bill, they certainly will have to reckon with their constituents. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the necessity of putting down the superfluous public houses, but I would remind the House that he is Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of the County of Durham, and that he and his brother Magistrates already possess the power.
    MR. WHARTON: Not in Quarter Sessions.
    MR. STOREY: What I mean is that he and his brother Magistrates, the Licensing Justices of the County, have at
    1098
    present full power to put an end to superfluous public houses, and I will go further, and say they ought to do this if they do their duty, but instead of this the hon. Gentleman suggests to this Committee that money ought to be provided by the people of this country to enable him to pay for the extinction of public houses which he and his friends ought to have extinguished themselves. Speaking of the Amendment before the Committee I cannot deny that if it be carried it will render the Bill inoperative, that is to say, that the money, instead of being used by the County Councils, will be tied up and suffered to accumulate as a fund to be used hereafter, let us hope, more wisely. I make the Government this free admission, but I want them, as fair minded men, to meet me on this ground and to consider what is the precise amount of loss their present proposal would amount to, because by ascertaining that we shall ascertain the measure of what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) pro poses to prevent us from doing, because in all these cases we must argue from the means we possess. In Sunderland there are 254 licensed houses, and the Bill would enable two of these to be extinguished per annum, but there is another important provision in the Bill which will enable us, if we choose, to borrow money, to borrow three times the amount otherwise placed annually at our disposal so as to put an end to a certain additional number. Yes, but under that additional clause we shall be held to have exhausted our power until such time as we can refund the whole amount we have borrowed. That is to say, supposing we in Sunderland borrowed three times the beggarly amount pro posed to be given annually by this Bill, we should have been at the end of the three years able to have extinguished six of the 254 licensed houses, leaving us still with 248. That is the full measure of the power proposed to be conferred upon us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford proposes to limit this power still further by tying it up altogether, the difference between my right hon. Friend and the Government, in the mind of all who care for

    1099
    temperance reform, being the difference between "Tweedledum and tweedledee." But I support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, not because I want nothing to be done, but because I want a great deal more done, and I can see in that Amendment a common sense and reasonable way of arriving at a solution of this question. I cannot help thinking that the President of the Local Government Board, who has shown himself to be a practical, shrewd, and liberal-minded man, must really see in this Amendment the secret of the success of any Minister who will take the proposal up. What does my right hon. Friend suggest? He suggests that the right, reasonable, and fair way of acquiring funds for the buying up of public houses is to tax the remaining public houses, and it is because the Amendment embodies that principle that I shall support it in the Division Lobby. His proposal means that, if we buy one public house, the remaining public houses ought to bear an enhanced Licence Duty sufficient to pay the cost of the purchase. Take a case in my own district. Of 35 public houses, 28 belong to two men. Suppose the Sunderland Town Council put an end to 14 of the 28. Who is to benefit? You may say the public; doubtless that is so, but who else benefits? Clearly the two brewers who own the 28, and who then will own the 14 left of them, first of all, by obtaining a substantial sum from the public purse, and, secondly, because the whole of the business that used to be done by 28 houses can now be done by 14, thereby largely reducing their annual expenditure over the distribution of their drink. Therefore, I shall always hold that neither this Ministry, which I do not think will be a Ministry very long, or any which may hereafter exist can settle this thorny problem unless they provide in some way that will be just to decent people who have invested their property in this business. I freely admit this, the contention being who is to make the necessary provision. The Government say it should be made by those who drink; I say it should be made by those who retain the monopoly of the sale of drink. My right hon. Friend's Amendment indicates this solution of the difficulty. I heartily concur with him, and shall support his
    1100
    Amendment. When I first saw this Amendment on the Paper I did not think it so valuable as I now think it. I thought it rather went beyond what is reasonable, but this afternoon's transactions have given it greater importance. What do those transactions amount to? Why to this, that the Government either have promised, or mean to promise, a Committee to consider this matter. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) shakes his head, but we are all accustomed to the progressive movements of Governments. Since the time I have been in this House, I have frequently seen Ministers promising a little one day in order that they might promise a great deal another day. The right hon. Gentleman knows that after what has passed this afternoon, there can be no settlement of this question until it has been considered by a Commitee. My right hon. Friend's Amendment proposes that the money offered by the Bill shall be tied up and held until such time as Parliament, after due deliberation, and after the Report of the proposed Committee, shall determine. That seems to me an exceedingly cautious and sensible proposal, and I beg, therefore, to give it my support.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I hope the Government will be able to deal with this question without indemnifying every person who has invested his property in the beer traffic. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that every shareholder in a brewery ought to be indemnified. These men have gone into a purely speculative business and taken their chance, and if they are un successful, why should the British taxpayer be called upon to recoup them?
    MR. STOREY: I do not wish my hon. Friend to misunderstand me. There are a number of people who have entered into this business and have been trained to it, and others who have inherited businesses of this kind. Before this question can be settled, the equitable claims of such persons will have to be met, but my point is that such compensation should come, not from the public purse but from the remaining licence-holders.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: When my hon. Friend speaks of the inheritors he forgets that the persons who inherit, inherit the chances. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that, perhaps, some small compassionate allowance might be granted to the actual occupier or licensee—that is to say, I would not give it myself, but if I found some Government proposing it I should probably move an Amendment against it, but that would not prevent me voting for the third reading of the Bill. I must certainly support the Amendment on its merits. There are exceedingly few Amendments proposed by a conscientious Liberal and opposed by a Conservative Government which would not have me for a supporter in reference to a Bill of this kind. I not only support this Amendment on these general principles but on its merits. It is most desirable that there should be only one body to deal with the whole matter of licences. If the power of licensing remains in the hands of the Magistrates a man may refuse to sell to the County Council save at an excessive price. But if the County Council be made the Licensing Authority it will be able to point out to the man that if he will not sell at a reasonable price he may not get a renewal at all. A Committee is, it now appears, to be appointed to inquire into this whole question of licensing. The only possible legislation will be to vest the County Councils with the Licensing Authority. They will then have the power to get the public houses at a far less price than they can do now when the publicans can fall back on the Magistracy. These Magistrates are the most objectionable tribunal in the world. They are a Conservative tribunal. In almost every case the Lords Lieutenant are Conservatives and great noblemen. One or two of them are Liberals, and in these counties, perhaps, the Magistracy is better than in other counties. We know that lately the brewers have made an alliance with the peers, and a brewer is now almost the same thing as a peer. They will act, as they have acted, together. The whole reason why this Bill is deemed necessary by the Government is that the Magistrates have granted an excessive number of licences to their
    1102
    friends. We may estimate that they will, without any regard to the requirements of a particular place, renew the licences year after year. The brewer will say to the County Council, "I really do not care whether you refuse my house unless you give me an enormous sum for it; I am perfectly safe with my friends the Lord Lieutenant and the Magistrates." Under these circum stances, I think it would be far wiser, from a Government point of view, to put off this proposal until you have made the renewer of the licence the same authority as the purchaser of the public house. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury tells us that he is actuated by so desperate a desire to render this country temperate that he cannot wait for another year. We all know that that is mere House of Commons talking. Surely he can wait for another year in order to deal thoroughly with the subject. It is true it does sound somewhat absurd to tax the people without allowing the proceeds of the tax to be expended for one or two years. That, however, is not our fault. The clause that enables you to tax and to devote the tax to a certain purpose has been already passed. We really do conscientiously believe that the best thing will be to put off the expenditure of this money until the Committee has held its inquiry and presented its Report.
    MR. J. ELLIS: I have talked this matter over with Conservatives and Liberal Unionists, as well as Liberals, in my own part of the country, and I have not met with a single man who did not condemn the present mess into which the Government have got themselves. Most of them were in favour of a compromise, something like that proposed in the present Amendment. They said it was quite impossible for the County Council to make use of the powers given them by this Bill, but they saw a wiser and better way in the direction hinted at by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), namely, that some vary moderate amount of payment should be fixed by Parliament, and should be obtained by raising the Licence Duties. I

    1103
    do not believe that if you close 14 public: houses out of the 28, as much would, be drunk in the remaining 14 as in the 28. But the 14 would be better managed, and would be more valuable, and it would be perfectly fair that they should pay increased taxation in order to pay at a moderate rate for the closing of the rest. In Leicestershire the publican no longer owns his public house. I, for one, will do all I can not only to stop the Bill, but to support this Amendment.
    (10.40.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 232; Noes 199.—(Div. List, No 138.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have some doubt whether the next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd-George), and proposing that the share of the money apportioned to Wales and Monmouth shall be applied for such purposes as a Joint Committee of such counties under the Local Government (England and Wales) Act, 1888, may direct, is in order, especially in view of an Amendment to Clause 3 proposing that the money payable to Scotland shall be put under the control of the Members representing the constituencies of Scotland. That Amendment, however, is clearly out of order. The present Amendment deals with an organisation already created, and, therefore, I think, it is in order.
    MR. RITCHIE: On the question of order, Sir [Cries of "Order"], it is perfectly true that under the Local Government Act of 1888, Joint Committees are allowed to be set up for matters which are common to the several counties which appoint Joint Committees; but I venture to urge upon you, Sir, that the Local Government Act gives no countenance to the setting up of Joint Committees with special reference to a matter which has reference to the whole of the counties of England and Wales.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: IS it to be understood, Sir, that we are to argue your ruling? Because, if so, we may spend the rest of the evening at it. I sup pose this is another method the Government have invented for saving the time
    1104
    of the House. Unless, Sir, you intimate that that is to be the course, I shall assume that your decision rules the Debate.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is quite in order, and it is the habitual practice, to address the Chair on the subject of its decision. But I do not think that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman affect the decision which I have already given.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George) I beg to propose to insert, in page 1, line 19, after the word "mentioned"—
    "That in the Counties of Wales and the County of Monmouth so much of such sum as shall, under the provisions hereinafter contained, be apportioned to the said several counties shall be applied for such purposes as a Joint Committee of such counties, nominated under the 81st section of the Local Government (England and Wales) Act, 1888, may direct."
    We have been told by the President of the Local Government Board that the pro visions of the Bill are not compulsory—in other words, that the County Councils need not use the money which is allocated to Wales for the purpose the Government have in view. We have also been told that if the County Councils do not care to use the money as is desired, the money will not be lost to them, but that it will stand to the credit of the counties, and, in fact, be hung up until Parliament determines what application it shall have. There is a good deal of uncertainty as to this unfortunate Bill. It is uncertain whether it is brought forward in the interest of temperance, or of the brewer and the publican. It is uncertain, say the Government, whether the Bill involves compensation or not; and, from what has been said to-night, it is uncertain whether a Committee is to be appointed to consider the whole question of licensing. But one thing is absolutely certain with regard to Wales, and that is, that not a single County Council in the whole of the Principality, including Monmouthshire, will use the money for the purpose of compensation for licences. That being so, is it not better to provide by the Bill that a Joint Committee of the whole of the County Councils in the Principality shall decide in what way the money shall be applied

    1105
    A Joint Committee, consisting of Representatives of all the Welsh County Councils, will be an important body, and the House will do well to leave to their discretion—a wise discretion I am sure it will be—the application of the funds.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 19, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "and in the counties of Wales and the county of Mon mouth so much of such sum as shall, under the provisions hereinafter contained, be apportioned to the said several counties shall be applied for such purposes as a Joint Committee of such counties, nominated under the eighty-first Section of 'The Local Government (England and Wales) Act, 1888,' may direct."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR.STUART RENDEL: I hope the Government will not regard this Amendment as in any sense a peg on which to hang a dilatory Debate. It has been introduced with the unanimous consent of the Welsh Liberal Members, and has the approval of the vast majority of the Welsh people, a majority far exceeding in number the constituents who return the 27 Liberal Members, a majority which includes no inconsiderable proportion of the Conservative element in Wales. I shall be very much interested to see whether any Member from Wales who sits opposite will venture to rise to oppose the Amendment. The case of Wales is one which I think deserves some separate consideration on the part of the Government. It is well known that the introduction of this Bill has created a far more profound feeling in Wales, than even in any other part of the Kingdom. The intensity of the feeling must be known to the Government by the vast number of Petitions that have come up from every quarter of Wales on the subject. It cannot be said that the Petitions are in any sense manufactured; upon the face of them they bear every evidence of spontaneity. They represent a sincere and earnest feeling quite apart from politics. They come simultaneously from innumerable small bodies of men scattered throughout all Wales, acting from a common impulse.
    1106
    The Representative Bodies in Wales have never lost an opportunity of solemnly recording their disapprobation of the proposals of the Government. I would point out that the great bulk of the petitioners have treated this Bill as one introducing the principle of compensation, which the President of the Local Government Board nevertheless declares not to be found within the four corners of the Bill. And I would ask how it comes that this House has received and accepted their Petitions if it be the fact that there is no compensation in the Bill? The feeling in Wales against the Bill is, of course, mainly directed against what they believe to be the principle of compensation contained in it, and it is for this reason that it is impossible, as was most truly said by a Welsh Member, that Wales should touch this money if it is to be applied to the extinction of licences; they regard it as unclean. It is not only the Representative Local Bodies of minor importance that have protested against the Bill, but even the County Councils have lost no opportunity of doing so. Such of the County Councils as have met since the introduction of the Bill have recorded their strong disapproval of the measure. I, therefore, appeal to the Government to consider the case of Wales separately, on the ground of the special and unanimous feeling of Wales. In urging this claim, I would point out that the liquor question has already received separate treatment in Wales. The Welsh Sunday Closing Act was a tribute of this House to the feeling of Wales on the question of temperance, and we all know that the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the Act, instead of as some hoped barring the Act, blessed the Act, not so much on the ground of experience as on the ground of the unanimity of the feeling of the Welsh people in favour of the Act. What we ask is, that Parliament, having already given Wales exceptional and special legislation with regard to the liquor traffic in the sense of restricting it, should not now offer to Wales the insult of proposing that she should devote her share of this £350,000 to giving a statutory vested interest, as she considers, to the drink trade. If there is unanimity in Wales,

    1107
    and if there is precedent for the separate treatment of Wales in regard to the liquor traffic, there is equal unanimity with regard to the desirability of spending some such sum as this in the promotion of education, and equal precedent for the separate treatment of Wales in the matter of education. Parliament, by the Act which I had the honour of introducing last Session, has given Wales the separate and distinguished right of levying a rate in aid of intermediate education, and I have no hesitation in asserting that if the County Councils of Wales and Monmouthshire became entitled, under Section 81 of the Local Government Act, to combine for the purpose of determining the form in which this money should be expended, they would decide it should are towards intermediate education. I am sorry I do not see the Vice President of the Council in his place, because he would understand what it would mean if Wales could only have the £30,000 a year which may fall to her out of this sum for the purpose of education.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question of appropriating the money to the purposes of education was discussed upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: I feel, Sir, your ruling is right. I am sorry I lost the opportunity I frequently sought, of stating these views on the Amendment of ray hon. Friend. I ask the President of the Local Government Board to consider how unreasonable it is to say to Wales, Unless you use this money as is suggested it must accumulate. Is it practical or business-like to leave the destination of the money uncertain? Why not at once determine the destination? Why not say that the disposal of the money shall be left to the County Councils? We tell you if you will simply give the money to the County Councils in Wales there can be no doubt they will use it in a manner which is not only in accordance with their most earnest convictions, but is in furtherance of the policy and working of an Act for which you took credit in the Queen's Speech, and which, I believe, you sincerely desire to foster. You will
    1108
    avoid giving deep pain and offence to large numbers of your own friends in the Principality. You will be acting in accordance with adequate precedents, and you will be promoting the success of an important Welsh measure which you seek to claim as your own.
    MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Courtney, after the expression of opinion that has just fallen from you, I shall not attempt to answer the hon. Member's arguments as to the propriety of devoting this money towards the advancement of education in Wales. I object to the Amendment on two grounds. In the first place, it proposes to reverse the decision of the Committee that the sum of £350,000 per annum should be applied for the extinction of licences in England. I object to the statement that Wales is not included in England.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: I believe we passed an Act last Session, in which it was agreed that Wales should not be included in England unless specifically named.
    MR. RITCHIE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. No such Act was ever passed, and if any such proposal had been made I should have resisted it most strenuously. Wales was included in that Act, but it was never intended that where Wales was not specifically included it should be excluded. In that Act we, no doubt, endeavoured to meet the sentimental desire expressed by Members for Wales that "Wales" should be added to "England." It was never contended that Wales would have been excluded if the name had not been added. On the contrary, it was argued at the time that without any mention of Wales, England, by statute, included Wales. My second objection to the Amendment is, that it proposes to set up a sort of National Council in Wales for the administration of this money. I have no doubt that you, Sir, have felt yourself completely justified in allowing this Amendment to be put, by the fact that, under the Local Government Act, arrangements were made by which Joint Committees might be set up, and, although I am not objecting to your ruling, I would point out that the pro-

    1109
    posals in the Local Government Act are very different in connection with the establishment of Joint Committees to those which are proposed in this Amendment. What was proposed in the Local Government Act was, that a Joint Committee might be set up to deal with any administrative question, such as the pollution of rivers, which was common to two or more counties. The same provision applied to England, but it could never be contended that England could set up a Joint Committee of all its counties for the purpose of disposing of money appropriated to England. Nor could it be contended that any such idea was ever in the mind of the framers of the Act of 1888, or in the mind of Parliament when the Act was passed. In fact, if I am not much mistaken, the question arose on some Amendment which was proposed and expressly negatived by the House. The hon. Member said it was an insult to Wales to hand this money over to the Councils for the purpose of dealing with an admitted evil. I admit that the amount is not sufficient for any large purpose, but the hon. Member can hardly contend that the placing of a sum of money in the hands of the County Councils to remedy what we consider to be an existing evil, is an insult to Wales or its County Councils. Nothing of the kind was ever intended, and it is the greatest straining of language to say that it was so intended.
    MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS: I do not think any advantage would be gained by discussing now whether, by the proper interpretation of the language of the statutes, England includes Wales or not. The question is whether Wales should not be excluded from that which we regard as a series of most baneful provisions. Hitherto Wales has been exceptionally treated, and especially in regard to the drink traffic. I do not myself attach any importance to the use of the word "sentimental." If it be sentimental on the part of the Welsh people to desire to encourage temperance, or to enrol themselves in the ranks of those who wish
    1110
    to stop the progress of the greatest evil which has for generations cursed this country, then I say that what you call sentimentalism is a thing to be encouraged and fostered. That such a feeling does exist is proved by the resolutions arrived at throughout Wales, and the unanimity with which this destructive proposition is condemned. I myself presented a Petition to this House from the Assembly representing the Calvinistic Church, something like 250,000 or 300,000 persons. Since then I have poured into the somewhat reluctant arms of the right hon. Gentleman Resolutions and Petitions by the score. I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for sincerity when he says this Bill was introduced in the belief that it would meet with the approval of the supporters of temperance in the country. But not only from teetotallers but from all who take an interest in temperance reform there came an unanimous cry of disapprobation of these clauses, and we have had an agreement from the other side of the House in that disapprobation expressed in a startling manner——
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must direct his argument to the special Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. B. ROWLANDS: I bow to your ruling, Sir, of course, and I pass on to the right hon. Gentleman's argument that there is no available body created by statute which could properly be entrusted with the management of these funds. He was obliged to confess, and readily did so, that the Joint Committee, to be nominated under the Local Government Bill, was not for such a purpose, but was intended to deal with such matters as the pollution of rivers. I do not know what led him to think that a general Council or Committee would be more properly exercised in dealing with such a subject; there is no language in the Bill that can be construed into such a limitation.
    MR. RITCHIE: As an illustration of what I meant, I pointed out that when it was desired to form a Joint Committee of all the Councils of England and Wales they had to come to Parliament to get express statutory powers for the purpose.
    MR. B. ROWLANDS: Such statutory powers as this Amendment desires we urge the Government to grant. The point I make is this, that the Joint Committee need not be confined to objects such as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Here is a question more serious than the pollution of rivers, a gigantic moral pollution which we seek to avert and we appeal to the Government to assist us in our effort by allowing County Councils the free expression of their opinions in regard to the application of these funds. The Government are in this dilemma, either the application they propose is popular in Wales and Monmouthshire, or it is not. If it is popular, then there will be no question of the application being in the manner the Government desire. If the feeling is, as we know it is, unanimous against the Government proposal, then it is not too much to ask that regard shall be had to our view, and that one more concession shall be made in the so-called sentimental direction, upon the principle that has already conceded exclusive legislation for Wales. Whatever may have induced the right hon. Gentleman to conceive that this measure was introduced in the interest of temperance, his views in this direction must have been considerably shaken, and however excusable may have been their introduction of this Bill into Parliament, he can no longer, if he has eyes to see and ears to hear, plead any sufficient excuse for continuing to press them on an unwilling country. The principle of separate treatment for Wales has already been conceded, and particularly in regard to the liquor traffic. The assertions that Welsh opinion did not desire a continuance of the
    1112
    Sunday Closing legislation were completely exploded by the evidence laid before the Commissioners. The distinct and separate treatment of Wales in that matter has been completety justified, and there is every reason for carrying the exemption to the point indicated by the Amendment.
    MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: The right hon. Gentleman opposes the Amendment on two grounds. The first is the technical objection that the question raised is res judicata, and this is disposed of by the ruling of the Chair. As to the second objection that the Amendment amounts to a setting up of a National Council for Wales, I frankly say that that is a reason upon which I support the Amendment. If ever there was a question upon which I may say the unanimous opinion of the Principality has been expressed it is this: The right hon. Gentleman talks of the pollution of rivers; but this is a question of the moral pollution of the whole country by the drink traffic. Welsh opinion, I say, is practically unanimous. I have looked through the Division List upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham, and I find only two Welsh Members voted against it. We are entitled to distinctive treatment; there is precedent for it in the Sunday Closing Bill. The Government systematically disregard the wishes of a whole nation, insisting upon giving us what we do not want, and withholding what we want. With or without this Amendment, I venture to say there is not a County Council in Wales will touch this money for the purpose the Government propose; it will simply accumulate. The Government are trying to drive this Bill through the House by dwindling majorities; is it wise in the face of the expression of an unanimous opinion of the Welsh people to force this legislation down our throats? I do not think the Division List will show any Welsh Member supporting the Government on this occasion.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: There is no part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board with which I can agree, but there was one portion of the speech which struck me with surprise and amuse-

    1113
    ment. I had always thought it especially the duty of Members on the Ministerial side and of Members on that Front Bench to support the decision of the Chair.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Well, Sir, I will simply say that no argument is needed to meet the first point of objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that this Amendment amounts to a revision of a Division already arrived at, inasmuch as you, Sir, have ruled the Amendment in order. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the setting up of such a council was never contemplated by the statute passed in 1888. But I apprehend what was contemplated must be gathered from the statute itself. I do not find that the objects are specified for which the council is set up. If this is not an administrative question that is common to all the Welsh counties I would like to know what is. It relates to the application of money which has been voted for the benefit of particular localities, and it is as much an administrative question as the pollution of rivers. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to meet any of the arguments advanced from this side in favour of the Amendment. He has not questioned, or referred to, the universality of the feeling in Wales. Let the right hon. Gentleman consult his own Welsh supporters. Will any Welsh Conservative Member get up and support the application of this money as proposed by this Government? Let him take the feeling of the Conservative Party in Wales. He may choose to disregard the views of the Radical and Liberal Party, but let him take any section in the Principality—excluding the publicans, who are pecuniarily interested—and he will find them in favour of such an Amendment as this. Indeed, I do not think a single Welsh Conservative Member can be found who will support the Government proposal. Intermediate education, I may remind the Committee, is not the only alternative object to which the money could be devoted. The Amendment does not define the alternative, but simply authorises such purposes as may be agreed upon by the Joint Committee of the
    1114
    County Councils of Wales and Monmouthshire. It is a safe and a truly Conservative proposal. In his own county of Carnarvonshire, and in Angle-sea, there is a strong feeling as to the heavy burden which the abolition of turnpikes threw upon the County Councils, and the money might be applied to lessen the weight of that burden. With respect to the necessities of Wales in the matter of education. Some counties, Denbighshire and Monmouthshire, have very liberal endowment, and would not have much necessity to resort to the powers proposed to be conferred by this Amendment, in order to eke out the funds of the County Committees under the Education Act; such counties would by this Amendment be enabled to apply some of the money not there needed for Intermediate Education towards the relief of the heavy burden of the maintenance of roads. The Government admitted this burden, and the necessity of relief, by introducing the Van and Wheel Tax; but other counties suffer greatly from the insufficiency of funds, and this Amendment would remove the grievance. I would urge on the Government that they will gain considerable credit by accepting this Amendment. There can be little doubt that the chief desire of every Conservative Member on the Benches opposite is to get out of the difficulty created by this Bill without discredit to the Government. The general feeling on both sides of the House is that this Bill has been a mistake; but by adopting the Amendment the Government will derive some credit from it, and at the same time confer a benefit on the people of Wales. No injury will be done to anyone by the adoption of the Amendment. Certainly the publican will not be injured. Not a single County Council in Wales will touch the money for the purpose in tended by the Bill, and the publican will not be injured by its application to other objects.
    Mr. RITCHIE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    (11.50.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 251; Noes 205.—(Div. List, No. 139.)
    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    (12.10.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 204; Noes 249.—(Div. List, No. 140.)
    It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to flit again to-morrow.

    ANGLESEY ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS BILL.—(No. 248.)
    Bill, as amended, considered; Amendments made.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    TREES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 70.)
    DR. TANNER: May I ask the hon.
    Member for South Antrim does he persist in his Amendment?
    MR. MACARTNEY: Yes; I regret to say I must do so.
    Committee deferred till to-morrow.

    POOR LAW (IRELAND) RATING BILL. (No. 149.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    NEW LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 249.)
    Order for Committee read.
    Several hon. MEMBERS: I object.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I submit, as a matter of order, that the proper course for hon. Members who object is to move that Progress be reported.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It would be a mere farce for me to leave the Chair merely to walk back again.
    Committee deferred till to-morrow.

  POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.

    EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVANTS.)
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: There is a Motion standing in the name of the
    1116
    right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Gorst), as to the inquiry into the fall in the value of the rupee and the pensions of East India (Civil Servants.)
    MR. JACKSON: It is postponed.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: This Motion is put on the Paper, and is passed over night after night without intimation.
    Order postponed till Monday next.

  MOTION.

    REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Mark Stewart, Bill to amend "The Removal Terms (Scotland) Act, 1886," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Stewart, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Marjoribanksr and Mr. Thorburn.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 342.]

    LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT, 1889–90.
    Copy ordered—
    "Of Return showing the total amount of the Local Taxation Licences and Probate Duty Grant paid into the Local Taxation Account in respect of the financial year ended the 31st day of March, 1890, and the amounts paid out of that Account to, or on behalf of, the Council of each Administrative County and County Borough, in respect of the same financial year."—(Mr. Long.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 226.]

  WEST INDIA MAIL CONTRACT.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of the Contract dated the 15th day of May, 1890, with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for the conveyance of Mails to the West Indies, together with a Copy of the Treasury Minute relating thereto."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 227.]
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before One o'clock.

THE CENSUS—PETITION.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I have to present a Petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the prayer of which states that the petitioners are desirous that the connection with different denominations of the people of Scotland should be definitely and authoritatively ascertained, and that this should be done in taking the next Census. I understand that this Petition is presented because in the course of certain recent events, importance has been attached by some people to the argument which may be deduced from there being a majority of those who adhere to one denomination rather than to another. Without expressing any opinion upon the validity or usefulness of that argument, I desire to say, on behalf of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, that their desire is that the exact state of matters, be it what it may, should be ascertained.
THE CENSUS—PETITION.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  A Bill to alter the constitution of the Fishery Board for Scotland; and to amend the law in regard to mussel fisheries in Scotland— was presented by the Lord Ker (M. Lothian); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 121.)

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF CLARENCE AND AVONDALE.
The Marquess of SALISBURY acquainted the House, by the Queen's command—
"That Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to issue Letters Patent, dated the 24th day of May, creating His Royal Highness Prince Albert Christian Edward Duke of Clarence and Avondale, whereby his said Royal Highness obtained a right to sit and vote among their Lordships in Parliament; and Her Majesty recommended it to the House to consider of the place his said Royal Highness should occupy in the House."
Ordered, That the matter with which the Marquess of Salisbury has acquainted the House, by Her Majesty's command, be referred to the consideration of the
950
Lords Committees for Privileges; and that their Lordships do meet to take the same into consideration To-morrow at half-past Three o'clock, and do report their opinion thereupon to the House.

STANDING ORDERS.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stand in my name of Standing Order No. 47. The object of the Amendment is that the noble Lord, who is in charge of any Bill, should ex officio be a Member of the Standing Committee to which that Bill is referred.
Moved, that Standing Order No. XLVII. be amended as follows:
NOTE.—The words underlined are to be omitted, and the words printed in Italics are to be inserted.
The Standing Committees shall consist in all of not more than one hundred and fifty Lords, and each Committee shall not consist of less than fifteen Lords, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who The Lord in charge of a. Bill committed to a Standing Committee shall be a member of the Committee during the consideration of such Bill. The Committee of Selection shall have power to discharge Lords with their assent from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged, and The Committee of Selection shall also have power to add not more than ten Lords to a Standing Committee, in respect of any Bill committed to a Standing' Committee, to serve on the Committee during the consideration of such Bill.—(The Earl of Morley.)
On question, agreed to.

THE CENSUS OF 1891.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, as the time is now approaching very closely when arrangements must be made for the Census of 1891, I think it desirable to bring under your Lord ships' notice a point with reference to the Census which has been raised on more than one previous occasion. I think it desirable, especially under present circumstances, with regard to which I have to say a word or two presently,

951
that there should be in the Census papers for 1889 a column showing the religious persuasion of all the persons whose names are returned. I think that as this matter has been mixed up some times with ecclesiastical questions, it may be as well to say that I do not make the Motion after having conferred with the Representatives of any Church, or in the interests of any Church, or against the interests of any Church. I make this Motion as a Member of Parliament, and I regard the subject entirely and solely from a Parliamentary point of view. I may remind your Lordships of what has passed on previous occasions with regard to this matter. Similar Motions were made in 1860, in 1870, and in 1880. In 1860 Sir George Cornewall Lewis moved that a column be inserted in the Census Bill of that year in the sense of that which I now propose. It was opposed by Mr. Baines, speaking on behalf of the Nonconformists, and he used mainly two arguments. He said, in the first place, that the State had no right to ask a man what was his religious belief; and, he stated, in the second place, that any such Return would be unfair and inaccurate, because persons who were not attached to any special form of belief would, if asked, declare themselves members of the Established Church. The Government of the day were not at all convinced by that argument, but they did not press the point. There was a considerable difference of opinion, and Lord Palmerston, in closing the Debate and giving way on the subject, said that while they gave way to the feelings of the opponents of the proposal, they did not much appreciate the force of their arguments. But though, accordingly, no change was made at that time with regard to England, Wales, or Scotland, Mr. Cardwell, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, assented to the introduction of such a column as that for which I am now asking your Lordships' sanction, and that was carried out in regard to Ireland. In 1870 Mr. Bruce stated, in answer to a question with regard to Scotland, that a religious column would be inserted in the Census Bill of that year for Scot land. The Free Church Assembly and the Established Church Assembly had both at that time petitioned in favour of such a clause being inserted; but some opposition arose afterwards in Scotland,
952
and the clause was withdrawn. In the year 1880 the question was raised again, and after a similar discussion and similar arguments put forward the clause was once more withdrawn. Now, the Motion was resisted, as I have said, by the Non conformists, and on the general grounds which I have stated. I am bound to say that, speaking merely for myself, I do not appreciate the force of the two arguments which I have mentioned; but, at the same time, I do not wish to regard this question from any narrow and far less from any sectarian point of view. I am perfectly ready to look at the matter as having different bearings, as I think those arguments have, when applied to the different countries. Now, my Lords, I am quite free to admit that in England there are considerable differences in the case as contrasted with Wales, and as contrasted with Scotland. In the first place, in England there are a very large number of religious denominations, of various kinds and of various strength, which differ very often from one another in very minute particulars, and with regard to which it might perhaps be difficult in some cases to make very accurate Returns. There may then be something—I do not think it is much, but still I am quite ready to admit that there may be something—in the statement that in England if persons who are not attached very strongly to any special form of religious denomination were asked this question they might declare themselves to be members of the Established Church. As I have said, there is something in that, but I do not think there is very much. But the strongest point of difference as it appears to me, when it refers to the Census of 1890, is that there is not likely to be, as far as one can see, any very important point raised with regard to the Church of England in a serious manner. My Lords, that is the reason why I think those who are opposed to this Motion may, on the present occasion, fairly say that they think great objections would be made to it in parts of England, and that they are not, as regards England, prepared to assent to it. But when we turn to Wales the case is entirely different. As your Lordships know, the Nonconformists in Wales possess a very large numerical majority—

953
at least I believe they are in a large numerical majority—as compared with the Church of England. I have seen it stated, and I am bound to say it appears to me to be a very strange statement, that the Established Church has in recent years been making considerable advances in Wales. That may or may not be so; all I say is, that I know no reason whatever, and I am very anxious to know whether there is any reason, for making such a statement as that. And, further, I do not see why, if this statement is incorrect, as it may be, the members of other religious denominations should object to any statistical Returns at all being made upon the subject, or how it can other wise be proved that that statement is incorrect. But, with regard to Wales, your Lordships will remember that a very important announcement has been made by Mr. Gladstone as the head of the Liberal Party. He has announced that it will be part of the Liberal policy put forward at the next General Election to carry out the disestablishment of the Welsh Church. It appears to me, my Lords, that for that very reason Parliament is bound to obtain the best information which it is in its power to get. I am aware it has been argued that the Members of Parliament have the best means of gauging the religious opinions of Wales and also of other parts of the country. I admit that, to a certain extent, that may be so, but Members of Parliament are not elected upon one question, and upon one question only, and even when they are, I have known occasions on which statesmen have been able to argue that when you put the minorities in certain places in contrast with the majorities in other places, it by no means necessarily follows that the conclusion arrived at is the opinion of the majority, or, at all events, that it is more than the opinion of a small majority. My Lords, for that reason it appears to me that, whether this be true or not, it is desirable that you should also have this second form of information, which, I think, is the most reliable form of all, namely the religious opinions of people as stated by themselves. But when we come to Scotland, the case be comes very much stronger indeed. With regard to Scotland, a similar announcement has been made; and it has been
954
declared, as your Lordships all know, that a prominent part of the policy of the Liberal Party will be the disestablishment of the Scottish Church. With regard to that I merely make one remark, in which I am sure that all your Lordships who have any connection or acquaintance with Scotland will entirely agree with me that no question could be put forward which will stir so deeply all the feelings of the people of Scotland as that question of the disestablishment of the Church. Well, that being so, and I believe it to be an undoubted fact, surely, my Lords, we ought to obtain, as far as we can, the very best information we can with regard to the various denominations of the Presbyterian Church. Now, I wish to press the question as regards Scotland most particularly upon your Lordships, because the arguments which I mentioned just now, and which I admit may have some force when applied to England, have no force at all when applied to Scotland. In the first place, every one belongs to some religious denomination. I am quite certain that the numbers of nondescripts in religion, as I may call them, are extremely small in Scotland. In the next place, the divisions between the various religious denominations, the lines of division, are very clearly marked out. You have the Roman Catholics, who include in their number the inhabitants of a small portion of the Highlands, and who also have a considerable number of adherents, mainly of Irish descent, in the large working towns of Scot land. Then you have the Episcopalians, who are also, I believe, a somewhat growing body. But the main body of the Scottish people are Presbyterians, and they are divided between the three forms of the Established Church, the Free Church, and the United Presbyterian Church. I dare say that to many of your Lordships the doctrinal distinctions between those three denominations may not be very clear, but in Scotland they are well known, and the members of those three religious bodies them selves know extremely well to which of those three Churches they belong. And not merely do they know to which of those three Churches they belong, but they have no objection whatever, to state their religious beliefs. My Lords, it has

955
been argued that it is an impertinence on the part of the State to ask any man to write down what is his form of religious belief. I am quite certain there will be no objection taken on that score, at all events among a very large majority of the people of Scotland. And, my Lords, you must remember that this matter is not being dealt with now from an exclusively novel point of view. This is not the first time we are asked to undertake to deal with it. We have dealt with it, as I have told your Lordships, in Ire land. It was dealt with in the year I860. Mr. Card well then inserted a clause which I think, if I remember rightly, was proposed by Lord Emly, enforcing a religious Return in regard to Ireland. What were the reasons why that was done? I do not think those reasons are very far to seek. I believe that that proposal was made because statesmen were at that time of opinion that questions connected with the Irish Church were likely to come forward within the ensuing 10 years. I imagine the Return was given in accordance with the wishes of the large proportion of the people of Ireland, and it has been worked upon, and successfully, from that time up to the present. My Lords, I may go even a little further. In 1860 that Return was a Return which everyone was compelled to make; but in the year 1880 it was made an optional Return, and I have the best reasons for knowing from official statements that the Return which was made in 1880 was within the smallest possible fraction as full a Return as was made when a religious Return was a compulsory matter. It was Mr. Forster, I believe, who desired that that Return should be optional instead of being compulsory, and the result was that that Return was willingly complied with. My Lords, I have reason for knowing, also, that it is approved of by ministers of all religious denominations, and that it has been found very useful for various practical purposes. Now, I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with many more remarks. Who is there in Scotland, I should like to know, who objects to it? I have been reading lately, and I dare say most of your Lordships have who are connected with Scotland, what has passed at the meetings of the General Assembly of the Free Church and
956
of the Established Church, in Edinburgh, and I observe that the Established Church approved of such Returns being given, and that the Free Church disapproved of it. I think they resolved to present a Petition to Parliament against it. I have made inquiries in the matter, but I think up to the present time that Petition has not been presented. I was rather anxious to see it for this reason, that I wanted to know what were the grounds which they put forward for objecting to a Return of this kind. In the year 1870, as I told your Lordships just now, they approved of a Return of that description. But what I desire to impress upon your Lordships is with regard to a Return of this kind under the present circumstances, when the question of the disestablishment of the Church in Scotland has become a very important political question, that the desirability or undesirability of such a Return is not a matter to be decided by any Church or by any Churches. It is a matter for Parliament to consider, and if Parliament is of opinion that, in dealing with such a grave question as this, it is necessary and essential to have the very best information which can be obtained, then I hope that Parliament will insist, at all events, for Scotland and Wales, upon such a Return being made. My Lords, holding such opinions, I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given notice.
Moved to resolve—
"That it is desirable that in the Returns of the forthcoming Census information should be obtained as to the religious persuasion of all persons resident in England, Wales, and Scot land, distinguishing in Scotland between the-various Presbyterian denominations."—(The Marl of Camperdown.)
THE MAKQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, on a recent occasion we were entertained by a member of this House, who sits on the Cross Benches, Lord Wemyss, with a discussion upon the merits of several Bills which are still in the House of Commons. I ventured, and I think some other Members of the House ventured then to point out, that that was an unusual and an irregular proceeding. Fortunately in this House we have a good deal of time, but if the practice of discussing Bills which are still in the other House of Parliament was to obtain, and if the contagion of it was to stretch across that hall I dread to think

957
of the increased power of delay which would result from such a practice. But my noble Friend opposite has gone further than discussing a Bill which is in the other House of Parliament; he has discussed a Bill which is to be introduced into the other House of Parliament, and he wants your Lordships in this House to prescribe the form that it is to take. I feel that on mere Parliamentary grounds alone, on mere grounds of regularity of procedure, I should not be at all performing my duty if I in any way acceded to the design of the noble Lord, or stated an opinion with regard to the matters which he has raised. I am confirmed in that view of my duty by the peculiar compromise of opinion at which he has himself arrived. Many people have thought that it is desirable to have a religious Census everywhere; other people have thought that it is not desirable to extend that principle to the British Isles, but I have never before heard any opinion expressed that it is desirable to have a religious Census in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and not in England. What is the ground which the noble Lord puts forward of such a distinction? Ho says that our religious differences are much more minute in England than those between the various sects in Wales and Scotland. Well, that is news to me. I have always (understood that it is one of the privileges of the Northern intellect to be able to distinguish between the various churches of the other side of the Border with a facility which is thoroughly denied to our coarser Southern intellect. Again, the noble Lord seemed to think that there was a puculiar species of timidity and terror, which belonged to the people South of the Tweed, and East of what ever boundary divides us from Wales— that whereas in Scotland people did not mind being asked to what religion they belonged; in England they felt a great terror in doing so, and always called themselves members of the Church of England.
THE EARD OE CAMPERDOWN: I said that it was only the opponents of this Motion who said so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But my noble Friend, by acceding to the omission of England, gives some currency to that argument. Well, I do not accept that opinion of my countrymen at all.
958
They always seem to me to be very free to express their opinions upon any sub jest, religious or otherwise, which comes uppermost. And I fear that if we once admit the refusal or inability of people to express their own religious opinions as a ground for not taking a Religious Census, you cannot confine that argument to England alone. Surely, there must be some people in Ireland, for instance, who have some fears of the opinions of their neighbours on matters which affect the community, either in a religious or a political sense. I do not wish to claim for my own countrymen any unusual amount of moral courage, but I really think they express their opinions quite as freely as they do in the Southern and Western districts of Ireland. I do not know what remedy we can adopt. What shall we do if we cannot trust a man to say of what religion he is? Shall we require an attestation from his two senior female relatives in order to ascertain to what religion he belongs? It appears to me that the speech of my noble Friend while sinning in the first instance, and principally sinning against Parliamentary regularity, has also, in the glimpse which it has allowed us to have of the logical condition of his own mind, warned us against forming any premature opinions on this subject. It is a matter to which I hope Parliament will give its attention. There is no doubt that by the House of laymen in Eng land and the Church of Scotland asking for this Religious Census, the position is somewhat altered on this question from what it was in former years, but I would earnestly deprecate any premature decision. I hope we shall not treat it, when the matter is before us, as a Government or Party question, but as one upon which each can give his opinion according to the best of his ability. I hope, however, that we shall not commit the gross irregularity of pronouncing an opinion upon Bills which are not yet before us.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, for many years I have generally agreed more or less with the noble Earl, if not with the noble Marquess, but on this occasion I must say I think that the criticism of the noble Marquess is just. I have been informed that there is a Departmental inquiry now going on

959
with regard to the best mode of carrying this Census into effect; and I think it would be very premature for this House to give its opinion with regard to the Census before the Bill has been introduced, which the noble Marquess has said is to be introduced into the House of Commons. My own opinion is strongly against introducing this clause for the purpose of obtaining a Religious Census. It is a matter which has been discussed for a very long time; it has been answered three times in the negative, and, in my own opinion, is entirely bad. But I am quite sure of one thing, and that is, that it is a great object to make this Census popular, and that anything which creates violent opposition to the Bill in the way proposed would be a very much greater Parliamentary evil than if the Religious Census were left out in dealing with this question, whether you shall include in or leave out of it a particular form of information. There is one point upon which I do not agree with the noble Marquess, and that is, that there should be no difference made between Scotland and England. Sup posing the one country desired that this piece of information should be obtained, and the other did not, although I have said my opinion is against the insertion of a clause calling for this particular information, yet if all Scotland were unanimous, which I very much doubt, notwithstanding the assurances of the noble Earl, in the desire to have it, that would place the question in a different position to what it is in England; for I believe the opposition would be still more violent than that which made the objection successful formerly. I do not know whether it was necessary to say even as much as I have said; but I entirely agree in the inexpediency of pressing this Resolution, and the more so because it strikes me that the Resolution of the noble Earl and his speech do not agree, for his speech was in favour of leaving out England, while his Resolution is for including it.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to offer a few remarks upon the suggested advantages and disadvantages of such a proposition as this, as it is naturally supposed that the Church may have a view upon them. It is
960
very often pressed upon the authorities of the Church that they should ask for a Religious Census. It is pressed on the ground of assertions which are constantly made as to the numerical position of the Church in comparison with other bodies, which we Churchmen believe to be entirely incorrect. But I believe that I shall state the real opinion of the authorities of the Church if I say that they have no intention to press for a Religious Census, and that simply upon the grounds put forward by the Nonconformists. It is put forward by Nonconformists that it would interfere with the is religious freedom, and it is also argued that an advantage would be derived by the Church from the supposed fact that persons who do not belong to the Church of England would possibly enrol them selves in the ranks of her people. The Church has no desire to take advantage of either position. She has no desire to reap any advantage from what could be regarded as an interference with the religious freedom of the Nonconformists, and certainly she does not wish to swell her lists by including in them people who are not of her religion. My Lords, the Church will, therefore, not press for anything of the kind. On the other hand, the Church will not offer the slightest resistance or objection to what ever may be thought advisable. The Church has knowledge of many facts-about her own position, and she would not object in the least if it were proposed to take such a Census, either in England or Wales. With regard to Scotland I have no right, of course, to speak. I feel that this is entirely a matter for the Government to determine, and I was very glad to hear the noble Earl say that he moved the question on purely Parliamentary grounds. The Church, I repeat, will feel no objection to a Religious Census being taken, but will make no movement to press for it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, before the question is put, I wish to say a word or two in reply. After what has been said from the two Front Cross Benches I shall not, of course, ask your Lordships to take a vote on the question; but if the sins of my speech were purely and simply sins with regard to procedure, I can assure the noble Marquess that I am quite ready to accede to everything he has said and to postpone

961
my Motion until this Bill, which I am told is not yet introduced—I do not know when it will be—has been introduced, or rather until such time as the Bill shall come up to this House. But I am afraid that I must have been rather awkward in the language which I used in expressing my own opinions, because the noble Marquess appears to have gathered from my speech that I saw great objections to such a Census being taken in England. My Lords, that is not at all what I intended; and if my words bear that meaning, I am afraid they were not very well chosen words. What I intended to convey to your Lordships was that if there is a strong objection felt in England—which I believe there is—that objection does not, in my opinion, apply to Wales, and still less does it apply to Scotland; and that in Scotland, at all events, the subject might be dealt with, and ought to be dealt with, in exactly the same way in which it has been dealt with in Ireland. I notice that neither of the noble Lords have alluded at all to the question of Ire land. On the question of Ireland I may, I daresay, on a future occasion have to call your Lordships' attention to the matter: but it is a very remarkable thing that when important matters with regard to the Irish Church were coming to the front, Parliament was then of opinion, and very rightly of opinion, that it was desirable that some kind of information should be obtained with regard to the position of that Church. It appears to me that exactly the same remark applies to the Established Church in Scotland and also to the Established Church in Wales. But I need not detain your Lordships any further, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) with drawn.

CHILDREN'S LIFE INSURANCE BILL—(No. 97.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, the Bill to which I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading this evening is a Bill for
  962
  amending the law respecting child insurance; and it appears to me that, in order to induce your Lordships to do this, I am bound to show you three things: first of all, that the present law affecting child insurance is unsound in principle and defective in operation; in the next place, that it leads to a very serious amount of evil, no less an evil than that of largely extended infanticide; and, thirdly, that the Amendments of the law which I now propose are likely to be effective in checking those evils as are in themselves just and reasonable. Now, my Lords, in the first place, let us ask ourselves what is the law at present which regulates child insurance in this country. Child insurance in this country is a thing of comparatively recent date. Until 25 years ago it was practically all but impossible that a child's life could be insured in this country. For 100 years previously to that time all life insurance, including that of children, was regulated by the well-known Statute 14 George III cap. 48, which forbade all insurances being effected on lives unless the insurer could show an insurable pecuniary interest in the life, and it forbade any sum being insured for more than that pecuniary interest. The reason given in the Statute is a very remarkable one; it is in order to prevent wagering and gambling, or, in other words, gambling in human life and speculating on human death. My Lords, that law prevailed for 100 years. Obviously cases have been very few in which a parent could have a pecuniary interest in the life of a child and in which he could thereupon proceed to insure its life under that Act. In 1875, however, the Legislature, with the best possible intentions, in order to encourage thrift in the working classes, passed what is known as the Friendly Societies Act. That Act repealed this salutary provision of the Statute of George III., and, within certain limits, of which I will speak presently, allowed the insurance of child life. Now, my Lords, obviously the principle on which the Parliament of that day allowed this was not, strictly speaking, the principle of life insurance at all. The life of the child was permitted to be insured on this ground, that although the child would produce no pecuniary gain to the

  963
  parent during its life, the expenses connected with, the death of the child might be heavy in respect of nurse, doctor, funeral, and so forth, and the Legislature intended that the parent should be enabled to recoup himself or provide beforehand for those expenses by an insurance on the child's life. In point of fact, my Lords, strictly speaking, children were allowed under this Act, as goods were allowed, to be insured. Under the Act of George III. goods which bring no pecuniary gain to the insurer, but the loss of which may be in Jurious to him, were permitted to be insured. My Lords, I cannot put the effect of this Act better than by saying that it allowed the lives of children to be insured as perishable—sadly perish able—goods. Now, it is quite clear that a person insuring either animate or in animate goods is exposed to this temptation, that he may insure for a large sum, and then, in order to obtain that sum, destroy the thing that is insured. Avid the Parliament of that day were quite alive to this evil. But they thought that they had sufficiently guarded against it by what I may venture to call a very clumsy provision which has proved a very inefficient protection against this evil; that is to say, they fixed a money limit in regard to the amount to be insured. The amount for which the insurance was allowed to be effected was, in the case of a child under five years of age, £6, and of a child between five and 10 years of age£10. Now, my Lords, to pass over the obvious absurdity of saying that a limit of £6 is sufficient to save the life of a child of five years of age, but that, for the same purpose, the limit may be extended to £10 beyond that age—that the limit of £6 is sufficient at five years old, but that a limit of £10 is sufficient in the case of a child which may be only three months older—there is this vital and inherent defect in attempting to provide a safeguard by imposing a money limit, that it can only be done on one impossible condition; that is to say, that you shall so balance the amount of death expenses on the one hand, and the amount of death profit on the other, that they shall be as nearly as possible equalised; because, if it should come to pass that while you have in the amount of death profit a fixed sum, yet that,
  964
  owing to circumstances either beyond the control of the insurer or largely within his control, as I shall presently show your Lordships may be the case, the amount of death expenses are considerably lowered, while the amount of death profit remains unchanged, immediately there emerges a margin of profit from the death, and with that margin of profit there emerges the temptation and danger of the commission of a crime. That, my Lords, is, I think, the inherent vice of any attempt at protection by imposing a money limit. Before I go on to show you how large a margin of profit does ensue to the insurer under the present law, let me point out that if there be a temptation and danger to life under the existing law, that danger is a hundredfold greater in the case of infant than in the case of adult life. The and it leads his life for the most part independently of the insurer, and to take the adult's life requires the commission of some deed of violence or some act of poisoning which may be traceable after death; but, in the case of infant life, none of these conditions exist. The fragile existence of the child is dependent for its very sustenance during its life, and for its preservation in disease upon the care and is absolutely at the mercy of the person, who, being its parent or its guardian, may have a pecuniary interest in its death. Is there, I would ask, any one of your Lordships who would allow one of your children to be entrusted to a sick nurse, who had a direct pecuniary interest in its death? But that is the case with regard to child insurance. In order to bring about a child's death there is no occasion for the violence which would be required in the case of an adult. It is only necessary that there should be a little neglect, a little exposure, a failure to administer the needful food or medicine, and the little life is quenched. My Lords, we know that the parent or immediate guardian of a child holds that child's life in the hollow of his hand, and it only requires a slight act of negligence, not perceptible to bystanders, for the death profit to be obtained. In the case of infant life insurance, you have, therefore, all the circumstances requisite for producing crime; you have present temptation, you have enormous facility, and you have

  965
  almost absolute impunity. The wonder would be if crime did not take place under those circumstances. Now, I will show your Lordships what is the margin of profit which will ensue in these cases to act as a temptation to crime. I must now ask your Lordships' attention to figures with regard to these insurances to show the extent of this evil. Child insurance has become a specialty in connection with three or four great Insurance Companies which have expanded it to gigantic dimensions. There are no less than 600,000 children in sured at this moment in Great Britain. These Societies are what I may call "Collecting Societies," which undertake the bulk of this kind of business. I desire your Lordships to note that I distinguish between Friendly Societies and these great Insurance Societies which conduct their business by collecting agents all over the country. As I Slave said, there are but throe or four of these great collecting Insurance Societies, and they do about 80 per cant, of the whole of the money value of this child insurance class of business. As to these Insurance Companies, opinions differ very much in regard to them. Opinion with regard to them ranges between the opinions of very competent judges, who are rashand irreverent enough to speak of them as "pests of society," up to the opinions of those Insurance Societies themselves, who assure us that they are the most calumniated persons in the world, and that they are nothing less than bands of enlightened philanthropists who, purely in the interests, and simply for the comfort and well-being of, the working classes, go about persuading them to insure the lives of their children. It is a matter of perfect indifference to my argument which of those views is taken. I am perfectly willing to accept all the Insurance Societies say of themselves, as to their disinterested benevolence and philanthropy, and to acknowledge they could not possibly be better if their Board of Directors consisted of Archbishops, and if all their collecting agents were Bishops, and I suppose, my Lords, that a higher ideal of human perfection you could hardly expect me to put before you. I am quite content to take that view, be cause what we are concerned with here is not the motives of these Societies, but
  966
  their methods. Now, I have a word to say about their methods and their results. Those methods, my Lords, are these: They flood and inundate the country with a number of insurance agents who receive a premium of no less than 30 per cent, upon each insurance. Those agents go from street to street, from house to house, from tenement to tenement, urging, persuading, pestering poor people to insure their children. Your Lordships will scarcely believe it, but I am told it is a fact, that in the benevolent zeal and earnest ness of these agents to do good, children are sometimes actually insured before they are born, and the sex of the child has afterwards to be put into the policy! From this follows one or two things. In the first place, that these highly competitive agents are not too scrupulous as to the characters of the persons whose children they insure, nor too scrupulous as to evasions of the law in regard to those insurances. Another effect is that this keen competition has reduced, naturally, the amount of the premiums paid on the one hand, and enhanced the amount of the policy monies on the other, to the utmost limits consistent with the modest profits which these benevolent persons allow themselves. I am going to give your Lordships a very short calculation to show the exact amount of profit that may be made on the death of a child whose life has been insured with one of these Insurance Companies. We will suppose that a parent insures a child for 1d. a week, and that that weekly payment goes on for six months. At the end of the six months he will have paid 2s. 2d., and then, upon the death of the child, he receives £2 10s. 6d. Well, my Lords, what are you, on the other hand, to deduct from that sum? You are to deduct, of course, all necessary death expenses. Yes, my Lords, but only necessary death expenses. I think we may safely say that a parent who means to profit by a child's death will not incur unnecessary expense upon the death. He is not likely to send for a doctor or a sick nurse, whose aim will be to preserve the life he wants to destroy; and I do not think, when the death takes place, he is likely to go into very deep or expensive mourning for the death of the six months old child whom he has just murdered! Then, my Lords, let us see what the death expenses are likely to be. First,

  967
  there is the expense of the funeral, and not even necessarily that, because the parent may drink every penny of the insurance money, and then the parish will be compelled to bury the child. But let us see what that expense, if incurred, may be? I have a list here of 12 undertakers in London who announce in their windows that they will conduct the burials of children under five, all expenses included, for gums ranging from £1 to 15s. Deduct that sum, together with the 2s. 2d. premium, from the insurance money £2 10s. 6d., and you have an average balance of some thing like £1 8s. 4d. profit. Not unfrequently, however, a child is insured in two companies. Nothing is commoner than the double insurance of children; and then for the additional penny a week, the parent gets the whole of the second sum of £2 10s., be cause although there may be two insurances there can be but one funeral, and the profit, as I;, have made it out, is simply this: that for the expenditure of 4s. 4d. in the course of six months the parent receives £5 Is., so that a balance or premium emerges on infantile murder of £3 16s. 4d. Of course, in the case of halfpenny premiums, the sum received is the half of that. Now, my Lords, these sums may seem very small to your Lordships, but £2 or £3 is not a small sum to that class which insures for a penny or a halfpenny per week. It is a very considerable sum to a needy man. It means the payment of arrears of rent, getting clothes or tools out of pawn, and far more frequently it means an immediate and near prospect of a big debauch, and the spending of the insurance money in drink. It has given rise to a horrible state of things in our great towns. Parents have been heard more than once to say of a dead or dying child, "Now we shall have a little funeral, and a big drink." My Lords, I state the whole case for the Bill in that one sentence. I want to stop these "little funerals and big drinks." I ask your Lordships to consider what horrible demoralisation to the human mind and heart there must be caused by this system when such a sickening phrase as that can become proverbial. Then, I ask your Lordships to see what protection there is for these child
  968
  lives? We are told that there is the protection of parental care and affection. I am very far from denying that in the very great majority of cases that is a real protection; but it is not adequate to meet all cases. We are accused of libelling the working classes in this matter, and of representing them as if they were devoid of natural affection. That accusation is absurd. We do not libel the grocer when Ave pass statutes against false weights and measures; we Bishops do not libel the clergy when we propose measures for enforcing clergy discipline. In every class and profession there is a residuum of evil-disposed per sons, and to take legislative precautions against them is no libel upon the rest. I believe that the affection of the poor for their children, and the privations they will go through in order to bring them up decently and put them out in life, their sacrifices for them, their care for them in times of sickness, are very noble traits among them. This beautiful feature in the character of poor working men and women is often exhibited in a way that puts to shame their betters. But there are such people as unnatural, cruel, and drunken parents; and until this residuum improves or disappears, there must, in the present state of the law, as I have shown, be serious danger to child life. My Lords, let me observe to you that though the proportion of these bad and cruel parents may be relatively small compared with the vast number of poor who treat their children with kindness, it may be absolutely very large. If only one in each thousand of these 600,000 children meets with foul play, it is a small figure as re presented in decimal fractions, but it means 600 children murdered in England every year. Take, again, other classes of children who are brought into the world every year in this country. There are 54,000 children who are described by the significant phrase "not wanted," illegitimate children. Take the case of the baby-farmer, who takes from the young trusting mother her child in order to hide her shame, and then locks it within her detestable den, where it will rot and starve. When you put all these things together, I ask your Lordships, may not there be very serious danger to child life? Then there is the

  969
  question of the protection afforded by doctor's certificates. The doctor must certify, of course, that the child has died from natural causes, or there will be an inquest and consequent exposure. My Lords, a doctor's certificate in most of those cases cannot be worth the paper it is written upon. The doctor is obliged to certify that the child has died from natural causes. The child may present all the symptoms of having died from what began from a natural cause, though its death has, in fact, been aggravated by improper food and improper treatment, and the doctor cannot possibly distinguish between the one case and the other. His certificate is, therefore, useless, unless he knows the history of the case. From whom is he to get that history? The only persons who can give it him are the persons who ex hypothesi are engaged in the proceeding of so ill-treating the child as that it shall die. My Lords, I will give you one letter from a medical man before I go further, and I will at once ask your Lordships to take each piece of evidence which I give you merely as sample evidence, for if I were to put all the evidence in my possession before you my speech would last until midnight. I have here a letter from Dr. Barwise, a medical man of Birmingham, who wrote to the public papers about it. He says—
  You are to my painful knowledge absolutely within the truth when you state that every year hundreds of parents are guilty of child-murder in this town. Besides the cases brought to light in the Coroners' Courts, there are vast numbers more which are reported to the Coroner, but which, after inquiry, he decides it would be useless to hold inquests upon, and there are also many more where the medical attendant is compelled to grant a certificate, because he could prove nothing against the statement of the parents. The fact is, there are no certain signs whereby starvation can be detected, and the medical man has to rely upon the bare word of the mother that the child is properly and regularly fed. Every thoughtful practitioner must be fully convinced that he has filled up 'marasmus' (wasting disease) to parents who have practically starved their children to death. Frequently the first thing the mother says is— 'I suppose you will give me a certificate if any thing happens.' Hardly a day passes without my hearing it, and I generally find that the parent would gain several pounds from some Insurance Office if their child died."
  So much, my Lords, for the protection afforded by doctors' certificates. Then,
  970
  if these people do not escape that mesh there is the chance of a Coroner's Inquest. But, again, there is little chance of the Coroner interfering successfully, because the principal witness must be the medical man—the poor little children are, of course, not competent witnesses—and who else is there to convict in the vast majority of these cases? The Coroner's Juries are generally told by the Coroner, "There is no legal evidence to convict this person." I will now trouble your Lordships with a very important and interesting letter from another medical man on this subject. He says, writing to myself—
  "I am perfectly satisfied that there are any number of murders of innocent children for the sake of the insurance money. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to bring the crime home to the parents, as it is so easy to get rid of an infant by neglect, irregular feeding, and bad food, and, even when ill, neglecting to carry out the doctor's orders. I have seen several cases of this sort when in practice in Devonshire, and was so impressed with the fact that I gave out that I would have an inquest held on any child dying that was insured. ID some very bad cases in which inquests were held I was met by the one question, Are you prepared to swear that the child would have lived had it been properly fed? As I could not swear to anything of the kind, but simply express my belief, the verdict was returned as death from natural causes, although everyone knew well that the babies had been as much murdered as if they had had their throats cut. The mothers are too crafty to starve them to death, but give them sour food, causing diarrhoea, expose them to cold, &c, and neglect to give medicine, &c, as ordered."
  And then the infant dies. Your Lord ships see, therefore, what protection there is afforded by the Coroner's Inquest and Jury. Then, if they do not escape the Inquest, next comes the Court of Assize; and if your Lordships think for a moment how much stronger the evidence is required to be in a Courtof Assize, and how difficult it is to obtain a verdict there, you will see how likely these persons are again to escape conviction, that each of the successive meshes lets through a vast number of cases, and that neither the doctor's certificate, the Coroner's Jury, nor the Court of Assizes-prove a sufficient check upon infanticide. My Lords, I have gone through the cases of supposed protection to child life, which, it is sometimes said, make infant insurance perfectly safe, and your Lord ships will judge of what effect they are; but I shall prove to your Lordships that

  971
  infanticide really does occur. We who bring forward this Bill are asked, "Can you pro duce any cases of infanticide?" If, by cases of infanticide, you mean cases of infanticide which have been brought to trial, and in which a conviction has been obtained, and where those convicted have been punished, of course we cannot produce such cases. If we could, there would be no need of this Bill. It is just because there are in the majority of cases no means of securing punishment that it is necessary to alter the law. As the Committee of the House of Commons on Friendly Societies, in their Report the other day, say—
  "It is almost impossible to bring to conviction crimes committed in the privacy of the house."
  It is necessary, therefore, to bring for ward a Bill of this kind. But, my Lords, these convictions do occur, and when they do occur, they let in a very lurid light on child insurance. My Lords, I need scarcely say to you that the evidence which will warrant a Judge and jury in hanging a man for murder, and the evidence which will warrant the passing of an Act to prevent him committing murder, are not exactly of the same character; and I think it is absurd to ask us co give you the same evidence in one case as in the other. But I will give you the opinion of persons who are quite competent, as your Lordships will agree, to judge in this matter. First, I will give you the opinions of Her Majesty's Judges. They are certainly persons who have ample opportunity of forming an opinion. Let us see what they say. Mr. Justice Day stated in a recent case—
  "Those pests of society, those deadly Societies which insure children, which seem to be instituted for the destruction of children, for the perpetration of murder."
  Here is Mr. Justice Wills—
  "It is a melancholy fact that in a great many of these cases—the deaths of young children—the wretched children's lives have been insured. These Insurance Clubs or Societies have their agents all over the Kingdom, persuading people to insure the lives of their children for sums which are a great temptation toward their destruction. I cannot say how strongly I feel on the subject of these Insurance Societies for very small children. Originally, I have no doubt, some of them were started with the motive and for the purpose of inducing people to save, so that, in the event of a calamity happening, they would have the meads to meet it; but they have terribly
  972
  degenerated. How many cases have I tried, from one end of the year to the other, in which the subject of the inquiry was the death of children whose lives had been insured? Often times it would be a much more correct definition of these so-called Insurance Societies to say that they were Death Insurance Societies."
  Those are the opinions of Her Majesty's Judges. Now, my Lords, I will give you the opinions, if you will bear with me for a moment or two longer, of a number of Coroners. Here is the opinion of Dr. Macdonald, the Coroner for the North-East of London. He was asked, in giving evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons—
  "Are you of opinion that infantile insurance is an incentive to crime? A. I am distinctly of that opinion.—Q. You have also had experience as a Medical Officer. Does the result of your practice run to the same conclusion? A. Yes, as a doctor I saw that the general rule was not to kill the children outright, but to let them die gradually from bad feeding, not having medical attendance, and so on."
  Another Coroner, Mr. Troutbeck, of West London, says—
  "The practice of insuring infants' lives seems to me to be a custom that is to be condemned on every ground."
  Then Mr. Hawkes, the Coroner for Birmingham, says—
  "As long as those abominable infantile Insurance Societies exist, so long will mothers come to this Court to tell the story the jury have heard to-day."
  Then the Coroner for North and South Wales, Mr. Cuthbertson Howell, says—
  "The practice of insuring children is becom ing far too common. If insured children are taken ill, they are frequently neglected. Their parents have a direct interest in their death."
  One instance more, my Lords. Mr. Carter, the Coroner for the County of Gloucestershire, says—
  "The longer I live, the more occasions I have to look with suspicion on deaths of young children that are insured. Insurance en courages a greater interest in their deaths than in their survival. I shall do all I can to put it down."
  My Lords, I have given you the evidence of Coroners. I will now pass on to the evidence of clergymen. You will find that two Committees of the Houses of Convocation reported strongly upon this subject, and the last Committee more strongly than the first. I will now give the evidence of Public Registrars, who have great acquaintance with these matters. Take the opinion of Mr. Lud-

  973
  low, the Chief Registrar General of Friendly Societies, as given before the Committee of the House of Commons. He says—
  "I think it perfectly clear that in no case is it the interest of these Societies to increase infant mortality; all Insurance Bodies wish life to be prolonged and not shortened; but I have no doubt that the practice of such societies does tend, and must tend, to increase infant mortality. The mere fact that a collector calls week by week at a poor man's house, or room, rather, to receive ½d premium for each of his children must familiarise those parents with the death of those children."
  Then Mr. Ludlow is further questioned by Mr. W. F. Lawrence, who says—
  "That is precisely what I wanted to elucidate; it is only presumption; there is no evidence really worth talking of to prove the increase of infant mortality under the system; it is what we may all think likely, but there is no real evidence to go upon. Answer: No; but at the Friendly Society Commission we certainly found that infant mortality was greatest in those towns and localities where these Societies were strongest."
  Then Dr. Thomas W. Grimshaw, Registrar General of Ireland, referring to the City of Dublin death-rate amongst children, said it
  "Was very large, and an extraordinary thing to be observed in connection with it was the number of the children who died not having been seen by medical men, and no exertion having been made to save their lives. The way in which children were allowed to die, so that insurance money might be had for them, was a disgrace to the whole nation."
  Let me give your Lordships one more instance, and a very important one. It is the evidence which is afforded by the verdict of a jury last year, if I recollect rightly, in a case of child murder, where the child's life was insured—
  "The jury are of opinion that the facilities given by the loose system of life insurance practised by some of the companies is an incentive to wilful murder for the sake of the insurance money."
  And they desired the coroner to convey that expression of opinion to the Home Secretary, in the hope that the Government might initiate some legislation to remedy the evil. My Lords, I have now given you a large amount of evidence from our Judges, coroners, medical men, clergymen, and insurance registrars; and now let me give you the last expression of opinion with which I shall trouble the House, and to me one that has moved my own mind very much. When it was known that I was introducing this
  974
  Bill into your Lordships' House I received a letter from the head of a shoe factory in my own diocese, from one of those men who, as we say in Northamptonshire, "has risen from the shoemakers' bench" to the control of a considerable factory. He writes to me to say—
  "My Lord, I am delighted to hear that you intend introducing a Bill into the House of Lords to stay the lives of infants from being insured, as this is getting a crying evil in our villages. Agents are coming round daily persuading mothers to ensure the lives of their children. I feel persuaded that once the question is taken up in Parliament, it will stay a great amount of evil."
  May I add one instance more which affects my own mind greatly? The wife of a respectable artisan in Peterborough, who had lately lost her child in the infirmary, said to the Sunday school teacher of her child—
  "Ah! Miss, my poor child was not insured 5 my husband and I lived in Sheffield 11 years, and we saw so much of the wickedness in the way of child insurance that we agreed that no child of ours should ever be insured."
  And when she was told I was bringing in this Bill she said, "Thank God! he does not know the good he will do." This, my Lords, is evidence from the working classes, whom we, the promoters of this Bill, are accused of libelling. The evidence I have given your Lordships' House is simply sample evidence, and it can be multiplied to any extent. Now, against all this, what is there to be said? We are told there is statistical evidence against it, and I must really ask your Lordships' attention for a moment to this extra ordinary example of statistics. This is not a very amusing subject, but I think this will amuse your Lordships. We are told that it is impossible that there can be this amount of child murder, be cause the statistics show that the percentage of mortality among the insured children is considerably lower than the general death rate all over England, to the extent of no less than 8 to 15 in favour of the children insured in these Societies. Well, my Lords, if this precious-piece of statistics were worth anything, as I can assure your Lordships it is not, it would certainly prove the most extraordinary physiological fact conceivable; it would prove that so invigorating is the process of insurance in the case of an uncon-

  975
  scious child six months old, that it lives longer than an uninsured child. So that, my Lords, it would come to this, if these statistics are correct, that these Insurance Societies are a kind of health resort for sick children, and that when a doctor has tried every other remedy and feels himself compelled to say "I can do no more," he need only add "Try insurance; and if that does not save his life, nothing else will." But these extraordinary statistics are easily disposed of in a moment. The Registrar General's Returns are, of course, credited with the number of deaths of all children born alive in this country, but the Insurance Societies are not credited with the deaths of those children who die before they have been insured. Of course, the rate of mortality diminishes day by day from their birth. Another most important thing to be remembered is that a very large amount of child insurances in these Societies fall through; that is to say, their parents fail to keep up the payment of premiums on the policies, and they become what are called "lapses." In that case they go off the books of the Societies, and I suppose the benevolence of the Societies does not induce them afterwards to endeavour to trace out the parents for the purpose of giving them any benefit from the premiums paid. If those lapses amount, as I am told they do, to nearly one-third of the whole number of such policies taken out, your Lordships will clearly see that the area in the one case from which the percentage is taken, and the area in the other are not equal, and, therefore, these statistics are worth nothing. My Lords, I have gone as rapidly as I could through the very largely-extended case which I have to put before your Lordships consistently with doing anything like justice to it or making it plain to the House; and I have, in the last instance, to put before your Lordships what the remedies are which I propose in my Bill for these terrible evils. The Bill is really very simple and very brief. It contains in the 1st clause a provision which extends the protected life of a child to 14 for boys, and 16 for girls. That, as most of the other provisions are, is in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. It brings down, also, the absurd inequality between the death
  976
  expenses and the death profits by lowering the amounts for which children's lives can be insured. Then follows in Clause 2 a provision upon which I con fess I lay very much stress, though it has been strongly objected to, and it is the provision that the money shall not go to the parent or person insuring, but to the undertaker. This follows the analogy of the sick club, where the money does not go to the parent, but to the doctor attending the sick child. There can be no profit to the parent under this clause. But there are some objections put forward to this pro vision. The first is, that there may be collusion between the undertaker and the parent. Against that we pro vide by heavy penalties to be inflicted for any such collusion, and I should hope and trust that if there were any such attempts those penalties would be rigorously inflicted, and I should then hope that the sight of a collusive under taker and parent on the treadmill would have a very good effect in preventing those collusions for the future. But the principal objections which we have to meet, we may say, are two: one is, that it would prevent the parent providing for the medical attendance upon the child, as the money must all go to the undertaker. But the services of a doctor can be obtained for the payment of a penny a week by another insurance. There is nothing to prevent the parent doing that with no gain to accrue at the child's death. But, my Lords, if that is not thought to be enough I am perfectly willing to put a clause into the Bill which will provide for payment of the doctor's attendance out of the insurance money, as well as the undertaker's fees. Then, the last objection is, that you would greatly enrich the undertakers by this measure, because the parent who has insured his child for £5 cannot put it to any other purpose which may be desired, but is obliged to give it all up to the undertaker. Well, my Lords, I would rather that undertakers should be enriched than that children should be murdered—if you are obliged to do it. But you are not in the least obliged to do it. That objection could only apply to the death-profit on insurances now effected. It could only apply in case the operation of the Act is retrospective, because as soon as new insurances had to be effected under this Act parents

  977
  would not be so simple as to insure for a larger sum than was needed to provide for the funeral expenses, in order simply to enrich the undertaker. Therefore, the whole of these objections disappear, and would be at once met by doing what I am perfectly willing to do in Committee, that is to say, cutting out of the 9th clause the latter part, and leaving it simply that this Act shall not affect con tracts which have been entered into until after the date of its passing, thus making it entirely prospective. I can only say that I shall be perfectly prepared to consider any Amendments upon this clause which may be proposed in Committee, which will not interfere with the object and intention of this Bill, which is simply to prevent the possibility of a death-profit being made by the insurer. My Lords, if we cannot prevent this evil by this Bill of mine, or by some other Bill which your Lordships' wisdom may devise, then there is one other alternative, and to that we shall have to come. That is, the absolute prohibition of infant insurance altogether; because I am quite certain of this, that when the conscience of the English people is once fairly roused as regards the iniquity and cruelty now going on in connection with child insurance, they will come to one resolution at any rate, that do it as you may by legislation, settle it as you choose in your wisdom, one thing they will not have, one thing you must prevent, and that is a system by which parents all over England are making money by the deaths of their children. That is what the object of the Bill is. My Lords, the other provisions in this Bill are mainly provisions which are recommended in the Report of the Friendly Societies, Committee, to which I have already alluded: Let mo say a word or two in conclusion, perfectly respectfully, of the Report of that Committee of the House of Commons. That Committee, unfortunately I think, imposed upon itself a very severe limit as to taking evidence upon this subject. It excluded all evidence that was not sworn evidence, and the consequence was that a number of letters and published statements, which I have now read to your Lordships, were excluded from the consideration of the Committee on the ground that the writers were not there to swear to them. I have no doubt
  978
  the Committee had good reason for what they did; but the result, unfortunately, was the exclusion of a large amount of evidence, and the consequence was a very guarded and cautious Report. But the Report, nevertheless, states that there is considerable danger to infant life under the present state of the law, and makes a number of recommendations to prevent this danger which are followed in the pro visions inserted in this Bill. And now, my Lords, I have only to entreat you to pardon me for dealing at so great a length with this subject, which, I think, however, I could not possibly have com pressed into smaller limits than I have set myself in dealing with it. Believe me, I have shut out very much that I could have given in the way of evidence, much that I might have said, in deference to the convenience of your Lord ships; but I trust I have said enough to induce the House to consent to the Second Reading of this Bill. If your Lordships should be of opinion that the evidence before you is insufficient, and that the really well-conducted Friendly Societies should be heard before a Committee of this House the Bill is passed, I have no other objection except that it will delay this measure. I have and can have no other desire than that the best interests of the working classes should be fairly, truly, and properly considered in framing such a measure as this. But, however it may be dealt with, I am perfectly persuaded that your Lordships will not let this matter drop, that Parliament will not let this matter drop, and that the country will not let the matter drop, once the facts of the case are fairly brought before them. My Lords, I can assure you that I have not overstated my case; on the contrary, I have been careful to understate it, because I know that exaggeration has no weight with the judicial temper of this House. I have seen myself described in the papers, by my opponents, as the very pathetic prelate who is to persuade your Lord ships to pass this measure. The only pathos which I have brought before your Lord ships to-night is that of very sad and terrible facts. I would not attempt to induce your Lordships to pass this Bill by any persuasion of mine. If I do induce you to pass it, it will only have been by the unimpeachable evidence of its necessity which I have

  979
  adduced. If what I have said is believed by your Lordships to be really true, I feel sure that I have an advocate in the heart of every one who is now listening to me, that will plead for these poor little ones much more effectively than I can plead for them. There is not a parent present who is gladdened by the sight of his little ones, who has known the joy of looking into their faces, or who has known the sorrow of looking with ineffable anguish on the still, immovable face of a little one, whom all his wealth, all that care, skill, and affection could do has failed to snatch from death—there is not a parent here who will refuse to listen to me when I plead for these little ones who have, through all their lives, never, perhaps, known a kind word or look, but have only known that last act of cruel mercy which has terminated their lives. I feel sure that your Lordships will do all in your power to interpose the strong arm of the law to defend these little helpless, hapless children from the misery which now haunts their lives, and from the greed and cruelty which too often untimely end them. My Lords, I have the honour of moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Peterborough.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have to appeal to your Lordships' indulgence, speaking under circumstances of some personal difficulty to myself, but as I had the honour of being responsible in this House for the Act of 1875,I should be failing in my duty if I did not follow the right rev. Prelate through a portion of the remarks that ho has addressed to your Lordships' House. I am conscious of the enormous difficulty of attempting to mitigate in any way the effect of the impassioned appeal which the right rev. Prelate has addressed to your Lordships. He has told you that he has appealed to facts. There is one fact, and one fact only, in his speech. He told us he would produce evidence, and what he produced as evidence was only opinion. Is the evidence of opinion sufficient evidence for legislation, on a matter of this kind? Eloquence is a great gift, but I should be sorry indeed, if I possessed such eloquence as is possessed by the right rev. Prelate, to use it in the manner he has used it to-night. He began by telling us that the legisla-
  980
  lation on this matter began in the year 1875. My Lords, that is not quite consistent with my recollection of the facts. The Act of 1875 was, in respect of the burial of infants, only a consolidating measure, and kept alive the Act which was passed in the year 1854. The Bill of 1854, dealing with Friendly Societies, was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, than whom it will be admitted no more humane man ever sat in Parliament. It dealt with the necessity of such provisions as those which the right rev. Prelate introduces in his Bill. Lord Palmerston, who was then Home Secretary, said that his feelings on the subject of infant insurance were of a most painful kind; but he did not dissent from evidence being given and facts ascertained, and the measure was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. On that Committee sat my noble Friend Lord Norton and also Lord Ossington, who was certainly an ornament to both Houses of Parliament. The members of that Committee went carefully into the matter, and they took evidence of a most searching kind, and it is to that evidence which I wish to call your Lordships' attention. They called before them, to give evidence, persons who were most qualified to give an opinion upon the subject, and that opinion was tested by cross-examination. Some of the gentlemen occupying the highest positions, who had expressed strong opinions á priori, when their evidence came to be tested by cross-examination were compelled to recede from the positions they had taken up. If I had had any notice that the right rev. Prelate would have framed such a bill of indictment against the working classes I should have been better prepared to answer it; but—
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: Would the noble Lord pardon me for a moment. I have framed no bill of indictment against the working classes. I expressly said that I desired to pay every tribute to their affection and kind ness for their children, and that the measure was necessary only for the small number in proportion to them of bad and cruel parents.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not think a few honeyed words are a sufficient apology for the eloquent attack

  981
  which he has made upon the working classes. I am afraid that in answering that attack I shall have to trouble your Lordships at greater length than I should wish with the evidence given before that Committee; but I think that is the best way of meeting such a general attack upon these poor people. If I had had any idea that the right rev. Prelate would have made the speech he has addressed to your Lordships' House, I should have been better prepared to deal with it; but I shall, at all events, present to you evidence upon this subject which is complete in itself, and which cannot be impeached, from one of the most valuable Reports, in my opinion, which have ever been made to Parliament. The right rev. Prelate1 has told your Lordships that the present state of the law presents a large incentive to infanticide. He laughed to scorn the only real test which can be applied in the matter—the test of statistics—and he was very jocose on the idea that infants who are insured should enjoy a more lengthened vitality than infants whose lives are uninsured. I do not read the statistics in the same way as the right rev. Prelate. I read them in this way, as showing that parents who insure the lives of their children are for the most part persons of thrifty and self-denying character, and that they take care to surround their children with home comforts, home care, and home independence, and that that accounts for the great advantage which vital statistics show the children who are insured possess over those who are uninsured. My Lords, the right rev. Prelate told you that by paying 1d. a month, I think, they would obtain a considerable sum.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: If the noble Earl will pardon me again, what I said was, by paying 1d. a week for six months they would be able to obtain a certain amount of death profit.
  EARL BEAUOHAMP: It does not affect my argument. The right rev. Prelate told us that by a payment of 1d. a week for six months, which would amount to 2s. 2d., £2 10s. could be secured at death; and he then went on to describle the vast organisation of these Insurance Societies, their employing un worthy collectors, who were going about all over the country persuading poor
  982

  working people to make this payment of 2s. 2d., by which at the end of six months they were to insure the payment of £2 10s. I would venture to ask, did any of your Lordships ever hear of an Insurance Society which was capable of working business on those terms with anything like profit to itself? How can an Insurance Society, by receiving 1d. a week for six months, gain a profit by paying £2 10s. at the end of that period? My Lords, the thing is monstrous, and your Lordships will see it is one of those statements which are made on á priori convictions, but will not stand the test of evidence and facts. I cannot understand how the right rev. Prelate has persuaded himself that it would produce any profit to an Insurance Society to conduct their business in such a manner as that. If that were done I am quite sure that Insurance Societies would always be in difficulties, they would be in a state of perpetual collapse. But I think in the very nature of things it is clear that an Insurance Society usually conducts its affairs with some kind of idea for its own profit, which certainly would be lacking to the shareholders if such a system of doing business prevailed as that which was described by the right rev. Prelate. Now, my Lords, the right rev. Prelate described how dangerous it would be to hand over the care of a sickly child to a sick-nurse before whom a temptation was laid that she should receive the amount of the death insurance. But the right rev. Prelate seemed to forget that in these cases the sick-nurse is the mother of the child, and I do not believe that there are many mothers in England—at all events, I am slow to believe it, and I should require very strong evidence to induce me to believe it—who could be driven by so miserable a bribe as that to terminate the lives—to murder their own offspring. We know that parental affection is one of the most powerful instincts, one of the holiest gifts which Almighty God has implanted in the human heart. Some few cases, I do not deny, there may be; but they are, I think, very exceptional—where people have forgotten their natural affections. But to say that parents will deliberately seek a profit will insure and destroy the lives of their children in order to gain this miserable

  983
  reward, is to make a statement which I, for one, without evidence, cannot accept. My Lords, I will not follow the right rev. Prelate through his arguments. The single—only—fact which he told us in his speech was that there were in London 12 undertakers who had announcements in their windows that they undertook to con duct an infant's funeral at an entire cost of from 15s. to£1 10s. That was really the only fact which the right rev. Prelate produced in support of his argument. The rest of his evidence consisted solely of opinions the value of which I will proceed now to show your Lordships. If I trespass somewhat upon the attention of the House by reading a portion of this Report, I think you will see the importance of it, and probably your Lordships would rather have the arguments stated in the calm and measured language of this Report than in my own. It states—
  "The subject of child mortality alleged to he induced by the temptation of funeral money having been referred to in the House by several Members, and having occasioned great uneasiness in the various Burial Societies throughout the Kingdom, received particular attention from your Committee. Four Judges, two Governors of Prisons, two Coroners, a Chief of Police, a Chaplain of a prison, a Registrar of Births and Deaths, and a solicitor who had been engaged in a prosecution for child murder, gave evidence before your Committee. Letters also from Inspectors of Factories were produced before them."
  I desire to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this was evidence not given merely as a matter of opinion, but tested by a cross-examination.
  The substance of their evidence was as follows:—Mr. Justice Wightman did not remember to have tried more than one case of child murder, namely, that of Honnor Gibbons and Bridget Garrety, for the murder of a child of the former, nine months old, the inducement being a sum of £4 receivable from a Burial Sociey. Those prisoners were convicted."
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: Would the noble Earl state what is the date of the Report?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: The date is 1854. I am only sorry the right rev. Prelate was not aware of this Report before he made his speech—
  "Mr. Baron Alderson did not remember to have tried any case of child murder. The depositions of such a charge having been laid before him, he noticed that crime in addressing the Grand Jury at Liverpool last December, and the Grand Jury thereupon made a presentment to the effect that the interference of the
  984
  Legislature was called for to put a stop to the system of money payments by Burial Societies. The prisoners, however, so charged having been tried before Mr. Baron Martin were acquitted, and that Judge informed the Committeee that there were no grounds at all for connecting the alleged crime with the receipt of funeral money. Mr. Baron Martin also informed the Committee that no other case of child murder had ever been brought before him for trial where the motive of burial money was alleged. Chief Baron Pollock gave the Committee information respecting a well-known trial for murder at Chelmsford in 1850, when a woman named May was found guilty of poisoning her husband and attempting to poison a grown-up son; and one at Lewes in 1849. In those cases the burial money was proved, or appeared to him to have been a temptation, though it was of so small an amount as between 20s. and 40s. The Governor of Chester Gaol recollected four prisoners since 1841 committed to his custody on a charge of child murder, two of whom were acquitted and two convicted."
  One of these cases was the case which was referred to by Mr. Justice Wight-man. Then—
  "The Governor of Kirkdale Prison, in an experience of 10½ years, has had no prisoner in his custody convicted of the charge of child murder."
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: Exactly so.
  EAEL BEAUCHAMP: He says—
  "One prisoner named, Betty Eccles, was found guilty and executed for the murder of three children in 1843, immediately before he became Governor of the gaol.
  The Coroner of Stockport, in an experience of 13 years, has held three inquests in cases of alleged child murder. One proved to be an accidental death, in one the parties were acquitted, and the third was the case of Gibbons, already referred to by Mr. Justice Wightman.
  The Coroner of Salford, in an experience of 22 years, has held only one inquest in a case of child murder alleged to have reference to a Burial Society, and that was the case which was tried before Mr. Baron Martin last December, when the parties were acquitted, and the evidence showed that they neither expected nor received the sum insured.
  The Chief of Police at Stockport, during 15 years, part of which time he was connected with the police at Manchester, and during the last nine months at Stockport, has never had a case of child murder brought under his notice.
  The Registrar of Births and Deaths, in a district at Manchester containing a population of 44,000, remembers no case of child murder and does not believe that burial money has been a temptation at all to infanticide. The Rev. W. Kelly, Chaplain, of Preston Gaol, who has published a pamphlet on this subject, said that he was not directly cognisant of any case of child murder for the sake of burial money, but that it is his opinion that the tendency of Burial Clubs is to induce neglect of an ailing child. Your Committee draw from the evidence adduced before them this conclusion: that the instances

  985
  of child murder, where the motive of the criminal has been to obtain money from a Burial Society, have been so few as by no means to impose upon Parliament an obligation for the sake of public morality to legislate specially with a view to the prevention of the crime. Your Committee refer to the evidence to show that no sufficient grounds exist for the general suspicion which seems to have been entertained on this subject; they believe that suspicion to have been almost entirely founded upon a few cases brought to trial exaggerated by the horror with which the idea of a crime so heinous would naturally be regarded."
  My Lords, I will not take up more of the time of the House by reading further extracts from the Report; but it deals with the proposal of the right rev. Prelate, that the money should pass directly to the undertaker. It also deals with other provisions, but I will not read more. What is really material is that the Committee, consisting as I have told you of most eminent men who went most carefully and thoroughly into the subject, arrived at the conviction that no ground existed for the general suspicion which they mention as being entertained upon the subject. With the sufferings of children, everyone must sympathise; but we must remember that it is very easy for a practised novelist to pile up the agony in a story of the description your Lordships are familiar with. We know ourselves that the very sympathy which we all feel with the sufferings of childhood does make us most anxious to do everything that lies in our power to diminish and to mitigate those sufferings; but while we are anxious to mitigate the sufferings of the children, do not let us do any injustice to other people. Do not let us in our righteous desire to diminish the amount of human misery strike a blow at the independence of the working classes, at their honest desire to keep themselves from the necessity of applying for assistance from the public rates, and to keep alive and maintain that home-life which is one of the noblest characteristics of the working classes. I now leave myself in your Lordships' hands. Feeling that I am responsible in some degree for the legislation of 1875, I thought it my duty to lay before your Lordships some of the grounds on which that legislation was founded, fortified by the Report of a Committee of eminent men, whose finding was that the suspicions entertained in this matter were groundless, and that there
  986
  was not sufficient foundation for them when the evidence came to be tested.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot help saying that the noble Earl who has just addressed the House has a little understated the matter, because the opinions which he says are stated by the Report lie ought to have said were expressed by the Committee which made it 36 years ago. I do not think it is quite right to say that the matter does not require investigation at the present time. As to myself, I can give personal testimony in reference to some of the cases referred to by my noble Friend in his speech; and with regard to the cases which were tried before Mr. Justice Wightman of Gibbons and Garretty, that learned Judge expressed to me—I was a very young member of the Bar at the time—that he was anxious the Legislature should in some way prevent the temptation which, in his view, on that occasion had proved to be a fearful temptation in the circum stances of that particular class of persons; that is, the temptation of getting the money falling due upon the death of the child. I cannot help thinking, on the other hand, after what has been said in the course of this Debate, that it would be not a little rash to legislate without some further investigation. I think there should be some further inquiry made before we proceed to legislation. The right rev. Prelate might, therefore, do well to consent that after the Bill has been read a second time it should go to a Select Committee, before which the different views might be properly represented, and before which evidence might be taken, which, I think, would be more applicable to the present condition of things, which it is the opinion of a groat many people, as I am told, does produce evil. That evidence would be properly weighed before the Committee. For my own part, I should very much like to hear the views of two learned Judges, whose opinions have been read to us to-night, with the facts upon which those views were founded. Then I should like, also, to hear some thing more of the statements made by the various Coroners whose names have been mentioned, because, to my mind, the fact that people were acquitted, or that there was a failure to bring them to jnstice under circumstances of very

  987
  suspicious death, is by no means conclusive to show that this legislation is or is not required. There may be circum stances which, in the opinion of the Coroner, would not amount to evidence of the commission or concealment of a crime, though the opinion may be entertained that you should proceed by removing the temptation. That I consider to be the object of the right rev. Prelate, and that I think your Lordships will be glad to accede to. As I under stand, the right rev. Prelate is not averse to the course I have suggested. I think that would remove the objections which the noble Earl has expressed against your Lordships being induced to legislate in a hurry or without sufficient foundation.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I also very heartily support the Second Reading of this Bill, because I confess that an impression has been produced by the operation of this system of infant insurance which seems to show, in my opinion, that the legislation enacted in 1875 needs to be carried somewhat further. I would point out to the noble Earl also that the measure which the right rev. Prelate has brought for ward is a further step in this matter taken upon the lines of the Act of 1875. Whether it goes too far or not, of course, may be a question. The Act of 1875 recognised that it was inexpedient to permit the insurance of the lives of young children at a profit, so to speak, beyond the expenses to which the parents may be put in case of their death. That is quite a clear proposition, because it fixes a strict limit as to the amount of insurance, and it provides for necessary certificates to be given. I need not trouble your Lordships with the machinery pro posed by the Act; but it is provided also that, in cases of double insurances, if one Society has paid the other Society will not pay more than any balance there may be up to the statutory amount, and it is provided that the money is to be paid only on the certificates being forth coming that the child has not come improperly to its end. Therefore, the scheme of the Legislature was to limit the amount to a sum which, while providing for the payment of expenses, would not afford a temptation to the parents or persons having the care of the child, and to safeguard the life of the
  988
  child by requiring a medical certificate-Well now, my Lords, the suggestion is that the existing safeguards have proved insufficient, and that they have been placed too high. But I would venture to point out that the Legislature has not fixed any conditions for all time. At the present time, whatever may have been the case when the former legislation took place, it appears that these little funerals-can be conducted so cheaply that even with the medical and other expenses the-present maximum is fixed too high. That is obviously a case in which the-Legislature can intervene if that fact is established. It is also certainly open to consideration whether the other safeguards are sufficient. But, my Lords, I am very glad that my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has made the suggestion he has of referring this Bill to a Select Committee. And for this reason. I think your Lordships will be somewhat sensitive about initiating legislation which concerns exclusively the working classes, who I know are not directly represented in your Lordships' House, in a manner which may affect their position considerably, without giving them an opportunity of expressing their views, so that your Lordships-may be in possession of those views and receive guidance from them before initiating this legislation. For example, you have the question of amount to deal with. That, I am sure, is a matter upon which you would like to hear what the Friendly Societies who largely represent the interests of the working classes have to say with regard to whether or not the present limit is to stand. As to the rest of the machinery proposed by the Bill, I have seen considerable objection taken to the money being paid to the undertaker. This difficulty arises. If you provide that the money is to be paid to the undertaker the parent says, "I do not get it, and no one else can get it, and I have no means of doing-anything." You obviously give the undertaker the entire control of the' insurance money, and you might then have the undertaker, who is certain of receiving his money from the Insurance Company, doing less than justice to-those who were concerned in causing the death of the child. I do not propose to deal with this matter further on the

  989
  present occasion. I have only to express my satisfaction with the proposal made to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Your Lordships will re member that though you have to pass this Bill it must be taken elsewhere, and if you deal rashly or injudiciously with the interests of the working classes in this matter you will create a vast amount of opposition to the Bill elsewhere, and you will not facilitate its enactment by its passage through this House. But if your Lordships pass the measure through this House after the working classes have themselves had an opportunity of putting forward their views as to the machinery of the Bill, although there may be some little delay at the moment, you will, in the end, accomplish your object more speedily. In saying that I support the proposal of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, I would add that I think it is not made as such proposals sometimes are with the view of delaying legislation, but really, as I think will turn out to be the case, of expediting it as much as possible.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, I merely rise to say how entirely and readily I concur in the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord opposite, and I will take the opportunity of adding merely one or two words with regard to the criticisms of the noble Earl. The noble Earl seemed to think I must have been drawing upon my imagination when I stated that the payment of 1d. a week for six months would obtain a payment of £2 10s. I may say that I took the statement from the published tables of the Prudential Society. It is, therefore, no imagination;it is a simple matter of fact. Then the noble Earl asked whether these Insurance Societies would be likely to conduct their business at a loss. Well, I do not suppose for a moment that they would, and their tables, no doubt, are compiled on a profit basis. But I think the fallacy of the noble Earl's argument is that he assumes that every insurance case is one of child murder. In that case, of course, the loss to the Insurance Companies would be enormous. But if the proportion be as low as I have put it, namely, one in 1,000, that loss is amply covered by the gains on the other cases. Then, with regard to the lapses of policies,
  990
  in the large number of cases where children's names having been put on the books of the Insurance Company the parents have not kept up the premiums. It appears that those lapses amount to one-third of the whole number of insurances, so that the society can very well afford to pay in these murder cases, and write them off as bad debts. I do not suppose they would amount to a very large proportion among the four societies, as against the profit made upon the 600,000 child insurances during the year. Then, with regard to the statement that I have produced nothing but statements of opinion, I would submit that, on the contrary, that is exactly what the noble Earl did in his speech: he read to the House nothing but opinions 36 years old. My contention is, that it is within the last 25 years—and I go further, within the last 20 or 15 years—that this immense and dangerous development of child-insurance has taken place. It is perfectly clear that the noble Earl's authorities are out of date, and altogether out of Court in the case. I will not detain your Lordships longer in replying to the noble Earl. I am quite sure he is as anxious as I can be for the protection of child-life; and I have only now to say again, as I said in my speech, that I have not the slightest wish to unduly hurry legistation on this matter, even if it were in my power to do so. I fully and entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, that any appearance of a desire on the part of this House to hurry legislation of this kind would probably have a most injurious effect upon its prospects in another place. Therefore, I quite thank fully accede to the suggestion which the noble Earl on the Woolsack has made.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words in explanation. This evidence, to which I have referred, was, of course, taken in the year 1854, but your Lordships will understand that the practice of insuring children's lives had been going on antecedently to that time, and these suspicions, which were largely prevalent, were then care fully examined into by Members of the House of Commons, who were very competent to inquire into the matter, and were decided to be groundless, not upon opinions given in conversation or in leading articles, but upon evidence

  991
  given before and tested by that Committee of the House of Commons.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: I beg your Lordships now further to allow the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, to take evidence and to report thereon to your Lordships' House.
  Bill referred to a Select Committee.

CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the management of Christ's Hospital has the sanction and approval of the present Governors, and whether the 148th clause of the scheme will allow the Charity Commissioners to alter the scheme without obtaining the sanction of Parliament, said: My Lords, I do not desire to enter into the merits or demerits of the case before your Lordships, but simply to ascertain whether the scheme proposed has the consent and approbation of the Governors of Christ's Hospital; and with regard to the second part of the question it seems to me that either the 148th clause is a redundancy if the Commissioners in bringing in another scheme are obliged to lay it on the Table of your Lordships' House—or under it they might effect a great change without the knowledge of Parliament. I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT CRANBROOK): My, Lords, the scheme to which my noble Friend refers is one which has been a long time maturing; I may almost say for the last 12 years. When it first emanated from the Charity Commission it was considered very care fully by the Education Department, and passed on, as there was an opportunity of taking the opinion of the Judicial Committee. I understand that Committee considered all objections made, sitting for 11 days, and eventually passed the scheme with one exception. The new scheme rcetified in that respect is now before Parliament, and, so far, has passed without OF position in the House of Commons on
  992
  the part of anyone, except as to a point of detail regarding which a Division was taken the other night—quite a small part of it. With regard to the attitude of the Governors when the scheme was before the Judicial Committee it was opposed by many of the Governors and the Corporation of the City of London, but they have determined now not to" oppose the scheme, and, so far as I know, opposition will not be carried into either House of Parliament. At least, I have no knowledge on the subject if that is intended. With regard to the second matter which has been called attention to by my noble Friend, under the 148th clause power is reserved for ordinary alterations to be made when the Governors call upon the Charity Com mission to make amendments for the better working of the scheme; not with the view to make it a different scheme, but with a view to make it a scheme which, under the management of the Governors, can be made operative. If the Charity Commissioners should make alterations, there is an appeal to the Court of Chancery provided for. If there should be on the initiation of the Charity Commission a change of scheme it will have to go through all the steps which the scheme itself has gone through.

  EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL. (NO. 101.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clause 2.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (The MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, in this clause when the Bill was read the date of the commencement of operation of the Act was not inserted. I beg now to move the insertion of that date, 1st January, 1891.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 2, page 1, line 9, after ("the") insert ("first"), and after ("of") insert ("January one thousand eight hundred and ninety-"one").—(The Lord Ker [M. Lothian.]}
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The Amendments proposed in the clause are simply to give better effect to it than it

  993
  would have as it now stands. It has been pointed out to me by the Board of Commissioners for Public Works Loans that there would have been some difficulty in carrying out this clause without these Amendments.
  Amendments proposed,
  In Clause 4, page 2, line 19, after ("district") insert ("and school boards shall have the same power of borrowing, and the Public Works Loan Commissioners of lending, for the purposes of contributing towards or of establishing, building, or enlarging such a school, as is conferred by section forty-five of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, with respect to providing or enlarging a school house"); line 20, leave out from ("provided") to ("1876") in line 23 both inclusive.—(The Lord Ker [M. Lothian).]
  Amendments agreed to.
  Report of Amendments thereof to be received to-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 123.)

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 119.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill is intended to remedy difficulties which have arisen in certain burghs which have adopted a certain number of clauses of the General Police and Improvements (Scotland) Act, 1862. A burgh may adopt either the whole of the Act or certain clauses of it, and it has happened in some cases that only certain clauses of the Act have been adopted. Owing to this, persons who are comprehended in a new Police Burgh, but who are not in the old burgh, have not received the power of voting, although they are liable to taxation, and to remedy that is the main purpose of this Bill. My Lords, Clause 2 effects that object. Clause 3 merely fixes the first election in any burgh which falls under this Act at the same time as those in other burghs which have adopted the General Police Act. Clause 4 refers to matters of detail. Those are the whole of the clauses of the Bill, and I beg now to move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Standing Committee on General Bills.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.