Sitting of 23 April 1891

QUESTIONS.

  THE CHIEF COMMISSIONERSHIP OF ASSAM.
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India for the names of the gentlemen who have held the post of Chief Commissioner of Assam since January, 1886, and for the dates of their appointment?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: The names of the gentlemen who have held the post of Chief Commissioner for Assam since January, 1886, are Mr. Ward, who was appointed. on the 27th of February, 1885; Mr. Fitzpatrick, 31st of October, 1887; Mr. Westland, 16th of July, 1889; and Mr. Quinton, 22nd of October, 1889.

  SALE OF OPIUM IN BURMA.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any correspondence on, the subject of the sale of opium in Burma and of granting licences for the sale thereof has passed between the India Office and the Government of India since the correspondence (closing with a telegram, dated 16th August, 1888) which was presented to Parliament in 1888; and whether, if such correspondence has passed, there will be any objection to presenting it to Parliament?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir; there has been no correspondence on the subject since the telegram of the 16th of August, 1888.

  POPPY CULTIVATION IN BENGAL.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the India Office has any evidence to show that the recent reduction in the area of poppy cultivation in Bengal is due to the intention of the Government of India to do away with. the Opium Revenue little by little, and not to the commercial necessity for re

  1153
  ducing production in order to keep up the price in face of the increasing competition of opium grown in China; and whether the policy of the Government of India with regard to this source of revenue is correctly expressed by Sir David Barbour, the Indian Finance Minister, who, in introducing his Budget for the year 1891-2, said—
  " The Opium Revenue has no doubt fallen largely, and at this moment there are no indications of a recovery. On the other hand, the fall up to date has been discounted, and provision made to meet the consequent loss of revenue. As the fall has been so great we may fairly hope that for the present we have seen the worst "?
  SIR J. GORST: The reason given for the reduction of the area of poppy cultivation in Bengal is that the reserve stock of opium had become unduly large. The statements of Sir D. Barbour, no doubt, do correctly express the policy of the Government of India.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the cultivation of opium has been stopped altogether in certain districts where it was least profitable?
  SIR J. GORST: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give me notice of that question.

  MANIPUR.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he has now obtained any official reply as to the truth or falsehood of the rumours which have appeared in the Press, that the Indian troops killed Manipuri women and children in the affair at Manipur, so that, in case the rumour be proved false, it may be categorically denied?
  SIR J. GORST: In reply to the inquiry made by the Secretary of State the following telegram has been received from the Viceroy, which 1 will read to the House. It is dated April 21st, 1891—
  " Foreign. Yours, yesterday. Regent asserts that several boys and women were killed at the time of the attack upon the Senapati's house. He does not say that they were related to him.' Maxwell, Deputy Commissioner, observes on this: 'The atrocities named are altogether false, as I have made careful inquiries.' Gurdon, Assistant Commissioner, reports: That women and children were killed, &c., is absolutely false.' The officer commanding at Silchar telegraphed on the 10th: ' The officers
  1154
  state that no cruelty of any kind was practised by us, nor was it possible. This refers to Boileau, and apparently to all other officers who retired with him to Silchar. Regent's statements will be further investigated on the spot."
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Times, of the 22nd, stating that villages bad been burned at Manipur; whether this statement is correct; and, if so, how many villages have been burned; whether these villages have been burned as a punishment or from military contingencies; and, further, if as a punishment, whether as a punishment for simple resistance or for some specific act of treachery committed by the village burned; and if the villages have been burned owing to military contingencies, would he state the nature of such contingencies, giving such data as would enable a comparison to be instituted with similar unavoidable accidents in European warfare?
  SIR J. GORST: In consequence of the question of the hon. and gallant Member, my noble Friend the Secretary of State has carefully perused the Times of the 22nd inst.; but he has been unable to find any confirmation of the report that villages have been burned at Manipur.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The words " at Manipur" in the question should be " in Manipur." It is a misprint.
  SIR J. GORST: Neither at Manipur nor in Manipur have any villages been burned.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received information as to the alleged statement that the troops employed in the Manipur Expedition were at the time of the recent disaster without an adequate or suitable supply of reserve ammunition to fit their rifles; and whether, if he has no knowledge as yet on the subject, he will telegraph to India for such information?
  SIR J. GORST: I find from telegrams which have been received from the Government of India that this matter is now the subject of investigation in India; and I am afraid that I cannot give a satisfactory answer to my hon. Friend until a full Report of the result of the investigation has been received.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the exceptional nature of the circumstances attending the Manipur disaster, care will be taken in any arrangements to be made with the Government of Manipur to secure that adequate compensation shall be exacted for the widows and relations of those who were massacred?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: In answer to the question of my hon. Friend, I have to tell him that the Secretary of State for India considers it premature to state at present what terms will be exacted from the Manipurese.

  THE COMMERCE OF THE COLONIES AND INDIA.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if there is any commercial department in the Colonial Office, as in the Foreign Office, engaged in actively collating commercial information concerning all British Possessions and making it known to the mercantile community in the United Kingdom and throughout the Empire to the advantage of mutual trade; and if he can state the total amount of the volume of trade in 1889 between the Mother Country and British Colonies and Dependencies (including India), and between the Colonies and Dependencies (including India) themselves?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,: There is no such commercial department in the Colonial Office; the duty is undertaken by the statistical department of the Board of Trade, which is furnished with all the materials for the purpose. The results are published annually by the Board of Trade, and are laid before Parliament in the Colonial Statistical Abstract, which is on sale to the public. The Colonial Office also annually lays before Parliament separate Reports from each colony; and. under arrangement with the Board of Trade that Department publishes monthly in the Board of Trade Journal the latest commercial information from the colonies, which Colonial Governments have been specially invited to furnish. These documents
  1156
  are distributed to the colonies, and are also on sale to the public. It appears from the Statistical Abstract that in 1889 the total value of imports (including bullion and specie) into India and the colonies from the United Kingdom, as far as could be ascertained, was £122,092,063, and the total value of exports from India and the colonies into the United Kingdom was £86,934,323. The volume of trade as between the colonies and dependencies could not be stated without lengthened research. As regards Indian trade, the special Statement presented to Parliament every five years gives the required information. The Statement for 1889–90 will shortly be in the hands of hon. Members.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.
  MR. H. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that a sum of nearly £4,000, arising out of the Local Taxation Act surplus, has been handed over to the Bradford Town Council for purposes of technical instruction; whether the Bradford Church Institute, in common with other institutions in the town providing technical instruction, and having schools of art and science classes in connection with the Science and Art Department, South Kensington, made application for a share of this grant; whether he is aware that the said science and art classes of the Bradford Church Institute have been established for 17 years, and are the second oldest of the kind in that town, are conducted on absolutely non-sectarian lines, and are open to and attended by students of all religious denominations; and whether, in view of the fact that, notwithstanding these circumstances, the Bradford Town Council has declined to apportion to the Church Institute any share of the funds placed at their disposal, he can apply or suggest any remedy for this?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to reply to the question. The facts of the case have been correctly stated by my hon. Friend, and, in reply to. an inquiry from a member of the Bradford County Council, the Science and Art Department have expressed

  1157
  their opinion that the school in question comes within the purview of Sub-section 1 (1) (d) of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, and is qualified for the receipt of aid from the rates. If, therefore, the managers of the school feel aggrieved at the decision of the Council, it is for them to appeal to the Science and Art Department, under the subsequent sub-section of the Act, which provides that such points are to be determined by that Department.

  BUTESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Buteshire County Council has resolved to appoint a County, Medical Officer, who shall also act as District Medical Officer for Bute and Cumbrae or for Arran at a salary of £60 per annum, with liberty to carry on private practice; whether the Board of Supervision, as reported, had intimated to the County Council that "they had very reluctantly resolved not to oppose the scheme; " and whether any other proposals for the appointment of County Medical Officers at equally low salaries, and with liberty to engage in practice, have been sanctioned by the Board of Supervision; and, if not, on what grounds an exception was made in the case of Buteshire?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: Under the regulations made by the Secretary for Scotland, the rule has been that a County Medical Officer should not be allowed to engage in private practice; but it was recognised that in some of the insular and smaller counties an exception might possibly have to be made. This has been found necessary in the cases of Bute, Orkney and Zetland, in all of which the salary does not exceed £60, and the holders of the appointments are permitted to retain their private practice. In those cases the Board are of opinion that the circumstances are exceptional, and that the rule could not be enforced without imposing an undue burden upon the ratepayers.

  CROFTERS.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Crofters' Commission have determined that sub-tenants,
  1158
  holding from a principal tenant or tacksman of a large farm or estate, are crofters within the meaning of " The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886," and have entertained their applications, and fixed fair rents thereunder; whether he is aware that the First Division of the Court of Session, upon 19th March last, in the case of Robert Stewart Livingstone against Miss Mary Stewart Beattie, decided that sub-tenants are not crofters within the meaning of the said Act; whether he is aware that certain of these sub-tenants, who have been declared to be crofters, have been threatened with actions of reduction of the interlocutors of the Commission finding them to be crofters, and that all such sub-tenants who have been so declared to be crofters are exposed to such actions at the instance of their landlords; and whether the Government is prepared to take steps, with a view to the protection of said sub-tenant crofters, by amendment of the said Act, or otherwise; and, if so, in what manner?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is the case that the Crofters' Commission have determined in certain cases that subtenants are crofters within the meaning of the Crofters' Act, and have fixed fair rents. It is also the fact that the First Division of the Court of Session have decided that sub-tenants are not crofters in the sense of the Act. It was pointed out by the learned Judges that those persons are brought upon the estate, not by the landlord, but by the agricultural tenant, and accordingly that it is not surprising that the Act contains no provisions applicable to sub-tenants. I am not aware that actions have been threatened against those sub-tenants who have been dealt with as crofters by the Commissioners. The Government do not contemplate legislation on the subject.

  MR. H. M. STANLEY AND THE CONGO FREE STATE.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to Mr. H. M. Stanley having accepted an official position in the service of the Congo Free State; and, if so, what is that position, and what will be his powers; whether he has any information to the effect that British and other

  1159
  European traders on the Lower Congo are migrating to the left bank of the river, to avoid the high duties and personal taxes now levied by the Congo State; is he aware that the villages on the road from Matadi to Stanley Pool have, within recent years, become deserted, through a variety of exactions and excesses committed on the villagers; whether, in view of the fact that the British Consul, who is entrusted with the protection of our traders on the Lower Congo, is located at the Cameroons (some 400 miles, approximately, distant from the mouth of the Congo), and inefficient for the purpose, .Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of appointing a representative on the Lower Congo; what are to be the functions of the " International Commission," as laid down by the Berlin Conference; can he explain why it has not yet been appointed; and when will it be called into existence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: (1.) We have no such information. (2.) We have heard reports that traders have moved to the left bank, but we have not heard of the transfer of British traders. (3.) We are not aware that the statement is in accordance with facts. (4.) Mr. Annesley has been detained on temporary service in the Oil Rivers, but he will shortly be relieved, and will be free to proceed to the Congo District. (5, 6, and 7.) The functions of the International Commission would be to supervise the application of the Treaty to the parts of the river over which no sovereignty or protectorate has been assumed. It is to be presumed that the delay in its appointment has been owing to the fact that the attention of the Powers has been turned recently rather to other parts of Africa. The requisite appointment of delegates by at least five Powers has not been made, nor is it known when it will be made.

  LONDON (CITY) TRIAL OF CIVIL CAUSES BILL.
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Bill to legalise the holding of Assizes in .the City of London is necessitated by reason of there being too few Courts in the Royal Courts of
  1160
  Justice for the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division; whether it is proposed to add to the number of Courts by building others at the Royal Courts of Justice; and whether each Judge has a private room, and also the use of certain rooms common to the other Judges?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,: The Bill referred to in the question of my hon. and learned Friend was introduced partly because of there being too few Courts in the Royal Courts of Justice. No decision has at present been arrived at as to building others. It is true that each Judge has a private room, except the junior Judge (Mr. Justice Collins), who has the temporary use of the Lord Chancellor's room. There is, in addition to the private rooms, one common room for the Judges' meetings. It is also used as a luncheon room by the Judges.

  HOURS OF WORK OF RAILWAY SERVANTS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade have now ordered the Return of instances in which railway servants have worked for more than 10 hours in any one day during the month of November, 1890, and of the number of instances in which railway servants, after working over 10 hours in any one day, have been called upon to resume duty without having rested eight hours?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: Yes, Sir. In consequence of the opinion which I found to prevail among the Committee upstairs, I have called for such a Return for the month of December last.

  THE BURIALS ACT.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the following incidents, which have occurred during the current month in Llangeinor, Glamorganshire, namely, that in a burial in the parish church of Llangeinor, in respect of which notice had been given under " The Burials Act, 1880," the parent desired that his deceased child should be interred in the same grave as a former deceased

  1161
  child of his; that when the funeral proceeded to the churchyard on the 8th April, it was found that the wrong grave had been opened, and that consequently the body lay in an uncovered grave over the night; that next day two more graves were opened, and that extra fees were demanded for the burial; that when, only six days later, another child of the same parent died, the church authorities refused to open the grave for the burial of this child till such extra "fees demanded on the previous burial had been paid, and that the parent was thus compelled to pay them; whether the levying of such extra fees was legal, and why the wrong graves were opened; and whether he will make recommendations which may tend to put an end to the difficulties placed in the way of persons who avail themselves of the Act? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to postpone the question until Monday.

  CASE OF GEORGE WILD.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the case of a man named George Wild, lately employed in Kew Gardens, who was discharged last year after 40 years' public service, and who is quite blind, and, it is stated, is " starving about the streets of Richmond; " and whether this man received any pension; and; if not, will he explain why?
  MR. PLUNKET: I am informed by the Directors at Kew that George Wild was discharged from Kew Gardens in February, 1890, and received, in accordance with the regulations in force at that time, a gratuity of £35 4s., and that from inquiries which he has made he learns that Wild is not quite blind; that his wife is employed as cloak-room attendant in Kew Gardens at 9s. 4d. a week; that he has a grown-up son, and a well-furnished house, and cannot be said to be starving about the streets of Richmond. I shall, however, inquire further into the case.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Is it true that Wild had been for 40 years in the public service?
  MR. PLUNKET: I am aware that he had had a very long public service, and
  1162
  that he received a gratuity on his discharge.

  THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC AND BRITISH SAILORS.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to a statement in the Standard of April 18th—
  "That a number of shipwrecked British sailors had been impressed by the Government of the Argentine Republic into service at a life saving station; that they had tried to escape, but were closely watched, and subject to cruel treatment;"
  and whether inquiries had been made to test the truth of the statement, and also the names of the ships to which the sailors belonged, and their release demanded?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to ascertain. the facts.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—PENSIONER BOATMEN.
  MR. FURNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the grievances of the pensioner boatmen of the Outdoor Department of Her Majesty's Customs; whether it is the case that they complain that they are not provided with uniform, that their pay is stopped for every day (including Sundays) during which they are absent from duty through illness, and that they are not allowed either Bank Holidays or annual leave of absence; and whether he will undertake to inquire into these, grievances, with a view to get them remedied?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: Pensioner boatmen employed in the Customs Department are paid as wages-such a sum as for the time being makes up, when added to their pensions, the fixed sum of £75 per annum. Their status being that of hired men, they are not entitled to be provided with uniform. clothing, and they are liable to duty on every day of the year, including Sunday and holidays, except Christmas Day, Good Friday, the Queen's birthday, and the first Monday in August, or days in lieu thereof if the exigencies of the service demand it.

  THE "COUNTESS OF CARNARVON."
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Managing Director of the Chartered British South Africa Company, Mr. Cecil Rhodes, despatched at the end of February last, from Port Natal, a steamship, the Countess of Carnarvon, under what were virtually false clearance papers; that afterwards Captain Pawley and certain troopers in the employ of the Chartered British South Africa Company were taken on board, as well as 1,000 rifles and 20,000 rounds of ball cartridge; that the Countess of Carnarvon afterwards! ascended the Limpopo River, within Portuguese territory, a river not open to free navigation under the modus vivendi of August 1890, instead of proceeding to the port for which she had cleared; and that the arms and ammunition referred to were afterwards landed on Portuguese territory and conveyed into the interior; whether he can say for what purpose these arms were landed, and whether he is aware that no arms are allowed to pass through Portuguese territory into the interior of Africa without a licence from the Portuguese Government; and whether the proceedings of the officers, crew, and passengers of the Countess of Carnarvon constitute a violation of the fourth and other Articles of the modus vivendi of August 1890, between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Portugal?
  DR. CAMERONhad also on the Paper the following Question: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any official information has yet been received concerning the seizure of the British steamer Countess of Carnarvon by the Portuguese on the Limpopo River?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will reply at the same time to the question of the hon. Member for Glasgow. The reports which have reached us are incomplete, and do not enable me to reply in detail, but they confirm in part the statements as to the voyage of the Countess of Carnarvon referred to in the first part of the question. The High Commissioner has called for further information, and has directed that affidavits
  1164
  shall be obtained. The arms appear to have been supplied to Gungunhana at his request, and were landed at a spot indicated by him. I am informed that a bond was given to a Portuguese official for payment of duties if they could be legally claimed. The only engagement taken by Her Majesty's Government in the modus vivendi was that from the date of that agreement they would not make Treaties, accept Protectorates, or exercise any act of sovereignty within the sphere of influence assigned to Portugal by the Convention of August 1890. There was therefore nothing in the proceedings of the officers, crew or passengers of the Countess of Carnarvon, so far as we are acquainted with them, which constituted a violation of the modus vivendi agreement, but it appears certain that she sailed with false clearance papers.

  PRISON CLERKS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the distinction between first-class and second-class clerks in Her Majesty's Prisons have not been abolished, and their annual increment increased from. £5 to £7 10s., in accordance with the recommendation made by the Committee of Accounts, whose authority he quoted on this subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The hon. Member professes to quote from a Report of a confidential nature, of which he can have no knowledge in any authentic or authorised way. The recommendations are not accurately quoted, and even if they were, it would not be usual that I should give reasons for acting or not acting upon them. I have stated generally, in reply to a question of the 8th December last, the results that had followed from the recommendations of the Committee in question. I have nothing to add to that answer.

  LETTERS TO CANADA.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is the fact that all letters and newspapers passing between the United Kingdom and Canada have now to be despatched viâ New York, with the result that in some cases a

  1165
  higher rate of postage is charged; and whether this arrangement, under which our largest colony is cut off from direct communication with the Mother Country, is likely to be of a permanent character?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: The Canadian mails were carried by the Allan Line under a contract with the Canadian Government, and my Department has no responsibility with reference to its sudden termination. This action has been taken entirely by the Dominion Government, by whom the contract was negotiated, and who I am given to understand have not found it possible to agree upon a renewal at present. In the meantime, the Mail Service with Canada must necessarily, under present circumstances, be carried on viâ New York; but so far as the public in this country are concerned, they will be charged no additional rates of postage.

  THE PUNGWÉ RIVER.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the telegraphed report of Sir John Willoughby to the effect that two steamers, the Agnes and Shark, carrying British mails and a prospecting party led by him, had been fired on by the Portuguese at Biera, on the Pungwé River; that they, and some lighters belonging to them, had been seized, the British colours hauled down, and the Portuguese run up in their place, and that 16 men belonging to their crews had been imprisoned by the Portuguese; and whether the Foreign Office has received any official information on the subject?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The High Commissioner telegraphed home Sir John Willoughby's report, which is the same as that published in the newspapers. We have no further information. Instructions have been given to the Admiralty to send some of Her Majesty's ships to the Pungwé in order to give any protection that may be necessary, and to consult with the Portuguese Authorities on the spot on the measures to be taken for facilitating communication with the interior. Orders have been sent from Lisbon which, as we are informed, will ensure that all opposition to such communications on the part of the Portuguese Authorities shall be entirely
  1166
  removed. We have also been officially informed from Lisbon that orders have been sent to put an end to the detention of the vessels and crews conveying Sir John Willoughby's party.

  ENGINEERING BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NAVY.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the case that there is a considerable falling off in the number of candidates for the engineering branch of the Royal Navy, and that this falling off is becoming more apparent every year; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to render this branch of the Service more attractive to suitable candidates?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,: There were 93 candidates last year for 40 vacancies as engineer students, and so far there are 110 candidates for 45 vacancies at the ensuing examination. The number of candidates for the appointments offered to engineer students educated at private establishments, and for Probationary Assistant Engineers, are comparatively small, and the conditions of entry as regards these classes are being inquired into.

  ELECTRIC LIGHT PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  MR. J. SPENCER BALFOUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to grant a third Electric Light Provisional Order in any suburban district where two Orders are already in force without first revoking one of the existing Orders, and thus affording a guarantee that the policy of the Board of Trade, as already announced, that there should be only two Orders in force in one district, shall not be departed from?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Board of Trade have no power to revoke a Provisional Order unless the undertakers fail to comply with the requirements of the Order within the prescribed time. In the only case in which the Board of Trade propose to grant a third Order in a district this Session, they have reason to believe that one of the existing companies will not be in a position to comply with the requirements of their Order within the time prescribed thereby. If this should be so, the Board

  1167
  of Trade will, when the proper time arrives, consider any application for the revocation of the Order that may be made to them by the Country Council or the Local Authority.

  THE BOERS.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to a letter from Pretoria, in the Manchester Guardian of Tuesday, under the heading " Another Boer Trek; " and whether the establishment of the proposed " Republic of the North " is an interference with the rights of the Chartered Company of South Africa?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The High Commissioner has been directed to make it known in the South African Republic that any attempt to establish a Republic in the territories placed under the British South Africa Company will not be tolerated, and to inform the Government of that Republic that any such attempt, or any proceedings inconsistent with the protection accorded to Lobengula, or to any other chief in the territories under British influence, will be deemed an act of hostility against the Queen: and, further, that the Government of the South African Republic will be held to their undertaking in Art. X. of the Swaziland Convention to use their best efforts to support the authority of the British South Africa Company.

  INFERIOR WHISKY.
  MR. O'HANLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if lie is aware that a much larger quantity of new inferior whisky has been put into consumption for the past 12 months than that of any other year for the last 20 years, owing, it is alleged, to the fact that retailers cannot increase the price of small quantities sold over the counter, and that, on the other hand, they- cannot reduce the liquor below the standard acknowledged by law; and whether he will inquire whether this sale of inferior whisky is in any way attributable to the extra Spirit Duty imposed last year, and take the entire matter into consideration when proposing his next Budget?
  MR. JACKSON: No record is kept of the quality of whisky brought into consumption.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
  MR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there would be any objection to setting apart a sum from the grants in aid of technical education for the purpose of awarding prizes for efficiency in ploughing, shearing, hedging, hurdle-making, and other matters connected with agriculture; and whether, if there be no objection, he would cause a Memorandum to be sent to the different County Councils to that effect?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Such subjects are plainly included in the processes of agriculture, for instruction in which the Act of 1889 provides; but I think the particular form suggested for the encouragement of such instruction may be open to legal objection, though something might depend upon the method of its connection with any general scheme adopted by the County Council.

  COSTS IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION.
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that costs under- the scale in force in the Chancery Division are higher than those allowed in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, and that a Committee of Masters and others was appointed to consider how to bring the two scales of costs into accord; whether that Committee has made any Report; and when it last sat?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: The scale of costs is, I am informed, the same both in the Chancery and Common Law Divisions, but I am not sure that the application of the rules is exactly the same in both Divisions. A Departmental Committee did investigate the subject in 1889, and reported in July of that year; but it would not, in my opinion, be for the public interests that I should make any further statement as to the Report of that Committee. It has not sat since. If my hon. and learned Friend will communicate with me, I may be in a position to give him further information upon the question.

  THE EVELYN V. HURLBERT CASE.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether

  1169
  he will call the attention of the Public Prosecutor to the case of "Evelyn v. Hurlbert," with a view to seeing whether sufficient evidence exists on which to base a prosecution of one or other of the parties to the suit for perjury?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: In this case it is clear there must be the most careful investigation as to whether any or either of the parties can be convicted of perjury.

  THE BERLIN CONFERENCE.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any, and if so what, legislative action has been taken by Foreign Governments to carry out the recommendations of the Berlin Conference on labour questions; and whether any system analogous to what is known in this country as the " half-time " system .exists abroad?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In answer to my hon. Friend the information which the Government has received is at present of a somewhat imperfect character, but it would appear that no especial legislative action to carry out the recommendations of the Berlin Conference has yet been taken by Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, or Spain. In Hungary, the Sunday Rest Act, and an Act for relief of workmen incapacitated by illness have been passed. In Denmark a law stopping unnecessary and regulating necessary Sunday labour has been recently passed, and in Switzerland there has been legislation limiting the hours of railway servants. In Belgium and Switzerland laws are already in force in harmony with the principal recommendations of the Conference. From Sweden and Norway no information has yet been received. In regard to the second part of the question, systems analogous to " half-time" or in some way limiting the hours of children, are in force in .Austria, Hungary, France (partially), Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and .Switzerland. In Belgium half-time is -voluntarily introduced in several large 'businesses. In Denmark, Portugal, and Spain there appear to be no regulations as to half-time. Further and fuller details have been asked for, which, when received, I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend.

  THE BLOCK IN THE LAW COURTS.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the waste of judicial time involved in the present arrangements for the administration of justice in London and at the Assizes, to the accumulation of arrears arising from the long periods during which the Courts are not sitting, and to the dissatisfaction which exists with respect to the increased cost and delay caused by the working of the Judicature Acts, the Government will institute an Inquiry, either by a Royal Commission or by a Select Committee, either of this or the other House, to inquire into and report on the whole question?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government do not propose to institute an inquiry into the working of the Judicature Acts. The principal Judicature Act, following on a Royal Commission, is of so recent an origin, while the Acts and regulations for the relief of business at the Assizes and for clearing the lists in London have scarcely yet been a year in full operation, that there does not appear to the Government to be any case for an inquiry of the kind suggested?

  STORNOWAY AND CARLOWAY.
  DR. M'DONALD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the £15,000, to be spent on levelling the road between Stornoway and Carloway, is to be spent on levelling alone, or does it also include the laying down of tram lines on that road; and whether, if it is to be used solely as a road, by how many hours its construction will accelerate the carriage of fish to Stornoway as compared with the time that is taken up on the road in its present state?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The offer of the Government of £15,000 is for levelling and improving the existing road, and does not include the laying down of tram lines. It is proposed to improve the gradient so that it shall not exceed 1 in 30. At present the worst gradient is 1 in 7, thus seriously reducing the load which can be carried. It has been stated that the charge for cartage is now 20s. per ton. If the road were improved as proposed this would

  1171
  probably be materially reduced, and the time of the journey correspondingly reduced.

  BRITISH COLUMBIA.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government are considering the proposals of the Government of British Columbia to guarantee the interest on an Imperial loan of £150,000, to be utilised for the colonisation of selected families from the United Kingdom to that country; whether, in view of the favourable nature of such proposals, the Imperial Government are prepared now, or in the near future, to in any way accept or co-operate in them; if so, to what extent; if not, what are the objections, if any, to such co-operation; and whether the Imperial Government are aware how long the British Columbian Government are prepared to keep this offer open for acceptance?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government have not yet had sufficient time to fully consider the Report of the Colonisation Committee, but it is obvious that it is too late this year to select families for emigration. It will, however, be necessary for the Government before the autumn to go into the question if emigration is to take place next spring, and I hope it may be in my power before the House finally rises to make sonic statement of our intentions.

  STATE OF SUPPLY.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, inasmuch as the House has now been sitting this Session for 70 days as against 125 in the Session of 1890 and 122 in the Session of 1889, and, as out of a total of 175 Votes in Supply only 13 have been taken, he will now mention a time when the Government will enable the House to perform one of its primary duties, by fixing definite and regular days for the consideration of Supply?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling attention to the slow progress made with Public Business. The House has been sitting about 70 consecutive days, and Government Business has had precedence only on 43 of those days, eight of them having been devoted to Supply. If the hon.
  1172
  Gentleman would use his influence with some of the Members on his side of the House, who have occupied two-thirds of the time, or nearly so, with a view to prevent prolixity and repetition, the progress of Public Business might be somewhat more rapid. When the Land Purchase Bill has been reported to the House it will then be in our power to make some arrangement as to Supply.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Were we not, given a promise last Session that Supply should be taken early this year?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see that any arrangement to put down a particular order for a given day could be frustrated by gentlemen on his side of the House.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask whether, if days cannot be fixed, the Estimates cannot be taken in their regular order? There is much inconvenience to Members in the fact that the Votes are not taken in their regular sequence.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It will always be my duty to suit the convenience of the House.

  CITY OF LONDON PAROCHIAL CHARITIES ACT.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when nominating the five members of the new Governing Body under the Central Scheme of " The City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883," he will endeavour to secure, as far as possible, the representation on that body of persons of various views and interests, and particularly those who have devoted themselves to considering the various objects on which the Parochial Charity Funds could be most usefully bestowed; and whether he can state when the appointments are likely to be made?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member will probably be surprised to hear that the Government, in recommending to Her Majesty members for appointment on behalf of the Crown to the Central Governing Body of the City, carefully considered the fitness of those whose names were submitted. The Central Governing Body had, I am informed, their first meeting on Tuesday. The members who represent the Crown are the Dean of St. Paul's, General

  1173
  Lynedoch Gardiner, C.B., Mr. Hayes Fisher, M.P., Mr. Quintin Hogg (Polytechnic), and Mr. C. J. Drummond (Secretary London Compositors).

  BELFAST WATER COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury is he aware that Mr. E. Murphy, Arbitrator to the Local Government Board, sat on the 1st June to hear claims for compensation re the Belfast Water Commissioners and property owners and occupiers in Oldpark, near Belfast; that the final hearing of objections was held on 28th October, 1890, and the final award only made on 6th April, 1891; whether Mr. Murphy lodged a copy of this final award with the solicitors for the Water Commissioners two months before it was signed by him, for the purpose of enabling the Water Commissioners to consult counsel with reference to the Act which came into force on 1st April, 1889; and if any complaints have reached the Government with reference to the alleged delay in the publication of the award and the small amount of compensation given to property owners and others in Oldpark, Belfast?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the dates mentioned in the first paragraph of the question are substantially correct. There is no foundation for the allegations contained in the second paragraph, and no complaints have reached the Government in reference to delay in the publication of the award to property owners and others in Old-park, Belfast.

  CASE OF WILLIAM COLL.
  DR. FITZGERALD:I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in view of the facts that the conviction of Willian Coll at the Maryborough Assizes in the autumn of 1889, for participation in the proceedings at Gweedore on the occasion of the arrest of the Rev. Father M'Fadden, was affirmed, on appeal, only by a small majority of the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Ireland; that amongst those who dissented from the judgment of the majority of the Court were the Lord Chief Justice (now Lord Morris) and the Lord Chief Baron; and that Coll has now undergone one year and a half
  1174
  of penal servitude, he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to exercise the prerogative of mercy in his regard, and remit the remainder of his sentence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: There has already been a Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant in this case, and the decision come to was that the law must take its course. The question as to the admissibility of evidence, on which the members of the Court of Criminal Appeal differed in opinion, does not in any way affect the merits of the applications.

  INLAND REVENUE — DUBLIN SUPERVISORS.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury whether the outdoor supervisors of Inland Revenue in the " collection " which comprises the City and County of Dublin, as well as portions of the Counties of Wicklow, Wexford, Kildare, Meath, and Carlow, are compelled by the extensive character of their duties to work from 10 to 12 hours on week days, and often to work on Sundays also; and whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have described the outdoor supervisors as their most important officers, they being solely responsible to the Exchequer for the due and proper charging of the Excise Revenue; and, if so, will he direct the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to investigate the circumstances of their position with a view to increasing the staff of outdoor supervisors for the Dublin collection?
  MR. JACKSON: No such Regulation exists, but the Board of Inland Revenue are inquiring into the matter.

  THE IRISH LAND BILLS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as two weeks (sitting from day to day except Wednesday) have now been occupied with the Committee stage of the Irish Land Bills, and only one clause of the first Bill (out of 58 clauses) has been passed, he will consider the question of naming a day to report these Bills, so as to secure the ending of the Session in July?
  MR. SEXTONalso put a question upon the subject.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am aware of the very serious delay that has taken place in the Committee stage of the Irish Land Purchase Bill, but I trust that the good sense and feeling of the House will enable such progress to be made as will make it unnecessary for the Government to adopt the extreme course proposed by the hon. Member.
  MR. J. M0RLEY: After what hour will the Land Bill be not taken to-night? I see that it is down on the Orders.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Not after 11 o'clock.
  MR. SEXTON: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman gives no countenance to the suggestion that a day should be named for reporting the Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir.

  NEW WRIT.
  For Dorsetshire(Southern Division), v. Colonel Charles Joseph Theophilus Hambro, deeeased.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

  EAST INDIA INTOXICATING LIQUORS LICENCES (UPPER BURMA).
  Address for—
  "Return of Licences for the sale of Intoxicating Liquors issued in Upper Burma since the 1st day of January, 1888, showing the number of such Licences issued, the times at which, the districts for which, and the periods for which they have been issued; the prices paid for them respectively, and the conditions or regulations subject to which they have been issued (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, presented 3rd August, 1888, and entitled 'East India (Upper Burma Licences)')." — (Mr. Bryce.)

  EAST INDIA, OPIUM LICENCES (UPPER BURMA).
  Addres3 for—
  " Return of Licences for the sale of Opium issued in Upper Burma since the 1st day of January, 1888, showing the number of such Licences issued; the times at which, the districts for which, and the periods for which they have been issued; the prices paid for them respectively; and the conditions or regulations subject to which they have been issued (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, presented 3rd August, 1888, and entitled 'East India (Upper Burma, Licences).')." — (Mr. Bryce.)

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  George Herbert Morrell, esquire, for the County of Oxford (Mid or Woodstock Division)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: Mr. Courtney, I wonder whether hon. Members of this House who did me the honour last year to listen to my Financial Statement remember how, when I was suggesting that the Estimates of the Revenue for the coming year ought to be framed in a spirit of prudence, they associated themselves with that suggestion by a responsive cheer. I was then suggesting that, when we looked to the barometrical readings which ought to be studied if we would make a forecast of the condition of the people, there were signs in those barometrical readings directing us to frame our Estimates rather in a spirit of caution than in a sanguine spirit. I asked this House at the time whether they considered that I was right in my suggestion. The Committee associated themselves with me, if I may say so, in a partnership in regard to the caution with which the Estimates ought to be framed. Now, Sir, we are able to point to a surplus of £1,756,000 as the result of last year's finance. Nevertheless, I feel confident that the House will feel that they were right in the view which they took, and that it would have been wrong, looking to the circumstances of the time, to have counted upon the Revenue which happily has flowed into the coffers of the State. There was no certainty at that time of a continuance of the progressive prosperity which we now enjoy, nor of the speculative activity which marked the previous year. The Committee will remember that there were some ominous signs. The relations between capital and labour were strained, and there were symptoms of everything not being entirely right in the regions of high finance; and, accordingly, we were justified in presuming that no sanguine view should be taken of the Revenue of the year. Again, the Committee will remember the position of the Spirit Duties, and the part which they played

  1177
  in the Estimates of last year. Were we justified in calculating upon the cumulative force in the tendency to spend a large portion of the increased wages and profits upon them? The close of the financial year has shown that the anxiety we felt at the beginning of the year was not misplaced. There were incidents towards the latter part of last year—dramatic, I might almost say tragic, incidents—which proved that, although we have escaped the great dangers which were besetting us, it was right not entirely to ignore the possible advent of such dangers. Again, fortunately, some of those strikes which threatened to be of a duration long enough to mar any hopes of an increased Revenue, were settled in the end, and there, again, we have escaped from dangers which might have occurred. I believe I may fairly claim that if ever caution was justified by results it has been so in the financial results of the year of which I have now to present the accounts, although the excess of Revenue over Expenditure has reached the satisfactory figure of £1,756,000. This result is all the more gratifying as in the past year it has been my fate to have to provide for a certain amount of unexpected expenditure. The needs of Ireland have compelled us to incur an increased expenditure of £200,000, an expenditure which this country has not grudged to its poorer Sister in her time of need. Then there are the Post Office and the Telegraphs; they required Supplementary Estimates of £200,000, and of that amount £150,000 and more has been due to an increase in the wages of the men employed. I would here suggest that, when the inevitable attack is made some day on the increase of the Expenditure, even our most ardent critics should be good enough to remember both with sympathy and with justice, that public opinion has given the Government the cue that it is no longer to buy in the cheapest market, but in the best, and is no longer to employ the cheapest labour, but the best. This tendency will show itself in a more striking form in the Estimates of the current year. There is another item of increased Expenditure in which the Committee will bear a share of the responsibility with the Government. I allude to the boon that was given to the
  1178
  Volunteers last year; I then included in the estimated Expenditure a Supplementary Estimate of £100,000, and the Secretary for War undertook to find another £50,000. But the result of carrying out the wishes of Parliament has been even more expensive than we expected, and the Supplemental Estimates show an increase of £80,000 on that head. With the history of the Supplementary Estimate of £350,000 for the Navy the Committee is already acquainted. But, apart from these excesses, I have had two bequests of liability left me by my predecessors, which it has been my unhappy fate to have to meet this year. The Irish Constabulary Fund was insolvent; and I hope I have put the fund straight at an expense of £150,000. I have had to provide another quite unexpected £100,000 in respect of what the older Members of the House may remember as the Chancery Book Debt. In 1872 it was supposed that a large amount of money owing to suitors in Chancery would never be claimed, and the sum of about £2,500,000 was written off. But experience has proved that an increased spirit of research, assisted by those means of increased publicity which the present day demands, has enabled many suitors, who it was believed would never claim, to make their claim, and possibly also old business has been cleared off at a more rapid pace, and perhaps there has been a desire on the part of some suitors to invest in other securities. The result has been that I have been called upon to find a sum of £100,000 out of the Revenue of the year and to place it to the credit of this fund. The Committee will sympathise with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who in a heavy year like this has been called upon to find £250,000 to meet such inherited liabilities. I have put before the Committee certain increased charges which we have had to meet. This last item of £100,000 increases the head of " Other Charges on the Consolidated Fund." Under this head there have been some savings, partly of account and partly of fact; £40,000, which was charged on the Consolidated Fund for Ireland in lieu of the licences given to England and Scotland, was not paid by the Consolidated Fund, as the Bill authorising the payment did not pass; but it was voted in Committee of Sup-

  1179
  ply, so that it has no effect on the aggregate expenditure of the year. But we placed on the Consolidated Fund £300,000 for the erection of barracks, which I had undertaken to pay out of the Revenue of the year. Of this sum only £225,000 has been actually required, which gives a saving of £75,000. Lastly, the Committee will remember that a large sum was taken for the drawback on silver plate after the repeal of the duty. I am happy to say that the drawback did not reach the Estimate by £25,000—a very satisfactory result, due in great part to the administrative ability with which this complicated matter was carried out. As the final result of the excesses and savings which I have mentioned, the charges on the Consolidated Fund show a decrease of £65,000 as compared with the Estimates. The Supply Services show an increase of £421,500. The net increase is accordingly £356,000, which is less than one-half per cent. over the Budget Estimate. The exact totals are—£87,377,000, Budget Estimate; Exchequer Issues, £87,733,000, difference £356,000. If I include all that has been granted by Supplementary Estimates the final figures are somewhat different. The total grants were £88,511,000, against an annual Expenditure of £87,733,000, but the Departments have spent £778,000 less than Parliament placed at their disposal. I mention this to show that savings have been going on, and that the Departments have not abused the liberality of Parliament. The past year has not been free from Emergency Expenditure, but nevertheless the elasticity in the Revenue has enabled us to meet the increased expenditure in a manner which I hope will be considered on all sides as satisfactory. What has been the Revenue? The actual Revenue exceeds the Estimate by £1,879,000. Yet, as I have ventured to suggest, the Estimates were carefully framed, and framed with every propriety, of which I hope to submit proof to the Committee. The Committee will be impatient to learn under what heads these excesses have arisen. But let me point out that this increase of £1,879,000 is, after all, but about 2 per cent. on the total Revenue. One turn of the screw, one change in the general current of prosperity, and you
  1180
  might lose that 2 per cent. on which, happily, we are able to congratulate ourselves this year. In 1889–90, the Committee will remember, it was alcohol which played the principal part in depositing no less than £1,800,000 in the coffers of the State beyond my expectations. I refused to believe at the time that it was probable that the increase in the consumption of alcohol would continue and the revenue from its taxation again be exceeded. I think that was the view of the Committee also; but we were wrong in that respect. I believed we had reached the summit of the consumption of alcohol; but this year again, in the various items of alcohol, the consumption exceeds the estimate I had formed by no less a sum than £900,000. Out of the total increase of £1,879,000, alcohol counts for £900,000. There is the same rivalry this year between the various forms of alcohol as there was last year. Brandy, rum, wine, beer, foreign spirits, British spirits—all have shown again an increased yield; but the increase is chiefly in spirits; it has been larger in spirits than in any other department of alcohol. But it must not be said on that account that it is to Scotland or to Ireland that we mainly owe the increase in the Revenue. Being now able to trace the consumption to different parts of the United Kingdom with comparative accuracy, we have been able to see where this increase of consumption has taken place, and we find that the ratio of increase has been considerably larger in England than it has been either in Scotland or Ireland. In England the consumption of home-made spirits was over 18,000,000 gallons in the year—an increase of nearly 9 per cent. over the high figures for the previous year. The consumption beat the record by 1,000,000 gallons; and it was the highest consumption in England since 1880. In Scotland the consumption was 6,500,000 gallons, or an increase of 7½ per cent.; and in Ireland the total consumption was 4,900,000 gallons, showing the same increase of 7½ per cent. over last year. In both these parts of the United Kingdom this height of consumption has frequently been reached before, and sometimes passed; but in England it has never before

  1181
  reached this level. Rum once more shows a large percentage of increase—nearly 4½ per cent. over my estimate. Rum gives an increase of £144,000, brandy of £34,000, wine of £10,000, beer of £127,000, spirts of £586,000—together £901,000. I have taken British and foreign spirits together, because of the change in the system of methylation, which involves a transfer of a certain portion of revenue from Customs to Inland Revenue, amounting last year to £280,000. The net increase of revenue from foreign and British spirits is £586,000. The Committee can scarcely judge of the importance of this increase without reference to the amount on which it is an increase. That amount is about £15,000,000. The aggregate total of alcohol revenue is about £30,000,000. The total increase over the Receipts of the previous year is £720,000, and the increase over the Estimate is £900,000. I had allowed for a slight decrease in the consumption of spirits, not being prepared for the continuance of that considerable increase in every department of alcohol which we have witnessed in the past year. [Sir W. HARCOURT (Derby) here asked a question.] I ought to have said the figures do not include the additional 6d. a gallon on spirits, nor the additional 3d. on the barrel of beer, imposed for purposes of local taxation; I am speaking of Imperial Revenue only, which, of course, makes these figures all the more striking. Although this increase in the consumption of alcoholic beverages may be viewed with some disappointment and regret, there is at the same time in that increase of consumption one element of satisfaction. It shows that the powers of consumption of the working classes, owing to the increase of wages, has been on the increase during the last year. I have now the satisfaction to tell the Committee that the Customs, irrespective of the increase of spirits, show a satisfactory result all round, and bear eloquent testimony to the fact that the year 1890 will stand out as one of the years in which the working classes, as well as all other classes, have been able to add to the Revenue by their power of securing increased comforts for themselves and their families. I estimated the total Revenue from Customs at £19,116,000, and the Receipts have
  1182
  been £19,480,000, showing a surplus of Revenue over the estimated receipts of £364,000. To this must be added, for the purpose of comparison as regards Customs, £280,000 owing to the change made as regards the methylation of spirits, so that the Customs really show an increase of £644,000. Before the change was made as to the methylation of spirits, the spirits that were introduced from abroad first paid duty to Customs and afterwards had it returned in the shape of drawback by the Inland Revenue after the methylation had taken place. The spirits are now methylated in bond, and the Customs, therefore, lose the Revenue they previously obtained. On the other hand, the Inland Revenue is saved from the necessity of paying drawback, and thus the receipts of the Inland Revenue are increased by the sum by which the receipts of the Customs are diminished. The Committee should understand that the total of foreign spirits, owing to the circumstance that I have described, does not show an increase in Customs, but a decline of £107,000 as compared with the estimate. The increased power of consumption shown by the Revenue Returns of last year is also manifested by non-alcoholic beverages. The minor non-alcoholic beverages, including cocoa, show as usual little change, but tea plays a happy part in the history of last year, notwithstanding a Paper which has been circulated this morning to Members of the House in which it is suggested that no greater injury could be done to the consumers of tea than to take off the duty—a somewhat novel doctrine in political economy. I am not sure I do not see in that document some jealousy on the part of importers of tea from China in respect of the teas imported from our own possessions of Ceylon and India. Those possessions are contributing more and more to the tea supply of this country, and I doubt whether the strictures passed upon these newer imports in the document to which I allude are just. The reduction of the Tea Duty last year involved a loss of £1,500,000, but I reduced this loss in my Estimate to £1,282,000, by making allowance for increased consumption and other causes, but an increase in the receipts of £209,000 over my Estimate reduces the

  1183
  net loss to the Revenue to £1,073,000. A certain portion of the increase is due to the remission of duty, and the remainder is due to increased consumption irrespective of the reduction of duty. Making a careful calculation of all the necessary allowances, I conclude that the increase in 1890-91 over 1889-90 was at the rate of 61 per cent. This, however, is not to be judged alone by the imports of the tea leaf, but also by the difference between the teas of China and those of India and Ceylon. Impartial judges say that the power of the leaf from our own possessions as compared with China teas is in the proportion of 71 to 5 gallons of liquid of ordinary strength. Therefore, the increased consumption of tea is really still greater if we calculate the number of cups that have been drunk as distinct from the quantities of tea imported, because the tea from India and Ceylon goes further than the tea from China. I offer no opinion of my own as to relative strength; I only mention it as the opinion of impartial judges; and I believe the comparison is justified by the relative prices of the different teas. Taking into consideration the increase in gallons of liquid, the total increase in the amount of tea drink per head is about 7 per cent., instead of 61 per cent. calculated on imported leaf alone. I pass to another article on which the duty was reduced last year, namely, currants. In 1861 the duty on currants stood at 15s.; it was first reduced to 7s., and last year it was further reduced to 2s. I calculated the Revenue from currants at £120,000, allowing for a considerable increase of consumption, and that Estimate has been almost exactly verified. While by that reduction we lost £215,000 of Revenue, the consumption has increased 26 per cent., and I think everyone will acknowledge that to be a satisfactory result. But, more than this, we obtained at the same time when we reduced the Currant Duty, concessions from Greece as regards the taxes on imports from England. And I see, just as might have been expected, that our imports of currants having increased, our exports to Greece have increased by 22 per cent. I now come to another interesting article. Possibly the majority of the Committee will be pleased to hear, while others will deplore it as an evil sign, that
  1184
  there has been an increased consumption of tobacco. There is no article which played a larger part in the Revenue of last year, considering its position in the Customs, than tobacco, the receipts of the year exceeding those of its predecessor by £474,000. I calculated on an increase of £213,000, but that has been more than doubled. A small portion was due to the cigar trade, but the great bulk was in that kind of tobacco which is sold to the people. I have looked at the quantity supplied, and I find that there has been a large increase of consumption by the wage-earning classes. One ounce of tobacco gives 12 pipes, and, according to that calculation, the increase in the number of pipes smoked last year was 560,000,000 pipes. But, though I put it in that way, there is a serious side to this question, too. We see in all this the increased powers of consumption, on which we are able to congratulate ourselves. We expected to lose by the reduction of the duty on tea £1,500,000, on currants £210,000, and on wine £10,000, making a total of £1,720,000, in addition to £280,000 through the methylation of spirits, which would show a total estimated loss on Customs of £2,000,000, but the actual loss was only £980,000 as compared with last year. Here we have satisfactory evidence of a considerable recuperation. I now pass to the Excise. As regards the Beer Duty, apart from the additional 3d. per barrel imposed for local purposes, it realised £375,000 more than the year before, and an increase of £127,000 over my Estimate. The total is £9,391,000. Of spirits I have already spoken. The increase over my Budget Estimate has turned out to be £870,000, or, deducting the gain resulting from the saving of drawback on methylated spirits, about £600,000. I now pass to the other items of Revenue, and the transition shows some curious results. The considerable advance shown in the Revenue derived from consumption almost immediately disappears. I particularly call the attention of the Committee to the somewhat remarkable figures connected with the Death Duties. One would think that that item of Revenue was most likely to be affected by the changes and chances of this mortal life, but none

  1185
  appears more possible of an absolutely correct estimate. I estimated those duties at £7,460,000, and the receipts were £7,444,000; the whole difference between Receipts. and Estimates being only £13,000. The half Probate Duty was estimated to yield £2,400,000, and it gave £2,412,000, a most extraordinary instance of exact calculation. The increase, as compared with last year, is £148,000. The Estate Duty shows an increase of £124,000, and Succession Duty £110,000. Legacy Duty fell off £262,000, which I must balance by the other two. On the whole, the Death Duties come out right within £16,000. Therefore, they contribute nothing to that excess of Revenue over Expenditure to which I referred at the commencement of my remarks. General stamps have not realised the Estimate by £90,000. I allowed for a decrease of £85,000, land, therefore, the decrease is £175,000 as compared with the previous years. Then there is a loss as compared with the previous year on deedsand other instruments of £92,000; on bonds to bearer, of £50,000; on transfer of foreign securities, £18,000; on tax on formation of companies, £43,000; and on contract notes, of £7,000. In all these cases, while the Estimate has scarcely been realised, there has been no serious loss. It shows the forecast that the year would not be a very fruitful one in speculative transactions was accurate, and the caution exercised was abundantly justified. The whole Estimate under the head of Stamps (which includes the Death Duties) was £13,572,000, and the receipts were£13,460,000—adecrease of £112,000. House Tax was estimated at £1,460,000, and it realised £1,570,000, being £110,000 more than was anticipated, but a loss of £400,000 as compared with the proceeds of last year's tax. The result of the Income Tax again shows a remarkably accurate Estimate. We calculated on £13,200,000, and it realised £13,250,000, the whole difference on that enormous sum being £50,000. The total receipts of Inland Revenue collected for Imperial purposes exceeded the sum estimated by £1,114,000, but if from that is deducted the amount due to the increased consumption of beer and spirits, which comes roughly to
  1186
  £1,000,000, it will be seen that the difference on the total Estimate is less than ½ per cent.—conclusive proof of the caution and accuracy with which the Estimates had been framed. If, on the one hand, there has been a large increase in the produce of indirect taxation, when we come to Stamps, Death Duties, and Income Tax, the Estimate has just been realised, and that is all that can be said. I have still to deal with non-Tax Revenue. The Post Office and Telegraphs show an increase of Receipts over Estimate of £120,000, but that increase of Receipts is less than the increase of Expenditure over my Estimate, and, on the whole, the Post Office and Telegraphs show a loss, taking both sides together, as compared with my Estimates of last year, notwithstanding the fact that we did not realise the whole loss anticipated on the reduction in Colonial Postage, which only came into force on January 1. On Miscellaneous Revenue there is a satisfactory increase of £280,000. Of that sum, £200,000 was derived from profit on silver. In the year before it had given more than the ordinary profit, and we were of opinion that we had supplied the country with as much silver as they required. The country, however, have taken so much more than we anticipated that the receipts have been increased by £200,000 over our estimate. The total increase in non-Tax Revenue is £401,000. Adding to that the increase on Customs of £364,000 and the increase on Inland Revenue of £1,114,000, I get a total of £1,879,000 increase of Receipts over my Budget Estimate; and if I now deduct the Exchequer issues from the Receipts, I find a surplus of £1,756,000, as compared with the margin which I provided last year of £233,000, not, I hope, an unsatisfactory result in a year of uncertainty and doubt. This concludes the story I have to tell as regards the past year; and I venture to hope, although I thought it necessary to, go into some detail, that these figures will not have been without interest to the Committee. I now approach a different, but a cognate, subject of our finance. I have spoken of the Expenditure which has been voted by Parliament and paid. out of the taxes. I now come—and I

  1187
  think that hon. Members opposite will be particularly anxious that I should say a few words on this point—to the expenditure which we have incurred out of loans, and I will put this matter in the simplest form possible. The Committee will remember that there were three Acts passed. There is the Barracks Act, the Naval Defence Act, and the Imperial Defence Act. The Barracks Act I can dismiss in a few words. Our borrowing powers were only to begin in 1891-2. In the past years the funds for proceeding with the building of barracks were provided out of the Revenue of the year. Nothing has been borrowed under this Act. With regard to the Imperial Defence Act, that is divided into two parts—(1) naval, and (2) military. We were authorised to borrow under the naval part £850,000, and under the military £2,600,000. Under the naval portion we spent in the year 1888–9 £270,000; in the year 1859–90, £337,000; and in the year 1890–91, £243,000, or a total of £850,000. This total amount, less £52,000, charged on the Navy Votes, was borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners in 1889–90, the sums spent in 1888–89 and in 1889–90 having been taken out of balances, to which they were restored last year. The whole of this loan is to be repaid by annuities running over the next 12 years, amounting to £97,000 a year. On the other side we receive contributions from the Colonies, for the construction of the ships alone, of £35,000, irrespective of their maintenance. This is estimated at 5 per cent. on £700,000, the original estimate of the cost of the ships, but is actually about 4½ per cent. of the cost. After 12 years this Fleet becomes the free property of the State. I say free property, because up to that time, as the colonies undertake to pay the interest of the debt, the ships are not the free property of the State. They have to be kept in Australian waters, for the defence of which they are used jointly by the Imperial and Colonial Authorities. The annuity of £35,000 is provided by Statute by the Colonial Parliaments. We have proceeded by Statute also, and I will leave it to the impartial critic to say whether, considering that we are to be paid over a course of years by the colonies, and shall be in receipt of a
  1188
  sum of £35,000 for 12 years, it would have been fair to the taxpayers of two years that they should have paid the whole cost of these ships, while the taxpayers of the following 10 years would be receiving as a free gift the sum remitted by the colonies. I think I may say that, whether hon. Members agree with me or not, I have given a rational and fair account of that transaction. I now come to the military portion. Under this there was spent in 1888–9, £390,000; in 1889–90, £500,000; and in 1890–91, £780,000, which with a balance in hand of £60,000 makes up a total of £1,730,000. This total amount' was borrowed on Treasury Bills in 1890-91, the sums issued in 1888–9 and in 1889-90 having been taken out of balances, to which they were similarly restored last year. The repayment of the sums borrowed in whatever form, whether by Treasury Bills or Exchequer Bonds, has been provided for, as the Committee will remember, by the arrangements made as regards the Suez Canal shares. The Suez Canal shares, after the year 1894 begins, will give us a revenue of from £500,000 to £600,000 a year, which, I think, I may call a windfall. Therefore, it will never be necessary to levy any taxation for the repayment of this sum, amounting, on the whole, to £2,600,000, unless, indeed, you consider foregoing all this revenue, on which you never calculated, and which you never before enjoyed, equivalent to taxation. Then I pass to the third head, the Naval Defence Act. Under this Act there has been borrowed in 1889–90 nothing, and in 1890-91 £696,000 from the National Debt Commissioners. In the Return moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford it was anticipated that a much larger sum would be required. If I had not some special knowledge, I might have been impressed by the utterances which I have heard in a good many directions of a belief that many millions had been borrowed, whereas the actual amount borrowed with regard to naval defence is £696,000. There were two heads under which borrowing was authorised, one being that of naval construction in the Government Dockyards, and the other being that of contract ships. Under the first head, for

  1189
  the purposes of the ships built in the naval dockyards, it was anticipated that £611,000 would be borrowed. As a matter of fact, nothing has been borrowed, but £350,000 was taken as a Supplemental Estimate. Borrowing, according to the Treasury reading of the Act, could not commence till £2,650,000 had been spent, and that sum was only reached within the very last days of the financial year, and nothing was borrowed. On the contrary, I call the attention of the Committee to this: that in the previous year the whole amount which had been estimated had not been spent, and the taxpayer of the year 1889–90 paid more than the Expenditure of that year; and generally under all those Acts it will be found that if there has been any borrowing that ought not to have taken place, according to the judgment of some persons, it is only in the year 1890–91, and the proportions of that borrowing, and the circumstances under which:it has taken place, will not be absent from the mind of the Committee. On he other hand, according to the terms of the Act, balances not expended in previous years had to be paid over to an account styled in the Act the Naval Defence Account. To this account there has been paid over last year £380,000, the unexpended part of the sum voted for Dockyard construction in 1889–90. I now pass to the question of contract ships. Under this head an annuity of £1,428,000 was provided in 1889–90, to be charged on the taxpayer, to run for seven years, and special provision was made by the Estate Duty and the duty on beer. It was necessary, in our belief, to increase the Fleet and for that purpose we established this system of building these contract ships under a statutory programme; and £1,428,000 being the sum established in the Act as the provision for each year. It was my painful duty to find the funds to meet that annuity. I remember the difficulty which I experienced in imposing the Estate Duty, and still more have I a lively remembrance of the difficulty of raising the extra 3d. on beer imposed for that purpose. It will be seen, therefore, that we made provision in that first year to meet that annuity, to go in payment of contract ships. The Estate Duty of £1,200,000 was almost equivalent to the annuity of £1,428,000. What has
  1190
  been the result? In the first year when the Act was passed £1,428,000 was charged upon the taxpayer. The whole of that could not be spent, as the contracts made would not embrace the whole of that sum in that year, and the result was that the Admiralty drew only £653,000, and the balance was retained in the Naval Defence Fund. To sum up as regards the year 1889-90, with respect to contract ships, £776,000, and as regards ships in Government yards £380,000 were put aside. These sums have been paid by the taxpayer of the year, but not spent; so that up to this year, far from the taxpayer being relieved from expenditure which a future taxpayer will have to bear, he has practically paid £1,000,000 more than it has been possible to spend. I trust that neither side of the House thinks that it is unnecessary for me to enter into these details, as so much confusion has prevailed. In the year which has just been concluded it was anticipated that, besides the amount standing to the credit of the Naval Defence Fund from the preceding year, the sum of £2,750,000 would be required. The estimate was made in January, 1890, and those who had to frame it had to consider not only how much the contractors would be able to do in the remaining three months of that year, but also what payments they would become entitled to in the year 1890-91. I think that every one who has had experience of these matters knows how difficult it is to estimate how much contractors will spend in a given time. The Admiralty took a liberal estimate. They considered how much the contractors would require, and they put it in the Return which was moved for by the Member for Bradford. As a matter of fact, partly through strikes and partly through having other work on hand, the Admiralty found that the contractors were not able to do the whole of the work for which it had been thought necessary to borrow money, and so did not draw the amount. The result has been that in the financial year we were only called upon to provide (beyond the money voted in Supply and the annuity charged on the Consolidated Fund) for £1,076,000, under the Naval Defence Act, for dockyard shipbuilding, towards which £380,000 was available

  1191
  from the Defence Fund, instead of the much larger sum which had been anticipated. The National Debt Commissioners have provided this balance of £696,000 out of their resources. To sum up the amounts which have been borrowed during the last three years under all the Acts that have been passed for Defence, the amount borrowed under the Imperial Defence Act was £2,580,000, of which £52,000 has been already repaid. Under the Naval Defence Act £696,000 has been borrowed, making a total of £3,276,000 for the year 1890–91. I am very sorry that it has been my duty to bring together these figures, which occupy a certain amount of time that I would gladly have devoted to subjects of more thrilling interest to the Committee, but, at the same time, it is right that I should have taken the course I have followed. Now I will speak of the estimate of the amounts likely to be borrowed under the Naval Defence Act in the coming year. For Naval Defence it is expected, that £2,300,000 will be borrowed, and the anticipated amount for both the Defence Acts is £2,850,000. I pass now to a heavy subject, but, nevertheless, one which is full of interest, if we look to its effect upon taxation and the ultimate burden upon the people; I mean the reduction of the Debt. Last year in my Financial Statement I showed that £23,323,000 had in three years been applied out of taxes in the process of reduction of Debt. Since the 1st of April, 1890, the Funded Debt has been decreased by £6,665,000. On the other hand, the Unfunded Debt has been increased by £3,888,000, of course including the amounts borrowed for Imperial and Naval Defence purposes, and I have still to add £800,000 borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners for the Australian Squadron, so that, deducting these amounts of increase from the decrease, there has been a net reduction of £1,977,000 of Funded and Unfunded Debt. To this total I add, as usual, the diminished liability in respect of Terminable Annuities of £3,385,000, and the increase in the balance of £1,150,000, which is equivalent, of course, to a reduction in the Debt. Taking these items together, the reduction of liabilities in
  1192
  1890–91 was £6,512,000, reduced by the repayment of the Cape Loan of £400,000, leaving a net reduction of £6,112,000, after taking into consideration the debt that has been incurred under the Defence Acts. I wonder whether this figure will surprise hon. Members. Let me further state, as I stated last year, the amount actually paid out of Revenue in the last financial year in reducing our capital liabilities, or applicable to that purpose—I mean the amount which the taxpayer actually paid within the year for the purpose of diminishing Debt. By Annuities and the new Sinking Fund, the taxpayer paid off Debt within the year to the amount of £5,860,000, to which I have to add the old Sinking Fund, i.e., the surplus of the Revenue of last year, of £1,756,000, making a total applied from Revenue to the payment of Debt of £7,616,000. Adding that to the £23,323,000 paid in the three former years, the taxpayer has paid £30,939,000 for the reduction of Debt during the four years I have been in Office, or an average yearly application of taxes to the payment of Debt of £7,735,000. May I put the matter in another way? What was the effect of the process of reduction during last year, and of the conversion on the interest which the country is bound to pay on the Funded and Unfunded Debt? The interest for one year, as it stood in 1887, less Local Loans Stock, at 3 per cent. for the Funded, and 21/2 per cent. for the Unfunded, Debt, was £18,771,000. The actual interest paid in 1890–1 was £16,986,000, a reduction of the charge for interest for last year of £1,785,000. Now let the Committee, remember that this repayment of the Debt is optional, but that the charge for interest is compulsory; and it has been the good fortune of the present Parliament to be able to reduce, not the optional, but the compulsory, charge upon the taxpayers for the payment of Debt by a sum of about £1,800,000. Let us consider for a moment the measures as a whole affecting the reduction of the National Debt which have been passed during the last few years. In 1887-8 we reduced the permanent charge from £28,000,000 to £26,000,000, but the change has been materially modified by the result of the conversion, which reduces the interest on the

  1193
  National Debt by £1,500,000. If the whole of that reduction had been left within the permanent charge, the reduction would not have been more than £500,000; but, as hon. Members will remember, I gave the taxpayers the benefit of £1,000,000 of that saving. The permanent charge, therefore, was put at £25,000,000, and now the extent of the reduction of the means available for paying off Debt, as compared with the permanent charge at £25,000,000, is £1,500,000 less, but not less by a greater amount than that. But that is not all. The annuities have also been at work; Debt has also been otherwise reduced; and I am able to inform the Committee that, notwithstanding the reduction from £28,000,000 to £25,000,000, we are practically able to pay off as much Debt now as in 1886. The difference against us is only £369,000, though the charge has been diminished by £3,000,000. However, I do not want the pace of the reduction of Debt to be tried by what I call the measured mile. Let me, therefore, take a some what loner period. The total amount during the last five years applied out of taxation to the reduction of the National Debt has been £37,200,000. The total for the five years before was £24,600,000. We have accordingly in the last five years provided out of taxes for the repayment of £12,000,000 more than was done in the preceding five years. But I will give another comparison. I will omit the years 1885–6 and 1886–7, which were years of exceptional military operations, and I will take the four years before and after, namely, 1887–8 to 1890–1, and 1880–1 to 1883-4. In the earlier years the total was £27,200,000, and in the later years it was about £30,900,000, the difference being £3,600,000 in favour of the later years. I think, therefore, that the present House of Commons has not failed to discharge its duty in following up, and not slackening, the pace of the reduction of Debt, to which we all attach the very greatest importance. Now, let me return for a moment to the question of the Funded and the Unfunded Debt. We paid off a portion of the Funded Debt to the amount of £5,000,000 just at the beginning of the present financial year, and we increased the Floating Debt accordingly, but I am
  1194
  happy to say that the amount of the Floating Debt—for I am anxious not to see it too high—in the hands of the public has been diminished by £2,400,000 during the past year. It stands to-day at about £1,000,000, which is only £7,000,000 in excess of what it stood at before the conversion operation, and that after we had paid off £24,000,000 of the Funded Debt in cash. I have seen a remark in one quarter calling attention to the large increase which has taken place in our Unfunded Debt without the slightest allusion to the reduction in the Funded Debt. It was laid to my charge as a crime that I had increased the Unfunded Debt, and as the, sentences ran one would have thought that this was an increase of Debt altogether. But, as a matter of fact, we have reduced the Funded Debt to an amount quite out of proportion to the increase in the Unfunded Debt. I know-there are men who think we ought to. fund our Unfunded Debt; but if we are-to do so we ought to be able to do it under favourable circumstances, and without loss to the State. I do not know whether hon. Members will remember that I undertook to use my best abilities in carrying out the conversion. in order that we should not increase the capital of the Debt, and by that declaration I have stood. There are, no doubt, inconveniences in a large amount of Floating Debt, but I would rather-gradually reduce that Debt than throw a large amount of Consols on the market in order to fund it. As far as the Floating Debt is in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, the matter is as. broad as it is long, inasmuch as I propose-to give Exchequer Bonds—and in fact II have given them—running for a certain period. As regards the public, to fund that Debt would mean to offer an equivalent amount of Consols in the market, and that is an operation which those acquainted with the Money Market would not view with any satisfaction. I am sometimes twitted with the price of Consols. The price of Consols is comparatively low, but that has not only been due to the conversion, but to two or three other causes. It has been due in the present year to the immense sales of Consols to meet the financial exigencies in which some of the greatest houses have found themselves. Of course that

  1195
  has had a great effect upon the market. But, besides, it has seemed good to this House and to the other House to make some serious changes as regards Trust Funds; and there has been a kind of invitation issued in every direction that these stately Consols, which our forefathers and our fathers wished should constitute the maintenance of their children, should be replaced by other less patriotic securities. I venture to think, Mr. Courtney, that the bones of some of those patriots would turn in their graves if they knew what was being done in regard to their .intentions that their daughters should subsist on Consols. There has been no sympathy whatever in the view that Consols should be the chief element in trusts. Imperial considerations have given way, I am afraid, before fair legatees and importunate cestui-qui trusts. This accounts for many sales of Consols which have affected the market. But I venture to think that the time will come when Consols will again resume the supremacy which we must all wish for them, and which constitutes the great strength of the nation. And now, before I pass to the finances of the coming year, let me say one word with regard to a subject in which hon. Members of this House take the deepest interest—that is, the question of the relief of local taxation 'and all that hangs thereby. I think the House would like to hear an authoritative statement of what has been done with regard to the transfer of funds to the Local Authorities. We have transferred in 1890–91 for Licence Duties to England £3,011,000, and to Scotland £310,000, making a total from Licence Duties of £3,321,000. For Probate Duty to England £1,930,000, to Scotland £265,000, to Ireland £217,000—total for Probate Duties, £2,412,000. For Beer and Spirit Duties to England, £1,039,600, to Scotland £143,000, and Ireland £117,000 — total from Beer and Spirit Duties, £1,300,000. The grand total transferred in these forms, with a sum of £40,000 voted for Irish labourers' cottages in lieu of the gain accruing to England and Scotland by the transfer of licences, is £7,073,600. But, of course, against that you have to set off the grants in aid which have been dropped, and which would have been given from the Imperial Exchequer
  1196
  in the old time. In the last year in which they were granted—1886–87 —they amounted to £2,944,000, but as some of the contributions expanded from year to year, they would probably have amounted by this time to £3,200,000. If I deduct that sum, the total net relief given to local taxation in England, Scotland, and Ireland is £3,873,600. Generally, I may say, this has been given in relief of local taxation. But the Committee will remember that there were some special purposes to which this was to be turned. There was a sum of money that was available for school fees in Scotland, for payment for intermediate education, labourers' cottages, and national school teachers in Ireland. But, of course, the bulk has gone to the relief of local taxation. If I separate England from Scotland and Ireland, and say what the relief to England alone has been, after making allowance for the dropped grants, the amount is £3,100,000. Now, the Committee will observe that the relief is given not only by the Probate Duty, which represents personal property, but partly by the Beer and Spirit Duties, and this, doubtless, is a new element in our finance. I am prepared to say it is a sound element. I do not see why indirect taxation should not be put under contribution, looking to all the new purposes to which the Local Authorities are obliged to apply themselves. I do not see that it is unfair that indirect taxation should contribute, in some measure, to the relief of local taxation. Well, then, to what purposes has this additional Beer and Spirit Duty been put? It has been applied to three purposes. First, to Police Superannuation, about one-third; second, to general relief of local taxation; and, third, it was intended to be applied to the extinction of licences. I have received a great many communications which would indicate that the tax had been imposed for the last purpose only, but no one who has a shred of memory can forget that that is not so. There were three distinct purposes for which it was imposed. Well, now, I ask, has the higher scale of duty proved that the total duty is more than the alcoholic beverages would bear? I admit that considerable reconsideration ought to be given, if it had been found that this increased duty had generally

  1197
  proved that the duties were too high. That is not so. There is another argument on which I may slightly touch. It is argued that this additional tax falls, not upon the consumer, but upon a particular and limited trade. But I am unable to admit that plea, because, if that were so, I think we should never be able either to reduce or increase a tax. It may be that in some articles a tax falls more heavily upon a particular class interested in that article than upon others, but I do not think that we can hold that any particular class bears the whole amount of the duty put upon the article in which it deals. I will not deny—I will not attempt to deny—that the fact of the failure of one part of our scheme has naturally created much disappointment and irritation; but I repudiate in the strongest degree the suggestion that there was any pledge on the part of the Government that if we could not carry out the whole of our scheme, then this tax would fall to the ground. I am deeply concerned that a body of men engaged in a legitimate business should think themselves ill-treated because they are not relieved of this tax, but I must say at once that to relieve them of the whole of this tax would in any case be absolutely impossible, as it was imposed not only for the extinction of licences but for two other purposes. Then should a portion of the tax be repealed? Should one-third be repealed? I can assure the Committee that this matter has given me a great deal of anxiety, because the charge has been levelled more than once against me that I have broken my pledge in this matter—a charge I once more emphatically repudiate. But at the same time I have looked into the matter very closely. I have received 146 Memorials from the trade and others praying for the repeal of the whole of the tax, but in only one important Memorial has any mention been made of the repeal of a third of the tax. What would a third mean? It would be 1d. a barrel on beer and 2d. a gallon on spirits. Well, I confess it appeared to me at one time that it would be a comparatively small boon to take off these sums. It appeared to me, especially in the case of spirits, that a reduction of 2d. per gallon would disturb contracts, agitate trade, and would cause more confusion than
  1198
  the advantage which would be derived from the repeal. To an important deputation which I received I put the question whether they endorsed the view I held with regard to taking off this one-third, and they did not repudiate it. Then, on the other hand, I asked myself to what purposes has this one-third been put; what has been done with it? In a great many cases it has been applied to the development of technical education. County Councils have taken the greatest interest in the matter, and I think it would be very important if my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council would give the Committee and the public full information with regard to it. I may say, roughly, that a very large proportion of the County Councils have assigned the whole of this Revenue by resolution to technical education. A large number of others have assigned a portion of the money to the same purpose, and in other cases no answer has been given. Looking at the whole state of the case, it appears to me that it is felt by the country at large that the assignment of this sum of about £400,000 has been of incalculable advantage in stimulating technical education in the counties and elsewhere. Looking to that fact, and looking, on the other hand, to the very small and doubtful boon which it would be to take off d. a barrel and 2d. a gallon, I have come to the conclusion, I may say not without reluctance, not to disturb the tax. I say not without reluctance, because it will be admitted that those on whom it has fallen have been subjected to a great disappointment; but, at the same time, I should rejoice as much as any man in this House if the grant of this money should have the effect, which we all hope it may have, of stimulating technical education in all parts of the country. Mr. Courtney, at this point it becomes my duty to give my cordial thanks to the Committee for the great patience and indulgence with which they have listened to me hitherto, because, though I think there are many things in the Revenue of the past year which are interesting, and I have only given explanations which ought to have been given, nevertheless I know hon. Members are impatient to hear what the finance of the present year is to be. Well, then, in the first place, I come to

  1199
  the question of the Expenditure of this year. The Committee is already acquainted with the immense sum for which I am bound to provide the means. The Consolidated Fund Services amount to £28,295,000, being a decrease as compared with last year's issues of £408,000. The total of the Supply Services is £60,024,000, an increase of £1,000,000 over last year's figure of £59,030,000. Adding together the expenditure, therefore, as known to the Committee, I get a total of £88,319,000—I am giving round figures—which is an excess on the issues of last year of £586,000, and of nearly £950,000 on my Budget Estimate for 1890-91. That is a large increase; but the whole facts cannot be grasped without an analysis of the charges on the Consolidated Fund, which result in a diminution, as I have said, of £408,000. The Consolidated Fund last year included a sum for barracks of £225,000, for drawback on silver of £95,000, and for another item of £100,000 for the Chancery Book Debts. These figures vanish, at all events for the present, from our calculations. They are not included in the Estimates of the year, but they bring up the real excess of expenditure over last year's issues to nearly £1,000,000. And, further, the Committee is entitled to know that from the Miscellaneous Revenue an item of £120,000 has been withdrawn and appropriated, as Appropriations in Aid to Civil Service Votes, in accordance with the views of the Public Accounts Committee. Thus the Civil Service Votes appear so much the smaller, while the £120,000 vanishes from the item of Miscellaneous Receipts, and in effect our expenditure is so much the larger. Now, I think the Committee will agree with me that I am putting the full significance of these figures before them. I am not attempting to hide in any degree the vast expenditure which we are incurring. Why should we attempt to hide it? Why should we attempt to conceal from the people this expenditure if we believe the expenditure is made in response to the demands of the people and to the requirements of the Imperial Service? Do not attempt to say that we wish to palliate or excuse our expenditure. What we have to do is to defend it and show that it is necessary in the interests of the Empire and not only so, but that
  1200
  the public itself is urging us on and is responsible for a great part of this increased expenditure. There are two ways in which you may show moderate Estimates. You may do so by being moderate in framing your Estimates; but you may do so also, by leaving half the work undone, and it has been the case sometimes that Governments—I do not make any distinction of Party in the matter— have sinned in the direction of entering upon a competition for the moderation of Estimates, while, as a matter of fact, work has been accumulating which their successors had to discharge. Now, I think the Committee will do me the justice to say that I have never attempted to hide our expenditure. Those who remember the language I used last year with reference to the expenditure of the country, especially for the two great Services, will remember that I was not the mouthpiece of a Government wishing to screen themselves from criticism; but I used the language of a Chancellor of the Exchequer anxious for the security and strength of the country, in which no one was more interested than himself. I repudiate the suggestion that we had, or have, any desire to hide the real expenditure from the country. Let me place some of the items before the Committee, and show whence this increased Expenditure arises. We have an increased Expenditure this year, but only £70,000 of that increase is due to the two great Services. No; it arises from other causes. Ireland [a laugh]; yes, do hon. Members wish to dissociate themselves from the increased Expenditure which we have felt ourselves bound to give to Ireland? The increase of Expenditure in Ireland arises from the relief works there, and from the light railways which we are constructing, though they are permanent works, out of the actual taxes of the country; and we ask in this coming year, and without any fear that our action will be repudiated by the House, that £200,000 more should be voted for Ireland for light railways and relief works. £500,000 of the increased Estimates of this year go, I will not say to the debit of Ireland, but to the satisfaction of the desire which has been felt in all parts of the United Kingdom to come to the assistance of our

  1201
  poorer Sister. [Interruption.] At all events, we are not ashamed to ask the taxpayers to vote an extra £1,000,000—for that is the amount in two years—to go to the needs of that portion of Ireland which is suffering from distress. The sneers of hon. Members below the Gangway, if they were sneers, are somewhat misplaced. I think they will prefer that their sneers should not be placed before the taxpayers of the country, who without a murmur, as far as I know—has there been a single public meeting where any member of the opposite side?—[slight interruption.] I do not wish to be controversial. How many men are there who would be reproached at any public meeting of English taxpayers for having assisted Ireland in her need, and having constructed light railways, by which we hope the material prosperity of that, country may be increased? [An IRISH MEMBER: Out of Irish money.] Yes; Ireland contributes. I quite agree—perhaps it was an omission on my part not to say so—th Ireland 'bears her share in the contribution. These are occasions when Ministers are not expected to be controversial, and I apologise to the Committee if I was carried away for a moment .by the interruptions. I am dealing now with matters which do not concern the Executive Government of one day alone. I am pointing to a tendency to increased Expenditure, the results of which will fall as severely on any successors we may have as upon ourselves. It is a tendency to which 1 would call the attention of the country, apart from the assistance to Ireland. The next item, after Ireland, is Education. There is an increase of £140,000, partly due to the automatic increase in the number of school children, partly due to the extension of drawing in the elementary schools — a small matter which, nevertheless, swallows up some £70,000 or £80,000. Public Buildings show an excess of £70,000, and yet we are accused of miserable stinginess for not more rapidly advancing various public buildings which are required. Post Office and Telegraphs show an increase of nearly £400,000. That is the way in which the Expenditure is rising. Of this £400,000 a large proportion is due to increased salaries; and though we
  1202
  have this substantial increase, all the large cities are clamouring for new Post Offices, with sites that are valued at £100,000 or £200,000, and I think the time will come before long when the House of Commons— when the most ardent zealots in favour of the diminution of the Post Office Revenue—will find that in this matter of increased Expenditure they have a difficult element to deal with. Then there is the Census. We have £150,000 this year extra to pay for the Census; and a number of persons — I am not sure whether you, Mr. Courtney, were not yourself amongst the number —thought, on the whole, we were not going to conduct the Census with sufficient liberality and magnificence of statistical scale. Adding together these items we find an increase, after making all the necessary allowances, of £1,090,000 in the estimated Expenditure of this year as compared with the previous year. I have, I think, accounted to the satisfaction of the Committee for this increase in the Estimates. We have two Supplementary Estimates which we shall have to propose, and which hon. Members will be kind enough to add to the Estimate of the Expenditure; of the coming year. There is a sum of £125,000 for the relief—for the continuation of the relief—of the distress in Ireland during the present financial year, and for the amount necessary for the relief of the crofter districts, and for carrying out in them those operations which my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has described. Well, now I have done with the Expenditure of the year but for one remark, which, long as I have occupied the Committee, I should wish to make. I wish to make it before I approach the question of the means for meeting this Expenditure. We have some contributions in aid of our Expenditure; but to a very slight extent indeed, from our colonial fellow-subjects. We have had to consider—it was the bounden duty of the Executive Government to consider—while looking to the immensely increasing cost and the increasing requirements of the great Military and Naval Services, looking to the total which the British taxpayer is bound to pay, whether we have not a right to call for some increase of these colonial contributions which have

  1203
  been made in the past. We have examined this matter in no narrow or exacting spirit. We have looked to see whether such colonies as the Straits Settlements, Mauritius, and Hong Kong —we have looked to see whether their revenues have increased as ours have increased, under the protection of the British flag; we have looked to see whether they pay anything like the sum which some of the poorest and smallest States contribute for their defence. We have looked to their population; we have looked to their revenue; we have looked to their trade; and we have thought it to be our duty to see whether, in view of the changed circumstances, those contributions should not be revised. I have thought it right to make this public allusion to the subject, and I wish to assure our distant fellow-subjects trading under the British flag that we do not desire to approach them in a niggardly spirit; but we do think that they should, like some of the larger colonies, take an increased share in bearing the immense burdens of the Empire to which they belong. Some of the colonies, indeed, have come forward. Australia has done much in this direction. Some of the colonies pay their own troops; and I strongly hold that the smaller colonies should feel that they have duties cast upon them in connection with the Empire. I have made these remarks with the view of showing that this subject of colonial contribution is a question of importance to all sides of the House; it is a question for Parliament to consider. And now I pass to a review of the means of the nation to meet its general expenditure, and I ask the Committee, as I did last year—what is the spirit in which we are to frame our Estimates of Revenue? And, again, I invite the Committee, on most substantial grounds, to approach the Estimates of the Revenue in a spirit of caution. 1890 has been a brilliant year in many respects. I speak particularly as to trade and wages; but there are many people who believe that we may find ourselves upon the top of that curve of prosperity, and that we have not so good a year before us as the past. Still, we have two advantages in this year. One advantage is a permanent advantage. There is always that increased consumption which may be put down, to the in-
  1204
  crease in the population, and 1 per cent. would be the normal increase of that portion of the Revenue which is due to the increase of population. Another advantage is that we have a larger number of tax-earning days in this year than last year. In the first place, it will be a Leap Year, which gives us one day more. Then we have no Easter in the present financial year. The present financial year is a year without an Easter. We have no Good Fridays and no Easter Mondays. [A VOICE: "Less consumption."] My right hon. Friend probably alludes to the consumption of certain special articles. True as regards consumption, but not as regards business! The provision for the consumption for holidays does not take place at the moment of the holidays, but at a different time, as experience has shown. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who in 1861 had exactly a similar state of affairs, was able to speculate, and speculate successfully, on an increase of Revenue owing to the increase in the number of tax-earning days in that year. Three extra days mean 1 per cent. on the total working days of the year, and 1 per cent. is a large amount when you come to deal with millions. I add this 1 per cent. to the 1 per cent. for the increase in population, and if I allow for no other causes than those I have stated, we ought to have an increase of Revenue by 2 per cent. That would give about £1,200,000 on the £60,000,000. Now, let me turn to another matter, which I think will interest the Committee. What is the degree of prosperity on which we can count in the country as regards the general Estimates which I have to submit? How far has our prosperity been affected, for instance, by what has happened in the City? I do not think that the general prosperity has been greatly affected by the breakdown in speculation. It might have been otherwise if the danger had not been averted; but as it was met, and as there was no breakdown of credit in the country, the general estimate of the prosperity of the country has not been influenced by these events. I have made the closest inquiry into the state of commerce and industry, of trades and wages, and of agriculture in the country during the year 1890.. Let me give the Committee some

  1205
  figures, because 1890 is a year which has topped all others in regard to the profits of the employer and the wages of the employed. There are exceptions, no doubt. The wool trade has not been so successful, and there is the shipping trade, which has been only fairly successful; but, looking at it broadly, 1890 has been an extremely prosperous year. For computations for the Returns under Schedule D of the Income Tax, the year 1887 vanishes from the average, and its place is taken by the year 1890—i.e., the three years on which the average would now be built are 1888, 1889, 1890, instead of 1887, 1888, 1889. The comparison, therefore, of 1890, with 1887 becomes of peculiar importance. The sums at issue are so vast that it requires an exuberant fancy even to be able to form some conception of them. For instance, the bankers' clearings in London in the year 1890 were £7,801,000,000, against £6,077,000,000 in 1887, an increase of over £1,700,000,000. It seems like calculating the distance from the earth to the sun. The bankers' clearings in the cities of Birmingham, Manchester, and Newcastle-on-Tyne have been £225,000.000 in 1890, against £205,000,000, in 1889, an increase over that year, which was in itself a good year, of some £20,000,000, or 10 per cent. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for New' castle, whom I see opposite, on the prosperity of that city. Nor have the profits fallen much behind the transactions. The profits of 18 provincial banks in 1890 were £1,122,000, against £882,000 in 1887, an increase of nearly 40 per cent. The railways have carried more passengers, more merchandise, more minerals, and more live stock. In the vast cotton industry more cotton has been consumed than ever before, and not without some good returns. The profits of 88 companies in Oldham have risen from £86,000 in 1887 to £368,000 in 1890. Let the Committee look behind these enormous figures, and then they will see more work, more wages, more happiness in many homes in this increased prosperity. The increase in the value of coal has been immense. It is calculated that in 1889 the value of coal exported was £14,782,000, against £19,020,000 in 1890. The increase in the value of coal exported
  1206
  is thus no less than 28 per cent. The amount of the coal exported was 28,956,000 tons in 1889, as against 30,130,000 tons in 1890, an increase in quantity of 4 per cent. The profits of 16 Derbyshire Coal Companies in 1887 were £176,000; in 1890 they reached £572,000. In a number of other collieries, which I twill not specify, the profits, which were £770,000 in 1887, rose to £2,330,000, in 1890. I will not carry on the comparison, but I require to state these things in order to justify the estimate of the Income Tax which I am going to make for the year 1891-92. The result of the examination of the Income Tax Collectors and others who report to me with regard to the prosperity of the country is this—that instead of putting the Income Tax down at £13,250,000 for the coming year, I am putting it down at £13,750,000, being an increase of £500,000 over last year. That brings up the Income Tax to £2,300,000 for each 1d. in the£1. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian can look back to the first statements of Sir Robert Peel with regard to the Income Tax, and will remember that he calculated the d. in the £1 as representing £700,000.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No; only £500,000.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; only £500,000, the right hon. Gentleman says, and now d. in the £1 represents no less than £2,300,000. But the Committee will not be satisfied if I speak only of the profits of the employers. I have made inquiries into the wages of the employed, and I may cite one instance, which is a pregnant and interesting instance with regard to the rise in wages. In one set of collieries the wages have risen from 1s. 9d. per ton in 1887 to 2s. 4d. per. ton in 1890. I have an estimate before me which places the total increase in the wages in the coal trade in 1890, as compared with those of 1885, at no less a sum than £6,000,000. That is an increase of wages on which we may congratulate ourselves. Well, I have spoken of the past year, but what about the future? I see no great cause for alarm with regard to any decline in the coming year; but I do not see indications that, having realised such high wages in 1890, it would be

  1207
  probable that they will continue to advance. I will not calculate upon a decline, but, looking to the possible effects of the M'Kinley tariff, and to other features upon which I have not .the time to dwell, I am not prepared to expect any increase in the consumption of the various great articles of trade beyond the 2 per cent. I indicated in the earlier portion of this branch of my remarks. I will now proceed as rapidly as I can to give the figures at which I estimate the Revenue of the coming year. The Committee will bear in mind that I put down the Income Tax at £13,750,000. The Customs Revenue of last year was £19,480,000, but from this I have to deduct £200,000 for the Tea Duty collected before the change of duty took effect, and, that, with other adjustments, reduces the amount to £19,280,000. Adding 2 per cent. to this, the sum is £19,665,000, and I put the total of the Customs Revenue for the coming year at £19,700,000. Some of the items in this large figure are coffee, £333,000; dried fruits, £340,000; tea, £3,400,000; tobacco, £9,730,000; rum, £2,370,000; brandy, £1.370,000; and Geneva, £755,000. The total Customs, as 1 have said, I put at £19,700,000. I now pass to Excise, in which we estimated beer at £9,580,000; and British spirits at £15,150,000. I increased the Probate Duty last year by £140,000; this year I raise it from £2,400,000 to £2,450,000. The Estate Duty, I calculate, will produce £1,220,000, and the Legacy Duty, £2,580,000, a very slight increase in each case, because I do not think that in the face of the fall of securities which has taken place it would be wise to calculate on a greater excess. The Succession Duty I increase by £40,000, which brings it to £1,300,000. In general stamps, owing to what I have seen in the last months of the past year, I do not venture to place the figure as high as last year, and I reduce the Estimate by £67,000 to £5,900,000. The grand total of stamps, including general stamps and Death Duties, is £13,450,000. I make no alteration in the amount estimated from the Land Tax, and in the House Duty I allow for a further loss of £120,000, the total from that source being £1,450,000. The total of the receipts of the Inland
  1208
  Revenue I put at £54,980,000, as against £53,983,000 last year, or an increase of £997,000, being about 2 per cent. increase on last year. I add that to the increase on Customs, and I calculate the total increase in the taxed revenue at £1,017,000. I have still to deal with the non-Taxed Revenue. Under this head I hope for an increase of £320,000 in the Post Office and Telegraph Service receipts. In Miscellaneous Revenue, I am sorry to say, I find a tremendous gap. I place it at only £2,500,000, as against £2,979,000 last year, being a decrease of £480,000. I have alluded to the loss of £120,000 as being given in Appropriations in Aid of the various Civil Services. But another loss is due to the fact that I can no longer count on the difference of the profits of the Mint to which I have alluded. Therefore, I am unable to put the miscellaneous revenue at a higher figure than that I have named. I estimate the total of the non-taxed Revenue for the coming year at £15,750,000, as against £15,911,000 for the past year, being a decrease of £161,000. These figures give me a net increase for last year of £941,000, and a total Revenue of £90,430,000. I will now give the Committee a resume of the figures —Customs, £19,700,000; Excise, £25,300,000; Stamps, £13,450,000; Land Tax £1,030,000; House Duty, £1,450,000; Property and Income Tax, £13,750,000; total produce of taxes, £74,680,000; Post Office, £10,120,000; Telegraph Service, £2,480,000; Crown Lands, £130,000; Interest on Purchase-money of Suez Canal Shares, Sardinian Loan, &c., £20,000; Miscellaneous, £2,500,000; total produce of non-Tax Revenue, £15,750,000; total Revenue, £90,430,000. The Expenditure, as the Committee will remember, including the Supplementary Estimate of £125,000, is estimated at £88,444,000. I therefore find myself with a surplus—I will not say to dispose of—of £1,986,000—let us call it in round figures £2,000,000. I have now to ask myself, Am I to have this surplus? Is it to be at my disposal for my own financial purposes? Am I in the position of being able to give any remission of taxation? I approach the consideration of this question with considerable apprehension from the experience I have had of the past. There sits my right hon Friend the President of

  1209
  the Local Government Board with a guilty look which reminds me that one year he deprived me of all power of remitting taxation; another year the First Lord of the Admiralty did the same; and the Chief Secretary for Ireland has cost me an extra £1,000,000 within the last two years, although he may seek to palliate his guilt with the idea that I need not, on principles of financial propriety, have provided the means for the building of permanent railways out of the taxes of the year. Is there on this Bench yet another despoiler of the public purse? Well, Mr. Courtney, I am not without my anxieties, as a few minutes will show. Before I part with, or before the Committee dispose of, the surplus, let them look for one moment at the dimensions of the surplus. It amounts to £2,000,000. It is not a very large sum compared with the Revenue out of which it springs. It is scarcely more than 2 per cent. I do not know that any great things could be done with it. To do great things you want two elements—a surplus of money and a surplus of time; and although I have a moderate surplus of money, I do not know that I have any large, or any surplus of time. There are some great tasks to which I have been invited, including the reorganisation or re-arrangement of the Death Duties, of the Income Tax, and of the Stamp Taxes. My right hon. Friends opposite, as well as my Colleagues, know the difficulties of such gigantic tasks, and the length of time they require. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has spoken of the re-construction of the Death Duties as requiring a Session; the re-construction of the Income Tax would require a full Session also.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: A century.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman has been half a century in the service of his country, and during that half-century he has not been able to submit, or has not desired to submit, a plan for the re-construction of the Income Tax. We have no surplus of time, and I have only a small surplus of money which I mention, as sometimes it is by greasing the wheels, by exemptions, and otherwise, that re-construction can be achieved. I have yet another reason why it would be impossible to attempt the re-construc
  1210
  tion of the Income Tax, even with more time than I have, and that is because I am profoundly convinced that the two tasks, for one of which a Session is required and for the other, according to my right hon. Friend, a century, are practically two tasks that must be undertaken together. The re-construction of the Death Duties could not be undertaken without the re-construction of some features of the Income Tax. The re-construction of the Death Duties involves an increase in the taxes on real property; and, if so, you would have at the same time to consider whether a change in the Income Tax ought not to be balanced by a corresponding change in the House and Land Duties. But, however that may be, we are agreed in this, that both these two efforts would constitute a gigantic task. There remains the third task, the rearrangement of the Stamp Duties, which are full of anomalies, some of which ought to be redressed; but if I might give a word of friendly advice to my successor, of whatever Party, it would be that he should not rush into any precocious passion for the redress of anomalies. There is no field more dangerous, in which there are more pitfalls and snares for the unwary, of which I have had experience myself. I found, for instance, that on the Stock Exchange stately British Stocks, all the most respectable securities, were taxed on their transfer or at, their birth, while a certain class of shady foreign securities escaped scot-free; British respectability was taxed, but foreign gambling went scot-free. I thought that here was an anomaly to be redressed, and I put a tax upon fugitive securities, but I have never heard the last of it and of the "cumbrous method" by which it was done. I only created a grievance in trying to redress a wrong. I maintain that the principle I followed was correct; but if the experts of the Stock Exchange could find a less cumbrous form of taxing these securities, I should be only too glad to listen to them. As to stamps generally, one thing we have been able to accomplish—and I trust the announcement will not be unsatisfactory — the authorities of the Inland Revenue have prepared a Bill in which the existing law is consolidated; and I venture to think that will be a great boon to business men and the public generally. Whether it will be a

  1211
  boon to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I will not inquire, because all the anomalies and exemptions are brought out in the Bill with such clearness that I am doubtful whether I shall have a moment's peace from the denunciation of existing arrangements. While the House may undertake consolidation by referring the Bill to a Grand Committee, we have not time at our command for a general re-arrangement of the Stamp Duties. In none of these fields do I see the possibility of action this year, even if I had time at my command. I say, even if I had time at my command. But the question arises whether I have money at my command. I have £2,000,000 at my disposal, in one sense; but there sits on the Treasury Bench another despoiler of the Public Purse—my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, who, I believe, has serious designs upon me. In the Gracious Speech from the Throne at the opening of the Session this passage occurred—
  " Your attention will be invited to the expediency of alleviating the burden which compulsory education has, in recent years, imposed upon the poorer portions of my people."
  The Government do not intend to depart from the pledge which was given in that Speech—a pledge which we intend to carry out at the earliest date and in the amplest manner. The cost of that operation is large—the cost of following up compulsory education with a corresponding amount of free education, [A VOICE: "Assisted," and cries of" Free, free! "from the Opposition Benches, followed by cheers.] I do not object to stand by the word " free." We intend to deal with the subject in no niggard spirit, as the Committee will see when I tell them that the cost of that operation will absorb the £2,000,000 at my disposal. The Committee will judge from that of the degree and completeness with which we are prepared to carry out the pledge given in the Speech from the Throne. I have said that it will cost us £2,000,000; that is the aggregate cost, including what will be given to Ireland and Scotland; but, of course, we have now not to deal with an entire year. We do intend, if the House of Commons, as we expect and hope, second us by a resolute determination to get through its Business,
  1212
  that if possible no administrative delay of a single day shall occur, and if our views are carried out, the parents will be relieved under the Bill from fees for the children whose education will be freed under' our proposals from the 1st of September next. It is not for me to disclose the particulars of the Bill which we shall introduce; but I may say that, asking Parliament as we shall to make the Bill operative on the 1st of September forward, we shall require in the course of this financial year something near half the amount of the £2,000,000. 1 must leave a margin, a balance, of course, and that will leave me a balance of £900,000. Am I to dispose of it, can I dispose of it, or must I not look forward to next year when the full £2,000,000, which our plans will cost, will come into operation? I cannot reconcile it with my duty to speculate, looking to the whole circumstances of the day, as to our having an additional £900,000 ready next year if I part with this £900,000. I feel that hon. Members will sympathise with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is parting with a surplus to other persons, while he is burning to meet all those piteous petitions which are made for the remission of taxation. But one thing I have made up my mind about, and that is that the £900,000 ought not to be disposed of for a certain number of small reliefs. It must be kept together for the finances of next year in order that we may have the certainty of being able to carry out the whole of our task without any doubt and without any anxiety. If there were any strong claimants in this year I am bound to say lit would be the class that could not be relieved by this £900,000, even if it were in my power to do it. Looking to the reductions which took place last year, and looking to the alleviations of the burdens of the masses of the country, I do not deny that the Income Tax payers would have a strong claim, but this £900,000 would be as nothing compared with the £2,300,000 which are wanted; and therefore I say again that it is impossible for me, looking to the future, to mortgage that £900,000. I trust that I may have the support of public opinion, notwithstanding the certain disappointment of many who look

  1213
  for some relief. But hon. Members will ask, what I am going to do with the £900,000? I propose to devote £500,000 to the construction of barracks, relieving me of the necessity of borrowing to that amount, and the remaining £400,000 to a purpose which will occur only once for all,, which will not pledge the future, while it will at the same time, as I consider, meet an urgent public necessity, to which also we are pledged, namely, the withdrawal from circulation of light gold. That will leave me entirely free for next year. It would be improper for me to trespass further upon the time of the House with any explanations as to the measures which I think ought to be proposed as regards the strengthening of the circulation of the country in connection with the withdrawal of light gold. And now I have come to the end of my long story. I hope that the Committee will feel some slight sympathy with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who for the second time finds himself in the position of having his surplus snatched from his hands for other purposes. Again, the cup of pleasure, as regards the remission of taxation, is dashed from my lips, but I nevertheless feel an earnest sense of gratitude for the good fortune which, on the whole, I have enjoyed. The prosperity of the country has gone on increaing in a widening and fertilising stream during the last three or four years, and the energies of the people, followed by increased earnings, have sent more and 'more revenue into the Public Purse. And so we have been able to meet the larger demands made upon us. We have found that the spirit of the people has been requiring from us that we should undertake many costly functions which the State did not undertake before. I hope that in no niggard spirit, but watching the credit of the State, we have been able to meet those demands. I will conclude with the earnest hope that the prosperity which has blessed this nation for the last four years, undisturbed by the crises of big or little wars, may continue to grow, and that the people, in the enjoyment of prolonged peace, security, and plenty, may continue to rise to an even higher planet of physical comfort and of social and mental content.

  TEA.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now chargeable on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say) on—
  Tea . . the pound . . Four Pence.—"
  (The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not know what course the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take with regard to the method of proceeding. After his long and able statement, showing that no change of taxation is about to be made, it is not probably that any serious draft will have to be made on the time of the House for securing assent to the financial arrangements of the year. Of course no practical steps will be taken at the present stage, and I will ask what time the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take for the practical consideration of the subject.
  MR. GOSCHEN: If it will meet the general view, the Government will put down the further consideration of the question for Monday.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly that is a very short period. I have no doubt the Government make the proposal from its consideration of what is most convenient for public business, but, considering that there is no question of new taxation, and that the very important subject to which my right hon. Friend has adverted -must necessarily stand over for discussion till positive proposals are made, I really think the Committee will be indisposed to go forward with the consideration of the subject on Monday.
  DR. CAMERON: I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do with regard to the proportion of the surplus that will go to Scotland and Ireland?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am not prepared to state the exact form which the contribution to Scotland will take. Under the ordinary distribution of Revenue between England, Scotland, and Ireland, she will be entitled to a fair share which will represent the increase in the expenditure due to free education.
  SIR R. FOWLER: There was one remark of my right hon. Friend's to which I listened with great pleasure, and that was the remark about light gold. I think the commercial community will hear with very great pleasure that it is intended to withdraw the Light gold from circulation. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will be in a position on Monday to make a statement as to what he is likely to do on that question?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Having regard to the very important statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as the First Lord of the Treasury is aware, I have asked him two or three times during the Session when we may expect to have the scheme of the Government relating to free education laid before the House, I rise to ask whether he can now state when the scheme will be in the possession of the House? All parties in the country are most anxious to see what the scheme is. We have heard with pleasure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the question is not to be dealt with in any niggardly spirit; there is really to be free education, by which we suppose that all the standards from top to bottom will be free. As every section of the community is most interested in this very important measure, I am quite sure we shall all be glad to hear when we may expect to have the measure placed in our hands.
  COLONEL NOLAN: hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us an assurance that the grant made to Ireland is to be devoted to the payment of the childrens' school pence. There are many ways in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could distribute the money. The system of education in Ireland is some What different to that in England and Scotland, and, therefore, I hope he will make it plain that the grant is intended to be applied in lieu of the school pence.
  MR. PICTON: I think both sides of the House are extremely rejoiced to hear of the speedy advent of free schools; an ideal for which many of us have so long contended. Of course, we trust that the enlargement of public grants will be accompanied by
  1216
  an equitable extension of public representation upon the management. But while I feel the Chancellor of the Exchequer could scarcely have devoted his surplus to a better or nobler purpose, I cannot but regret he has not endeavoured by means of economies also to make, provision for a free breakfast table as well. Free schools are all very Well, but a free breakfast is a very substantial advantage likewise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken of the sudden increase in the consumption of tea. Last year but one he had to tell us that tea made no progress; last year again he told us that the Revenue from tea had actually fallen off. During the past 12 months the amount of tea consumed has very considerably increased. What does this mean? It means that through the imposition of a 6d. duty on tea a very large number of very poor people were deprived of tea that they would otherwise have consumed. It is clear that if the whole tax were taken off a large number of people would be able to procure a great addition to their daily comfort in the use of tea.
  SIR R. PAGET: I desire to refer to that portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which he dealt with the action of the County Councils in respect to technical education. I hope I am right in my estimation of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, namely, that the County Councils may now go forward with a free hand and deal effectually with the important matter of technical education. In other words, I trust we may with certainty reckon that the sum which has been placed at our disposal during the past year will be paid to us in future years for the purposes of technical education. The matter is a little urgent, because at this moment County Councils in every part of the country are engaged in consideration of the circumstances. They are endeavouring to frame schemes to give effect to a complete system of technical education, and it is of the greatest moment to them that they should be informed whether they may rely upon this revenue, and thus be enabled to enter into definite engagements. I cannot refrain from expressing the belief that great satisfaction will

  1217
  be felt at the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman has arrived; that satisfaction will be considerably enhanced if he can assure the County Councils that they may regard the Grant as of a definite and permanent character.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now lay on the Table of the House a Return of the estimated military expenditure for the present year, showing also the various ways in which it is proposed to deal with the money?
  MAJOR RASCH: As an humble agricultural Member, I wish to express my gratification at the redemption by the Government of their promise with regard to assisted education. With bread at 6d. a quartern loaf, and wages at 13s. a week, as they are in Essex, the boon the Government are about to give can hardly be adequately described. I am certain my constituents and the inhabitants of East Anglia generally will never regret the support they have given Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. RATHBONE: I did not quite catch what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the withdrawal of the light 'gold in circulation. Does he intend to accompany that withdrawal by other measures connected with the statements which have been attributed to him?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I trust the Chancellor of die Exchequer will be able to inform hon. Members that in his statement just now, he meant that the duty of 3d. a barrel of beer and 6d. a gallon of spirits will be continued as a permanent tax, because with regard to technical education many of the County Councils are in great difficulty. They do not know whether to treat the amount they receive as capital or as interest. I think the right hon. Gentleman gave good reasons why it should be a permanent tax. I am afraid I can hardly share the sanguine anticipations of the hon. Gentleman in regard to assisted education, and I am afraid that when the measure is introduced it will hardly satisfy the desires which we
  1218
  entertain in regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman has said he intends to deal with the question in no niggard spirit, and certainly some of us who are in favour of free education desire to see it dealt with, from top to bottom, in a thorough manner, and hot merely in the way of further remission of fees. I think the Bill will receive cordial support from all quarters of the House, if it is found to be thorough and workable, and if it provides, as we hope, for further control over those bodies which are. at present non-representative, and which we are to provide with these further large sums. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, not only on the fact that he is able to introduce this system of free schools, but on the generally satisfactory results shown in the Budget. I think his proposal to practically keep over the £1,000,000 until next year for free schools is a very sensible and satisfactory one, and 1 think we may very well be satisfied with the present financial condition of the country.
  MR. BRYCE: I join in the congratulations of Members on both sides of the House on the resolution of the Government not to with draw the Special Excise Tax, but to let it remain available for the promotion of technical education. I concur in what has been said with regard to the growing and increasing interest which the provision of this money has excited on the subject of technical education. In Scotland, the application of the grant has been somewhat impeded by the deficiencies of the existing law in regard to technical education. I commend to the Government the desirability, now that we are assured that this source of income will be permanent, of considering whether they could not amend the Act in this respect. I think that in Scotland the object we are most entitled to consider in dealing with grants of this kind is the promotion of technical education. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has lately heard that the grant to the Scotch Universities has also proved inadequate, and that the desired reforms cannot be carried out without an additional contribution from the Treasury. I think the Government

  1219
  would do well to regards the needs universal education to consider them as to which the Scotch should be devoted.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: I am glad my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to hold out the prospect of a permanent grant for the work of technical education. The different localities will require some time to consider the whole subject, and to ascertain their own wants in regard to it. I do not wish to be drawn on this occasion into a Debate on free or assisted education. I rely upon the declaration made by the Prime Minister elsewhere that, under a system of assisted education, the voluntary schools are to be kept intact; but I hear with some apprehension and alarm from the other side, that there is to he a change in their management. I believe that change in that direction would he met with sharp resistance. Hon. Members opposite seem .to think that a because there is to be larger grant from the Consolidated Fund the voluntary schools should be subjected to an extension of public local control. I can see no connection between the two conditions. f you have a grant from the rates you must have ratepayer's control; and it is because I do not wish to see any control by the ratepayers that I have always declined to receive money from the rates.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating the discussion on this question.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: I am sorry I have gone beyond the Rules of the House, but some allasion was made to the subject, and all I desired to do was to make a protest, and so far to cover the ground.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I only wish to ask a question as to the time when we may expect to have the Education Bill before the House. Hon. Members anticipate that the Bill will contain provisions altering the system of management of voluntary schools. The measure ought to be before the House in ample time to be properly considered by the
  1220
  country. We are already far advanced in the Session. If the Bill were introduced late in the month of May, there would not be time for its proper consideration, and I hope we shall have it presented to us in the smallest number of days, so that our constituents may have time to consider it before it is brought on for Second Reading.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give some information as to his views about £1 and 10s. notes in relation to the currency? A very important and interesting speech on this question was delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at Leeds, and I hope we shall have a little more light on the subject. With regard to technical education, I think it is necessary to have legislation to secure that the money shall be applied in the way intended by the State. In some cases the County Councils have not so applied the money, but have used it in reduction of rates. As to the proportion of the money to which Scotland is entitled, she has for some time past provided out of her own funds for elementary education, and I trust it will be found that the higher education and secondary education grants will be provided for out of money she will become entitled to under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.
  MR. BARTLEY: I should like to say one word on what may be called the Education Budget. I believe you, Sir, ruled it out of order to allude to the effect of free education on the voluntary schools; therefore, I will not touch upon that point. I may say, however, that any system of free schools which in any way injures the voluntary schools will certainly meet with very strong opposition. I must say I do look with some apprehension on this very large subject which has been sprung on us at this period of the Session. It almost reminds me of the large question sprung on us in the last Budget, and which led to so great difficulty; and though the question of free education is one which, in theory, all sections of the House hold to be popularly attractive, yet, when you come to work out the matter in detail you will find that you are entering on a

  1221
  matter that will involve great difficulty. We have had some indication of that already. I can say, having devoted 20 years of my life to dealing with education and having been connected with the Education Department during the whole of that period, I have yet to learn that the Educational Authorities, from the late Professor Fawcett downwards, are agreed as to the advisability of free education. I am not going into the matter fully, but I would state emphatically, that unless precautions are taken in the Bill to protect voluntary schools, determined opposition will be offered on this side of the House.
  MR. R. T. REID: I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintains a strict reserve as to the application of the money that will belong to Scotland corresponding to the sum to be granted for free education in England. I am pleased to observe that. I hope that means that the right hon. Gentleman contemplates inviting the opinion of the bulk of the Scotch inviting as to the application of the money. The hon. Member behind me says he wishes to see the money devoted to secondary education. I do not want to say a word against that, but it is possible that different parts of Scotland may desire to see the money disposed of in different ways. Therefore, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will consult the Scotch Members.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not altogether agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say to-night, that he is now going to take the course he followed three years ago when a third of the Probate Duty was given in aid of local taxation, and when the application of the amount which was to go to Scotland was not decided in the Budget but put off to the end of the Session, in order that representations might be received from the Scotch Members and Local Authorities on the subject. I think it will be in the recollection of the House, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow that the distribution of the money in the first instance was not very satisfactory, and that it had to be re-distributed subsequently in a more effective manner.
  1222
  What I would press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that the apportionment should not be put off to a remote date, and that the responsibility for the distribution should rest with the Government. For my own part, I think the first object which it should be sought to attain, is the completion of the scheme of free elementary education in Scotland. I will not elaborate the point, but it is acknowledged by all Scotch Members here that the money has not been quite sufficient for the total freeing of elementary education in the Scotch schools.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated on having faced, at any rate, if not over- come, the prejudices of the entire Party on the other side of the House, as well as of those whom they represent in the country, against the principle of free education, and on having ventured to make provision for carrying out such a scheme. Liberals have been favourable to the principle for a long time past, and it is some consolation to know that part of the proceeds of the right hon. Gentleman's overflowing Budget is going to provide free education. The Government should go further, and make the boon worthy of the acceptance of the people of this country. They are proposing to appropriate the taxpayers' money, and they should see that the control of the taxpayers is associated with that great boon. It is, I hold, an elementary principle that along with this grant there should be associated popular educational control.
  MR. J. STUART: I rise to express a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he rises to answer the questions which have been put to him, will give us some information as to when the Bill he has referred to with respect to education will come on, because it is clear that the interest of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget is concentrated on that point. It is natural that it should be so. It is a point of great national importance, and we shall look forward to the grant of free education in the country with great satisfaction. But the Bill may be of a very one-sided character, consequently the House and the country will be on the tip-toe of expectation to know what

  1223
  its provisions are—to know whether there is to be a great and real solution of this important question, or whether only a small portion of it is to be dealt with. Therefore, I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to undertake to let us have his proposals before us in the course of a very few days.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I only rise to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government on the proposal they have made in reference to free education, and to repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bradford that there are prejudices to any great extent to be removed on this side of the House. The country will welcome the announcement which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this evening. We have long felt free education to be a corollorary of compulsory education, and we feel satisfied that when the details are made known the Government will know how to appreciate the past services of, and deal justly with, the voluntary schools, which have done so much for the education of the country, and the loss of which might produce a reaction dangerous to all education.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: If the proposal for free education in England is received in the spirit of the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and not in that of the hon. Member who spoke a little time ago from that side of the House, I think the Government will succeed in solving the difficult problem they have taken in hand, so far as Scotland is concerned. It may be more difficult in England, but, at any rate, I hope he will be successful so far as Scotland is concerned. I would support the appeal of the hon. Member for Edinburgh that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take care to settle in due time how the money is to be spent in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman has done Scotland justice in arranging to give her a share of this money, but I am afraid that unless he is very careful it will become a bone of contention. I have already heard different opinions expressed from different parts of Scotland, as to how the money should be appropriated; and I,
  1224
  therefore, hope the question will be settled in time, and will not be held over to be dealt with hurriedly at the end of the Session. I should object to the money being spent on secondary education, if that education means the teaching of Greek and Latin to the higher classes, but if it is to be devoted to teaching useful information I should be satisfied. If the Government take upon themselves the responsibility of producing a plan I hope they will be able to settle the matter satisfactorily.
  MR. C S. PARKER: I think the Scotch Members are quite capable of discussing the application of funds of this description in a different spirit to that of dogs quarrelling over a bone. But I rise to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish to know how far the granting of this money to Scotland is to be contingent on the passing of the Bill conferring free education on England? Is Scotland to wait until the English Bill has been discussed and disposed of? I do not quite see how it can be otherwise; still I think we should have early information so that we may have an opportunity of discussing what proportion of the money should go to education and what to other things.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I have heard with regret some of the remarks made on both sides of the House with reference to free education. No doubt the question is full of difficulty, but I hope that when we come to consider it we shall do so with a desire for conciliation rather than to conjure up points of difference. I join in the congratulations addressed to my right hon. Friend for having introduced a simple Budget, and am glad that he has taken a prudent course in his Estimates. The announcement with reference to the rehabilitation of the gold coinage will, I am sure, be received with general satisfaction among those engaged in business; but I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in addition to restoring the gold coinage, he proposes, as I hope will be the case, also to take steps to prevent it from falling again into the present unsatisfactory condition?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have to express my thanks for the kind way in

  1225
  which hon. Members have spoken of my proposals. In briefly answering the questions which have been put, I will say that I quite foresaw—and I have had no reason to change my mind—that the fact that a certain sum of money is to be devoted to Scotland will deprive me of any peace of mind for the next few weeks. In reply to the natural curiosity of Scotch Members, I would point out that I have not said that the Government have determined the matter, but that we are not prepared to disclose the matter; at the same time, we shall be anxious to ascertain and know the views of the Scotch people on the subject, and. not only of the Scotch Members. I believe, I am sorry to say, that there is no degree of unanimity. If there had been, our case would soon come to an end. In this connection I would suggest that it is not precisely the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will have to deal with the matter, but rather the Scotch Office, through whom such inquiries ought to filter. With regard to a question as to what will be the fate of Scotland if the money does not finally go to England, all I can say is that hon. Members opposite should do their best to pass the English Free Education Bill in order that Scotland may have her share afterwards. As to when we expect to be able to introduce the Bill, that depends to a certain extent upon the House itself. The Government will see what progress is made with the Land Bill. I feel confident that we shall have no reason to complain of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench with regard to delay in connection with that Bill; and I am sure that all sides of the House will feel that, while every clause ought to be adequately discussed in the case of an important measure which all the country wishes to see passed, we should further the business of the House as much as possible. There will be no delay on the part of the Government in introducing the Bill. I may say that it is not only the object, but the intense desire of the Government not to injure any schools; and I think that any alarm that may be felt on this side of the House as to the result of the measure is entirely premature, and I hope will be entirely allayed when hon. Members see
  1226
  the measure. With regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London, I most fervently hope that the House of Commons will rise superior to any rivalry or jealousy with regard to the question of free education. I have been asked a question with reference to the probability of the continuance of the grant of money set aside by the County Councils for technical education. Hon. Members wish to know whether they may count upon the continuance of the grant. I think they can count upon the continuance of the receipt of that grant in the same way as they can count on the continuance of the Probate Grant. Of course, no grants of the kind can be declared to be permanent, because some Government may think that altogether different arrangements ought to be made with respect to local taxation. It would, therefore, be unwise for the present or any other Government to pledge itself to the continuance of any particular form of taxation. At the same time, I think the County Councils may continue to apply this money with the same degree of confidence with which they apply other sums placed at their disposal. In answer to another question which I have been asked, I have to say that it certainly would be my wish, if time can be found, to place the gold circulation of the country upon a satisfactory footing. I have measures in preparation which will put both our coinage and currency upon a firmer basis. I will take an early opportunity, if one occurs, to make further declarations as to my views on the currency question. I think now I have answered all the questions that have been asked.
  COLONEL NOLAN: What as to the educational question as affecting. Ire land?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Does the hon. Member mean that Ireland should stand on the same footing with England and Scotland. with regard to free education? The consequence, I fear, is only too manifest in the large number of illiterate voters. I am not prepared to disclose any particular proposals; but I trust when they are disclosed they will be satisfactory.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I should be very sorry, after the benefit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has conferred on the community, to express anything like dissatisfaction, but I submit to him that to tie up the Education Bill with the Irish Land Bill is disappointing. To-morrow there will not be a schoolmaster or manager throughout the country but will be anxious to know what are the Government proposals. It is important that there should be ample time for their discussion; and I have no doubt that if the Bill is not in the right hon. Gentleman's pocket now, it is in some red box in his office. I know it was ready three weeks ago. There will be the greatest anxiety to know on what principle education is to be given to the people of this country, and I press upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should give us ample opportunity to consider the proposals before they are discussed.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I rise for the purpose of joining with my right hon. Friend in urging upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the desirability of printing; the Bill and having it read a first time. We have no desire to hurry the Second Reading stage, but the formal stage might be taken, and thus give the House and the country an opportunity of knowing what the proposals are.
  THE FIRST LORD OFF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I think my right hon. Friend ,has misapprehended my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no desire whatever to tie up the Education Bill with the Land Bill. ".But it is necessary to make progress with one set of measures before entering upon another. I, however, give the House assurance that ample time will be given for the Second Reading of the Bill, before the Second Reading. We have no desire to take the country by surprise with a measure of this great importance. We shall introduce. it at -the earliest possible moment consistently with the progress of other business, and we shall give full information long before the Second Reading.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said very little about Ireland. All I wish to ask is whether he will put school fees in Ireland on the same footing as they are to be put in England?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly, Sir.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: The right hon. Gentleman received some weeks ago a deputation from English University Colleges asking for an increased grant. Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us what conclusion the Government have arrived at?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am scarcely in a position to state; but I will communicate with my right hon Friend.
  MR. PICTON: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is only a question of printing the Bill, and to tie it up with the Land Bill is a sort of threat that we shall not have any information unless we do what the Government tell us. I do not think it is fair to the House or the country. Surely it is only reasonable that the Education Bill should be read a first time and printed.
  MR. HUNTER: Sir, if the Government are going to give free education in England, in the amplest manner, a sum exceeding £1,900,000 would be required for England alone, while a proportionate sum would be required for Scotland—which would bring the sum far above £2,000,000, which is the amount at his disposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must not be misled by the somewhat artificial demonstration which has been set up in Scotland—I know not by whom—with reference to the feeling of the Scotch people on this subject. The first claim upon the money given to Scotland will be to complete the system of free education. The sum of £40,000 a year is still required for that purpose. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that we shall not listen to any proposal which does not in the first place give free education up to the Fifth and even Sixth Standards in the elementary schools The people of Scotland, too, are unanimously agreed that something must be done for secondary and technical education, and perhaps the most urgent

  1229
  demand is for continuation schools in the evening. It is also absolutely necessary, if the deficiency in connection with the Scotch Universities is to be met, to say nothing of their development and growth, that some provision should be made for them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to deal with that part of the surplus which is to be distributed in Scotland, will remember that the Scotch people have these subjects very much at heart. He must not be deluded by these deputations from Parochial Bodies, and some Town Councils, which in no sense represent the real feeling of the electors of Scotland.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state that he will do for Ireland, in respect of abolishing school fees, what he is going to do for England? Will he undertake definitely to abolish school fees in Ireland?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not know that I could pledge myself distinctly, but there is no purpose to which I would more gladly assign a portion of the surplus than for the remission of school fees in Ireland. I am scarcely in a position to say whall will be done; but the subject will, at all events, have the most benevolent consideration of the Government.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it during the present Session?
  MR. GOSCHEN: If it is the general wish of the great bulk of the Irish Members, I shall endeavour to consider the subject this Session.
  MR. A. DYKE ACLAND: I listened with great satisfaction to what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to County councils and grants to education, but as lie quite truly observed, some future Government may alter the destination of the money; and in some further scheme for intermediate and technical education those County Councils which do nothing, may have a claim made upon them by the Government to organise some scheme.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government cannot see their way to prevent any district being denied the benefits of technical and secondary education. It happens, I am sorry to say in many parts of the country, that towns with very considerable populations are anxious to promote further education, but have no means supplied to them for doing so under the present system. There is much dissatisfaction and disappointment in very many parts of the country on this acccount. The President of the Local Government Board introduced an Amendment into last year's Bill empowering County Councils to devote their portion of the Imperial Grant to these purposes, but I regret that many of those bodies have not availed themselves of the power, and do not intend to do so; hence it is that many of our towns have received nothing at all under these grants, and feel themselves exceedingly prejudiced by the withholding of the money. Now, the town which I represent has contributed from , £6OO to £800 to the fund which the County Council has received, but so far, it has not received a penny back, and apparently it will get nothing for educational purposes. I respectfully ask the Government to consider whether some Amendment may not be made in the application of this money of the coming year by which the grievances to which 1 have referred can be remedied.
  MR. SEXTON: We shall have to press for some specific information as to the intentions of the Government with regard to Ireland, so far as this New Educational Grant is concerned, before a decision is come to on Clause 3 of the Land Purchase Bill. Clause 3 provides that the moneys granted by the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of primary education in Ireland shall be technically seized and impounded for the purpose of guaranteeing the fulfilment of contracts made under the Bill—contracts in which the mass of the people of Ireland have no concern whatever. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see the reasonableness of

  1231
  what I am urging. We want to make our position clear. We want to know before we assent to the hypothecation of the Primary Education Grant what chance we have of the improvement of our position in the new aspect of affairs. I may remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said last year. We, in our judgment, in Ireland, contribute double our share to the Imperial purse. The Secretary to the Treasury laughs at that. Does he think he knows more about it than Mr. Giffen, the expert? Mr. Giffen tells us that while our contribution to the Imperial purse is one-twelfth of your Revenue, our capacity to pay should be judged by the amount of amassed capital in Ireland, and in that case we ought only to contribute one-twenty-fifth. In this position we contribute one-sixth of our earnings — we, the poorest country in the world—whereas you only contribute one- twelfth Surely that gives us a powerful claim for relief. We fared very badly indeed in connection with the surplus of last year. That surplus amounted to £3,500,000, for the right hon. Gentleman was in a more prosperous position than he now is. That surplus arose mainly for the Spirit Duty, of which we contribute one-sixth. Well, we ought at least to have received £450,000 out of last year's surplus. We got, as a fact, a benefit of perhaps £100,000 by the reduction of the Tea Duty, and we had £4,000 or £5,000 from the reduction of the duty on currants; the truth is, we got one thirty-fifth instead of a twelfth, which it is admitted we were entitled to, although we claim we ought to have had one-sixth—of course the right hon. Gentleman will ride off on the question of light railways and relief works. But we assert that that question ought not to be taken into consideration in connection with the finance of any particular year. It belongs rather to an historical examination of the connection of Ireland with England, and such an examination would show that we are entitled to a good deal more than we have yet received, I now ask what is to be our fate this year? The Revenue of the year arises in great measure from the consumption of an article in respect of which we contribute a large share of the Imperial Revenue, and I do trust the
  1232
  Chancellor of the Exchequer will do us justice in this matter.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, I assure the hon. Member this matter shall receive my most careful consideration. I thought I had conveyed that in my speech. I do not think he has made a very fair statement as to. what has been done for Ireland, for my surpluses of last year and this year have been very largely diminished by the money granted—and cheerfully granted— to Ireland for relief works. If Ireland contributes, as the hon. Member thinks, more than her share to the Imperial Revenue, she also receives back largely in excess of what she is entitled to.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: In one year perhaps.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think that if the-figures are investigated, the hon. Member will see that this does not apply to. one special year merely. I have always, endeavoured to treat Ireland with perfect fairness. May I point out that England was responsible for more of the excess revenue on spirits than either Scotland or Ireland?
  MR. SEXTON: Not very much more.
  MR. GOSCHEN: England 9 per cent_ and Ireland 7½ per cent. I can only assure hon. Gentlemen that Ireland shall receive her fair share out of the surplus, and from that position I do not intend to budge one iota.
  (8.17.) Motion made, and Question,. " That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Jackson,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

LONDON (CITY) TRIAL OF CIVIL CAUSES BILL.—(No. 269.)

  COMMITTEE. THIRD READING.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, (Sir R. WEBSTER,: I trust the House will permit the BM now to be read a third time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, '' That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Does the Attorney General mean this Bill to provide for a permanent or merely for a temporary arrangement?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not contemplate it will be a permanent arrangement. The object of the Bill is merely to remove a doubt, more than once expressed, as to the power of the Judges to sit in the City.
  Mr. CONYBEARE: I think we ought to have fuller explanations.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: There was an Amendment on the Paper which proposed to limit the duration of the Bill. The learned Attorney General says he does not contemplate a permanent arrangement; did he give an undertaking it should be temporary before the Amendment was with drawn?
  SIR. R. WEBSTER: No undertaking was asked for. The hon. Member merely intimated that he did not intend to press it.
  MR. KNOX: f the Bill is only to be temporary, it will be necessary for the Government to pro-'vide additional accommodation at the Law Courts. There are serious objections on the score of health to the present arrangement. I believe a ready consent was given to the Second Reading of this Bill on the understanding that it should only be a temporary measure.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: May I point out that this Bill gives no fresh powers at all. It simply removes a doubt as to existing powers.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

MAIL SHIPS BILL.—(No. 163.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendment proposed,
  In Clause 8, page 7, line 10, after " sessions," insert " In Scotland such person may appeal
  1234
  in manner provided by ' The Summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland) Act, 1875.' "—(Sir J. Fergusson.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is this a fresh Amendment put down by the Government? If so, we ought to have some explanation.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE For FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The Amendments have been on the Paper a fortnight.
  MR. KNOX: What is the meaning of Clause 3 of this Bill? If—
  The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! We are not now discussing Clause 3.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 9, pages 7 and 8, leave out Sub-sections (2) and (4).—(Sir J. Fergusson.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman may say that the Amendments have been on the Paper some days, but that does not do away with the necessity for further explanations.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am al ways willing to give any explanations required. This Amendment has been introduced, because the present powers possessed by the Post Office are considered to be adequate to fulfil the Convention.
  MR. CONYBEARE: There is one matter to which I should like to draw attention. Within the last few days, there has been a robbery of mails from one of the boats running between Dover and Calais, and I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to ensure that greater precautions are taken, so as to avoid the possibility of some robberies in the future.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That has nothing to do with the subject.
  MR. CONYBEARE: It seems to me very important that such steps should be taken.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 10, page 8, line 43, at end, insert "The ex-

  1235
  pression 'subsidy' includes a payment for the performance of a contract."—(Sir J. Fergusson.)
  MR. M. J. KENNY: What is the meaning of this Amendment?
  SIR J. F ERGUSSON: The point is this Some of the contracts provide for a fixed payment for the service done, and others provide for payment according to the weight of the mails carried. That is the case with the Atlantic steamers. Hence the necessity for this change.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: Why not have a uniform system?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: That might be a proper thing to consider when the House has before it the question of the mail contracts.
  MR. CONYBE ARE: Would it be in order for me on this Amendment to raise the question as to the mail robberies?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow at Two of the clock.

PRESUMPTION OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 248.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (9.9.) Clause 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I would like to receive an explanation from the Lord Advocate as to the object of the Bill. The Bill is very obscure, and I think it is right an explanation should be given.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: I shall be happy to offer an explanation, but I am afraid it will be as obscure to the hon. and learned Gentleman as he thinks the Bill is. There are in Scotland, estates in fee and in life rent, and in some instances
  1236
  the death of one person might involve the estate which was in fee becoming burdened with a life rent. I am certain the hon. and learned Gentleman follows me up to this point. There are cases in which it is desirable to provide in an Act for the presumption of life in cases which are not provided for under the Acts of 1881. There are some other cases which, if I went into an explanation, would involve a similarly lucid statement, and, therefore, probably I may be dispensed from the necessity of inflicting it upon the Committee. I have only to add that the Bill is entirely approved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan, and the only Amendments standing in my name are the effect of an arrangement come to by the hon. and learned Member for the town of Elgin (Mr. Asher).
  Amendments made.
  Clause 3 and remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow at Two of the clock.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS) BILL—(No. 194,)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I think it will not be necessary for me to detain the House for any long time in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. As the House is aware for many years past the principal, or a great, object in the mind of every person who desires the reform of the Criminal Law has been to. find some means whereby it may be possible to avoid the necessity of sending juvenile offenders to prison and the contamination that follows from mingling with the habitués of our prisons. A taint attaches to young creatures in the beginning of their lives which is often never removed. I do not like to-trouble the House now with many figures, but some of the figures are interesting. In 1871, during 12 months, there were committed to prison 1,467 boys and girls under 12 years of age, and of boys and girls between the ages. of 12 and 16 there were 7,510.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures distinguishing the sexes?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I can do so if the hon. Gentleman thinks it is material. In 1871 there were committed to prison 1,341 boys and 126 girls under 12 years of age, and 6,480 boys and 1,030 girls between the ages of 12 and 16. This gives a total of 8,977 persons under 16 years of age committed to prison during the year.
  An hon. MEMBER: And to reformatories?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am speaking only of those sent to prison. At that time the only cases where the alternative of whipping could be resorted to, were cases of simple larceny, placing obstructions on railway lines, and throwing stones at railway carriages. This large amount of juvenile imprisonment naturally attracted attention, and in 1879 the Summary Jurisdiction Act was passed, which largely extends the number of cases in which whipping can be resorted to for male juvenile offenders, instead of imprisonment. A larger list of offences under the Act had attached to them the alternative punishment of whipping; and not to mention all these were included those I have mentioned—larceny from the person, larceny by clerks or embezzlement, receiving stolen goods, aiding and abetting larceny, and offences under the Post Office. This Act largely diminished the number of juvenile prisoners. The numbers in the year ending March 31, 1879, were for children under 12 years 667 boys and 53 girls, and for children between 12 and 16 years 5,270 boys and 820 girls; altogether a total of 6,810 prisoners under 16. Besides this Act the Home Office, while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was at the head of it, introduced a course of administration which tended in the same direction. In the year 1880 the Home Secretary addressed a circular to all the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions and the Recorders of Boroughs, directing them to suggest some means by which the imprisonment of young children could be prevented. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had always entertained a very
  1238
  strong feeling on this subject. The replies from these Courts of Summary Jurisdiction have been put before the House in the form of a Return, and so far as I have examined this Return, with almost unanimity, with only one or two exceptions, the replies to this circular suggest as alternatives, partly the whipping of boys and partly the exercise of some remedy against the parent of the juvenile offender. In consequence of these opinions, the right hon. Gentleman initiated a course of administrative action which has proved highly useful. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby required the governors of prisons to report to the Home Office every case of young children under 14 years in prison; and then inquiries were addressed to the Magistrates as to how they came to have committed such young offenders to prison; in many cases remonstrances were addressed- to the Magistrates and sometimes, though rarely, the sentences were in part remitted. So without interfering with judicial discretion and action the administrative action of the Home Office-has been steadily to decrease the number-of juvenile offenders in prison. On the-other hand Magistrates, when inquiry-has been made, have said, " This was a very bad case, this was a very naughty boy, and we should have been delighted if we could have inflicted the punishment of whipping instead of imprisonment, but the law does not allow that and it was too serious a case to allow to go unpunished." I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby intended to remedy the law in the direction of the present Bill, but I do not think he carried his intentions so-far as to introduce a Bill. One reason for delay was because the system 0- reformatory and industrial schools, which. offers an alternative to prolonged imprisonment, was then under the consideration of a Commission. The Report of that Commission has since been issued, and, in consequence, I introduced three years ago a Bill to amend the reformatory system, and two clauses which are now embodied in a separate Bill. I gave Courts of Summary Jurisdiction the alternative of sending a child to a reformatory or to an industrial school, or they can have recourse to the punish-

  1239
  ments provided under the present Bill. The House of Lords suggested, at the instance of Lord Herschell, that these two clauses should be put into a Bill by themselves; and I, having adopted this suggestion, the clauses are now before Parliament for the third time. Twice they have passed the House of Lords, where they have met with the approval of most experienced able lawyers, Lord Herschell approving them with slight modification. I ought to say before I go further that a great change for the better has been the consequence of the legislation of 1879 and of the administrative action of the Home Office, which has been going on for the last 10 years. In the year 1890 there were only 237 boys and 16 girls under 12 years of age committed to prison, and there were only 3,620 boys and 493 girls between the ages of 12 and 16 who were committed to prison. But this vast improvement is not improvement enough. It is still very distressing to think that over 4,000 juveniles are yet annually sent to prison. But there is no alternative punishment for boys, except corporal punishment, and therefore the Bill proposes that in all trivial offences which can be summarily punished the Court may adjudge the offender, if a male, to be whipped. That whipping, by a subsequent sub-section, is limited to whipping with a birch rod, by a warder or constable, in the presence of the governor of the prison or of some other high official, and in the presence of the parent, if desired. The number of strokes is also limited. These are details which may be modified in Committee. Then as to the alternative of a fine. It is idle to attempt to punish a boy by the infliction of a fine; he probably has no money, and then comes in the alternative of imprisonment—the very thing we desire to avoid. The only alternative, which is also embodied in the Report of the Commission, is to punish the parent, who is in many cases the person really at fault. The Bill provides that the parent may be ordered either to pay compensation to the person injured, or to pay a fine, or to give security for the good behaviour of the offender. I take the case of throwing stones at railway trains. Very often it is not a criminal act; it is an act of boyish mischief for which a
  1240
  whipping is the best cure. But if the boy throws stones at a steamboat he must be either fined or imprisoned. Is there any sense in that? It seems to be ridiculous to order a whipping in the one case and not in the other. Take another case. The offenders for which, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, whipping may be inflicted are not all such as I should have selected—cases of larceny, embezzlement, and thieving—but I take the cases of stealing fruit and cruelty to animals—often mere boyish boisterousness. What punishment ought to be inflicted in such cases? Whipping is, I think, more effectual and more humane. I have had remonstrances from Magistrates at Hastings, where fruit-stealing is of frequent occurrence, and where boys do an enormous amount of mischief. Fruit growers complain bitterly of the amount of mischief in the aggregate inflicted by these boyish depredations. The Magistrates feel compelled to administer some punishment, and they have no alternative but to send the boys to prison. I deeply regret that these boys should be sent to gaol and stamped for life as gaol birds because they got over a wall to pluck fruit. Take offences under the Vagrants Act—playing pitch-and-toss, for instance, on the highways, in which so many idle and naughty boys waste their time. It seems to me most distressing that a boy should be sent to prison for such an offence as that. Whipping appears to me the best form of punishment for such an offence. I do not know that I need occupy more time—
  MR. ROWNTREE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any explanation of the words, " with or without conviction "?
  MR. MATTHEWS: This is a discretion to be vested in the Magistrates, and similar to that they exercise under the Industrial Schools Act. f you attempt to draw a hard and fast line in regard to these punishments, you may do great injustice. Nobody can adjust the degree of criminality in such offences, but the Court who tries the case. You must trust the discretion of the Court; if you cannot do so then substitute another Court. What we intend is, that a boy having, say, plucked an apple from

  1241
  another person's tree should not therefore be placed under the stigma of having committed larceny, that he shall not throughout his life have the record against him that he was convicted and punished for larceny. I heartily commend the Bill to the House. I think it will be a valuable improvement in our Summary Jurisdiction for juvenile offenders, and be the means of preventing many boys, not to speak of girls, passing into that wretched class—habitual criminals. When a child passes into that class the gates of hope close behind him, and the social reformer, drops his hands in despair at the spectacle that confronts him.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Matthews.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has not quite proved his case. He says it is most undesirable that the taint of imprisonment should be imposed upon a lad which will last to old age for some trivial offence such as stealing apples or playing at pitch-and-toss in the streets, and I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. But I am not at all certain whether the fact of the lad having been condemned by a Magistrate to be flogged —and he can be so punished up to the age of 16—will, becoming known in the neighbourhood, cling to that boy more than the fact of his having been imprisoned for four or five days. [Cries of No, no! "] It is a matter of opinion, I think it would. It is proposed that the punishment of flogging shall be inflicted for playing pitch and-toss in the streets. But we have heard a great deal lately about gambling in high places, and why is a child to be flogged for playing pitch-and-toss, an undesirable amusement no doubt but not a criminal offence, when grown-up persons are allowed in their homes or clubs to gamble for large sums of money? What will be the feelings of a boy so punished when he goes to a racecourse and sees a betting ring established for betting to be carried on publicly and police to guard the ring to see that the betting is carried on fairly? The boy sees this, and yet if he plays pitch-and-toss close by or on his way home he is
  1242
  then taken into custody and flogged by order of the Magistrates. I do not know how it may have been with the right hon. Gentleman, but I certainly as a boy have played pitch-and-toss hundreds of times. Stealing apples, too, no doubt, is very wrong, but you can stop these youthful misdeeds by bringing the force of public opinion to check them. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in Germany trees line the roads laden with apples and plums, yet no fruit is stolen because public opinion is strongly against it. There is a fine for the offence, but there is no necessity for the punishment of flogging to check the offence. If a boy is perpetually stealing fruit or making. himself a nuisance, playing pitch-and-toss in the streets, probably that is the fault of the parents, and I should like to see a small fine inflicted on the parent, and then the parent would exercise some sort of domestic discipline over his boy and correct his bad habits.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Bill provides that.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes, but it gives an alternative to the Magistrate, and we know what Magistrates are—that they almost always apply the harshest construction of the law. Let the right hon. Gentleman strike out this flogging provision from his Bill and I will vote for the Bill with the greatest pleasure, but I cannot support this giving Magistrates the alternative of inflicting punishment by flogging.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should grudge the time spent on this Bill, and apparently resent the interference of hon. Members interested in the subject. It is an important measure, and remarkable in that, as the right hon. Gentleman has himself stated, it introduces considerable novelty into our criminal jurisprudence, giving Magistrates larger discretion. The Bill naturally divides itself into two parts. First, it attempts to enforce parental responsibility. That is a good principle, and if the Bill were confined to that, I should not vote against the Second Reading. Even with regard to the enforcement of parental responsibility in the way proposed by the Bill I think very consider-

  1243
  able hardship might be inflicted on perfectly innocent persons. It is provided in the Bill in regard to any offence committed by a boy under 16, the parent may be included in the summons, apparently without any prima facie reason to believe that he has been guilty of fault or neglect, so that unless great precautions are taken and the section is more carefully guarded, a very great hardship may be inflicted upon poor persons, who will be taken from their work and compelled to attend the Court, certainly for a day, and possibly in London, where the pressure upon the Courts is great, for more than one day. However, if the Bill were limited to the enforcement of parental responsibility, I think the right hon. Gentleman might fairly ask the House to pass it without much discussion. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has correctly inferred, my opposition is based on those provisions in the Bill which increase the number of offences for which the punishment of flogging may be inflicted. What is it really that the Bill proposes to do? At present the punishment of flogging may be inflicted on young persons up to the age of 14, and this Bill proposes to raise the age from 14 to 16. That in itself is a very considerable and important change. In the second place, boys under the age of 14 may, as they may under the existing law, be punished with whipping — but with whipping only — in cases specially considered and provided for. The right hon. Gentleman himself stated in the course of his remarks that the evil of imprisonment of young persons, such as it is, has been very considerably remedied in recent years, for he has stated that a large number of additional cases have within the last decade been made punishable without imprisonment. Now, my point is this. That whether the House approves or disapproves of whipping as a means of punishment, at all events, it ought carefully to consider each particular case before it assigns that particular punishment to an offence. Again, when the right hon. Gentleman said there was no alternative to whipping, he rather cut away the ground from his own feet in this position, by stating that the action of the Home Office during the last few years had very considerably
  1244
  diminished the number of cases in which children have been committed to prison. Again, how does his argument apply to girls? The right hon. Gentleman will not have the audacity to suggest the whipping of girls of 16; and in regard to girls, though I admit the number of offenders is not so large as in the case of boys, so far no alternative has been provided. Then, again, how is Scotland to get along without this alternative? Now, if I may refer to it for a moment, the position of Scotland under this Bill is very peculiar, and I confess I do not understand the draftsmanship of the Bill in regard to Scotland. It is provided in the 1st section that a male offender shall be whipped, and Scotland appears to be included within the enactment of this section. But then we come to Sub-section 4, where at the end it is provided that this sub-section shall not apply to Scotland, so I submit Scotland is really excluded from this Bill. Now, am I surprised that Scotland should be excluded, for I venture to think that only by excluding Scotland could the right hon. Gentleman get his Bill through, for as everybody knows the Scottish people have a strong feeling against the infliction of corporal punishment. I object to corporal punishment so far as this, that I do not regard it as an effectual preventative of crime, and I submit that the result of experience does not show that corporal punishment does prevent or diminish crime. It has sometimes been said that garrotting in London some years ago was stopped by the passing of the Act inflicting corporal punishment upon persons convicted of garrotting. But again and again has it been shown in this House most clearly, and I have shown by chapter and verse, that garrotting had materially diminished before the Flogging Act came into operation at all. Garrotting in London was suppressed by the greater activity of the police, and not by the Flogging Act. I object to flogging, not so much in the interest of the person flogged as because I believe it has the most brutalising effect on everybody concerned in the infliction of the punishment. It is curious that at this time the Home Secretary should propose to extend the punishment of flogging to young men of 16. We know

  1245
  that in former years the punishment was upper classes. The right hon. Gentle
  resorted to in our public schools for young men of that age, or even older. I need scarcely remind hon. Gentlemen that flogging in our public schools has been reduced to narrow limits of late years, and that it is, therefore, a retrograde stop for the Home Secretary to get up and say that that punishment should be inflicted for such an offence as playing pitch-and-toss. I cannot but think, having regard to recent disclosures, that the right hon. Gentleman was singularly maladroit in the reference he made to this venial form of gambling. I do not wish to go so far as the hon. Member for Northampton in his strictures on the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, but I think it would be a mistake to give this enormous power to Magistrates, who in a certain description of cases are actuated by class feeling, whatever may be said to the contrary. I do not desire to detain the House any further, but, for the reasons I have given, I propose to take a Division on the Second Reading.
  MR. WEBB: I desire to support the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I must say I think the Home Secretary has made a mistake in not being a little more explicit in the title of his Bill. When a Bill proposes to enable the Magistrates to inflict the punishment of flogging there should be something on the face of the measure to say so. It should not be left to the chance of a Member going out into the Lobby to obtain a copy of the Bill, for him to become aware of the great change proposed. I believe that this punishment of flogging is a brutalising one, and that in most cases where it is believed to have a beneficial effect the improvement could be traced to causes other than this punishment. When the right lion. Gentleman says that it is less brutalising to flog a boy than to imprison him he makes a statement which almost takes away one's breath. I cannot imagine anything fixing a greater stigma upon a young child than his having been publicly flogged in prison, and I do not think anyone would be found to advocate flogging in this House if the punishment could in any way be inflicted on the children of the
  1246
  upper classes. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be right to punish in this way idle boys found playing pitch-and-toss in the streets. Perhaps pitch-and-toss is more innocent than the gambling that is carried on by the upper classes of society. These poor boys often have no place but the streets in which to amuse themselves, and even if they do fall into practices that are regrettable we have no right to say that they shall be flogged. When I look at the possibility of a Bill like this being applied to Ireland, where the Magistrates are so entirely out of sympathy with the mass of the people, I do not like to think of the consequences. In that country during the past few years we have seen children brought up and punished heavily for hissing or cheering, or indulging in what the police termed a humbugging sort of a smile. The Home Secretary has spoken of the bad influence of gaols upon children; but I cannot accept that as an argument in favour of the principle of the Bill. It is not an argument for rendering our punishments more barbarous; but an argument against our present prison system, and one which goes to show that we should devote more of our time to that Subject, for I can conceive nothing more discreditable to a country like this than that the means you take to make people better really have the effect of making them worse. For these and many other reasons, I hope the House will reject the Bill.
  SIR R. FOWLER: For my part, I shall certainly support the Second Leading of the Bill. As a Magistrate, I have frequently had boys brought before me for offences which I may characterise as of a heartless description. Boys have been brought up for robbing parents. One has, perhaps, robbed a mother, a poor creature to whom a shilling means a great deal. He has, perhaps, stolen from her all she had. What is to be done with him? The hon. Member opposite says flogging, is more demoralising than sending the boy to prison, but I do not agree with him; and in cases such as I have mentioned I have often remanded a boy for eight days (which is the longest period for which a prisoner can be remanded) in

  1247
  order that a punishment should be inflicted without actually committing to prison, which would blacken the lad's character for life. I believe it would be a relief to all who have to administer the law if in cases of this kind a lad could be sentenced to be whipped instead of being sent to prison. As to the demoralising character of the punishment, I have heard it said of Dr. Keate, of Eton, that he has been known to boast of having flogged half the aristocracy of England. Well, if that is so, I do not think boys of the lower classes would feel it as degrading to be whipped as the hon. Gentleman who last spoke seems to think. If you think the Magistrates of the country should not be entrusted with these powers, and are a body deserving condemnation, that is a much larger question, and one which ought to larger dealt with on a different occasion.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: The title of this Bill is hardly a sufficiently clear definition of what the measure aims at doing. If the Government had called it "The Flogging of Young Persons Bill," I think it would have excited much more attention than it has done, both in this House and outside. I feel very strongly on this question. One of the first duties I had to perform for the constituency I now represent, was that of bringing before the House a case in which the child of one of my constituents was brutally flogged. He received eight strokes with the birch, and a few days afterwards, when I saw him, his back was scored and torn with the severity of the punishment. That case created a great impression on my mind; and though this Bill may be made to raise the age of children who may be flogged, I think that punishment too severe, and that it will have a brutalising effect on those who administer it. The hon. Baronet opposite has referred to the wide application of the rod in certain public schools; but from what we know of the aristocracy, to whom he referred as educated at those schools, I do not think that their conduct is such as to very highly commend the character of their bringing up. f flogging were a method of improving the morals of that class generally, we ought
  1248
  to have a better result than we see around us. But 1 do not think there can be any comparison drawn between the floggings of the schoolmaster and those to be administered to children for trivial offences, when they are taken before the Magistrates. I do not say that in no case should the punishment of flogging ever be administered; but I think it should be very exceptional. Under this Bill, however, it will be commonly resorted to by the Magistrates, as a deterrent against offences in the case of boys, instead of trying other methods of bringing boys to a healthy state of mind. I would point out that flogging is discouraged in the elementary schools of the country, and has been banished from the Services, and, therefore, I think we ought to guard the Statute Book from a further introduction of the punishment. I believe that many a child who, under other circumstances, could be persuaded to lead a better course of life, and to avoid offences against the law, under this brutal punishment will become callous. I believe that a more tender treatment of juvenile offenders would be productive of better results. It is difficult to measure the effect of 10 or 12 strokes on the tender skin of a young person. It varies very often with the individual child, and you have to take a number of considerations into your judgment before deciding upon the administration of such punishment. The schoolmaster differs from the Magistrate in this respect. He knows the individual characteristics of the child to be punished, whereas the Magistrate may never have seen the culprit before, and may be totally unacquainted with his nervous system or physical characteristics. The parallel drawn, therefore, between the schoolmaster and the Court of Summary Jurisdiction is not a fair one. Even if it were, I think we ought to endeavour to bring about a more humane system of punishment than flogging.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: If all the Magistrates of the country were like the hon. Baronet opposite few of us would hesitate to in crease their discretionary power in the manner proposed in the Bill, but unfortunately a large number of the Magistrates of this country are very different

  1249
  to the hon. Baronet. It is not very many years ago since a Magistrate in Cornwall sent a little boy to prison, because he was found playing at marbles during Church hours on Sunday. This Magistrate might be watched in other parts of the country; and when you consider the wide-reaching scope of the words in this Bill, I think the Home Secretary himself will admit that what he is proposing now is a very serious matter. The Home Secretary is responsible for the administration of the prisons, and yet, speaking in his capacity as Minister, with all the solemnity of tone of which he is master, on an occasion on which he had to deal with this very matter, he told the House of Commons that when once a child was sent to prison he must abandon all hope. That very phrase is eloquent of the brutal, I might almost say infamous, prison system that obtains in this country. There is room for amendment, but I would venture to suggest it is not in the direction suggested in the Bill. The measure itself appears to me very badly drafted. It says that where a juvenile offender is proved before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to have committed an offence for which it is liable to conviction, the Court may without prejudice to its other powers do any one or more of several other things. If we interpret that under the Act of 1889, we find that the Bill does not apply to Scotland, and we find, further, that it gives a single Justice power to convict or not as he chooses, and if he convicts to exercise his full power of punishing under the existing law, and over and above that to adjudge the offender to be whipped in any case, and besides that to inflict a fine on the parent in any case, and to order the parent to pay damages to the extent of £5 or any sum below, and, more than that, to order the parent to give security for the good behaviour of the child. I say that is a most extraordinary proposal. To trust a Magistrate, such as that in Cornwall whom I have mentioned, who thought it a reasonable thing to send a small boy to prison because he played marbles on the Sunday during the hours of Divine service—to entrust such a man as that with the power, over and above those he already possesses, of ordering an offender
  1250
  to be whipped, of fining the parents and requiring them to become sureties for the good behaviour of the offender, is a thing which will require a great amount of justification at the hands of the Home Secretary. This Bill, though it refers to Scotland, could not really be enforced there, because it is confined to England and Wales. I base my objection to the Bill on the ground that, though there may be cases in which whipping is desirable, still there should not be power conferred upon Justices to inflict corporal punishment wherever they are able to sentence under the existing law. I do not join in the denunciation of whipping. In cases of violent assaults the criminal is probably best dealt with by whipping; there are certain offenders who do not understand anything but corporal punishment. Still the power to be conferred upon Justices by this Bill is one which ought to be conferred only on persons who can be trusted to exercise it with very great discretion. This Bill presents many objectionable points, and I shall oppose it in almost every line.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I join in opposing the Bill as it stands, while admitting that there are some provisions in it which are not to be altogether condemned. The broad power proposed to be given to Magistrates for the infliction of corporal punishment ought not to be sanctioned by the House without grave consideration. In Cornwall, for example, some Magistrates have frequently shown an utter disregard of humane feeling in dealing with young offenders, and often for very trivial offences very heavy punishments have been inflicted. It as not desirable, therefore, to place in their hands a greater power of punishment than they already possess. Indeed, I should prefer to see their powers curtailed rather than extended. It appears to me that, under the present system, a grave necessity exists for a re-classification of offences so far as they are committed by juvenile offenders; Would it not be possible to include provisions which would tend, if not to a general reform of the law applicable to juvenile offenders, at least to a mitigation of the injuries which are liable to be inflicted by the Magistrates under the

  1251
  Bill? The Home Secretary admitted that there are a number of offences which are not really criminal—such, for instance, as stealing an apple, throwing stones at steamboats and trains. Surely offences of a purely mischievous and thoughtless character ought to be dealt with in a different manner from offences which betray something like a criminal intent. Under this Bill it would be within the discretion of the most stupid, blundering Magistrate to sentence a boy to be whipped for a purely idle, mischevious freak, without having had an intention to do any wrong. I contend that the House ought to carefully limit the discretion given to the Magistrates dealing with such offences. A line should be drawn between the mischievous freak and the graver offences showing criminal intent; and in this connection I would propose that, in all circumstances, before a boy is ordered to be sentenced or whipped, he should first receive a caution, and where offences resulting in loss or injury can be rectified by a money payment, the parent should be fined or ordered to pay compensation. In cases of a more criminal character, however, I would not object to the infliction of a whipping. The more corporal Punishment is resorted to, the more will it deaden the moral sense of those punished, and strengthen in them the lower feelings of humanity. There are, however, some cases in which it appears to be almost the only punishment that can be conveniently suggested; and in such cases there ought to be a greater check on the exercise of magisterial discretion than any that is provided by this Bill. The Royal Commission in 1886 limited punishment by whipping to boys under 14, but the Bill raises the age to 16, and some explanation of that change ought to be given. I should like also to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a passage in the Report of the Royal Commission as to the desirability of checking the undue and unlimited discretion conferred upon Magistrates. It is on page 12, the passage to which I refer—
  " We ought to be allowed to divide the convicted cases into two classes—one for serious, and one for trivial offences. Many of the latter might fairly be transferred to the heading, 'doing well.'"
  1252
  That, of course, refers to the conduct of the offenders who have been placed in reformatories. I am quite certain that the same principle should be applied to cases of idle freak and grave criminal intent. That can only be done by securing that the Magistrates have not unrestrained authority to inflict whipping.
  MR. S. HOARE: I do not know whether there is an intention to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, certainly I shall give it my support as a County Magistrate, one of those apparently who have not the confidence of the hon. Member for Cam-borne. I can assure hon. Members that there is no desire on the part of County Magistrates to inflict punishment upon youthful offenders. I did what I could to assist legislation in the passing of the First Offenders Act, and have done my best to prevent youthful offenders being treated as criminals. There are questions that may arise in regard to whipping, which may well be left for consideration in Committee; but there are other parts of the Bill I consider are of not less importance. Take the provision that permits the infliction of a fine upon a parent of a sum not exceeding 20s. That I take to be a most useful provision. Again and again I have wished, when it has fallen to my lot as a Magistrate to have youthful offenders before me, that I had authority to punish the parent instead of the child. The hon. Member for Camborne has, no doubt, studied the question, and he thinks that Magistrates do not take the care they ought to take in such cases; but if I may make a personal allusion, I may say that it has been my constant desire to prevent young being sent to prison, and I have striven for such legislation as this. Only to-day I have been trying to get a girl into a home instead of having her sent to prison, whence she would emerge branded for life as a criminal. I sent my emissary to see the girl's parents, and the good woman whom I employed was warned against personal violence from the mother, and the father did all he could to turn her out of the house. Well, the girl is safe in a home to-night and is not in gaol, and I am thankful my humble efforts have been instrumental in placing

  1253
  her there. But I should like in such a case as this, that the law should allow the infliction of a fine upon the parents. For this reason, and without going into the whipping question which has been more dwelt upon, and being a County Magistrate anxious to do what I can to prevent juvenile offenders becoming criminals, I heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the introduction of this Bill and cordially support the Second Reading.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: This Bill deals with a small part only of a great subject in which for many years I have taken a deep interest. In 1880 and 1881 the attention of the public and the House of Commons was much called to the subject, and my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question of juvenile offenders and the most suitable method of dealing with offences committed at a tender age. I had the honour of serving on that Royal Commission on Reformatories and Industrial Schools which reported in 1883; and if I may be allowed to make a slight digression for a moment, I may say I am sure I express a feeling shared by every Member of that Commission of disappointment that our recommendations have been so long neglected. I may particularly call the attention of Members of the present Government to this, because they, even more than their predecessors, have shown a predilection in favour of referring inquiries to Royal Commissions. It is a deep disappointment to members of a Commission, after they have spent months and even years in the investigation of a very important subject, and have come to the conclusion that legislation is urgently needed, to find that eight years go by after they have issued their Report, and there is no fruit to their labours. I hope some of the Royal Commissions appointed this year will not have similar reason to complain. The present Government, last year and
  1254
  the year before, introduced in the House of Lords tolerably complete measures dealing with the subjects upon which the Royal Commission reported—there was a Reformatory Bill, an Industrial Schools Bill and a Juvenile Offenders Bill. They introduced in the first year two Bills, and in the second year three, dealing with these subjects, but as yet this Session the Government have only introduced this Bill dealing with an exceedingly small part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission and in a very incomplete manner. The Commission found that there were only three modes of dealing with juvenile offences — by fine, a method often most unsuitable, in cases where the vice or fault lies in the child and not in the parent, because the punishment simply falls upon the parent; by imprisonment, and I think every Member of the House will agree that this is not a suitable punishment to be inflicted upon very young persons; and, thirdly, there is the plan of committing the child to a reformatory or industrial school for a lengthy tern, generally of five years. Now, the Com missioners came to the very clear con- elusion that for a very large number of juvenile offences this committal to a reformatory or industrial school for so long a term was an unsuitable and unnecessary treatment, and that it was very much better to deal with them summarily or else by a shorter term of detention. The Commission recommended detention in truant schools or in day industrial schools, for it has been found that by such detention for a few weeks or months the child is cured of his fault and makes good attendance at the ordinary schools of the country. The experiment tried at Liverpool of sending offenders to day industrial schools has been remarkably successful, and has shown that after a few weeks' detention in these schools the children go regularly to the Board Schools, and are among the best attendants there. This Bill is a mere fragment, it deals with an extremely small part of the Report of the Royal Commission. That Report covers some 74 pages, but the recommendations dealt with in this Bill are contained in about 12 lines at the bottom of one page. What is the

  1255
  intention of the Home Secretary with respect to the other parts of the recommendations of the Commission? The whole matter hangs together. The right hon. Gentleman himself the other day objected to a proposal brought forward by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield dealing with one small part of the recommendations of the Commission. It was, he said, piecemeal legislation; but is not the right hon. Gentleman himself bringing for ward piece-meal legislation on this very same Report? For myself, I confess I feel some difficulty about the attitude I should take up towards this Bill. I have the example of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards the Bill of the hon. Member for Sheffield, when he objected to the picking out of a clause .from a former Bill, and yet I know the urgency of the matter. Knowing the urgency of the question for the last 10 years, and seeing that the Commission reported on it eight years ago, I think I am justified in pressing the Home Secretary to deal with the whole subject. The Home Secretary experienced some difficulty with regard to the question last year, but that was because he imported into the Bill matter not contained in the Report of the Royal Commission. No doubt this Bill is founded to some extent upon the recommendations of the Commission, which, feeling the extreme importance of introducing alternative forms of punishment, reported in favour of giving power to order boys under 14 to be whipped, and imposing fines upon parents, or taking sureties from the parent for the good behaviour of the child. That is an important recommendation—to fine the parent instead of sending the child to an industrial or reformatory school. That a child's offence should be dealt with in suitable cases by making the parent give security for the good behaviour of the child is supported by the evidence given by men in different parts of the country who have had experience in administering the law and in the management of industrial schools. With regard to whipping, the right hon. Gentleman does not carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission; nor has he introduced anything to specify in what particular class of
  1256
  cases that punishment should be applied. There ought to be discrimination in those cases, but I find none in the Bill. I quite agree that whipping in many cases is the best form of punishment for a boy—better than imprisonment or sending him for five years to an industrial school. But the Royal Commission carefully restricted this punishment, and recommended that it should not be inflicted upon any boy under 14. The House is very unwilling I am sure to inflict the punishment upon any but mere boys. Though very much disappointed that the House is not invited to deal with the whole matter, I feel a difficulty in declining to support the Bill, and I hope that when it goes into Committee alterations will be introduced, and that the Bill will be greatly improved in the directions I have indicated.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): I am glad the right lion. Gentleman finds himself able to support the Bill, and that he has made a speech which is substantially a vigorous defence of the Bill. We have great reason to thank the right hon. Gentleman and his distinguished colleagues on the Royal Commission for their Report on this subject. It is perfectly true that they limited themselves with regard to this proposal in one respect only, and I think I can show the House that this was an extremely small limitation. It might be supposed from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and others that this is the first time it is proposed to inflict corporal punishment upon boys between 14 and 16; but there are several clauses in the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts of 1861 under which corporal punishment can be inflicted up to the age of 16 on the discretion of Justices of Quarter Sessions. When Parliament sanctioned that, Parliament had good reason for thinking, as we have good reason for thinking now, that even up to the age of 16 it is not desirable to send a lad to prison.
  SIR U. KAY - SHUTTLEWORTH: They are all specified offences.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Yes, no doubt; and there is, I admit, some ground for introducing Amendments in that direction; that is a matter well worth consideration. The House must not suppose that this Bill will give the power to any single Justice—a lay Justice sitting by himself. A Stipendiary Magistrate will have the power, but it will only be given to those Courts which are described in the Summary Jurisdiction Act as fully-constituted Courts. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is but a very small part of the entire scheme, but the magnitude of the parts is not to be measured by a superficial area of pages in the Blue Book, and among the many valuable recommendations made by the Commission those embodied in the Bill are the most valuable. There were also special recommendations relating to industrial schools, and a measure giving effect to those recommendations the Government succeeded in passing through the other House in three successive years, though, unfortunately, we have never had the opinion of this House upon it. I think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done well in detaching these particular provisions from others which have proved a stumbling-block to the progress of any Bill on the subject. This Bill has been described as containing new propositions; but I would remind the House that these propositions did not originate with the Commission of 1883, but were recommended to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in reply to a circular sent round to all the Quarter Sessions throughout the country. This Bill now comes down to the House after having three times passed the criticism of the Lord Chancellor and ex-Lord Chancellor in another place, and after having gone through the ordeal of a Standing Committee of the other House, of which no less a man than Lord Herschell was Chairman. That, I think, is at least a presumptive claim to our respect. It gives effect to recommendations which have too long been unfulfilled. It is high time that we should carry still
  1258
  further the beneficial policy of diminishing as far as possible, even up to the age of 16, the number of juvenile committals.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I think there is a general agreement that the law as it stands is in urgent need of amendment, and that Magistrates are often placed in a painful position when juvenile offenders are brought before them. Still, it does seem to me very undesirable to pass such sweeping provisions as those contained in this Bill. There is, however, great jealously at the present time with regard to corporal punishment in public elementary schools, and this jealousy may possibly be increased. As the Bill stands two Magistrates in Petty Sessions may sentence a youth to be flogged, and apparently may also fine the parent, and order him to give security for the good behaviour of the offender, all without the conviction of the offender in the first instance, or without even a record of the fact. This seems to me to be a grave innovation in the law, and I hope that the Home Secretary will explain this point. I can quite understand that it is desired to prevent a slur attaching to the offender, but the slur ought to be in the offence and the fact, rather than in the record.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: Certainly, the disgrace should attach to the offence, not to the record of the offence, but we do know that a recorded sentence will be brought up against the offender in after life, and that legal consequences attend it. So far from this principle being an innovation in the law, it is contained in the Industrial Schools Act, and has been found most beneficial. It is thought advisable not to put a stigma of perpetual disgrace upon the offender. I think the hon. Member for Donegal looked at the Bill with rather less than his usual acumen. He will find that the proviso at the end of the 4th subsection is necessary because of the Summary Jurisdiction Interpretation Act of 1889, which else would include Scotland within the Bill. We are not creating any new offence or constituting any new Courts; but taking the

  1259
  Criminal Law and Courts as we find them, are giving in the interests of the children to properly constituted Courts a new discretion to punish the child, or take the recognisances of the parent. It is a singular reason for objecting to this Bill that there are only three alternatives, when the Bill gives four more most important alternatives, besides those already existing. What the measure does is to enable a Magistrate to order the birching of a young person who has committed one of those mischievous offences which if committed by one of our own sons would be punished by us, if we are sensible men, by taking Solomon's advice and, while not sparing the child, spoiling the rod. How often does a Magistrate under the existing law get a parent to promise to give his boy a good licking, and let the boy go, on such a promise being given, knowing that a short, sharp punishment like a good thrashing would have the needful effect. I ask any Member of the House, who is a father, whether he would not prefer that his boy, even if he is 16 years old, should for certain offences receive a good thrashing than be sent to prison and have for life the stigma upon him of having been in gaol. In the interest of the boys themselves, and of parents who do not want their children to be contaminated by intercourse with criminals, I hope we shall pass the Second Reading by a very large majority, and amend any small defects there may be in the Bill when we get into Committee.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I wish to ask the Home Secretary the meaning of the concluding words of Sub-section 4 with regard to Scotland. Under this Bill the age in regard to juvenile offences is extended to 16, and I find that under the 23rd & 24th Vict. the age in Scotland goes up to 14. As regards the age between 14 and 16 this Act is new as far as Scotland is concerned. The consequence is that, as regards children between 14 and 16, they may be whipped without any of the restrictions contained in Sub section 4. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to remedy any defect in the Bill. I think the condition of the law of Scotland has not
  1260
  been considered, and I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that the necessary conditions will be introduced so that no unnecessary hardship may be inflicted.
  MR. ATHERLEY - JONES: I cannot help thinking that, although the right hon. Gentleman in introducing this Bill has been actuated by humane motives, the measure possesses the most objectionable characteristics which any Bill of the kind could present. In the first place, I think great exception may be taken to the proposal practically to give power at the instance of an inferior police officer, and at the discretion of one Justice of the Peace, to summon a parent to appear before the tribunal for some venial offence committed by a child. I think that the power to summon parents, which, if properly exercised, may be a most proper power, should be most carefully and judiciously guarded, and that the class of offences to which it is to apply should be clearly defined. My second objection is to the barbarity of the punishment proposed to be inflicted by this Bill. It is perfectly true that punishment by whipping has been sanctioned by the Legislature in many other Acts of Parliament, but there is at present no Statute which permits so large a number of strokes as 12 to be given to a child under the age of 12 years. Under the Summary Jurisdiction Act a child charged with an indictable offence can receive only six strokes. For offences of a much less heinous character, such as bird's-nesting and trespassing in the fields, it will be competent to an individual Magistrate under this Bill to order the punishment of not less than 12 stripes, and having regard to the kind of person who administers the punishment and to the character of the offence, I think that is little short of barbarity. To allow the infliction of 18 stripes of a birch rod upon young persons above 12 years and up to the age of 16 is practically re-introducing the lash at the option of one irresponsible Magistrate. I further object to the very general way in which this power is granted to Magistrates, and I contend that the Bill shows signs of great haste and want of care

  1261
  in its preparation. It is open under this Bill to inflict the punishment of the birch rod upon juvenile offenders under any clause of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, including almost every offence of the most venial character. I would suggest that the Home Secretary should give an assurance that the class of offences in respect of which the punishment of whipping may be inflicted shall be strictly defined and limited to offences involving dishonesty, and possibly also crimes of violence, and that some adequate protection shall be afforded to parents against their being vexatiously brought before the Court.
  MR. MILVAIN: I was rather surprised to hear an hon. Member opposite speaking as if corporal punishment were entirely alien to the spirit of the age. Hon. Members will not forget that it is only because the opportunity does not present itself this Session that I have not the honour of again introducing my Corporal Punishment Bill, which is very much wider in its powers, and the Second Reading of which was carried in this House by a majority of 68 votes one Wednesday afternoon in a previous Session. I know there was an endeavour to whip up an opposition to that Bill, but I am glad to be aware that that endeavour utterly failed. I welcome this Bill, especially for the general jurisdiction it gives to apply the birch rod to youthful offenders. I believe that many of these juvenile offenders, who commit offences for which they are brought before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, commit them not in consequence of any evil in them so much as because of the mischief which incites them to the commission of offences. During the time my Corporal Punishment Bill was before the House, there was a general wish among Stipendiary Magistrates, Metropolitan Magistrates, and Magistrates in Borough Police Courts that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and for this reason: that up to a certain age nobody knows what to do with a youthful offender. It may be desirable to send him to a reformatory school, but unfortunately, before that can be done, under the present law it is
  1262
  necessary to first send him to prison, from which he will probably emerge worse than when he went in. We ought not to make him a criminal, and yet, if we avoid sending him to prison and inflict a fine, the punishment falls not upon him, but upon the poor innocent parents, who may have done their utmost to keep the boy from mischief. It appears to me that the only punishment which can be inflicted upon a boy over a certain age to bring him to a sense of what he ought to do, is one the burden of which should fall upon his own back, instead of being borne by his parents. I only regret that the age of the youthful offender is not put somewhat higher in the Bill. I do not suppose that hon. Members of this House are in sympathy with the young ruffians who stand about the corners of the streets in towns and villages and insult innocent girls who may be passing by. They are usually of the age of 16 and even older. My own belief is that, instead of sending these young roughs to gaol for a fortnight or a shorter period, they would be much more readily brought to a sense of their position by inflicting the degrading punishment of the birch rod upon their backs. Firmly believing that the general jurisdiction given to the Courts to inflict the punishment of the birch rod will have a tendency to reform these young children, I shall give my cordial support to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. J. L. GANE: I have not the sentimental objection to the kind of punishment proposed by the Bill which many persons seem to have, and I think there are very many cases in which no reasonable man would doubt that, for the sake of the young offender himself, it would be wiser and better to administer moderate corporal punishment than to send him to prison, and make a gaol bird of him. Objection has been taken to the parent being summoned before the Court when his child is charged with an offence, and to a fine being inflicted. Indeed the hon. Member spoke of the "innocent" parent, but I think that for many reasons the provision is an excellent one, for the child's misconduct may be an effect of his neglect or wrongdoing. I should like to know whether the word "parent" in such

  1263
  cases will include, as I think it should do, the guardian of a child. I cannot help feeling, however, that the number of strokes proposed to be given should be re-considered, for, remembering the ill-fed, poorly-clad, and wretched physical condition of many of the children who will come under the operation of the Act, 18 strokes, administered perhaps by a strong, stalwart prison warder who is not aware of the force he uses, constitute too severe a punishment, and might become torture. I hope, therefore, there will be not an extension of the punishment, as has been suggested, but rather a diminution. Personally, I may say I believe it is possible to bring up a child without corporal punishment. I believe in a parent's mental kingship, in his strong will and wise judgment for properly guiding children of tender character. Still, believing that the Bill in its intention and construction is a thoroughly good one, that it enunciates a sound principle, and that it will save many a child from being forced into criminal associations in prison and from being branded as a criminal, I shall heartily support it.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: One reason I heartily welcome the Bill is that it will save many thoughtless young persons who may have been driven into crime for an existence from being sent to prison and given the prison taint for life. The probation of the First Offenders Act, which I had the honour of introducing, and which was passed by Parliament in 1887, has, I hope, done some good. It has, since then, been adopted in most of our colonies and in some foreign countries, but for some reason Magistrates in Great Britain have failed to put it into force as much as they might have done, for I find by the judicial statistics that, out of 170,466 persons whom they convicted in 1889 on summary process, no fewer than 90,018 were sent to prison for the first time. I believe this Bill is calculated to save many of this class from the taint of prison life, and to make them decent and useful members of society.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I do not
  1264
  like to give a silent vote on this question. Very few of us who have had to exercise duties as County Magistrates but have felt the difficulty which this Bill attempts to deal with. There is a good deal to be said on both sides, though I cannot but think, after having considered the matter for a good many years, that the evil you will create by passing this Bill in its present shape will far outweigh the good which it will produce. I agree with the hon. Member for Durham that there are young people, and some old people as well, not excepting Members of Parliament, who would be better for a flogging. There are certain offences, such as brutality, cowardly assaults upon women and children, and cruelty to dumb animals, which I think many of us would like to see dealt with in that way. But there are children—and children! There are sensitive children, to whom a flogging would be a very different thing, and a far severer punishment to what it would be to children of a different character. And, besides, the House must admit there are Magistrates and Magistrates! and it cannot be denied that there are in this country among Magistrates men who have made themselves disliked and trusted by ridiculous, arbitrary absurd decisions. I believe that they form a very small minority of the Magistrates, but still they exist. What would be the effect in rural districts if big fellows of 16 years of age were thrashed not by their own parents, or with the consent of parents, but by policemen, at the dictation of the squire and parson, say, for stealing an apple? The Home Secretary used this very illustration of apple stealing, and I can only say that you may risk bringing the law into contempt, and destroying that confidence and respect, which is at the bottom of all obedience to the law, by flogging for a petty larceny. Hence it is that I say that this law may do a great deal more harm than good. I do not believe in thrashing for such offences as apple stealing, but I do not object to thrashing for defined offences, such as violent and cowardly assaults. But even in such cases I hold that thrashing over 12 years of age ought not to be administered ex-

  1265
  cept on the order of a Court of three Magistrates. Fully admitting the evil of the present system, there is another way of dealing with young offenders, and that is to improve and enlarge our reformatory system, so that children can be sent to reformatories and industrial schools for short terms, without the necessity (as at present) of being committed to gaol first. If this Bill goes to a Division to-night I shall feel it my duty to vote against it.
  MR. J. R. KELLY: I should like to say one or two words with regard to this Bill. I do not understand exactly what power it is proposed to give the Court. I think it ought to be required that the parent should be present when the flogging is administered. The attendance of the parents is of paramount importance, and I do not think that a child ought to be visited with corporal punishment without the consent of the parents. The poor have the same feelings with regard to their children as we have, and it may be that the parents know that in the case of a troublesome child corporal punishment is absolutely futile. Under such circumstances, they would reasonably and properly object to the character of the punishment which is sought by this Bill to he made legal. Moreover, I think the punishment of 16 strokes is unnecessarily severe. I can understand sentences of flogging upon a totally different plan. For instance, two floggings are generally regarded as having a greater deterrent effect than one. I trust we shall have some assurance that there will be a careful definition of the punishment under the Bill. I trust we shall be assured that there will' be a diminution of the strokes, at any rate, at one birching; and I hope, also, that the parents will be consulted as to whether this punishment should be inflicted upon their children or not.
  MR. HENEAGE: I welcome this Bill because it will, to a great extent, do away with the necessity for sending young offenders to prison. I have been Chairman of Petty Sessions for 25 years, and I have found juvenile offenders the most difficult
  1266
  class to deal with. As to consulting the parents, in nine cases out of ten the parents of such offenders have come to me and asked whether flogging could not be given as a punishment instead of imprisonment. There are some points in the Bill to which I object strongly. The first is with reference to the summoning of the parents. I think that every parent ought to be made cognisant of the charge against the child, but should not be punished for failing to answer the summons of the Court. Again, the number of strokes prescribed in the Bill is unduly severe. The children are often in an emaciated condition, and the warders in all probability are not accustomed to inflicting such punishment, and therefore do not know the effect of their own strength. There is another point on which I hope to see an amendment. At present the Magistrate is bound to send a child to prison before the child is eligible for a reformatory. The power ought to be given to the Magistrate either to order the child to be flogged or to be sent direct to a reformatory. The first question Magistrates have to consider in dealing with questions of this sort is what is best for the child; but when they look at the Statute Book, they find they are debarred from dealing with him in the way they would wish. If they wish, for instance, to send him to a reformatory, they have to send him to prison first. I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill on the ground that it will do away with imprisonment; but unless it is very much altered in Committee, I shall vote against the Third Reading.
  MR. MATHER: I desire to appeal to my hon. Friends to allow this Bill to go to a Second Reading. Its faults of omission and commission are obvious to both sides of the House, and there is no doubt that the Home Secretary will profit by the Debate and agree to the amendment of the measure in Committee. I think it would be a great mistake if the House

  1267
  postponed legislation on this question for another year, and I earnestly hope that those who take an interest in the matter will allow the Bill to be read a second time on the understanding that the very important points raised are fully dealt with in Committee. There is one defect in the Bill to which I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention. There is great hardship in the present treatment of youthful offenders taken up under the bye-laws of Local Authorities for such trivial offences as throwing orange peel or refusing to move on. Offenders of that sort are often taken to the Town Hall or prison and detained all night and treated in the same manner as common criminals. I hope an Amendment will be introduced giving the Local Authorities power to deal with such cases altogether outside the present method. I trust we shall agree to the Second Reading, and in Committee do our best to improve the measure.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether ho has made up his mind as to the application of the Bill to Ireland? Is there any evidence that the Bill is required in Ireland? Just remember how jurisdiction is exercised under the Coercion Act. Children have been sent to gaol for cheering on the highways. They have also been imprisoned for selling newspapers; and if this Bill is now passed, it may be that a Magistrate will order a boy to be flogged by a police constable for one of these offences, or he may order the parent to enter into sureties for his better behaviour and send him to prison for failing to do so. I say that if any attempt is made under the guise of social reform to confer powers of this kind to Ireland, we shall be obliged to oppose it, because it will only be making the Act a political weapon.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Before a Division is taken, I must ask whether the Home Secretary will give the House an assurance that when the Bill goes into Committee he will re-consider the whipping portion?
  If that assurance is not given, I shall vote against the Second Reading.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have offered the whipping portion of the Bill to the House under the deliberate conviction that it is a good part of the Bill. In that I am borne out by every authority on the subject, and I certainly do not mean to drop that part.
  MR. M. KENNY: Will you exclude Ireland from the Bill?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am willing to consider that.
  (12.0.) The House divided: — Ayes 143; Noes 54.—(Div. List, No. 149.)
  Bill read a second time.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I would ask the House to allow the Bill to go to the Grand Committee on Law. A number of Amendments have been suggested which would be more conveniently considered there.
  Objection taken.
  Bill committed for Monday next.

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
  Return ordered
  " Relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom, other than those of Local Authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of December, 1890."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return ordered—
  " Relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom belonging to Local Authorities, for the year ended the 25th day of March, 1891.'—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)

  SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.(No. 136.)
  Order for Second Reading upon Monday next read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

LORD AUCKLAND.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of William Morton Eden Baron Auckland to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chanchellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
The Earl of Lonsdale—Took the oath.

THE PORTUGUESE AGGRESSION ON THE PUNGWE.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL or KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Marquess at the head of the Government a question, of which I have given him private notice. It is, whether the noble Marquess is in a position to give any information to the House as to the reported seizure of British vessels by the Portuguese on the Pungwé, and the imprisonment of British subjects, and as to any steps which the Government may have thought proper to take in the matter?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): As is always the case on these occasions there is a considerable difference in the reports of details, as they come from the English or the Portuguese side; but I am afraid there is no doubt that a most unjustifiable attack has been made upon a British expedition under Sir John Willoughby. The precise amount of force used, or of indignity that has been inflicted upon them I am not yet in a position to state, but there is no doubt that the members of that expedition have been treated in a manner which is not consistent with the engagements which Portugal has entered into, and of which we have very grave right to com-
  1130
  plain. We did at once complain, and urged upon Portugal the necessity of complying without delay with that promise contained in the modus vivendi which bound her to give permission and facilities for passing over the Pungwé and the land ways that lead from it to the interior. I was glad to receive from the Minister of Portugal yesterday an intimation from his Government that they had sent orders to remove every obstacle to the passage of peaceable travellers up the waters of the Pungwé, and from thence into the interior, so that if that undertaking is fulfilled we shall have, as regards the future, nothing in that respect to complain of. But the demeanour of the Portuguese officials on the East Coast of Africa has on more than one occasion corresponded so little with the assurances we had received from Lisbon that we "have thought it desirable to request that three of Her Majesty's vessels should proceed to the Pungwé as speedily as possible. They will not be large vessels, but they will be adequate for the purpose. I should say that the Portuguese Minister also proposed that we should place a Consular Agent of some kind at the mouth of the Pungwé, in order to see that our requirements in respect of the modus vivendi were complied with, and to furnish authentic information. It is a measure which undoubtedly ought to have been taken at a considerably earlier period during the currency of the modus vivendi, which has now only three or four weeks to run, but that suggestion appears to me to be reasonable, and I have hopes that we may be able to do so, at all events intermediately and provisionally, by detailing some naval officer for the purpose. I would not speak too exactly as to the precise steps which will be taken; but there is every probability that the Portuguese and English Governments will be agreed upon that measure. f hope, therefore, that for the future there, will be no further reason to complain with respectto the passage of the Pungwé. Questions which may further arise as to any reparation that may be properly required, I should prefer to reserve until we have a full and detailed account of the real events in the Despatches.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL.(No. 76.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, before the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill is made, I wish to present a Petition from the Legislature of Newfoundland praying to be heard against the Bill by one of the hon. Members of the delegation who have been intrusted with the Petition. With your Lordships' permission I will read the Petition:—
  " We, the Legislative Council of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, beg leave to approach your honourable Parliament and to appeal for your protection and support under circumstances which have filled the minds of all classes of this country with profound anxiety and dismay.
  " Your honourable House may be aware that the old-time difficulties, consequent upon the Treaties of Great Britain and France on the subject of the Newfoundland Fisheries, have of late years assumed an unaccustomed gravity producing a painful and ceaseless agitation among our people.
  " Two delegates have proceeded from this country during the last year to represent to Her Majesty's Government the exorbitant claims of the French under the alleged sanction of the Treaties referred to, and, further, to point out the injustice wrought upon the natives of Newfoundland. Their efforts for redress have been so far unsuccessful, and we are now confronted with a new evil essentially more intolerable than any of those with which experience has rendered us so familiar. We refer to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government by the Bill now before your honourable Parliament to re-enact the Act of George IV., cap. 51, for the better conduct of Treaties between Great Britain and France respecting the Newfoundland fisheries, which Act expired in 1834.
  "This Act embodied provisions of an arbitrary and oppressive character, wholly repugnant to those principles of liberty and justice which are held to be the basis of modern British legislation. They conferred upon the officers of Her Majesty's ships the duties of a protective service and intrusted them with the settlement of Treaty disputes, with powers of summary adjudication independent of all those restrictions and safeguards which British law has devised for the defence of the inherent rights of British subjects. These powers extended to the most severe penal inflictions, and were beyond all appeal, and when it is remembered that they were exercised by persons unacquainted with legal procedure, whose peculiar training and habits of thought and action were dictated by an unquestioning submission to decrees, it must be manifest that
  1132
  extreme hardship and injustice were the frequent inevitable results.
  "It may be alleged that while the Act in question was yet upon the Statute Book it had been allowed to lapse into comparative desuetude, so incompatible with modern civilisation would have been the application of this barbarous law. Unhappily, the record of the years 1877, 1888, and 1889 gives instances of its enforcement, under assumed authority, with disastrous consequences to the property and industry of some of Her Majesty's subjects engaged in the fisheries of Newfoundland. We submit that this law cannot possibly be rendered applicable to the circumstances which it is designed to meet. All the social and general conditions of Newfoundland, particularly of those parts of the coast affected by International Treaties, have undergone a radical and complete change in the many years that have elapsed since the law was under consideration. There was then no resident population in those localities, which have been long since settled in considerable numbers; while trade from various sources of employment has become developed and yields its contributions to the Customs revenue.
  " Several years ago Her Majesty's Government confirmed the occupation of the coasts by acceding to the desire of the residents for representation in the House of Assembly and for the appointment of Magistrates and police. They are periodically visited by the Supreme Court of Circuit; they have regular communication with the rest of the country and with Canada by mail and passenger steamers. In a word, they have all the ordinary institutions of civil life. The permanence of their position being thus conclusively assured and recognised, it can hardly be necessary to point out with what cruel severity and with what destructive effect the proposed law will operate upon the trade and industries and upon every other appreciable interest of this section.
  " The loyal inhabitants of this whole dependency of the British Crown would, therefore, most earnestly implore your honourable House, by all its honoured and revered traditions, to desist from inflicting upon the people of this country the calamity of such an enactment as that now under contemplation.
  " We would remind your honourable House that Her Majesty's Government and France lately agreed upon arbitration respecting the Newfoundland fisheries, such tribunal proposing to deal with one question only—the recent question of the lobster fishery. This partial proceeding has been decided upon, not only without reference to the Newfoundland Government, but against their emphatic protest. We on the part of the colony, beg to present an equally emphatic protest against the course adopted in direct violation of the principles of that constitutional form of government which it is our privilege to possess.
  " We would, in conclusion, respectfully invoke the aid of your honourable House for the protection of the Treaty rights of Newfoundland against the demand of the French for exclusive fishery, including lobster fishing, on those portions of the coast where they hold acknowledged privileges. The rights of British sub-

  1133
  jects have on several occasions been declared and the pretentions of the French disallowed by some of the ablest statesmen of Great Britain, notably Lord Palmerston, and only last year by the Marquess of Salisbury. We feel that your honourable House will recognise the justice of our prayer, and that the definitions of those high authorities shall not continue to be mere theoretic pronouncements which France is permitted to contravene; but that they shall be carried out in their true significance to their full practical effect.
  " We beg to inform your honourable House that we have appointed the Hon. Sir William Whiteway, Augustus W. Harvey, Moses Monroe, George H. Emerson, and Alfred B. Morine a delegation to present this remonstrance; and we pray that they may be heard at the Bar of your honourable House."
  My Lords, having presented the Petition, I rise now, with your Lordships' permission, to move that the prayer of the Petition be complied with. I shall not, in justification of my Motion, say anything which could possibly prejudge the case, nor in any way go into the merits of the case; but I wish to point out that if your Lordships are pleased to accede to my Motion, you will be amply borne out by precedents. In 1838 Mr. Roebuck was heard at the Bar of this House against a Bill dealing with Lower Canada. In 1839 a representative was heard against a Bill affecting Jamaica; and in 1842 the House of Assembly of Newfoundland was heard by counsel at the Bar of this House against a Newfoundland Bill. In all those cases the Petition to be heard was granted, and I venture to think that in no instance was the case so strong as that involved in the Petition which is on the Table of your Lordships' House. In the case of Jamaica the difficulty arose out of extraordinary circumstances connected with the emancipation of the slaves; in the other two cases I have mentioned the machinery of partial self-government had come to a complete deadlock. But in the present case, the Colony of Newfoundland possesses full legislative powers and the full machinery of government. In all other and ordinary respects the machinery works perfectly smoothly, but in this one particular they protested most vigorously against legislation on the part of the Imperial Government on the matter set forth in this Petition. The Petition sets forth—whether rightly or wrongly of course I express no opinion whatever—that in the view of the petitioners the legislation involved in the Bill before your
  1134
  Lordships' House is subversive of their constitutional rights, is incompatible with the principles of liberty and justice, and would inflict great and grievous hardship upon numbers of our fellow-subjects and fellow-countrymen in Newfoundland. That in itself is a very weighty matter. I cannot conceive any allegations of a more weighty and more important kind than those embodied in this Petition, and if anything can add additional weight to them it is added in regarding the source from which the Petition springs. In all the precedents I have mentioned, the colonies, although enjoying Representative In stitut ions,w ere more or less directly administered by the Colonial Office, and were, therefore, more or less directly under the control of the Government here. But in this case the colony enjoys full legislative powers, and is in possession of all the responsibilities of responsible government. I do not mean to say that in the other cases the position of the colonies concerned was any reason whatever why their grievances should not have been heard; but the case here is different, and I submit that a Petition of this kind coming from a colony of the status of Newfoundland, therefore, requires, if possible, our greater attention. The Petition has been intrusted to a very influential deputation, representing all shades of political opinion in the colony, comprising the present Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, and other prominent Members of the Legislature; and, with these facts before us, I do not think it is in the least necessary for me to enlarge upon the desirability of granting the prayer of the Petition. I feel confident that on account of the colony your Lordships will be glad that its people should have every opportunity of expressing their opinions on a matter about which they feel so very deeply. And 1 think also on account of this House, your Lordships, whatever action you may take in a matter involving such complicated and difficult questions, your Lordships would wish that the House should be put in possession of all the facts and all the arguments in the case. My Lords, I beg to move that the prayer of the Petition be complied with, and that Sir -William Whiteway, Prime

  1135
  Minister and Attorney General of the colony, be now heard at the Bar.
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.
  Moved, That Sir William Vallance Whiteway, K.C.M.G., one of the delegates, be heard at the Bar in compliance with the prayer of the said Petition (The Lord Kenry [E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.])
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My
  Sir WILLIAM V. WHITEWAY: May it please your Lordships,—On behalf of the Legislature of Newfoundland, I beg to express deep gratitude for the great privilege which has been conceded to its delegates by your Lordships in permitting us to appear at the Bar of this most noble and august Assembly to express the Legislature's objections to the Bill entitled—
  "An Act to revise certain sections of an Act of the fifth year of the reign of George IV., chapter 51, for the purpose of carrying into effect engagements with France respecting fisheries of Newfoundland."
  I shall endeavour, my Lords, to express those objections as concisely as possible. It will not be necessary to tire your Lordships by reading those portions of the Treaties and Declarations which refer to Newfoundland, with all of which you are already familiar; and I will therefore content myself with saying that the 13th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) was revived by the 5th Article of the Treaty of Paris (1763), and that the Treaty of Versailles (1783) again restored the fishery rights of the French to their position under the Treaty of Utrecht. The Treaty of Paris (1814) restored matters to the status they were in in 1792, under the Treaty of Versailles, and in 1815 the third Treaty of Paris confirmed the Treaty made in the previous year. Your Lordships' attention is particularly drawn to the 6th Article of the Treaty of Paris (1763), to the 4th Article of the Treaty of Versailles (1783), and to the Declarations which accompanied the latter Treaty. With your Lordships' permission I will proceed to give a concise history of the legislation upon this subject. A brief history of the legislation in connection with the Treaties and Declarations will be found, I submit, instructive and significant when the arguments which I shall venture to adduce presently come to be considered. It is a remarkable fact that for 75 years—from 1713 to 1788—no legislation seems to have taken place with reference to the execution of the Treaties of Utrecht, Paris, or Versailles. The first Act upon the subject was passed in July, 1788, five years after the Treaty of Versailles was signed. It first set forth the engagements made by the Treaties and Declarations accompanying the Treaty of Versailles, and then enacted as follows:—
  "Section I.—It shall and may he lawful for His Majesty, his heirs and successors, by advice of Council, from time to time to give such orders and instructions to the Governor of Newfoundland, or to any officer or officers on that station, as he or they shall deem proper and necessary to fulfil the purposes of the definitive Treaty and Declaration aforesaid; and, if it shall be necessary to that end, to give orders and instructions to the Governor, or other officer or officers aforesaid, to remove or cause to be removed any stages, flakes, train vats, or other works whatever, for the purpose of carrying on fishery, erected by His Majesty's subjects on that part of the coast of Newfoundland which lies between Cape St. John passing to the north, and descending by the western coast of the said island to the place called Cape Rage, and also all ships, vessels, and boats belonging to His Majesty's subjects which shall be found within the limits aforesaid; and also, in case of refusal to depart from within the limits aforesaid, to compel any of His Majesty's subjects to depart from thence, any law, custom, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
  "Section II.—And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if any person or persons shall refuse, upon requisition made by the Governor, or any officer or officers acting under him, in pursuance of His Majesty's orders or instructions as aforesaid, to depart from within the limits aforesaid, or otherwise to conform to such requisition and directions as such
  Lords, I do not propose on this occasion to make—nor do I think your Lordships would desire that I should do so—any remarks in reply to the speech of the noble Earl. I have only to say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that we have readily assented to this Motion, the decision whether it should be granted or not resting with the House.
  On Question, agreed to.
  The delegates called in.
  Governor or other officer as aforesaid shall make or give for the purposes aforesaid, every such person or persons so refusing, or otherwise offending against the same, shall forfeit the sum of £200, to be recovered in the Court of Session or Court of Vice Admiralty in the said island of Newfoundland, or by bill, plaint, or information in any of His Majesty's Courts of Record at Westminster; one moiety of such penalty to belong to His Majesty, his heirs and successors, and the other moiety to such person or persons as shall sue or prosecute for the same; provided always that every such suit or prosecution, if the same is commenced in Newfoundland, shall be commenced within three months, and if commenced in any of His Majesty's Courts of Record at 'Westminster, within 12 months, from the time of the commission of such offence."
  Now, my Lords, war terminated the Treaty of Versailles; and though the Treaty of Paris (1814) restored to France
  "the colonies, fisheries, and factories of every kind which were possessed by France on the 1st of January, 1792,
  it does not appear to have been considered that this Treaty revived the Act above quoted, for in 1824 an Act entitled
  "An Act to repeal several laws relating to the fisheries carried on upon the banks and shores of Newfoundland, and to make provision for the better conduct of the fisheries for five years, and from thence to the end of the then next Session of Parliament,"
  contained two sections, 12 and 13, which were almost literally the same as those which I have just read; and these two sections it is proposed to re-enact by the Bill now before your Lordships. An Act was passed in 1829 to continue the Act 5 George IV., chapter 51, which I have last referred to, until the 31st of December, 1832; and in 1832 the Act 5 George IV., chapter 51, was further extended until 1834, "and no longer." Here I beg to draw your Lordships' particular attention to the fact that that Act which I have just mentioned, the continuing Act enacted that the Act so prolonged should continue until a certain time "and no longer." In 1832 a Legislature was granted to Newfoundland, its first Assembly taking place in 1833; and Parliament did not in 1834 further continue in force the law enacted in 1824, leaving to the Legislature of the colony the task of passing laws and enforcing regulations to carry out the Treaties and Declarations. The Legislature of the colony did not, however, assume this duty, nor does it appear by the records that its attention was ever called to the matter. The fact remains, however, that in 1834 the last Act of Parliament in this connection expired by virtue of one of its own provisions, and that from that year until the present time no legal authority has existed for the enforcement of Her Majesty's instructions to naval Commanders upon the coast of Newfoundland. It is now proposed to reenact the provisions of the Act 5 George IV., chapter 51, and to give them an application in a manner never before suggested. The Act now before your Lordships' House contains the following clauses:—
  " 1.— (1) The enactments set out in the schedule to this Act shall be revived and have ful effect, and the Treaty or Treaties therein named shall include not only the Newfoundland fishery engagements, but also any temporary arrangement made with France either before or after the passing of this Act for adjusting the differences arising out of those engagements.

  "(2) If any permanent arrangement is made between the United Kingdom and France with respect to the differences which have arisen upon the Newfoundland fishery engagements, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to direct that the enactments hereby revived shall apply, and the same apply accordingly, as if such permanent arrangement were a Treaty mentioned in the said enactments.

  "(3) Provided that before such Order is made the draft thereof shall have been communicated to the Government of Newfoundland, and lain on the Table of both Houses Parliament for not less than one month.

  2.—Where Her Majesty the Queen in Council is satisfied that, by any law made before or after the passing of this Act by the Legislature of Newfoundland, sufficient provision is made for carrying into effect, under Her Majesty's orders and instructions, the Newfoundland fishery engagements, or any such arrangement as above in this Act mentioned, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to suspend the operation of this Act, or any part thereof, so long as such law continues in force, and no longer, and to direct that such law or any part thereof shall have effect with or without modifications and alterations as if it were part of this Act, and any Order in Council so made shall have full effect."
  Now, my Lords, having thus briefly stated the provisions of the Treaties and Declarations, and the history of the legislation connected with this subject, I will proceed to state our objections to this Bill, and we humbly beg to solicit your
  1138

  1139
  attention to the objections which the colony entertains to the Bill now proposed. First, we object to the passage of the Bill now before your Lordships because it was introduced into Parliament before the Government, the Legislature. or the people of Newfoundland had an opportunity to accept or oppose it, or to suggest its amendment. This is opposed to the principles of responsible government granted to the colony, and in direct opposition, as we conceive, to the assurance given to the colony in 1857, when the right hon. the Secretary of State sent the following Despatch to the Government of Newfoundland announcing the abandonment of a proposed Convention, with which your Lordships are familiar, with France:
  "Downing Street, March 26, 1857.
  "Sir,—When Her Majesty's Government entered into the Convention with that of France, they did so in the hope of bringing to a satisfactory arrangement the many complicated and difficult questions which have arisen between the two countries on the subject of the Newfound. land fisheries. But they did so with the full intention of adhering to two principles which have guided them, and will continue to guide them, namely, that the rights at present enjoyed by the community of Newfoundland are not to be ceded or exchanged without their assent, and that the constitutional mode of submitting measures for that assent is by laying them before the Colonial Legislature.
  "For this reason they pursued the some form of proceeding which had been before pursued in the case of the Reciprocity Convention with the United States, and which was in that case adopted and acted upon by the Newfoundland Legislature. It was in perfect uniformity with the same precedent that it appeared necessary in the present instance to add a condition respecting Parliamentary enactment, in order that, if necessary, any existing obstacles to the arrangement in the series of Imperial statutes might be subsequently removed.
  "The proposals contained in the Convention having been now unequivocally refused by the colony, they will, of course, fall to the ground. And you are authorised to give such assurance as you may think proper that the consent of the community of Newfoundland is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as the essential preliminary to any modification of their territorial or maritime rights.
  "I have, &c.,
  "II. LABOURCHERE.
  "To Governor Darling, &c., Newfoundland."
  Neither the present Act nor any other specific Act has ever been submitted to the Colonial Government or Legislature for definite acceptance, rejection, or amendment. Information that this Act would be introduced was not given to the Government of the colony till the 17th day of March last, nor to the Legislature till the 18th day of the same month, though the British Government determined in the middle of January to procure its enactment, and transmitted a Despatch to Governor O'Brien on the 19th of that month, giving information in regard to this Bill, which must leave been received by him before the middle of February, but was not submitted to the Government of the colony until the date above mentioned. Knowledge of the introduction of the Act into Parliament on March 19 last was first received by the Government and Legislature of the colony on the same day by means of telegrams from private persons, and repeated applications by the Legislature to the British Government fur a copy of the text of the Bill failed to procure it prior to our departure from the colony. If this Bill had, before its introduction, been submitted to the Government and Legislature of the colony, with an intimation of the British Government's intention to procure its enactment by Parliament, I have no doubt but that such arrangements might have been made as would have prevented the present unpleasant condition of affairs. We respectfully submit that the power of legislation on all matters concerning the territory within the jurisdiction of the colony is vested in the local Legislature, subject, of course, to Her Majesty's assent; and, although we do not pretend to contend that power to legislate for the colony does not reside in the Imperial Parliament, we most humbly urge that it is a power which should not be exercised before the local Legislature has most clearly and distinctly refused to enact laws adequately meeting the necessities of the case, and then only in cases of extreme emergency. By Clause 1 of this Bill it is provided that—
  "Any temporary arrangement made with France either before or after the passing of this Act"
  is enforceable as though it were a Treaty. I would draw your Lordships' attention
  1140

  1141
  to those words referring to "any arrangement made' before or after the passing of this Act." And, by Clause 2
  " Any permanent arrangements" with France "with respect to the differences which have arisen upon the Newfoundland fishery engagements"
  are also enforceable as though they were Treaties. To us it appears that these provisions are intended to legalise the modus virendi made with France in 1890, as well as its renewal this year, and, therefore, that it is retroactive legislation, calculated to injuriously affect suitors claiming damages for losses sustained in 1890 in consequence of the operation of that modus vivendi; and we submit that this is an interference with a right of the subject which ought not to be, and will not be, permitted by your Lordships. But a far more serious danger, and a far greater infringement of constitutional right than this, appears to be contemplated 'by the provisions legalising future arrangements. As we interpret the Act, the Government would have power, were it enacted to cede to France the most valued rights of the colony without the colony's consent, and in spite, indeed, of its most earnest protests. Nay, more, the Imperial Parliament itself seems by the terms of the Bill to be virtually deprived of a constitutional check which it has exercised at all times. It is proposed by the Bill that when any permanent arrangement with France has been made it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to enforce it by Order in Council; and, although it is provided that such Order must be
  " Communicated to the Government of Newfoundland and laid on the Table of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament for a period of not less than one month,"
  no effective means of protest and no power of rejection is secured to the colony while the mere omission of the Imperial Parliament to express its disapproval of the Order in Council would for ever fasten upon the colony the burden of any arrangement which might be made. The Legislature of the colony is appalled at the danger with which it is thus menaced. Arrangements proposed in the past have caused it to fear undue concession of the rights of the colony to France, and it is feared that it is now intended to impose upon the colony an arrangement to which it would not willingly consent. Whether this be the intention or not, the Bill now before your Lordships evidently confers power to do so, and is, therefore, a menace to that right of prior consent promised to the colony by the British Government in 1857. The people of the island may at any moment find themselves hampered by arrangements which may prove ruinous to their interests, without any opportunity to prevent them; and we beg, further, to remind your Lordships that Conventions were made in 1857 and in 1884–5, which provided for concessions to the French, which, if carried out, would have been attended with the most disastrous results to the fishing interests of the colony. What has occurred we say may occur again, and the Bill now before your Lordships provides the opportunity of making such arrangements permanent. It is, indeed, provided that the Legislature of the colony may enact legislation to take the place of the present Bill; but this Bill is not to be suspended until the local Legislature confers upon Her Majesty in Council the precise powers she would have under this Bill, and this provision is therefore but an illusory concession, meaning only that the burden of an Act of this Parliament can only be removed by enacting a similar Act in the colonial Legislature. In referring to the arrangement of 1884–85, the right hon. the First Lord of the Treasury has publicly stated that it was at first accepted by the Government and Legislature of Newfoundland and afterwards rejected. In this the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed. The Government of the colony refused at the outset to do more than submit the arrangement to the Legislature after certain Amendments were made, and the Legislature was not consulted in any manner at that time. Before the proposed Amendments were agreed to a new Administration had come into Office; and in the Session of 1886 the concluded arrangement was first submitted to the Legislature, which referred it to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, which considered the matter for two Sessions, and ultimately the arrangement was unanimously rejected. We may be allowed, in reply to a statement that the colonial Legislature acted unreasonably
  1142

  1143
  in rejecting the Convention, to call attention to a very significant fact. Sir George William Des Vœeux, now Governor of Hong Kong, was sent to Newfoundland to induce the Legislature to adopt the Convention. Within a few months of his arrival he expressed his views on the subject, in a Despatch to the Colonial Office, in the following forcible language:—
  " Now that I fully comprehend the present position of the colony, it is to me no longer a matter of wonder that the Legislature has hitherto failed to ratify the proposed ' arrangement' with France; indeed, I can scarcely conceive it possible that this arrangement will ever be accepted so long as the bait clause remains in it, and no security is taken that the export bounties -will not be maintained in their present footing. For though all the other Articles have the appearance of concession on the part of the French, and some are no doubt substantial concessions. they are all immeasurably outweighed by the single concession required on the part of this colony. For if there were granted to the French an inalienable right to procure bait here, the future, not only of the coast where they already have fishing rights, but of the whole colony,. would practically be placed within the control of their Government."
  I think, my Lords, we cannot find more conclusive evidence of the wisdom of the Legislature of Newfoundland in rejecting the proposed arrangement of 1884-5 than is contained in this Despatch of Sir George William Des Vceux, who went there, intending to urge that the arrangement be accepted, and then, having been converted to the views of the colony, addressed the Home Office in such strong terms. Secondly, my Lords, we object to this Act because it is modelled after an Act passed at a period when the colony had no Legislature of its own, and when there was but a small population upon the coast directly affected, whereas the colony has had a Legislature for over half a century, and the Treaty shore is now settled from end to end. The colony was granted a Legislature in 1832, and settlement upon the Treaty shore has been permitted by the British Government for many years past. With their consent grants of land, subject to French Treaty rights, have been given, and the land has been settled upon and improved; with their consent, representation in the Legislature has been granted to the settlers, Magistrates and Customs officers have been appointed upon the coast, telegraphic, steam, and mail communication have been established, taxes are collected, and public money expended. In face of this great alteration in the whole condition of affairs, it should be impossible to re-enact a law first made over a century ago, and which would make it possible for naval officers to render valueless every iota of property on the land or in the waters of the Treaty shore—the property, not alone of the thousands who dwell there, but also of the other thousands who annually visit and fish there—for no provision of any kind is made in the proposed Act for compensating persons whose property may be in any way affected; and under this Bill power would be vested in the Governor of Newfoundland, or any officer on the station, on his mere volition arbitrarily to remove a British subject and his property from the Treaty coast, and to leave him absolutely divested of any redress or compensation whatever. In the face of these facts, we submit it would be a terrible injustice to British subjects to give the power to. naval officers which is contemplated and given by this Bill. Should this Bill become law, it must necessarily have the effect of preventing capital from being invested for the development of the minerals, of agricultural and lumbering resources,. on one-half of the island of Newfoundland. This part must ever remain a wilderness, for with the possibility of establishments being removed at any moment, on the mere volition of one man, surely persons will not be found to risk their capital in so uncertain and precarious a venture. If this Bill becomes law, and British people can be removed from British soil at the will of a naval officer, we humbly submit that, so far as this part of the island is concerned, the sovereignty of the island is a mere myth, a name without value, whilst the possession of an easement by the French to catch and dry fish on the strand vests in them all that is of value. Thirdly, my Lords, we object to the Act now before your Lordships' House, because it is to be used to enforce Regulations to carry out Treaties, the interpretation of which is disputed, and which Regulations have hitherto been framed in a manner making them oppressive and unjust to British subjects. British statesmen have declared that under the Treaties the French have only a right to fish in the waters along the Treaty shore in common with British
  1144

  1145
  subjects. But, acting under Regulations and Orders similar to those which this Act seeks to legalise, British naval officers have prevented our fishermen from exercising common rights with the French, have driven our boats out of the harbours of shelter along the shore, and have otherwise acted as though British subjects had no rights at all upon the Treaty shore, which were not inferior to those possessed by the French. Thus British statesmen have practically invited our people to do those acts for which British officers have punished them, and thus it will be in the future until the meaning of the Treaties is definitely decided. We ought not to be subjected to burdens at once odious and uncertain. Fourthly, my Lords, we object to this Bill because, utterly ignoring the Municipal Courts of the island, it commits the enforcement of the Treaties and Regulations to the care and supreme control of naval officers not learned in the law, unskilled in legal procedure, and not trained in a manner qualifying them to adjudicate upon abstruse questions affecting, it may be, the peace of the Empire on the one hand, and the rights of individuals upon the other. The sovereignty of the island of Newfoundland is in Her Majesty, and the right of fishing and drying fish on the coast was conceded to the French merely as an easement. To the enjoyment of this easement they are entitled, and for any interruption or injury they may allege to have sustained, appeal for redress should be made by them to the judicial tribunals of Her Majesty the Sovereign of the soil in the first place. We therefore most earnestly urge that Her Majesty's ordinary Courts of Justice in Newfoundland are the tribunals which should adjudicate upon questions arising between British and French fishermen. From any Judgment in such Courts a final appeal would lie to Her Majesty and the Privy Council. In no case should naval officers be permitted to try causes arising as aforesaid, since Courts of Justice already exist in the colony for the purpose; and if it be deemed impossible for the ordinary Courts to enforce the law in such a manner as to adequately insure justice to the French, then we ask that special Courts should, as they could of course, be established. Fifthly, we object to this Bill because it is intended to aid in the enforcement of a modus vivendi—(a) both made and renewed without the colony's consent; (b.) renewed after a positive pledge that it was " for one year only;" (c) renewed without providing for the operation of factories erected, completed, or made ready for operation in consequence of the pledge that the original modus vivendi was for " one year only; " (d) renewed without providing for the compensation of those who relied upon this pledge. Sixthly, we object to the Bill because it provides for the enforcement of the award of an Arbitration Commission definitely empowered to deal with one issue only, and that an issue against the separate submission, of which the colony has again and again protested. The colony is ready and willing to submit to unconditional arbitration all the questions arising under the Treaties and Declarations, asking only that no single question shall be decided until a decision has been arrived at as to all other points at issue, and that the award shall then be enforceable as a whole. According to the terms of the agreement for arbitration recently entered into, no questions can be submitted except those which affect the fishery upon the French Treaty shore, and these only as they may be agreed upon from time to time. This totally excludes from the purview of this arbitration one most important question which the colony desires to have decided—that, namely, which refers to the French occupation and use of the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon—and makes it possible for either of the high contracting parties to withhold any of those questions affecting even the fisheries themselves which such party may deem it inexpedient in its own interests to have decided. Either party, at any time after the settlement of the lobster question, or whenever dissatisfied with a decision upon any particular point, may withdraw from' further arbitration; and such a result may occur at a time most embarrassing to the other side. While, therefore, the colony perceives that under the present arrangement it will be impossible to have all questions decided, it has no assurance that upon certain issues adverse decisions may not be arrived at with no compensating advantages from decisions in its favour upon other points. While, therefore, it would welcome arbitration upon every question at issue, it deprecates in the most earnest manner a piecemeal settlement. My
  1146

  1147
  Lords, it has been publicly stated by the right hon. the First Lord of the Treasury that the terms of the arbitration agreement were made known to the Government of the colony before they were finally agreed to. This, we regret to say, is not the case. On the 7th of March last, the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies informed the Governor that arbitration would shortly take place on the lobster fishery question; and the Governor of the colony promptly telegraphed a protest against any arbitration which did not include all the questions arising under the Treaties and Declarations. Seven days afterwards—on the 16th of March last, that is—the right hon. Secretary of State telegraphed that an agreement for arbitration had been signed five days before, and then first made known its terms. Seventhly, my Lords, we object to this Bill because, while it permits the removal of property from the Treaty coasts, it makes no provision for the compensation of those who may suffer loss thereby, and thus makes the title to property extremely precarious. The effect which this Bill will have in retarding the development of the colony's resources has been already dwelt upon, but we cannot too strongly urge the duty of protecting private rights, and if the settlers upon the French Treaty coasts are to be liable at all times to removal by naval officers they ought at least to be assured of compensation. If the few are to be sacrificed for the good of the many, surely the many should compensate them, and to this compensation they should, we submit, be entitled by the terms of any Bill which may be enacted by Parliament. We are not unaware or unappreciative of the difficulties with which Her Majesty's Government have to grapple, and we are sincerely desirous of aiding in their solution. Actuated with this spirit, we have approached the Government with proposals calculated, we sincerely believe, to give all necessary power to execute the. Treaties, Declarations, and Agreements with France according to their true intent and meaning. Those proposals are as follows: —First, (a) The Newfoundland Legislature to pass immediately an Act authorising the execution for this year of the modus vivendi, the award of the Arbitration Commission regarding the lobster question, and the Treaties and Declarations under instructions from Her Majesty in Council; (b) the further progress of the Bill now before Parliament to be deferred until the passing of the above Act, and the Bill then to be withdrawn; (c) the terms of an Act to empower Courts and provide for regulations to enforce the Treaties and Declarations to be discussed and arranged with the delegates now in this city as rapidly as possible, and to be enacted by the Legislature 'of the colony as soon as agreed upon. Secondly, (a) The present arbitration agreement not to be allowed to operate further than the lobster question without the prior consent of the colony, and in this case the colony to be represented upon the Arbitration Commission; (b) the colony desires an agreement for an unconditional arbitration on all points that either party can raise under the Treaties and Declarations; and if this be arranged between Great Britain and France, Newfoundland will ask to be represented upon such arbitration, and will pass an Act to carry out the award. We regret that up to the present moment these propositions have not been accepted, nor has any hope been held out that they will be. The temporary legislation which we have proposed to procure the enactment of would be immediately adopted by the Legislature of the colony, and present needs thereby amply met. I may here observe, my Lords, that we represent before you to-night all shades of political opinions in the island of Newfoundland, and therefore our promise to do this may be relied upon as though the Act were passed. The details of a permanent and thoroughly satisfactory measure would be arranged and enacted without delay by the Legislature of the colony. The adoption of our proposals would at once cause excitement to subside and would induce peace under conditions which make coercion by warships extremely difficult, if not impossible. If the Bill now before your Lordships becomes law, its provisions will have to be enforced upon a resentful people; but if our propositions are adopted, every good object which the present Bill can have in view will be easily and pleasantly attained, and without injury to the proper pride of a people who, though few in number, are as much entitled to consideration as the inhabitants of the proudest portion of the British Empire. No good, my Lords, can possibly come from coercing, or threatening to
  1148

  1149
  coerce, a people willing to do their whole duty; and to enact the Bill now before your Lordships, in face of the propositions made by us, would, we submit, be a needless indignity to a loyal people. In humbly praying that the Bill now before your Lordships may not be read a second time, we feel confident that we are consulting the best interests of Newfoundland and of the Empire. Its enactment will leave a rankling wound in the hearts of the colonists and establish a precedent that must ever give a feeling of insecurity to every self-governing. colony. In offering, on behalf of the Colonial Legislature, to enact laws adequately providing for the honourable fulfilment of obligations of an exceedingly odious kind, we are animated by a spirit of patriotism and devotion to the Empire, and we must respectfully submit that persistence in the passage of the present Bill would, under the circumstances, be but a poor return for that faith in Parliament which animated the Legislature when sending us to the Bar of this House. My Lords, in conclusion, I may add that the time at our disposal has notenabled us to prepare such a full and complete statement of our case as we wished to lay before you, and we had hoped that the time for making this statement would have been extended; but we have to express our gratitude for the patient hearing which you have afforded us, and we are confident that the defects in our case will be supplied by your Lordships, as we are aware of the deep interest which you take in, and your knowledge of, the subject under consideration. We, therefore, leave the matter in your Lordships' hands in perfect confidence that you will mete out to the colony we represent that justice which is traditional of this most noble House.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I think 1 shall be meeting the wishes of your Lordships if I propose to take the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday next, so that full time may be given to consider the very able speech which we have just heard. Before proposing the Adjournment, I beg to move, as a matter of form, the Second Reading of the Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELL: As the Question has been put, I should have thought it would be better to do nothing further now.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: That is what I proposed; but I was informed I was out of order. If it is not out of order I will move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It would be rather odd to move the adjournment of a Debate which does not exist; but you can proceed in either one of two ways—either adjourn the further consideration until Monday, or move the Second Reading, and then move the Adjournment. It does not seem to me to matter a straw which way it is. Time is of importance.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I have been furnished with a precedent, which says " That the further consideration and Second Reading of the said Bill be put off until Monday next" —curiously, the same day as in the present case. I would therefore move, my Lords, in that form.
  Second Reading adjourned to Monday next.

BETTING BY INFANTS BILL [H.L.] (No. 34.)

  BORROWING (INFANTS) BILL [H.L.] (No. 44.)
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on the Betting by Infants Bill [LL.] read.
  Moved that the said Bill and the Borrowing (Infants) Bill [ILL.] be considered by the same Committee, and that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to consolidate the said. Bills into one Bill if they think fit (The Lord Herschell); agreed to: House in Committee on the said two Bills (according to order).
  LORD HERSCHELL: I may state that the Amendments as now drawn are simply for the purpose of carrying out the consolidation of the two Bills. I have not made any further alteration, thinking it better to do anything of that kind in Committee after they have been consolidated.
  Amendments made; and Bills consolidated into one Bill under the title of
  " An Act to render penal the inciting Infants to betting or wagering or to borrowing money (Betting and Loans (Infants) Bill [11.1..1)."
  The said Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 101.)

  PUBLIC BODIES (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL.—(No. 74.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  CHARITIES RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 84.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.—(No. 93.)
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.