Sitting of 5 August 1891

Preamble
The House met at Ten of the clock.

LAKE COPAIS COMPANY.
Address for—
"Copy of all Correspondence in possession of the Foreign Office relative to the affairs of the Lake Copais Company."—(Mr. Provand.)

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,—List of the Bills, Reports, Estimates, and Accounts and Papers printed by order of the House, and of Papers presented by Command, Session 1890–91, 24th Parliament, 6th Session, 54 and 55 Vic, 25th November 1890 to 5th August 1891; also a general Alphabetical Index to Bills, Reports, Estimates, and Accounts and Papers printed by order of the House, and of Papers presented by Command, 1890 and 1890–91, to be printed. [No. 450.]

PROVINCES.

RURAL POSTMEN.

Rates of pay in 1885.

Rising scales of pay awarded in 1891.

Number of postmen.

Other Emoluments.

Allowances during Sickness.

Uniform clothing.

Holidays.

Medical attendance.

Pensions.

Miscellaneous.

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891

PROVINCES.

TOWN POSTMEN.

Number of Postmen.

Classification of offices.

Scales of Pay.

Number of Postmen.

Other Emoluments.

Allowances during Sickness.

Uniform clothing.

Holiday.

Medical attendance.

Pensions.

Miscellaneous.

1885.

August 1891.

1885.

August 1891.

1885.

August 1891.

1885.

August 1891.

1885.

August 1891.

1885.

August 1891.

1885.

August 1891.

1885.

August 1891.

—(Mr. Provand.)

MR. ATKINSON AND THE SPEAKER.
MR. ATKINSON: I avail myself, Mr. Speaker, of your permission and the kindness of the House to make a personal statement. I know that the House always wishes to be just and generous, and therefore I wish to say that to-day, when I looked at the report of the proceedings in my bedrooom at 8 o'clock, I found that a Motion that I moved last night was not on the Paper as not having been dealt with, or on the Paper as having been dealt with. I came here immediately in order to make an inquiry, and I found that to some extent technically I was wrong. I have been told by Mr. Palgrave, who has been kind enough to talk the matter over with me, that when I went and sat
1372
on the end of this Bench I ought to have taken off my hat instead of getting up and bowing twice to you, Mr. Speaker. As I had not had my hat on for five hours, having been entertaining 20 friends at dinner, I could not possibly take my hat off and thereby signify that I was moving the Resolution. Immediately I read the Debate this morning I sent this letter to the Clerks at the Table. It is as follows:—
"1, Whitehall Gardens, S.W., Aug. 5, 1891, 8 a.m.
To the Clerks at the Table, House of Commons.
Gentlemen,—Last night when my 'Notice of Motion' was called by the Right Hon. the Speaker, saying, 'Mr. Atkinson,' I stood up in my place at the end of second Bench (just behind the Front Bench), and I bowed to the Chair and towards Mr. Palgrave, who was reading. I

1373
always understood this was the way to move when hon. Members did not wish to trouble or detain the House with any remarks."
I did this on this occasion because the right hon. the Leader of the House said he hoped that anything I did in future would be without acrimony, and I thought if I did not utter a word there could be no acrimony expressed—
"No one objected to my action, but I do not see any record of it. May I ask why? I write this because I do not wish to lose any result of my action. I therefore beg you to bring this letter before the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker. You must have seen me rise and bow. I do not wish unnecessarily to trouble the House this morning, so I ask you (by the hands of my son, who acts as my private secretary and waits for your reply) what is my position? I wish to lose no chance of carrying the Resolution in question, which is at page 7 and runs thus:—'Mr. Atkinson.—Entries in Votes and Proceedings, 24th and 27th July, 1891. That the notice as to the suspension of Henry John Atkinson, M.P. for Boston, and the notice as to frivolous divisions upon which the suspension is based be immediately expunged from all the records of the House of Commons.' After this morning I may be too late for months.
I am, Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant,
HENRY JOHN ATKINSON.
P.S.—I will come to you at once if wished. I had already stated to the House I would take every opportunity in every Bill or Resolution to get the records against me expunged (see reports of my remarks on Monday)…I see there is no such notice in to-day's paper. This, therefore, proves what I say—my notice quoted above was dealt with, but is not recorded."
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my Colleagues, that inasmuch as I did what I could, and it was impossible for me to take off my hat, which I had not had on for hours, I am entitled to ask the House to pass this Resolution, and relieve me from the disability of going about for five months with the knowledge that there is a Resolution on the Records of the House which I shall have to speak against every day of my life until I am proved guilty or that Resolution is taken off the books. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the right hon. Gentleman my present leader, who moved my expulsion without giving me notice, why it cannot be agreed that this should be done, and the record expunged? If that is agreed to, I shall sit down, and never mention the grievance again. But at
1374
present I am under a disability which I intend to resist to the utmost of my power until it is removed. I say this not by way of threat, as I wish to have the approval of every one in this House, from the Speaker downwards, and from one end of the House to the other. I have done my best to discharge my duties. I have been denounced as a long speaker, although I have never spoken for 11 minutes at a time. I only desire to establish my position; and if you accord me this request I shall be very pleased, because the bad feeling which I have at present—not bad feeling, but natural resentment—that the gentleman who is my present leader should move a Resolution against me without giving me any notice is really too much for me to bear.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is under a misconception. I can assure him that last night I called upon him and he made no response. I sat down. I then rose again, and again looked at the hon. Gentleman, thinking that he was going to move the Resolution which stood on the Paper in his name.
MR. ATKINSON: I did bow twice.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry if I have been under a complete misconception as to the intention of the hon. Gentleman. If he says he intended to move it I must accept his statement. But I then went on to the next Motion, the hon. Gentleman never having moved.
MR. ATKINSON: I thought I moved by bowing twice.
MR. SPEAKER: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I, and the Clerks at the Table, like myself, were under the impression that he had waived his right.
MR. ATKINSON: No.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, then, if there has been any misconception on my part. But when the hon. Gentleman asks the House to be good enough to expunge the record of the proceedings the other night, let me remind him that when I proceeded to ask the hon. Gentleman to stand up in his place I was acting under the Standing Order which is intended to save the House the trouble of dividing when there is a very small minority. The Order under

1375
which I acted contains the words to which the hon. Gentleman objects. I could only act under the Standing Order, and the Clerks are bound to record what took place in the terms of the Standing Order. I confess the word "frivolous" appears to me to be a harsh word. And the House may remember that in addressing the hon. Member I never used that word. I think I said "unnecessary Division," and that is no reflection on the honour or character of the hon. Gentleman. I never supposed that there was any reflection on the hon. Gentleman. I have never said so, either in public or in private; I have simply acted under the Standing Order, which has been put in force both by me and by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee on several occasions, and I have never supposed—no one in the House, so far as I am aware, has ever supposed—that those hon. Members who stood up in their places were acting in any way derogatory to their personal character. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take my assurance that there is no reflection upon him in the least degree. I regret that he did not more clearly inform me last night of his intention, or I should certainly have put the Question to the House.
MR. ATKINSON: Can I give notice that on the first day of next Session I will move my Resolution? I have not done so to-day, because I hoped my present leader would have been generous enough to have dealt with the matter now.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: May I be permitted to say that it would be impossible, even with every desire to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman, to proceed without notice to expunge these Resolutions? Even if it should be the wish of the House to expunge them, it would be impossible to take that course now. No reflection was intended by me, or, I am sure, by any single Member of the House in the action taken under the Rules of the House, and I hope that the hon. Member will accept that assurance.
MR. ATKINSON: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice every day since I came back to the House, and, therefore, the contention of the right hon. Gentleman,
1376
my present leader, cannot be correct that I have not given notice. I give notice that I will bring on my Resolution the first day of next Session unless I find that the Resolution has been expunged.
MR. GOSCHEN: We cannot do that.
MR. ATKINSON: Then I will bring it forward on the first day of the Session.
MR. SPEAKER: On the first day of next Session the hon. Member may give notice that he will bring it forward.
MR. ATKINSON: Very well, Sir.

QUESTIONS.

  INDIAN ARMY—CASE OF COLONEL JACKSON.
  VISCOUNT BARING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether in a telegram sent by the Secretary of State for India to the Viceroy in March or April, 1891 (which telegram was recently referred to by Lord Cross), the following words, or words to that effect, were used, namely:—
  "Am not satisfied with propriety of retiring Jackson. Strong feeling here that he has been hardly dealt with. Would your Government consent to give him another trial as originally intended by the Commander-in-Chief, for there can be no doubt that he came home under a misapprehension"?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: As I told the noble Lord last night, it is impossible to answer this question without communicating with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India. If the noble Lord will repeat the question next Session I have no doubt that I shall be able to answer it.

  CASE OF CAPTAIN CHATTERTON.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, if the Military Authority in Captain Chatterton's case was properly exercised on the 11th of March, 1869, to take effect on and after arrival in India, on the faith of the Report upon which he had been suspended from duty, such Military Authority was legally exercised on or about the 28th of April, 1869, namely, after his

  1377
  innocence of the charge had been established, and this officer had been replaced on duty, under Her Majesty's authority, and been rendered amenable to military control; and whether the injuries and maiming for life have been legally inflicted or not?
  SIR J. GORST: At this period of the Session it is impossible to give an answer to a hypothetical question of this nature, but I may inform the hon. Gentleman that the case of Captain Chatterton extends as far back as the year 1869, and has been repeatedly considered by successive Governments. No injustice has been done to that officer.
  MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case in any way?
  SIR J. GORST: No case could have been considered more fully. It is quite impossible to consider it again.

  PRISON OFFICERS' UNIFORM.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire if it was in 1888 that the order made in 1879 requiring that prison officers should wear uniform off duty was enforced; and, if so, what special circumstances called for its enforcement at that particular time; what steps have the Prisons Board taken to inform themselves of the feeling of the officers; will he advise the Prisons Board to take the opinion of the officers of all ranks as to whether they consider the wearing of uniform off duty as a grievance which exposes them to assault and insult, and cause the Board at the same time to inform the officers that they will be free to express their opinion on the question without fear of being fined or otherwise punished by the Board; and whether, if it is found that a majority of the officers desire to be free, as English prison officers are, to wear civilian's dress off duty, they will be free to do so?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The General Prisons Board report that the date of the circular calling attention to the order referred to of 1879 was the 8th of April, 1889. This second circular was issued because cases were brought under the notice of
  1378
  the Board, from which it appeared that the previous order was not being generally observed as directed in 1879. The Board have not taken steps to ascertain the feeling of the officers in the matter; but, as stated by them in reply to a question in June, 1890, there is no doubt that many of the warders dislike the rule; but in cases in which reasonable grounds are given, the Board frequently permit an officer to wear plain clothes when off duty, and all officers are, of course, exempt from the obligation to wear uniform when on general leave of absence. The Board attach importance to the order from an administrative point of view, and cannot recommend its rescision.

  ALLEGED ASSAULT UPON CHILDREN.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to an assault alleged to have been committed on the occasion of a recent Poor Law election by Mr. James William. Montgomery, of Borim, near Swanlibar, County Cavan, upon two children named McGoldrick, aged ten and eight respectively; and whether Mr. Montgomery will be prosecuted?
  MR. MADDEN: I have called for a Report upon the case, but the time which has elapsed since notice was given has not permitted me to receive it.

  MR. DE COBAIN.
  MR. ATKINSON: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the certificate in reference to the matter of Mr. De Cobain was signed by a gentleman who was not qualified by law as a medical practitioner?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I think the hon. Gentleman is in error. The gentleman referred to was qualified to act as a medical practitioner both in England and in France Special inquiries have been made in regard to the matter, and it was found that the gentleman referred to is a member of the College of Surgeons and also a licentiate of the College of Physicians.
  MR. ATKINSON: May I move a Resolution that Mr. De Cobain should now be expelled?
  [No answer was given to the question.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    THIRD READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. MORTON: Before I finally part with this £32,000,000, I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an explanation upon what I think is a distinct grievance. We have been told that money voted in this House for a certain purpose cannot be spent for any other purpose. That assurance was distinctly given to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means; but I now understand from what occurred on Saturday in answer to a question to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that the Government do propose to take savings under the Diplomatic Vote and expend them for other purposes without the previous consent of Parliament. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to assure me that the law will be respected, and that no money voted for one purpose will be applied to another without the consent of Parliament. I am aware that sometimes this objectionable course has been taken in regard to the Naval and Military Votes, and that the Treasury have been allowed to appropriate unexpended money voted for one purpose and apply it to another, but it has never been the case in connection with the Civil Service Estimates, and I know of no power in regard to those Votes which allows the Treasury or anybody else to spend money for purposes not mentioned in the Vote. I want to have a distinct assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that this practice will not be followed in the future.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I think the hon. Member may rest assured that no money will be spent except with proper legal authority. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will keep a very sharp eye upon the expenditure of public money, and I think that Parliament may rely upon the watch-
    1380
    fulness of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member need be under no fear that the money will be spent improperly. The hon. Member has fallen into an error in stating that money saved under a Vote may not be applied to another purpose connected with that Vote.
    *MR. MORTON: I understood the Chairman of Ways and Means to say so.
    MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Member wrongly understood what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is true that in the Civil Service Estimates money voted in one Vote cannot be applied to purposes connected with another Vote, but it is also true that within the Vote itself money voted under one sub-head or the savings under one sub-head may be applied with the sanction of the Treasury to purposes connected with another subhead.
    *MR. MORTON: Then does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Chairman of Ways and Means was wrong?
    MR. JACKSON: No, Sir; I do not say anything of the kind. What I said was that I thought the hon. Gentleman was wrong. I hope I have made it clear to the hon. Member that money voted for one Vote cannot be applied to any other Vote, but money voted under one sub-head of a particular Vote can be properly expended under another subhead of the same Vote. Money voted under one Vote cannot be transferred to another Vote. That is not possible, and in this case the hon. Member may rest satisfied that the money voted will be properly applied. There are many precedents where, on the taking of a Vote, the Minister in charge, as in this case, has made a statement to the House stating the intention to apply an unexpended balance to some other purpose connected with the same Vote. The House was fully apprised of the intention of the Government to appropriate the surplus.
    *MR. MORTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he did not make this explanation in reply to the statement of the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee of Supply?
    MR. CREMER: Before the Bill passes its final stage, I wish to enter a protest against the way in which enormous

    1381
    sums of money have been voted by the House, every farthing of which has to come out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and I cannot help regarding the proceedings as little short of a public scandal, most of the Votes having been rushed through Committee after 12 o'clock at night. I hope that next Session the Estimates will be proceeded with earlier, and will not be brought on between 1 and 4 o'clock in the morning, as has been the case during the present Session, when it has been practically impossible for hon. Members to devote serious attention to the Estimates. I consider that such a way of doing business a most improper one, although I do not blame the present Government in that respect more than the Governments that have preceded it, for no Government appears anxious to have the Estimates thoroughly discussed, Ministers, whoever they may be, being apparently glad of the opportunity of bringing forward the Estimates at such a period of the Session, and at such an hour of the night, or, rather, of the morning, when hon. Members are exhausted and anxious to get home to bed. I do not think that such a course of proceeding is creditable to the British House of Commons. The other night when one hon. Member endeavoured to throw some light on the Estimates, he vainly essayed for 20 minutes to obtain the ear of the Committee. I admired the pertinacity with which the hon. Member kept on repeating himself—a fact which was probably due to the howls of execration with which he was received—until he forced the Committee to listen to him. The Committee had to hear him at last; and if there had not been an attempt to howl him down, the unfortunate delay which was occasioned would not have taken place. Next Session I hope to find a resolute and determined handful of men who will resist this growing practice of taking the Votes after midnight. I would rather that somebody else would undertake the duty; but if no other hon. Member is prepared to do so I will undertake it myself, and will divide against every Vote that is brought on after 12 o'clock. The Votes ought to be brought on earlier in the Session, and I would suggest that next Session they should be taken on some fixed night in each week through-
    1382
    out the Session, and by that means the rushing of the Estimates through Committee in the scandalous manner to which I have referred would be prevented. If Her Majesty's Government have no regard for their own health or that of hon. Members, they ought to have some regard for that of the officers of the House. Hon. Members can leave the House and get refreshment, or take some exercise on the terrace, whenever they require it, but the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees are glued to their posts hour after hour without any such advantages. I also wish to draw attention to the action of the Government with regard to the London water question. Before we meet again next year the ratepayers of London will have to pay very heavily in consequence of that action. In the early part of the Session the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Causton) endeavoured to induce the Government to bring in a Bill to prevent the Water Companies in London from rating the householders under the new assessment. For some reason or another the Government positively refused to do anything of the kind. A few days ago the President of the Local Government Board expressed his strong disapproval of the action the Water Companies are pursuing in compelling the ratepayers to pay upon the new assessment. By this means tens of thousands of pounds are being extracted from the householders of the Metropolis, to which the Water Companies have no legitimate right. The Government, however, have not only taken no steps themselves to restrain the Water Companies in the matter, but they opposed a measure that was introduced to prevent the unjust action of the Water Companies. [Cries of "Order!"] Perhaps I am wandering a little, but the matter is a very important one.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is certainly not regular to discuss the question now, although it might have been if there had been a Bill before the House.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: The hon. Member is quite mistaken upon one point, inasmuch as the Bill to which he refers was read a second time and referred to a Select Committee.
    *MR. CREMER: I know that the London Liberal Members complained of the course the Government pursued, but if I am mistaken I shall be glad to withdraw.
    *MR. RITCHIE: I can only repeat that the hon. Member is quite mistaken, and that the Bill was read a second time and referred to the Committee on the other Bills referring to the London water supply. The Government consented to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    *MR. CREMER: The fact that the Bill was read a second time and referred to the Water Committee escaped my memory, but practically I am right, for by referring the Bill to the Water Committee the Government shelved it for this Session, and the result will be that the householders of London will have to pay a heavy penalty in increased charges for water.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to endorse the suggestion that next Session the Government should take a day a week for Supply at the beginning of the Session [Mr. JACKSON: We did it this Session.] Yes, but there were Motions on going into Committee, and the Government allowed the House to be counted out. From a business point of view nothing can be more disgraceful than the way the Government got the money on Friday night—the reckless way in which the work of the Committee was done. Up to 1 o'clock over £5,000,000 were voted, and then, when all were tired out, and there could he no real discussion, the Committee voted between £15,000,000 and £20,000,000 more. That is the way in which about one-half of the Estimates have been voted this year. ["Agreed, agreed!"] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to cry out "agreed." I confess that I do not like this innovation of 10 o'clock Sittings. I am afraid that it may form a rather dangerous precedent. The Government can easily arrange with their supporters to come down, but it cannot be expected that the Opposition should attend. Before the Session breaks up, I should like to remind the Government that they have in hand £200,000 which should properly be devoted to Irish labourers and teachers; and during the Recess no doubt all sorts of doctrinaire schemes will be submitted for disposing
    1384
    of it. I hope the Government will not allow the money to be melted away during the Recess because circumstances have prevented the Irish Members from bringing forward their plans for spending it during the Session. It would be a flagrant injustice to take away from the school teachers and labourers the money that is intended for them. I hope the Government will promise not to part with the money till the House meets again.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    EAST INDIA (REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
    Resolution reported.
    "That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1890, was Rx.85,085,203; that the total Expenditure in India and in England charged against the Revenue was Rx.82,473,170; that there was a surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of Rx.2,612,033; and that the capital Outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works was Rx.3,173,390."
    MR. W. M'LAREN: I will not detain the House for more than one or two minutes; but I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India whether he can give the House some definite assurance with regard to the Indian Councils Bill next year? It has been a matter of great regret to many Members of the House, and, I believe, to a large number of persons in India, that that Bill has not been proceeded with this Session. This is the third Session in which a Bill substantially of the same character has been before the House. It is perfectly true that the measure did not meet with the approval of some hon. Members. Among others, the late Mr. Bradlaugh, who took a great interest in Indian questions, and whose death we all lament, was strongly opposed to the Bill, and I myself took the liberty of putting down a Motion on the Second Reading with regard to the adoption of the elective principle in the measure. It was desired to extend the scope of the Bill; but although the opposition which was offered may have; postponed the progress of the measure, nothing can mitigate our regret that the Bill has not been discussed during the

    1385
    present Session. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will not find fault with me when I say that the constant dropping of the Bill cannot fail to create a very bad impression. It must show the people of India, who take a great interest in the matter, and especially what are called the Congress Party there, that there has been no sincere intention on the part of the Government to pass the Bill. I believe it is the fact that Sir William Wedderburn has recently received a letter from the Secretary of State for India, dated the 28th of July, in which he states that the withdrawal of the Bill was not due to any fault of the Government, but to circumstances beyond their control. With all due respect, that statement is not altogether accurate. It is absolutely the fault of Her Majesty's Government that the Bill was not advanced and passed into law. It would not have occupied more than two days of the time of the House—one day for the Second Reading and another to get it through Committee. Therefore, to say that it was not the fault of the Government that the Bill was not pressed forward is trifling with the House. I am ready to admit that it has not been the fault of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, but of those who have had the arrangement of the business of the House. There was a chance offered in the early part of the Session, when the Bill nearly came on by accident; but the discussion upon the previous subject was prolonged, and we never heard any more of the Councils Bill. I think the fact is deeply to be regretted, and I should like to say that when the Government re-introduce the Bill, as I hope they will, next Session, they will reintroduce it in a somewhat wider form and show a more favourable leaning to the adoption of the elective principle in the Provincial Councils. It is well known that that was the view of Lord Dufferin; and we have never been told why Her Majesty's Government have gone back from the opinion of Lord Dufferin, who, in his Despatch, distinctly expressed himself in favour of the elective principle. I trust that the House will receive a definite promise from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that he will have this Indian Councils Bill brought on fairly and properly for discussion at an early period next Session, and it would
    1386
    also give great satisfaction to many hon. Members if the right hon. Gentleman could promise that the Bill will contain in some moderate degree a recognition of the elective principle.
    *MR. MORTON: I would also press upon the Government the necessity of allowing the House to discuss, at any rate, the provisions of the Bill which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend. I would further express a hope that the Government will, during the Recess, consider the wishes of the people of India in reference to the introduction of the elective principle into the Indian Councils. In my opinion, that is the only proper way of governing the people of India, and the only way in which any legislative measure connected with that country can be properly considered, having regard to the interests of the people of India. What I wish is that Her Majesty's Government, instead of making another Ireland of India, should consider this question in good time; and now that the people of India have to a large extent been educated, that they will take them into their confidence as far as possible. I would also ask the Government to endeavour to bring forward the Indian Budget at an earlier period next Session. Everyone knows that to bring it forward in the dog days, as was the case last night, is practically a farce. There were only a handful of Members here to consider it, although it affects the prosperity and well-being of some 200,000,000 or 300,000,000 of people. Every year attempts are made to dispose of Indian questions without adequate consideration and without proper debate. I have no desire to blame the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India, because I do not know that he has had anything to do with the matter, and we all know that he has a very poor opinion of the Government of India, and the way in which the people of India are treated.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: I never stated anything of the kind.
    *MR. MORTON: I should be sorry to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but I gathered that to be his opinion from a speech which he delivered not long ago, and it is certainly the

    1387
    view which the newspapers have taken. This question of bringing in the Indian Budget at an earlier period of the Session has been spoken of hundreds of times; before, and what I wish to impress on the Government, in the interests of Great Britain as well as of India, is the desirability (now that the franchise is being extended, and the people of this country are taking a deeper interest in the affairs of the Empire than they did formerly) of giving us an opportunity of considering these matters at an earlier period of the Session.
    SIR J. GORST: I feel grateful to the hon. Member for giving me an opportunity of saying a word about the Indian Councils Bill. This Bill was brought in, as he has said, three Sessions ago. It was brought in in order to make good the pledge given by the Viceroy of India, with the sanction of the Secretary of State, that two small but not unimportant reforms should be made in the proceedings of the Council—that, in the first place, the right of interpolation in certain conditions should be given to members of the Council; and that, in the second place, they should have an opportunity of discussing the Indian Budget, although no change should take place in the taxation of the country. It was found, soon after this pledge was given, that it would be impossible to carry out what the Viceroy proposed without legislation, because the old Indian Councils Act, which was drawn apparently for the purpose of repressing discussion, was so stringent in its terms that these two reforms could not be carried out without an alteration in the law. Therefore, the Indian Councils Bill was brought in. At the same time a further reform was introduced in the Bill, which had not been made the subject of any definite pledge on the part of the Viceroy, and that was to increase somewhat the numbers both of the Viceroy's Council and the Councils in the various provinces. This Bill as it stood was a very small measure. It was a Bill which was to carry out a reform which everybody desired, to which the Government had given their assent, and which gentlemen who may be called "the Indian Congress Party" had repeatedly solicited, and there was nothing to prevent the people of India enjoying
    1388
    the benefit of these improvements in the Constitution during the last three years, except that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) and his friends—those gentlemen who profess to represent in this House the opinion of India—chose to use this extremely simple and small measure as a peg on which to hang a discussion of the whole Constitution of India and a proposal to introduce into the Constitution of India what they vaguely call "representative institutions," as to the nature of which they are not themselves agreed, and of the consequences of which they have themselves no conception whatever. Well, although the Bill is a small one, the question which is hung on it is a question of extreme importance, and one which certainly ought not to be lightly passed by the House without ample and complete discussion. In consequence of the appendage which hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves placed on this very modest measure of reform, it has been found impossible for the Government in either of the past Sessions of Parliament to devote that time which is necessary to the consideration of a matter so important to the future interests of India. I cannot promise that the House of Commons in the coming Session will have leisure to discuss and decide this great constitutional question, and I am afraid that if the hon. Member for Crewe and his friends persist in the course they have adopted for the past three years, the people of India will have to wait a little longer before they can enjoy those modest but excellent reforms promised so long ago by the Viceroy. With regard to the present Session, the Government is at least perfectly innocent in connection with the withdrawal of the Bill, because I understand, on what I believe is excellent authority, that the Bill was abandoned at the special wish of the leaders of the Party opposite; and that when certain negotiations took place as to bringing this Session to an early close, the Indian Councils Bill was one of those innocents which hon. Gentlemen opposite insisted on having sacrificed.
    MR. M'LAREN: Perhaps, with the permission of the House, I may say this—the right hon. Gentleman would not wish that anything he said should be open to misunderstanding.

    1389
    Therefore, I would like to ask whether he wishes by his speech to indicate that those who are in favour to some extent of the Indian Congress programme should have let this Bill go through without discussion? Does he complain that we attempted to discuss the Bill and widen its scope?
    *SIR J. GORST: No; I tried to explain that I did not complain of their discussing the Bill, bat I did complain that they should take advantage of the Bill to introduce a much larger and more comprehensive measure. It was perfectly in order to do so in this House; but it had the effect of rendering the small reform projected by the Viceroy of India and Her Majesty's Government perfectly impossible.
    MR. ATKINSON: I will not detain the House two minutes, for I am not an authority on Indian affairs, and I think that some of those who stand up opposite to speak on them have as little authority as myself. But I do sometimes read matter which is sent to me for perusal. I have read matter sent to me by Committees in which hon. Gentlemen opposite are interested, and my study of it has led me to the conclusion that if those hon. Gentlemen, or those they represent, would refrain from stumping India, and from telling the Radical people there that they are badly treated, we should have a better opportunity—as the Under Secretary for India has said—of doing good for the people of India. The fact is, that all those who wish to do a good stroke, as they think, for Radicalism, think that not only ought they to do it in every part of England, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, but that, when they have done it there, they should detach some of their regular forces, and do it in India, too. We know that India is not fit for this sort of thing. We know that in the Empire of Russia they tried to adopt English institutions—they tried to establish Justices of the Peace—but the whole thing was a total failure. So it is in India. Therefore, I support what Her Majesty's Government have said, and I hope we shall have less of this stumping India by discontented ex-Viceroys or anybody else.
    Resolution agreed to.

  MARRIAGES OF NONCONFORMISTS (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL. (No. 144.)

    COMMITEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. M'LAREN: I beg to move to report Progress, on the ground that it is absolutely impossible for the measure to become law this Session. There are eight pages of Amendments-to it in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and the Attorney General. It is so full of contentious matter that it cannot be-passed this day, and even if it passed this House it could not pass the other House also. We should, therefore, only waste time by going into Committee on the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
    MR. ATKINSON: The last time I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton he informed me that he intended to wash his hands of the measure altogether. I do not see why the Committee should expect me to wait until the right hon. Gentleman has washed his hands so long as to be able to go on with the Bill. The Bill has been accepted by both sides of the House, and its Second Reading has been carried without a dissentient vote. It is a Bill that tends to religious equality by dispensing with the attendance of a lawyer's clerk at Nonconformist marriages. It is brought in in the interests of my co-religionists—the Wesleyan Methodists—and is supported by hon. Members opposite, who have been stumping Cornwall and other parts of the country with me. I have brought this measure forward every Session for the last six years, and I hold in my hand letters from Lord Salisbury expressing his high approval of the measure, and requesting me to press it forward. We have a special claim on our leaders, if they can lead at all, to lead us in the direction of giving us this boon.
    MR. CALDWELL: I have no doubt that this is a very good Bill; but, at the same time, we must look at this matter from a practical point of view. It is evident that the measure cannot be passed this Session. It has to go through this House and then through the House of Lords. Whatever time, therefore, we devote to the consideration of the Bill to-day will practically be lost.
    MR. ATKINSON: No, no!
    MR. CALDWELL: I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should take advantage of the discussion which has taken place to produce next Session a Bill that will meet with general acceptance. The feeling of the House is in favour of the measure, but the real question is the question of how to work it out. In the meantime, I think we must feel that we shall lose our time by going into Committee.
    MR. ATKINSON: I beg to suggest that, in considering the Bill, we should be much better employed than in walking about losing time between now and the Prorogation. I have made every alteration that is necessary in the Bill to meet the views of the Attorney General. I have provided for the protection of the interests of Registrars; I have altered the fees in a manner that is satisfactory. I have conceded every necessary alteration to the critics of the Bill, and I would urge its supporters not to be flouted when there is ample time to pass it.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I do not see why the House of Commons should not pass the Bill through all its stages, and send it to the House of Lords, who can take a course similar to that which they are about to bake with the Appropriation Bill, and pass the measure through all its stages.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: It is impossible to ask the House of Lords to consider the Bill now, as they have adjourned, and will not meet again, except for the reading of the Speech from the Throne. It is true, as the hon. Member for Boston has said, the noble Lord at the head of the Government has expressed approval of the principle of
    1392
    the Bill; but the difficulties in the way of passing it now are of a practical character, and cannot be overcome. I therefore hope my hon. Friend will not persevere with the Bill this Session.
    MR. KELLY: I would appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston to withdraw the Bill. The Government have promised that no contentious business shall be taken; and if the hon. Gentleman persists in the course he is now pursuing, he will be prejudicing one of the best measures which has ever been before the House. I am strongly in favour of the measure; but, as many hon. Members have left the House in the belief that no contentious business would be taken, I would strongly urge the hon. Member, in his own interest and that of the Bill, not to persevere with the measure.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The President of the Local Government Board has absolutely proved my case. I thought that, as the Appropriation Bill had only just passed this House, the clerks would be preparing it for the House of Lords; but what is my astonishment to find that it has already passed through all its stages in the House of Lords, and that their Lordships adjourned some minutes ago! It would be possible for the House of Lords to do the same thing before the Prorogation with this Bill. They could pass it in a couple of minutes.
    *MR. JACKSON: They would not be able to consider the Amendments at all.
    MR. DE LISLE: I would wish to add my appeal to the hon. Member not to press the Bill. I not only opposed the Second Reading, but it will be my duty to oppose the measure in all its stages. Under these circumstances, my hon. Friend must see that it is impossible to proceed with a Bill which will require very careful handling in Committee to make it acceptable even to those who voted for the Second Reading.
    MR. ATKINSON: In reply to the last speaker, I may mention that I received a letter from a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, declaring that the hon. Gentleman does not represent

    1393
    that Church at all in what he said about this Bill. The priest begged me to take no notice of the hon. Gentleman, as the Church wants the Bill carried. Under these circumstances, I hope the hon. Gentleman will take advice before he obstructs his spiritual superior. If he does not, I shall be compelled to write to the priest and point out the course he has pursued. Not only has Lord Salisbury expressed approval of the Bill, but he has written to me saying I should push it on, and he trusted I would get it through. I think I know more of Lord Salisbury's intentions as to this Bill than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I see no reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with today.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: As a Roman Catholic, not repudiated yet, at all events, by his ecclesiastical superiors, I must say I think that my co-religionists in Ireland would be insulted if an attorney's clerk were brought in to act as Registrar of Marriages. In Ireland the priests do that. I intend, however, to support the Motion for Progress, and I do not want to be misunderstood in doing so. The hon. Member for Boston says he wishes to avail himself of this opportunity to press his measure, but I understand from the Government that there is no such opportunity. The "opportunity" does not exist, and in forcing the Bill through on such a day as this we shall be killing time in a contentious sort of way, but we shall not be advancing the measure the right hon. Gentleman has at heart. I would appeal to the hon. Member again to take the sensible advice of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division, and withdraw the Bill now and bring it forward next Session.
    SIR A. ROLLIT: I am in favour of the principle of the Bill, but I feel that, under existing circumstances, there is no alternative but to vote for reporting Progress.
    (11.30.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 2.—(Div. List, No. 416.)
    Committee report Progress.

  QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS (GUARDIANS) BILL.—(No. 217.)
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [24th February] read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  RATING (METROPOLIS).
  Return ordered—
  "With respect to each parish in the Metropolis, of the Population, and the number of Inhabited Houses according to the last published Census Returns; the Rateable value according to the Valuation Lists in force on the 6th day of April, 1890; and the several Rates made by the Rating Authority during the year ended the 25th day of March, 1891 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No 126, of Session 1889)."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they had agreed to,—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Foreign Marriage Bill; Labourers (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill; Coinage Bill.
  Amendment to—Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act Amendment Bill.
  Amendments to—Statute Law Revision Bill; Schools for Science and Art Bill [Lords].
  Amendments to Amendments made by the Lords, and Consequential Amendment to—Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Bill.
  Amendments to Amendments last made by the Lords to—Purchase of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill.
  Amendments to Amendments made by the Lords, and Consequential Amendments to—Public Health (London) Bill, without Amendment.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  That they do agree to the Amendment made by this House to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Factories and Workshops Bill, without any Amendment; and do not insist on their Amendments to which this House has disagreed.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners—
  The House went;—and the Royal Assent was given to a number of Bills (see pages 1365–6.)
  And afterwards Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor (in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command).
  Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
  After which—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR said: My Lords and Gentlemen,
  By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in Her Majesty's Name and in obedience to Her Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday the Twentieth day of October next, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday the Twentieth day of October next.

Preamble
The Lord Foxford (E. Limerick)—Chosen Speaker.
MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] (No. 215.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. (No. 257.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment last made by the Lords agreed to.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. (No. 257.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been dispensed with) Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] (No. 215.)
Commons Amendment considered (on Motion), and agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

2. Trusts Amendment (Scotland).

3. Forged Transfers (No. 2).

4. Returning Officers (Scotland).

5. Commissioners for Oaths Act (1889) Amendment.

6. Slander of Women.

7. Turbary (Ireland).

8. Metalliferous Mines (Isle of Man).

9. Post Office Acts Amendment.

10. Public Health (Scotland) Acts Amendment.

11. Ranges.

1366

12. Local Registration of Title (Ireland).

13. Judicature Acts Amendment.

14. Western Highlands and Islands (Scotland) Works.

15. Expiring Laws Continuance.

16. Public Works Loans.

17. Redemption of Rent (Ireland).

18. London County Council (Money).

19. Highways and Bridges.

20. Land Registry (Middlesex Deeds).

21. Lunacy.

22. County Councils (Elections).

23. Penal Servitude.

24. Schools for Science and Art.

25. Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle).

26. Elementary Education.

27. Purchase of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland).

28. Factories and Workshops.

29. Public Health (London).

30. Coinage.

31. Foreign Marriages.

32. Statute Law Revision.

33. Labourers (Ireland) Acts Amendment.

34. Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act Amendment.

PROROGATION OF THE PARLIAMENT.
The Parliament was this day prorogued by Commission.
THE LORD CHANCELLORdelivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
My Lords and Gentlemen,
I am glad to be able to release you from the labours of a protracted Session.
My relations with all other Powers continue to be those of peace and amity.
A Convention has been concluded with the King of Portugal, and has been ratified, defining the boundaries which separate the dominions and the spheres of influence of the two Crowns in Eastern Africa. I have also entered into an Agreement with the King of Italy, by

1367
which the line has been fixed which separates the Protectorate of Italy in the North East of Africa from the British sphere of influence, and from the territory of Egypt.
I have made proposals to the President of the United States for submission to arbitration of the difference between us as to the seal fishery in Behring's Sea. The negotiations are far advanced, but they are not yet concluded. A suspension of the seal fishery in those waters for the present year has intermediately been agreed to between the two Governments, in order to prevent an excessive destruction of the species, which there is reason to apprehend.
The French Chambers have not yet approved of an Agreement between Myself and the French Republic for reference to arbitration of certain differences with respect to Newfoundland, which was signed during the present year.
The ratification of the Final Act of the Brussels Conference for the repression of the Slave Trade has also been postponed, and also the ratification of the North Sea Convention for the prevention of the sale of spirits at sea.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
I thank you for the provision you have made for the charge of the public service. I am glad that you have been able to devote a considerable sum to the mitigation of the burden which the Law of Compulsory Education has imposed upon the poorer portion of My people.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
The various measures which you have adopted in recent years for securing the observance of the Law in Ireland, and improving the general condition of that Country, have resulted in a marked abatement of agrarian offences, and a
1368
considerable advance in prosperity. The steps which have been taken to cope with the distress threatened by the serious failure of the potato crop in the poorest districts of the West of Ireland have proved effectual in averting the great calamity of famine. You have also passed a beneficial measure for dealing permanently with the congested districts of Ireland, which, it may be hoped, will, by fostering agriculture and stimulating the fishing industry, contribute largely to the prevention of similar dangers in the future.
The provisions for enabling occupying tenants to purchase their holdings, and the measure for facilitating the transfer of real property, in Ireland, will furnish the best guarantee for public security and order by increasing the class of small proprietors of land.
The Act which you have passed for imposing on the owners of land a direct liability for the payment of tithe rent-charge will remove a frequent cause of conflict between the occupiers and the tithe-owners, and will also afford relief to the tithe-payers in those cases in which it is most urgently required.
In response to the growing demands of commerce and agriculture, you have completed an important part of the work of simplifying and adjusting Railway Rates, the results of which will doubtless justify the heavy labour which it has involved.
The measures which you have passed for improving the Law with respect to factories and workshops, savings banks, and public health will, I am confident, conduce to the comfort and well-being of My people.
I trust that in a future Session you may be able to examine several questions of interest to which I have drawn your attention, but which the time at your disposal has not permitted you to approach.

1369
I pray that, in the discharge of your various duties throughout My Kingdom, you may be attended by the guidance and protection of Almighty God.
Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
After which,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid—
My Lords and Gentlemen,
By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in Her Majesty's Name and in obedience to Her Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday the Twentieth day of October next, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday the Twentieth day of October next.

POSTMEN'S PAY, &c.
Return ordered, "relating to Postmen's Pay, &c, in the year 1885, and as fixed in August, 1891."

LONDON.

Number of Postmen.

Scales of Pay.

Number of Postmen.

Other Emoluments.

Allowances during Sickness.

Uniform.

Holidays.

Medical attendance.

Pensions.

Miscellaneous.

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891

1885.

August 1891