Sitting of 24 July 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—(by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
    MR. P. STANHOPE: I rise to move—
    "That this House, in view of the dissatisfaction expressed by the trading community throughout the Country, while unwilling to decline to adopt the Report of the Select Committee, is of opinion that its conclusions do not afford a final or equitable settlement of Railway Rates and Charges, and that further Amendments in relief trade are urgently required."
    I am sorry that this important matter should have been postponed until so late a period of the Session. It has become, in consequence, a serious question with the traders what course they ought to take to obtain an amendment of some of the provisions contained in these orders. If there had been sufficient time, instead of the Motion which stands in my name, there would have been a Motion to negative the Provisional Orders altogether, and to refuse to adopt the Report of the Joint Committee. But having regard to the fact that these Bills have been the subject of consideration for so long a period, that they do contain valuable provisions, that for the first time they codify the different laws which deal with railway rates and charges, and bring into one measure what at present is only to be found in something like 1,200 Acts of Parliament—having regard to those facts, and that advantages will undoubtedly be derived by certain classes of traders, instead of meeting the Bills with a direct negative, we propose to allow the Report to be adopted, but to record our condemnation of many of its provisions, and our intention to raise the question again at
    270
    the earliest opportunity. The first point on which I propose to make a remark has reference to the Department presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I think that the attitude taken up from the beginning of this controversy by the Board of Trade has been the cause of much of the dissatisfaction which exists in regard to the settlement of these rates and charges. The House will remember that the agitation which gave rise to these Bills extended over a long series of years, and it was not until 1888 that the Railway Traffic Act was referred to a Grand Committee, of which I had the honour to be a Member. The question then arose as to what tribunal was to be erected to draw up a scheme of charges and rates between the Railway Companies and the traders. Many of the members of the Grand Committee thought that an independent tribunal ought to be established to draw up a scheme which should be submitted to that House, and that the Board of Trade should be left outside, and able therefore to espouse and support the general cause of the traders. But instead of taking this course Her Majesty's Government and the Board of Trade took the responsibility upon themselves, and the Board of Trade kept the power of drawing up the schedules for the classification of rates and charges. Prom that moment the Board of Trade became so hampered in their action that, instead of being the official representatives of the traders throughout the country, fighting their battle and doing their best to secure their interests, they found themselves with their hands tied and unable to do anything more than support the general conclusions which were arrived at by the special tribunal, over which Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle presided with much ability and industry. We thought, however, that the tribunal was wrong in many essential particulars, and when the Report came before the House on the Second Reading of the Provisional Orders Bills, I took the liberty of discussing it, and raised a question of principle in regard to terminals. The President of the Board of Trade then urged that it was an inconvenient time to discuss this matter of detail, and that it would be better to refer it without further debate to the Joint Committee

    271
    a subsequent opportunity being afforded for discussion. The consequence has been that all these most important Bills, affecting the trade of the country from one end to the other, have really not been examined at all by this House. In fact, there are only five Members of this House who have any special cognisance of the subject or who have taken any special interest in drawing up these very important Provisional Orders. Having regard to the great dissatisfaction which undoubtedly exists in the country, I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if even now he were to retard the passing of these Bills into law until next Session. The Provisional Orders themselves contain in Clause 2 of the Schedule a stipulation that they should not come into force until August 1, 1892. Therefore, 13 months would elapse from the present time and the date when the new rates and charges would come into actual operation, so that the Railway Companies would suffer no inconvenience if the Provisional Orders were held over until next year, when the House and the country would have had a better opportunity of fully discussing them. These are the remarks which I desire to make as to the general conduct of the Board of Trade. I come now to other matters, to which I wish to invite the attention of the House. The Provisional Orders were referred to a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons. The Railway Companies appeared before that Committee with a vast array of legal talent, which their great resources enabled them to obtain, and with a remarkable degree of cohesion and unanimity of opinion. In fact, it cannot be denied that the Railway Companies have already a right of entry into the Board of Trade, which the traders have, of course, not established. They go in and come out as a matter of course. It was, perhaps, not unnatural for the Committee, on finding that there were differences of opinion among those who represented the traders, to fall back upon the suggestions of the Board of Trade as a reasonable compromise. There was not that kind of concert and arrangement between the traders which would have added to their strength, and the Railway Companies took advantage of the divided state of feeling, and squared
    272
    certain most important interests which enabled them to obtain from the Joint Committee larger concessions. The first thing the Joint Committee did was to confirm absolutely and entirely the terminal station charges. When the question was last before the House, there was a case before the Law Courts which has since been decided. That decision does not absolutely determine the Company's claim, but it establishes their right to claim terminal station charges over certain portions of their system. For instance, the London and North-Western have a claim over 800 miles, and the Great Western over 900 out of the 1,200 which constitutes the length of their railways. The decision, therefore, only confirms the right of the companies to impose terminal charges over the smaller part of their system. Yet, acting upon the advice of the Board of Trade, the Joint Committee have now imposed general station terminal charges upon the trading community for all time to come. I am willing to admit that in order to obtain uniformity the step taken by the Joint Committee may, under the circumstances, have been wise; but, inasmuch as the Committee have now accorded to the companies what was a very problematical right before, I think the traders have a right to ask that there should be a correspondingly large diminution of maximum rates and charges over the whole railway system. I now come to the second point, namely, the way in which the maximum rates and charges have been dealt with. The railway company's contention from the beginning has been that whatever is done ought not to interfere with their dividends, but my own view is that the basis of charge should be the actual rates now imposed. I admit that the agriculturists have, by the action of the Joint Committee, obtained valuable concessions, especially in regard to the carriage of milk, and considerable advantage has also been gained by the action of the Committee in regard to smalls. The latter concession is of great interest to small traders throughout the country, but it is more than counterbalanced by the general imposition of terminal charges. I come now to the traders represented by the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, and certainly the attitude of the Chairman of the Joint Committee towards

    273
    that interest had the effect of obliging the Conference to withdraw from the Committee altogether. The result is that in these Bills a number of curious clauses have been introduced which have had the effect of squaring—for I can use no other expression—certain large manufacturing interests while the small traders receive a very scanty measure of justice indeed. My contention is that if any advantage was to be given it should have been given to all and not to one large group of traders. The iron interest was represented before the Committee by the South Staffordshire Association, and the only result of their action has been the introduction of a provision which gives the traders a right in the case of undamageable iron to go back to the London and North-Western Act of 1846, which contains special low rates for unmanufactured iron. Having given this special concession to two or three large ironmasters in the district, the Committee then proceeded to raise the general charges upon manufactured iron. (Mr. Hanbury: No.) The consequence of the action of the Committee has been to transfer a large number of articles from class B to class C, thereby increasing the charge by from 30 to 40 per cent. The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I maintain that it is so. And I would ask why the Northamptonshire, the North Staffordshire, and other iron works are to suffer simply because certain gentlemen, by a job, have been able to obtain special advantages for themselves. I come now to one other class of articles, the Representatives of which in this House will, I have no doubt, raise their voices in opposition to the way in which it has been dealt with. I refer to the timber trade. Heretofore, timber has always, from time immemorial, been charged according to measurement, but now the Committee have introduced a system of charging by weight that will disturb the whole timber trade of the country. I think it will be found that there is no place in the country where the timber trade exists, which has not sent either telegrams or deputations to its representatives, calling upon them to take steps to oppose the decision of the Committee. From the constituency which I represent every kind of complaint has
    274
    come; and so also from Walsall, represented by the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Forster) who will, I believe, second this Resolution. I can only say that it is by no means satisfactory that now, in 1891, after the agitation which preceded the Act of 1888, and after legislation which was not then promoted by the Railway Companies, but by the traders of the country, who thought there ought to be a large reduction of rates, we are called upon practically by the course proposed to bring back the rates to those of 1846. In such circumstances, let me ask where the progress is which, it is alleged, has been made in railway legislation during the last 40 years. We find ourselves precisely in the same position—plus a station terminal charge. The Railway Companies and their shareholders used to talk a great deal at their meetings about confiscation; but there is an ominous silence on that point now, and I venture to say that if these Bills pass there will be a loud chorus of jubilation heard among them. Every trade and interest, with one notable exception—that of a class of agriculturists who are satisfied with certain of the provisions—protests against the Bills, and I ask the House to seriously pause before it makes permanent a state of things in regard to rates and charges which will act as a heavy burden on the trade of the country. While not wishing to reject the Report of the Committee, or to retard the progress of the Bills, I ask the House, in accepting the Report, to affirm, at the same time, its dissatisfaction with many of the provisions, and to express an intention to take an early opportunity next year to introduce into the Provisional Order Bills such changes or modifications in the interests of the traders of the country as I think they have a right to demand from a democratic House of Commons.
    SIR C. FORSTER: I beg to second the Amendment. I quite agree with the view of my hon. Friend, that the best course will be to pass the Report, and to hold over the consideration of the question until next Session, when it can be more fully and conveniently discussed.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, in view of the dissatisfaction expressed

    275
    by the trading community throughout the country, while unwilling to decline to adopt the Report of the Select Committee, is of opinion that its conclusions do not afford a final or equitable settlement of Railway Rates and Charges, and that further Amendments in relief of trade are urgently required."—(Mr. Philip Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope) has stated that he does not wish to retard the progress of the Bills, and the hon. Member who has just sat down, who has a wide knowledge of traders as well as of the Railway Companies, and whose opinion on this and other matters I greatly respect, has remarked that it is desired that the Bills should be passed this Session. But the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wednesbury, if adopted, would infallibly kill the Bills for the present Session. What does the Amendment of the hon. Member say? It says—
    "That this House, in view of the dissatisfaction expressed by the trading community throughout the country, while unwilling to decline to adopt the Report of the Select Committee, is of opinion that its conclusions do not afford a final or equitable settlement of Railway Rates and Charges, and that further Amendments in relief of trade are urgently required."
    The premiss is that the Bills do not afford a final or equitable settlement, and the obvious conclusion is that they should not be proceeded with at all; but I will give the House briefly some reasons why it should not take the course the hon. Member proposes. I must recall to the House the origin of the question. As the hon. Member has himself stated, in 1883 and subsequently, there was a unanimous feeling in Parliament, and I think in the country also, that the maximum rates and charges of the various Companies were in such a chaotic condition that it was absolutely necessary there should be some revision and codification of the powers which Parliament had conferred upon the Railway Companies. In 1888 Parliament accordingly, with practical unanimity, passed a section in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of that Session, empowering such codification and revision
    276
    to be made. The first step was that the Railway Companies should be called on to submit a classification of goods and schedules of their proposed maximum rates to the Board of Trade, and when that was done objections were to be invited from the traders. Those objections were subsequently to be heard by the Board of Trade, and, finally, a Provisional Order was to be framed, based upon the opinions of the Board of Trade, submitted to Parliament, and then the matter was to be considered by a Joint Committee of the two Houses. It has taken all the time since August, 1888, to go through these various matters. The House will admit that the subject is one of enormous complication. It is also of enormous importance to the trade of the country that there should be a revision of the law on the matter. The proposals of the Railway Companies, with the objections of the traders, were inquired into by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle in a sitting of 85 days, during which both sides were heard through some of the ablest Counsel in the Kingdom, and it will be admitted, doubtless, that that inquiry was conducted with great pains, patience, and ability. Further statements were made on both sides to the Board of Trade, and were considered by myself in conjunction with Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle, and the result of our labours was submitted to Parliament early this Session in the shape of the nine Provisional Orders now on the Paper relating to the nine great Companies having termini in the Metropolis. A Debate, originated by the hon. Member, took place on the Second Reading of the Bills, but the House unanimously resolved that it was desirable that the Bills should be submitted to a Joint Committee. That Committee was appointed, and I venture to say that a more impartial or more competent tribunal was never appointed by Parliament to consider a question of this kind. The hon. Member has referred to what he termed the arbitrary conduct of the Chairman of the Committee, but a more able or impartial man, as everybody who knows the Duke of Richmond will readily believe, could not have been obtained for the position. His experience and his disposition, if I may say so,

    277
    specially fitted him for such a work, and he performed it admirably in the interests of the country. The other Members of the House of Lords on the Committee were also well qualified for the position, and as to the Members of this House upon it, they were not appointed at the instance of the Government, but by the Committee of Selection. The hon. Member for Aberdeen was one of the Members; he is a great authority upon such questions, and he was certainly not biassed in favour of the Railway Companies. The hon. Members for Preston and Hereford, who have great experience on Private Bill Committees, were Members; and they had able Colleagues in the hon. Member for Bath and the hon. Member who represents one of the Divisions of Dublin (Mr. T. A. Dickson). And now, after that Committee has sat for 48 days, after they have heard the whole case on both sides, and have adopted the conclusions set forth in the Provisional Orders, the hon. Member practically asks that the whole of this labour should be rendered useless, and the question restored to the position in which it was in 1880. I venture to ask the House, if it cannot, in a technical and complicated matter of this kind, practically accept the conclusions of such a Committee, how is it possible that any legislation can ever take place on the subject? If Bills of this kind are to be discussed and considered in the House itself, it would not only be an innovation on all previous practice—for these questions of rates and charges have always been settled by Select Committees, and never considered in the House—but it would impose on the House a task which would alone occupy the whole of a Session, and render it impossible to transact any other business. Therefore, if the House cannot practically accept the decisions of such a Committee on such a question, I believe legislation on the subject will be absolutely impossible, and the persons who would suffer by that would not be the Railway Companies, but the traders of the country. The only real objection, so far as I know, to the further progress of the Bills has come from a meeting of Lancashire and Cheshire traders, who have desired the hon. Member to bring forward his Amendment. But those
    278
    traders do not object to any of the clauses of the Bills; they simply object to some of the conveyance rates. The Committee, however, lowered those rates to the advantage of the traders, though, perhaps, not to the extent desired, and if the decision of the Committee is not accepted they will not be altered at all. It certainly was the intention of Parliament in dealing with the question that not only the actual rates charged should be considered in filing the new maximum rates, but also the powers which Parliament has given to the companies in return for the construction of the lines. The Committee have justly and reasonably taken those matters into consideration in fixing the rates of conveyance. There are some points in these Bills on which I may say, after conference with the Members of the Committee who are in the House, I think the House may, without doing injustice on either side, make some alterations. I refer specially to the question of the timber trade, and to the exceptional rates proposed to be given on certain lines in Wales. On both of those points I shall not be prepared to resist Amendments which I think may meet the views of the parties concerned, but on the main provisions of the Bills as to station and service terminals, short distance clauses, classification, and rates, I must again urge the House to accept the decision of the Committee. I will only say, inconclusion, that I do not think any useful object can be served by the postponement of these Bills. The only result would be that the Board of Trade would again, next Session, have to propose them to the House; and they would again be submitted to a Joint Committee under the provisions of the Statute. But how could that Joint Committee be expected to devote much time or trouble to the work after this House had paid so poor a compliment to the Members who have this year spent 48 long sittings on it as absolutely to decline to proceed with their proposals. Is it fair for this House—I do not speak as a Member of the Government, but of the House—to treat hon. Members who have given their time and ability to such an extent to the service of the country, as if they were incompetent to conduct the inquiry with which they have been intrusted,

    279
    and as if their conclusions were to be of no effect? I hope the House will not continue the Debate, and will not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Wednesbury, but will proceed at once to the consideration of the Bills, and I will undertake on the points to which I have alluded to do my best to satisfy the reasonable wishes of the House.
    MR. ATKINSON: I was glad to hear the last remark of the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that he was not speaking on behalf of the Government. That will, I hope, set at liberty the 30 Gentlemen who sit on those Benches. In my opinion there are provisions in these Bills which will kill the timber trade of the United Kingdom, and therefore all the right hon. Gentleman's talk about compliment or no compliment to the gentlemen who have sat for 48 days on the Committee must go by the board. They know nothing about the timber trade. I have known the timber trade for 45 years, and I agree with a correspondent of mine who says that rather than the Bills before the House should pass as they stood, it would be better to kick them out altogether.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have already stated that I am perfectly ready to accept the Amendments on the Paper which affect the timber trade.
    MR. ATKINSON: I am afraid that that is not sufficient to meet all the requirements of the case, but I am glad to accept the Amendments indicated by the President of the Board of Trade on account, and as an instalment. Still, I heartily support the Resolution of the hon. Member opposite, because I am determined to prevent the Bills passing by every power I possess. If the timber trade is to be knocked on the head, I think the working men of this country will want to know the reason why. I believe the difficulty could easily be got over. If the President of the Board of Trade would refer the Bills to a Select Committee on Tuesday, I am satisfied that by Wednesday such Committee would arrive at a decision which the House would be prepared to accept. I make this proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know who the Parliamentary Leader is; we do not appear to have one just now. If the
    280
    right hon. Gentleman will consent to refer the Bills to a Select Committee, I will resume my seat at once; but if not, I am prepared to substantiate my case. I may say that I have as much right to be heard on this question as any Railway Director, or as the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Sir J. Pease) who acts as the fugleman of the trades union of Railway Directors, for out of the nine Companies whose Bills are before the House to-day, I am personally interested in six. I warn the House not to pass these Bills in their present shape, and I will certainly use every means in my power to prevent them from passing.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon, &c.): I feel bound to say that unless concessions which will meet the views of the slate trade in Wales are obtained from the President of the Board of Trade, it will be my duty to propose certain Amendments which stand in my name. We strongly object to the present principle of classification, and also to the high terminal charges.
    MR. T. ROBINSON: There can be no doubt that this is a very important matter, to which the traders of the country are looking forward with hope. I regret to say that in different parts of the country great dissatisfaction exists in nearly all the important branches of industry. One thing that they very much object to is the terminal charges. With regard to the timber trade, I think something should be done to conciliate that trade. If serious injury is inflicted on the timber trade it will be a very serious thing. For many years the railways have carried timber by measure. They are now to be compelled to carry by weight. ["No!"] Seven million tons of timber are imported into this country every year, and we have the English timber in addition. The timber merchants buy by measure, and I never understood that the Railway Companies have complained that they were required to carry by measure. I think that some concession should be made in this particular case. I would suggest that the Bill should be limited to two or three years. If it is not a success, then there would be an opportunity to make fresh alterations. No advantage is at present taken of the Railway Companies, and the belief of the timber merchants is that if you

    281
    get rid of the practice of carrying by measurement, you will virtually destroy the trade. I hope it is not too late to make an appeal to the Government to give some special concession to the trading interests of the country. The President of the Board of Trade says he is prepared to make concessions, but I am afraid they will not go far enough. The timber merchants will certainly not cease their agitation in the hope of getting further concessions another year. I would suggest in the meantime that the timber trade should be altogether excluded from the Bills this year, and as they are not to come into operation for more than twelve months, there would be an ample opportunity for full consideration. I intend to support the Resolution of the hon. Member for Wednesbury, and if the President of the Board of Trade is not satisfied with its terms, I have no doubt my hon. Friend would consent to alter them. We are all interested in the trade of the country, and we feel that it would be better to increase its advantages rather than to curtail them.
    MR. DILLWYN: The President of the Board of Trade has reminded the House that the legislation with reference to rates and charges did not arise from any action on the part of the Railway Companies. There was a general complaint that the rates were unequal and harsh. The Railway Companies, I believe, were willing and anxious to do what was right, and to bow to the decision of the Board of Trade. The Provisional Order Bills were referred to a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which is admitted on all hands to be an exceptionally good one, and the result has been that we have now a number of Bills under discussion. As a Railway Director I would say we are willing to act loyally by what has been done. I believe that great benefits will result to the traders, and in some respects to the Railway Companies; and it should be remembered that the President of the Board of Trade has expressed his readiness to re-consider the questions of rates on timber and the objections of Welsh traders. It is far better, I think, to settle this long-vexed question at once than to carry it over from year to year. A postponement would only increase the difficulty, and
    282
    we should be in no better a position next Session to arrive at a settlement. Having referred the matter to a Select Committee, I think we should loyally abide by the decision of that Committee.
    MR. LAFONE: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who has brought this Motion forward is representing any section of the traders of this country, but it is a fact that at a representative meeting of traders, which was held at the Westminster Palace Hotel, it was decided that, although these Bills might be improved in many respects, yet no steps should be taken that would endanger their passing, seeing that they contain many provisions which would prove beneficial to the trade. No doubt there are certain instances in which the rates and charges have been increased, and it will probably be desirable that they should undergo further consideration; but so far as the question of terminals is concerned, it has been settled, both by the Board of Trade and the joint Committee, and I am afraid that it cannot be re-opened. I think the Committee did not fully appreciate the importance of the question. Speaking generally, I believe that considerable-benefits have been gained by the traders, and particularly by those interested in agricultural pursuits. If the Bills are found to work badly hereafter, an amending Bill can be introduced. Perhaps I ought to point out that although there is a large increase in some of the rates, yet in all cases they are maximum rates, and not the actual rates which the Railway Companies may charge. I believe that the Railway Directors and Manager shave no intention of putting the traders of the country in a worse position than they occupied before. It will be of enormous advantage for the trader to be able to turn to a complete classification and ascertain at once what the rates are and what the carriage of his goods will cost from one station to another. He is unable to do that at present. The only existing classification is the clearing house classification, and no one unacquainted with the details of that classification would be able to find out what he ought to be charged. In future the trader will know precisely what the charges are, and I am satisfied that the

    283
    Railway Companies in their own interests will deal fairly by the traders. I am quite certain that, so far as the Railway Companies are concerned, they would only be too glad to see the Resolution of the right hon. Member for Wednesbury passed and these Bills be hung up. I certainly will not be a party to the bringing about of any such result.
    MR. HUNTER: I hope the hon. Member for Wednesbury will not press his Motion, because, although it does not profess to be hostile to the Bill, yet the House could not logically pass the measure if it accepted the Motion. I wish to give one reason which is conclusive to my mind why the House should pass these Bills. Prior to the year 1885 I should probably have been of a different opinion. When in 1884 the Railway Companies introduced Bills with powers to impose terminal charges, such Bills, owing to the opposition of the traders, were thrown out; but the decision in Hall's case in 1885 altered that state of things. By that decision it was held that the railways are entitled to charge terminals in addition to the maximum charge, and the result is that the Railway Companies are allowed to charge any sum they please. I, therefore, gladly accept such limitations upon the power of the Railway Companies to make charges as are contained in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion.
    (4.26.) The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 64.—(Div. List, No.373.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name, and I think it will save the time of the House if I mention the Amendments which my Colleagues and I especially desire the right hon. Gentleman to accept. The first is the exclusion of the Welsh Railways from Scale 1, Class A; the second is their exclusion from Scale 1, Class B; and the third is that which relates to terminals. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts these, we are prepared to withdraw the rest of our Amendments. This is a Bill of very great importance. It will injuriously
    284
    affect the slate industries of North Wales, and in the course of the next two months it will be impossible for the traders to state the case before the Railway Commission, or to get the reductions to which they think they are entitled.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the words "passing of this Act," in order to insert the words "first day of January, 1893."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'passing of this Act' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think I need say very much about this Amendment. The hon. Member proposes to extend the time before the Bill comes into operation. Such a proposal is certainly not to the interest of the traders, and I do not think it is to the interest of the Railway Companies. I cannot undertake to accept any proposal for special terminals for particular lines, the terminals having been fixed by the Committee for application uniformly throughout the country. With regard to excepting certain Welsh lines from the high conveyance rates, I think that some concession may be made on that point.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend that to Class A?
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not prepared to say that.
    MR. ATKINSON: I beg to support this Amendment, on the principle of voting against these Bills from beginning to end.
    MR. T. ELLIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in order to facilitate the speedy passage of this measure, he will make a concession with regard to the exceptions from Class A. I think one of the main objects of the Bill is to protect traders in districts where there is little competition. In places where there is severe competition the rates have been beaten down, but in the outlying districts, and more especially in North and South Wales, where the competition is comparatively small, these high rates will be stereotyped by Parliament. It seems to me that this will defeat one of the main purposes of all

    285
    the agitation of the last four or five years.
    *MR. SPEAKER: These remarks are not in order on the present Amendment, but at the same time, of course, such observations can be made with the indulgence of the House.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am bound by the decisions of the Select Committee. If the Members of the Committee will consent to the omission of the special rates in Class A, in the case of the lines to which the hon. Member refers, I will raise no objection.
    MR. ATKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also assent to the elimination of the timber trade?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In reference to the next Amendment that stands in my name, I will appeal to the Members of the Committee to state their views respecting the schedule of Class A. I am prepared to withdraw my Amendments as to terminals if the right hon. Gentleman consents to accept those on Class A.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have said to the hon. Member all I can say.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 31 (Schedule of maximum rates and charges), to leave out sub-head 3.—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
    Question proposed, "That sub-head 3 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. HANBURY: As I understand it, the main objection of the hon. Member is not so much to the terminals as to the special rates on Welsh lines. Surely that would be more properly discussed on a subsequent clause.
    MR. T. ELLIS: We object to the rates in Class A, and we also object to the terminal station charges. If we do not get a concession as to the rates, we hope we shall be able to do so as to the terminal charges.
    MR. HANBURY: As far as I can see, the Amendment of the hon. Member could very well come in on page 11.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand from the President of the Board of Trade, that he is prepared to except the North Wales lines from Scale 2, Class A.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That is so.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: I must disclaim the slightest desire to obstruct the Bill, but I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 20, after the words "other light timber," to insert the words "and 60 ft. of deals, battens, and boards."—(Sir A. Rollit.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I approve of this Amendment, but I cannot regard it as a concession of any importance, unless a later Amendment which stands in my name is also accepted. The Amendment embodies what is known in the trade as the St. Petersburgh standard, which is, no doubt, a fair standard. The proposal will only operate if timber is carried by measurement weight, and it becomes absolutely useless if by other clauses of the Bill you compel traders to consign timber by machine weight.
    MR. ATKINSON: I quite agree with the hon. Member that the concession is acceptable but not sufficient. This I can prove by means of a letter from the witness of whom I spoke, and who is quite willing to give evidence before a Committee. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade what authority he has for making a change which will prove ruinous to the great timber trade of this country? If the right hon. Gentleman, as President of the Board of Trade, has a conscience, which I do not believe [cries of "Oh!"]—as Member for Bristol he has a very good conscience, no doubt—if, as President, he has a conscience, it ought to have troubled him on this point. As far as I am concerned I will obstruct and divide whenever there is a chance on these Bills [cries of "Oh!"] Well, I will say I feel it my duty to divide on these Bills without using the other word. It comes very badly from Gentlemen opposite—
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment.
    MR. ATKINSON: Yes, I will.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I have warned the hon. Gentleman that he must conduct himself according to the usages of this House.
    MR. ATKINSON: Some time ago, when I had a Bill which I wanted to carry with reference to seamen's votes, I was made to walk 16 times round the Lobbies—20 minutes each time. [Cries of "Order!"]
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not keeping to the question.
    MR. ATKINSON: Well, then, I will make those remarks in the next speech I deliver. I intend to divide the House upon this Motion and upon every other Motion which goes in the same direction.
    MR. CRAIG: I would suggest that "cubic" should be inserted before "feet."
    MR. HANBURY: What the Committee did was to provide that so many feet should go to a ton. I think we must add after "light timber" in line 20, "other than deals, battens, and boards."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 20, after "timber," to insert, "other than deals, battens, and boards."—(Sir A. Rollit.)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg now to move the words that originally stood in my name, with the addition of the word "cubic."
    Amendment proposed, after the words last inserted, to insert the words "and 66 cubic feet of deals, battens, and boards."—(Sir A. Rollit.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ATKINSON: There seems to be nothing for me but to divide the House against this Amendment, which I will do.
    MR. T. ROBINSON: I would point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment is really in favour of the argument he has been using.
    (5.8.) Question put. The House proceeded to a Division.
    Mr. ATKINSON was appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as second Teller, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I think a serious injustice will be caused by the
    288
    Bill if the provisions regarding the carrying of timber are insisted on. My Amendment will meet the difficulty in the case of all timber the carriage of which requires more than one wagon. If the Bill is left as it is, the timber trade will be absolutely at the mercy of the Railway Companies. My Amendment is as follows:—
    "All timber requiring two or more wagons for conveyance mast in all cases be charged at measurement weight with a minimum charge as for one ton per wagon, whether carrying part of the load, or used as a safety wagon only."
    I understand that the word "minimum" in the Amendment has caused some misgiving in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I think it arises solely from ignorance as to the operation of the Amendment. The operation would be this: Supposing that timber is carried upon two trucks, the weight of the timber must be ascertained by measurement; and if it should only be 1½ tons, then the Railway Company would be enabled to charge as for 2 tons. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, is prepared to accept what he calls the spirit of this Amendment. But the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to substitute for it would have this effect: Whereas my Amendment establishes uniformity and requires the trader to consign his timber by weight ascertained by measurement, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman will give an option to the trader either to assign it by actual machine weight, or by weight computed in the ordinary way by measurement. I confess I do not like the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment so well as my own, but I am not disposed to divide the House on the matter, and though I cannot accept the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, I shall content myself with simply moving my Amendment in the words on the Paper without taking a Division.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 24, after the word "being," to insert the words "All timber requiring two or more wagons for conveyance must in all cases be charged at measurement weight, with a minimum charge as for one ton per wagon, whether carrying part of the load, or used as a safety wagon only."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I presume the right hon. Gentleman will propose his Amendment.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, at the proper time.
    Other Amendments made.
    *MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to move the Amendment in my name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 18, column 2, line 19, after the words "limestone in bulk," to insert the words "lime in bulk and loam."—(Mr. Pritchard Morgan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. The alteration of one article in classification will lead to the alteration of others; indeed, if the House once undertakes to interfere with the classification it would be an endless task. Many hon. Members can hardly be aware of the extraordinary and intricate way in which these matters are mixed up with one another, and hon. Members who move the alterations in classification can hardly be aware themselves of the results to which their action may lead.
    Question put, and negatived.
    *MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. As far as I can understand the system of classification, everything that comes from the earth in a natural condition, which is not in any way manufactured, or which has not been made of great value or damageable by expenditure, is to be placed in the other class with coal and iron ore. Now, we have large zinc and copper mines in Wales, and zinc and copper are sent away to great distances, and if one class of mineral ore is to be in a different classification from another, it will unjustly handicap the industry of mining for that ore. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way be accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 18, column 2, line 24, after the words "night soil," to insert the words "peat,
    290
    and ores of gold, silver, copper, tin, sulphur, and zinc, dressed or undressed."—(Mr. Pritchard Morgan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is impossible to compare iron ore with gold. In dealing with the several ores the Committee have classified them differently.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the next Amendment, with regard to slates, &c.?
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We have practically largely reduced the charges for slates by the alterations we have made.
    MR. P. STANHOPE: I have an Amendment to move which is not on the Paper, namely, in page 19, line 41, after "bar iron or steel," to leave out the words "exceeding 1 cwt. per bar." The restriction if it be maintained will affect a large proportion of the iron trade.
    Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 41, to leave out the words "exceeding 1 cwt. per bar."—(Mr. Philip Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Bill."
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will consider that in consultation with the Members of the Committee, and if I have their approval, I shall not object to the omission of the words.
    MR. HANBURY: As far as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever, and I do not think any real damage will accrue to the Railway Companies.
    SIR J. BAILEY: I think the proposal ought to be considered as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. P. STANHOPE: The next Amendment is in connection with the transfer of a large number of articles connected with the iron industry from Class B to Class C by the decision of the Committee. This transfer was apparently made because the Committee thought they had made a considerable number of concessions by introducing

    291
    provisions giving certain districts the right to revert back to old Railway Acts. The effect of the transfer is to increase the charge, and it is very much resented by the people in the iron trade, who are desirous that the House should restore these articles to the same class as they were in on the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 19, column 2, line 14, to insert the words:—"Angle bars or plates; bar, e.o.h.p.; beams; bolts and nuts. Bridgework—cantilevers; cross and longitudinal girders: floor-plates; girders, whole or in part; joists; lattice bars; screw and other piles, both hollow and solid; struts and ties; bundles of bars; caissons; columns; engine bed plates; girders; girder bars. Hoop-iron; hoop-steel; hoops, iron; hoops, weldless, in the rough; nail-rods and sheets; nails and spikes. Plates—Annealing; armour; black, in boxes or packed; boiler; furnaca; hoe-head, in the rough; plough, in the rough; railway fish; rough flooring; ships; shovel; tank. Railway carriage and wagon work; railway chairs; railway points, crossings, or joints; railway rails; rivets; rods, common; rods, wire, rolled, not drawn; scrap, minimum load three tons per truck; sheet-iron, not packed; sleepers; tyres and tyre-bars, in the rough; wire (iron) not packed or wrappered; wire-iron, rolled in rods or coils, not packed; wire (steel) not packed or wrappered; pitwood for mining purposes."—(Mr. Philip Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HANBURY: This clause constitutes one of the most important Amendments which the Select Committee made on the original proposals of the Board of Trade. Two things weighed with the Committee in taking the articles in question out of one class and putting them in another. In the first place, the articles in Class B are, for the most part, not manufactured articles at all. Class B has such things in it as gypsum, granite, lime in bulk, and so on. It would be ridiculous to put in the same class articles of a manufactured character. But we had a much stronger eason for striking out these articles. All of them stood in the original Schedule of the Board of Trade, both in Class B and in Class C, the difference between the two being that when a trader declared the articles to be undamageable they would go into the cheaper class. There was a serious objection made to that. It was a totally new principle, and one that was applied to no other
    292
    articles whatever throughout the whole Schedule. I am not quite sure how far the Amendment of the hon. Member goes. Does he propose to put these articles back again in Class B as undamageable articles or as damageable articles?
    MR. P. STANHOPE: It would be of advantage to these industries if they were put in Class B as damageable articles, but I am quite willing to divide them into two classes, and treat some as damageable and the rest as undamageable.
    MR. HANBURY: The language of the Board of Trade was very ambiguous. It was "if and when declared by the trader to be undamageable." All the old difficulties between the Railway Company and the South Staffordshire traders arose on what constituted "damageable" and what "undamageable." If there is one thing more than another which Parliament should try to avoid it is ambiguity and litigation as to the meaning of the language used. Apart from that, the proviso is absolutely nugatory, because it was contended by the counsel for the Railway Company, and I do not think it was denied on the other side, that under the Act of 1854, although a trader declared that certain goods were undamageable, and so got them carried at the cheaper rate, still, if damage actually occurred in transit, the Railway Company might not be held free from liability. That was grossly unfair to the Railway Company. What the Committee, therefore, really did was to take away from the trader the right of declaring the articles in question at "owners' risk" or "undamageable," and so of having them carried at the lower rate, but if carried on the old conditions, as damageable, the Committee left them precisely as they were left by the Board of Trade. What will be the effect of the proposal of the Board of Trade even upon the iron rates of the Railway Companies? The losses of the companies will be considerable. Mr. Findlay, the traffic manager of the London and North-Western, gave the Committee most excellent evidence on this particular point, evidence which, I think, will be absolutely conclusive to the House that the Committee could not have acted otherwise than they have acted. Mr. Findlay showed that the

    293
    company would lose on iron and steel £27,000, or 1 per cent. of their nett dividend. With this fact before us we cannot reduce the rates lower than we have done. Mr. Findlay said also that the Provisional Order would cut down the low, exceptional rates which had been adopted to foster the trade of the country in certain cases. That was admittted by the Board of Trade themselves. But it is not only the London and North Western line that will be affected. The other great mineral lines will also suffer. The Great Western will lose £10,000, and the loss on the Midland will actually amount to £47,000. That is a very heavy fine indeed when it is put on top of losses on the coal traffic. The evidence we had before us was that the most important thing we had to keep in Class 3 was bar-iron. We have kept it in Class 3, and we have treated it much more favourably to the traders than the Board of Trade had done. I do not quite know where the opposition brought forward by the hon. Member comes from, because practically all we did was almost agreed to before the Committee. The iron interest was represented by the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, which stood aloof in this matter, by the Mansion House Committee, who said they would offer no opposition, and by Swansea and South Wales Traders, who said practically that if bar and steel and iron rails were left in Class B, they would have no objection. We did not meet the whole of their demands, but we did as far as iron was concerned. Sir A. Hickman, who with great ability argued the case of the South Staffordshire traders, was satisfied with our proposals. I think the Hon. Member (Mr. P. Stanhope) is acting in opposition to the wishes of the great body of iron traders themselves, and I hope that he will support the Committee on this point.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The proposal I have now to make is intended to give substantial effect to the proposal made by the hon. Member for South Islington (Sir A. Rollit) a little while ago. This Bill contains two classes of rates for timber, one class applicable to timber, the weight of which is ascertained
    294
    by placing it on the machine, and another applicable to timber, of which the weight is computed from the measurement. The rates for timber carried by computed weight are 25 per cent. in excess of that of which the weight is ascertained by machining. The system of computation, by which so many cubic feet of timber are supposed to go to the ton, is a rough-and-ready mode of ascertaining the weight; but, as between the two parties to the transaction, it is perfectly fair. It is true that sometimes the computed weight will tell against the company, and at other times against the trader, but, like all general averages, it is as fair to one party as to the other. The object of the provision by which a much higher rate is charged for timber of which the weight has been computed than for timber which has been weighed by machinery is to force traders in all cases to consign timber by actual machine weight. That will, however, upset all existing arrangements in the timber trade. At present timber is bought and sold by measurement and shipped by measurement, and, with a few trifling exceptions, it is carried on always by measurement. This proposal will therefore have the effect of revolutionising the timber trade. In order to some extent to meet the views which I understand were pressed by the officials of the Board of Trade-in the inquiry which took place on this matter, I am disposed to limit my Amendment to deals, battens, and boards. It is perhaps hardly necessary for me to set forth in detail the fact that there are greater objections to the computed measurement system in the case of rough timber than in the case of deals, battens, and boards. I am told that deals, battens, and boards amount to 75 per cent. of the timber trade, and I propose to insert "deals, battens, and boards, whether by machine or measurement weight."
    Amendment proposed, in page 20, Class C, after the word "Cutch," in column 2, line 44, to insert the words "deals, battens, and boards, whether by machine or measurement weight."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    Question proposed, "That these words-be there inserted."
    SIR A. ROLLIT: I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to accept the Amendment. At the same time, as the right hon. Gentleman has dealt so reasonably with the point raised by my Amendment, I could not see my way to vote against him if he opposed the present Amendment. The timber trade is one of the most important in the country, and there is a very strong feeling on this question. There are two reasons why this revised classification is desired. In the first place, it is the principle of the Board of Trade that there should be an option on the part of consignors between machine weight and measurement weight. But I would suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that the option ostensibly given by the Bill is not a real option, because timber carried by machine weight is placed in a better scale of classification, and hence it must be sent by machine weight. In dealing with deals, battens, and boards, as compared with other timber, a saving is effected because of the facility with which they can be handled. I believe deals and the like are carried for 1s. less a load as compared with other classes of timber. That concession is made by shipowners in various branches of trade, and that is bound to be taken into account. The importation of deals is very great, and the principle of measurement is that which is adopted abroad. To make this change would lead to great disorganisation of trade. The consignment is made by measurement, and altogether the trade would be placed on a materially different footing to what it has been in the past if the change be made as proposed by the Bill.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I would remind the House that I have already made two very considerable concessions to the timber trade—one with reference to the charge for a second truck for large timber, and the other that deals, battens, and boards shall be carried at 66 cubic feet to the ton, measurement weight. That is a very considerable concession to foreign timber. I could not lower the classification of this foreign timber alone without acting unfairly to the grower of English timber. After the consideration of the subject by the Board of Trade and by a Select Committee,
    296
    I do not think I shall be justified in accepting the Amendment.
    MR. HANBURY: The Board of Trade are perfectly justified in standing out against this particular Amendment. As far as I recollect the evidence before the Committee, it was that although the weight of deals, battens, and boards is conventionally treated as 2 tons 10 cwt., it is, as a matter of fact, considerably over 3 tons. In dealing with the Railway Companies, I think it is not fair to assume that this 2 tons 10 cwt. is the real weight, while it is really 3 tons 10 cwt., which the companies are compelled to carry at the lower rate.
    *SIR A. ROLLIT: I cannot, of course, refer to the evidence, not having been a member of the Joint Committee, and the hon. Member, having been one of the Committee, knows better than I do; but the Railway Companies have always dealt with deals, battens, and boards under the classification to which I have referred.
    MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member and the Vice President seem to be under the impression that we have to consider the Railway Companies. One says it will be interfering with the Railway Companies to do this, and the other says it will be detrimental to the Railway Companies to do that. That is not an argument at all. The Bill as it stands is largely detrimental to one of the chief trades of the United Kingdom, and consequently I will do my utmost to prevent it passing.
    MR. HUNTER: I would like to point out, with regard to the timber trade, that the rates which are given in this Bill are lower than the maximum rates which the companies are at present entitled to charge. That is a circumstance which, I think, ought not to be forgotten.
    MR. T. ROBINSON: I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has granted concessions; but, still, the whole difficulty with regard to deals, battens, and boards will have to be dealt with. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point, for I can assure him that there is a very strong feeling on the part of the trade.
    *COLONEL HILL: I feel very much in the position of my hon. Friend the Member for South Islington. I do not like to vote against the Government,

    297
    after the manner in which the President of the Board of Trade has met us; but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in my constituency the timber trade is of very great importance, and those engaged in it assure me it will be placed at a very great disadvantage if the Bill be passed without the additional words proposed be added.
    (6.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 125.—(Div. List, No. 374.)
    MR. P. STANHOPE: On behalf of my hon. Friend Sir Charles Forster, I beg formally to move this Amendment, with the view of affording the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of making some reply.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 33, column 2, after line 22, to insert the words "saddlery-hardware in waterproof lined wooden cases or casks. Packages consigned as saddlery-hardware may include any leather or metal articles set out in classes here in before mentioned or in this class, and the following articles in Class 3:—American or leather cloth (for harness fronts); awl blades; bells (small for harness); bits; blankets (for horses); buckets and pails; buckles; buttons; carpet bag frames; chains, curb; clasps (for belts); clothing, waterproof; collars, dog; collars, rush; combs (for manes); curry combs; cotton and linen thread; cotton wool (for padding); cutlery (horse scissors and leather cutting knives); elastic webbing (for braces); eyelets (for straps); ferules (for whips); flax (for stitching); gloves (for labourers); grindery; hair (for stuffing saddles); India rubber goods (for horses and vehicles); laces, leather (for harness); lanterns (stable); leather, e.o.h.p.; locks and keys (for leather bags); military ornaments; mops (for stables); nails, rivets (brass or copper); netting cotton and twine (for horses); oils (for harness); ornaments for saddlery; pliers; powder flasks; saddle trees; screws (brass); shears (sheep); sheepskins, e.o.h.p.; shot belts; spanners; sours; stable fittings and mangers (enamelled iron); stirrups; tacks; terrets; turnery ware (manger logs, whip reels, and tool handles); varnish; washers; washleather; wire (brass or copper); wool (dyed or carded); woollen cloth. And the following in Class 4:—Harness; leggings; plated goods appertaining to harness or saddlery; saddlery."—(Mr. Philip Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That those words Toe there inserted."
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Such a provision would involve the alteration of the whole Bill, and for reasons I have already given I cannot consent to the Amendment.
    MR. P. STANHOPE: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I beg now to move, Sir, that the Bill be read a third time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
    MR. ATKINSON: I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name, namely, that the Third Reading of the Bill be postponed until three months to-day, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it, or that, at all events, he will shorten the case by accepting my statement with regard to the timber trade. If a Select Committee were appointed it would ascertain the truth of my statement in an hour. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is a Member of one of the most talented Governments we have had for many years, not to go on in this task of destroying, wittingly or unwittingly, the timber trade of this country. I have been in that trade for 45 years, and I can myself, of my own personal knowledge, prove that what I say is correct, and I know more about it than all the permanent officials of the Board of Trade put together.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Atkinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: In answer to my hon. Friend, I venture to point out to him and to the House that in the first place I do not really believe that the timber trade will suffer anything under this Bill. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen has already stated, the rates for timber will be lower in future than the present maximum rate. These rates will not come into operation before August, 1892. If, during next Session, those who represent the timber trade feel alarmed, they can easily bring forward a Motion on the subject.
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Mr. ATKINSONwas appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being

    299
    willing to act as the Second Teller, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL (By Order.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Atkinson.)
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  MR. T. ELLIS: The Amendments which I have to move are the corollary of the concessions already made with regard to the London & North-Western. I beg to move, in page 11, line 30, after the word "Worcester," to insert—
  "(18.) Railways governed by the 'Vale of Llangollen Act, 1859,' and the 'Llangollen and Corwen Act, 1860.'
  "(19.) Railways governed by the 'Corwen and Bala, and Bala and Dolgelly Acts, 1862.'
  "(20.) Railways governed by the 'Bala and Festiniog Act, 1873.'"
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I accept this Amendment, on the understanding that it is only consequential, and that I am at liberty to satisfy myself by further inquiry before finally agreeing to it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: So far as concerns the Amendments of this Bill, I have gone as far as I can to meet the points raised by hon. Members. With regard to the reduced rates in South Wales, the Company lose £2,500 actual receipts in the articles of coal and coke alone, and I am sure the House would not desire to entail a further loss, amounting in the whole to £22,500 a year, on the Welsh line of the Great Western Railway Company, which would result from the immediate reduction of the conveyance rates on this line to the main line scale. I am desirous of meeting
  300
  my hon. Friend (Sir Hussey Vivian), who has Amendments on the Paper, as far as possible, and I feel that there is some claim on the part of those connected with South Wales for a reduction of rates on the South Wales line, which is now one of the main lines of the Great Western Railway. I therefore propose to insert a proviso, at page 11, line 43, which will ensure that the reduction of the rates will only take place when the company can afford it. That seems to me a fair arrangement, and I hope it will be adopted by both parties.
  SIR H. VIVIAN: We are labouring under what we feel to be a very great grievance in this case, which is not, I am sorry to say, altogether met by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, the President of the Board of Trade has probably gone as far as he possibly can to meet our wishes. At the same time it must be clearly understood that we do not accept this as final, and that we shall be precluded from endeavouring to obtain redress. I understand that we shall not be hung up for three years, and that if the Great Western Company become prosperous we shall have the advantage of this clause. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman accepts that interpretation, and I think that is a very important Amendment indeed. Then I understand the clause applies to the share capital—to the dividends upon the share capital of the company. Again, I have the assent of the right hon. Gentleman to my interpretation. The paid-up capital might be strained into meaning debentures and various other things. Do I understand it to mean bonâ fide share capital?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It means the share capital.
  SIR H. VIVIAN: I shall not move the Amendment standing in my name.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Preston has said that the proposed division would have amounted to a serious loss to the Great Western, but I contend that there would not have been a loss, it would only have been a reduction of their advantage. In 1855 the Great Western Company took possession of the South Wales system, and from that time to this the traffic in that part of the country has been yearly growing in

  301
  prosperity and yielding a large proportion of the dividends payable to the shareholders. It is, therefore, perfectly misleading to suggest that the South Wales system is not contributing a large proportion of the earnings of the Great Western system. But for their intervention that line would be paying 50 per cent. more than any other line for conveying the products of the staple industry of the district.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: It was laid down by a learned Judge the other day that the first stock of a company was only the preferred ordinary stock. I hope the right hon. Gentleman wil make it clearly understood that by the stock of the company he means the ordinary stock.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I must remind the hon. Member that I have already said so. I will, however, agree to the insertion of the word "ordinary."
  *MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Payments out of the stock of a company must include payments out of the debenture stock, and if that be so, the ordinary stock will get to 8 or 9 per cent. before any relief is given. It has always been held by the Railway Companies that the whole stock of a company must necessarily earn 6 per cent. before any dividends can be paid.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If, instead of "capital stock," the words "capital ordinary stock" are inserted that will meet the difficulty.
  *MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: As far as I am concerned I shall be perfectly satisfied with that; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot reduce the 6 per cent. to 5 per cent., or at any rate, to 5½ per cent. The great traffic in South Wales, especially in Glamorganshire, both in coal and iron, comes down to the coast, but in the case of the iron ore, which goes into the interior for manufacture, the Great Western Company is enabled to earn a large amount of money on the short distances run, in consequence of the terminal charges at both ends. If the Provisional Order is passed, the maximum rate per ton per mile, including the terminals, will be altered from 2s. 1d. and 2s. 6d. to 5s.
  302
  This, therefore, is a most important matter when we considor the enormous traffic in iron and steel that will be affected. In the case of coal the charges will be increased from 2s. 6d. to 3s., and considering that 54 millions of tons of coal are sent from Glamorganshire every year, the increased charges will necessarily amount to an enormous sum in favour of the Great Western Railway Company. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to reduce the 6 per cent. to 5 per cent.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The 6 per cent. is the figure fixed by the South Wales Railway Amalgamation Act, and I do not think I can alter it.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I think in the case of dividends fixed at 6 per cent. it would be competent to the Board of Trade to revise the rates. I fail to see any reason why the Great Western Company should be treated in the way proposed by this Bill. The question is whether by increasing the maxima on the South Wales line, the industries of South Wales will be paralysed. When we are revising railway rates, it is hard that South Wales should be charged more than the other lines, the difference being as against South Wales something like 55 per cent. I do not see why in its race with Stafforshire, Lancashire, Yorks, and other mining districts, South Wales should be placed at so great a disadvantage. I can see no reason whatever for continuing the 6 per cent. fixed by the Act of 1864, at the present day. At the time the Act was passed the coalfields of South Wales were not developed, and the railways in that district were practically a speculation.
  *SIR E. J. REED: I hope the spirit of conciliation which has been shown by the right hon. Gentlemen will enable him to arrive at such a conclusion with regard to these short distance terminals as will give general satisfaction. The enormous traffic in minerals in the South Wales district is surely deserving of consideration, and the effect of heavy terminal charges on short lines of railways is a matter deserving of serious consideration.
  MR. HUNTER: On looking at the South Wales Consolidation Act I find a circumstance which was not brought to the attention of the Committee. Under

  303
  the Act of 1855 the Terminal Clause is not a terminal clause in the ordinary sense. It is the same terminal clause as that of the London, Chatham, and Dover Company, and the traders in South Wales may fairly contend that in comparing the old maximum rate of 2d. per mile with the new rate the railways are not entitled under the old maximum rate to make a terminal charge. That question was not brought to the attention of the Committee. If it had been, I think it might have affected their decision.
  MR. HANBURY: There can be no doubt that it was the impression of the Committee that they were reducing the South Wales rates by 25 per cent. I was somewhat astonished to find the opposition raised to our proposal. If it is a fact that that there is no power under the old Act to charge terminals, that 25 per cent. reduction has not taken place. I think my right hon. friend would do well to bear that fact in mind.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will look into the matter, but I cannot go further than that at present. Perhaps I may point out that this provision is distinctly more favourable to the South Wales traders than the Act of 1863.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill read the third time, passed.

LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL (by Order).
As amended, considered.
Amendments made.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
(7.15.) The House proceeded to a Division.
MR. SPEAKERstated that he thought the Ayes had it; but on his decision being challenged, it appeared to Mr. Speaker that the Division was frivolously claimed, and he directed the Noes to stand up in their places; whereupon,
304
one Member having stood up, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.—(See Div. List, No. 375.)
Bill read the third time, and passed.

POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy ordered—
"Of Statement of the Amount expended for In-maintenance and Oat-door Relief in England and Wales during the half-year ended Lady Day, 1891."
"And, similar Statement for the half-year ended Michaelmas, 1891."—(Mr. Long.)
Copy presented accordingly; to He upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 370.]

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND RECEIPTS.
Account ordered—
"Of the total Public Expenditure in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1890–91,. distinguishing between the ordinary Expenditure provided for out of the Revenue of the year and the extraordinary Expenditure provided for out of Loans or other sources, and also of the total Receipts of the year, distinguishing between the ordinary Revenue and Receipts derived from Loans or other sources."—(Sir William Harcourt.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
Report from the Select Committee' with Minutes of Evidence, brought up' and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 371.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—Factories and Workshops Bill; Elementary Education Bill; Trusts Amendment (Scotland) Bill; County Councils (Elections) Bill; Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Bill.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION AND GRANT].
Committee to consider of authorising the remission of certain Loans made by the Exchequer Bill Loan Commissioners and the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to the Ulster Canal Company, and also of authorising a Grant, out of money sto be provided by Parliament, to the Arklow Harbour Commissioners, pursuant to any Act of the present Session to grant money for the purpose of Local Loans and for other purposes relating to Local Loans (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next.—(Mr. Jackson.)

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (ATTENDANCE, &c.)
Address for—
"Return for London and the following Municipal Boroughs for the year ending the 31st day of August, 1890, showing:—

Population according to last Census Returns.

School Accommodation.

Number on Roll.

Average Attendance.

Total Grant.

Grant per head.

Deductions per head under Article 114, Code 1889.

Merit Grant.

Board.

Voluntary.

Board.

Voluntary.

Board.

Voluntary.

Board.

Voluntary.

Board.

Voluntary.

Board.

Voluntary.

Board. E. G. F. R.*

Voluntary. E. G. F. R.

London

…

Birkenhead

…

Birmingham

…

Blackburn

…

Bolton

…

Bradford

…

Brighton

…

Bristol

…

Cardiff

…

Hull

…

Leeds

…

Leicester

…

Liverpool

…

Manchester

…

Newcastle

…

Norwich

…

Nottingham

…

Oldham

…

Portsmouth

…

Salford

…

Sheffield

…

Sunderland

…

Swansea

…

West Ham

…

Total

…

—(Mr. Mundella.)
* E., Excellent; C., good; F., fair; R., refused.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1889–90.
Committee to consider the Savings and Deficiencies upon Navy and Army Grants for 1889–90, and the temporary sanction obtained from the Treasury by the Navy and Army Departments to the Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, upon Monday next.—(Mr. Jackson.)
Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented upon the 16th and 11th days of February respectively, be referred to the Committee.

QUESTIONS.

  ALLEGED GRIEVANCE OF ROBERT COLCLOUGH.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the alleged grievance of Robert Colclough, for 28 years employed in the Ordnance Store Department, Woolwich, and a foreman since 1878, who was reduced in 1888 in consequence of a mistake made when he was absent through illness; whether he is aware that this man received sick pay at the rate of 30s. per week, but was afterwards superannuated on the scale due to a labourer on 19s. per week, and that his reduction from foreman to labourer took place 40 days after his pay had ceased; and whether, looking to the long service of this man terminating in a breakdown of his health, the case can be re-considered?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK,: In reply to this question, I have to say that Robert Colclough, of the Ordnance Store Department, Woolwich, was not reduced in grade for any mistake made during his absence from illness, but on account of long proved inefficiency and carelessness as a foreman, for which he had been reported before his illness. Under all the circumstances, it was an act of mercy to give this man the benefit of the doubt, and not to dismiss him altogether, as his conduct would have justified.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT REPORTS.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Report of the Education Department
  308
  for the school year ending on August 31 in one year is only presented to Parliament in the August of the following year, at the end of, and sometimes even after, the Parliamentary Session; when the Report for the school year ending August 31, 1890, will be published; and whether, in future, the annual Report can be published within six months after the end of the school year?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: The Blue Book, as a whole, is not issued till August, but many of its parts are distributed much earlier. The Report for the year ending August, 1890, has already been circulated, and the preparation of the remaining Appendices is being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible. The Chief Inspector's Reports sometimes do not come in for six months, and the Appendix dealing with the accounts of School Boards cannot be prepared until the audits for their year, which only ends on September 30, are complete, and these audits are often protracted till late in the spring, so that the hon. Member will see the impossibility of materially accelerating the production of the full Report; but every effort will be made in that direction.

  REPORTS ON HIGHER GRADE SCHOOLS.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department, in conjunction with the Department of Science and Art, will issue annually a Report of the progress, condition, inspection, and the possibilities of the development of advanced elementary and higher grade schools in England and Wales?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Some of this information is already contained in the Reports of the Science and Art Department, and I will see what more can be given with the present staff and arrangements; but so far as the Education Department is concerned, there would be a difficulty in differentiating schools on any definite basis, and I do not think much can be done, in the direction suggested, until further progress is made with the organisation of secondary education.

  THE CASE OF JOHN AND SARAH STARLING.
  MR. QUILTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the evidence and the Judge's remarks at the trial of John and Sarah Starling, of Cowlinge, at the Suffolk Assizes on July 15, for the manslaughter of their daughter; and whether he intends that the Local Government Board should be represented at the inquiry which is to be held by the Board of Guardians of the Risbridge Union?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: My attention has been called to the evidence and the remarks of the Judge at the trial at the Suffolk Assizes to which reference is made in the question. I do not propose that the Local Government Board should intervene at the inquiry which, it is stated, is to be held by the Board of Guardians of the Risbridge Union, but when that inquiry has been held the Board will consider what course it will be necessary for them to take in the matter.

  THE CONDUCT OF DR. KING, MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE DELVIN UNION.
  MR. WEBB: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Tuite), I beg to ask the. Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board for Ireland has been drawn to a charge of assault committed by Dr. King, the medical officer of the Delvin Union, on a poor man when in the act of presenting him with a dispensary ticket requiring the doctor's attendance on a member of his family; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. TUITEhad also given notice of the following question:—Whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board for Ireland to take any action in response to the communication of the Granard Board of Guardians, in which complaint was made of the conduct of Dr. King, the medical officer of the Union, who deliberately opened a letter addressed to the Chairman, on a matter in which the doctor was himself concerned, and afterwards hid the letter
  310
  under a book in the room adjoining the Board-room?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I propose to reply to both questions at the same time. A charge of assault of the nature referred to has been made against the medical officer mentioned, and the Local Government Board have decided to hold a sworn inquiry into the matter. With regard to the second charge, it is not one which comes under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board, and they see no reason why the inquiry should be extended to that charge. The documentary evidence does not appear to be well founded.

  THE CASE OF HARRIET HARLIDGE.
  MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Harriet Harlidge, who was tried at the recent Durham Assizes for the murder of George Dixon; whether he is aware that, although the jury returned a verdict of "Manslaughter" without previous intention, the Judge sentenced the prisoner to 20 years' penal servitude, and in so doing stated that the prisoner had intended to take the life of the deceased; and whether he will consider the case with the view to a commutation of the sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: At present I have only seen a newspaper account of the case. The facts as stated there amount to a very grave case of homicide, and do not disclose any grounds for advising interference with the sentence. I will duly consider any representation that may be made to me on the woman's behalf.

  JUVENILE LABOUR IN MINES.
  MR. PICKARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return stating the ages of persons working underground in mines under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, above 16 and under 21 years of age, and the nature of their work?
  MR. J. WILSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may

  311
  I ask if he will add to such a Return the number of hours worked in the collieries?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot undertake to grant this Return. I have no right to call upon the owners of every colliery in the Kingdom to furnish me with the details asked for, and it would be difficult in any case to provide the information with any degree of accuracy. In the summary tables of the Census the hon. Member will find some statistics which bear upon his inquiry.
  MR. PICKARD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a similar Return has not been granted in relation to another class of labour, and is there more difficulty in this case?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer.
  MR. PICKARD: But will the right hon. Gentleman give me the reason for refusing such a Return?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have done so in the answer I have just given.

  THE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what day the Lords Amendments on the Education Bill will be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I cannot at present name a day for the purpose. In our opinion, and I think it will also be the wish of the House, it is desirable that we should proceed uninterruptedly with the business of Supply.

  EAST INDIA ACCOUNTS.
  MR. CRAWFORD: One behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (M. Buchanan), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India when the Explanatory Memorandum of the East India Accounts will be circulated?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir. J. GORST,): I laid the Explanatory Memorandum upon the e last night, and it will be distrinution among Members immediately.

  TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION WITH BISHOP'S SUTTON, NORTH SOMERSET.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can now give a more favourable reply to the request made early in this year by the inhabitants of Bishop's Sutton, a village in North Somerset, for the establishment of a postal telegraph office; and whether, considering the great inconvenience felt in the neighbourhood owing to present arrangements, he will accept as a guarantee a more reasonable sum than that hitherto demanded?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: The question of guarantees for telegraph offices is at present under the consideration of the Treasury, and I am not, therefore, in a position to give the hon. Member any further information than that which was communicated to him a short time ago by letter. I shall be very glad, if I find myself in a position, to accept reduced guarantees. Perhaps my hon. Friend may not have observed that the Post Office Bill which has passed this House will enable a Rural Sanitary Authority to become the guarantors in these cases.

  RELIEF WORKS, WEST AND SOUTH CORK.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is true that a number of relief works instituted by the Government in West and South Cork will be left unfinished, and that it is proposed to tax the cesspayers of the County of Cork, as suggested by the County Surveyor to the West Riding of the County of Cork, to supply the alleged deficiency; and, if so, which of the works in course of construction will be left unfinished?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am happy to be in a position to say that it is not the case that a number of relief works in Cork will be left unfinished as suggested in the question. At the present time 21 such works are in progess, and it is not anticipated that more than one or two will be incompleted when relief operations cease, and they will be completed if, in the opinion of the Govern-

  313
  ment, there appears to be necessity for the completion.
  DR. TANNER: I am very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply; but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has any knowledge of a letter being addressed by the County Surveyor to the Grand Jury of the West Riding, in which it is suggested that no fewer than 13 relief works will be left unfinished?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing of such a letter; but it is evident that if the County Surveyor has made such representations he has written under a misapprehension.

  INDEMNITY FOR MILITIA OUTRAGE, CORK.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the cesspayers of the County, or a portion of the County, of Cork have been condemned to pay £1,000 indemnity to Constable Timothy Courtney, who was severely beaten, and unfortunately lost an eye, in a conflict with a number of drunken Militiamen at Whitegate, County Cork, on the 21st ultimo; and whether it is usual for civilians in any locality to be made responsible for outrage or misdemeanour perpetrated by military?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the Constable Courtney mentioned has been awarded by the Grand Jury of the County Cork £1,000 compensation, to be levied off the county at large, in respect of a serious assault committed on him while in discharge of his duty by Militiamen, resulting in the loss Of his eye. Such serious assaults by military on the police are, I am glad to say, most unusual. Indeed, so far as the Constabulary Authorities are aware, this is the only instance of such an assault calling for compensation under the Grand Jury Acts.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the cesspayers of a county are responsible at law for damage caused in an assault committed by members of Her Majesty's Military Forces; and especially I would ask whether the cesspayers of Cork are responsible for the alleged violence of Militia brought from another part of the country? These were not members of
  314
  the Cork Militia; I believe they came from Limerick.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no ground for doubting that the action of the Grand Jury is legal, but perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put his question to my right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. The matter is altogether outside the jurisdiction of the Executive.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if these were not the Cork Militia?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is very probable that is so. I have no knowledge. The hon. Member for West Belfast says the Militia were from another county, and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement.

  UNWHOLESOME TINNED FISH.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the poisoning of six persons, resulting in the death of one, in consequence of having eaten tinned salmon; whether it is a fact that many cases of acute gastric irritation and tin poisoning have been reported from time to time consequent upon the consumption of tinned fish and shell fish (lobster); and whether, having regard to the evidence given in the case referred to by Dr. Arthur P. Luff, an expert, before Dr. Danford Thomas, steps will be taken to inquire into the subject for the protection of the public and the safeguarding of legitimate trade?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have received a copy of the depositions in this case. I understand that the jury found that the deceased died from the effects of an irritant poison in the shape of ptomaines, probably conveyed in tinned salmon eaten by the deceased. Cases of poisoning by shell fish have from time to time been recorded, but cases of poisoning by other fish are rare, and only one instance of poisoning by such other fish, tinned, is known to the Local Government Board. The evidence given by Dr. Luff is to the effect that he did not detect ptomaines in any of the articles sent to him, which included another tin of salmon procured from the same shop. The experience of the Department is that cases of poisoning of this sort are not in any way special to fish or to tinned

  315
  provisions. The general subject of poisoning by agents of this class is habitually under observation by the Medical Department of the Local Government Board, and it does not appear to me that any special inquiry as regards the case of tinned fish is necessary.
  DR. TANNER: This is an important public question. Am I to understand that the Local Government Board think from inquiries made that there is no danger attaching to the use of this tinned fish?
  *MR. RITCHIE: It is impossible for me to say that. As I have said, only one case of poisoning by such fish is known to the Local Government Board; but obviously it is impossible for me to say there is no danger in the use of such provisions.
  DR. TANNER: But seeing that there has been this case with fatal result, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to directing an inquiry to set doubts at rest?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I can assure the hon. Member that this subject has been repeatedly under inquiry by the Local Government Board, and most careful inquiries are constantly being made.

  EXAMINATION OF UNREGISTERED WILLS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. Ellis), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the reason for withdrawing the concession made to antiquarians, of giving them, free of charge, a search order to examine unregistered wills in district registries; and whether the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury can re-consider their decision, and again grant this privilege to antiquarians and literary men?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: There has been no withdrawal of a concession, but attention has been drawn to the existence of the rule that requires the payment of a fee, which rule has not in all cases been acted upon.

  THE SALVATION ARMY DISTURBANCES AT EASTBOURNE.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: On behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Eastbourne Division
  316
  (Admiral Field), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the serious disturbances in Eastbourne on Sunday last caused by the Salvationists there acting in defiance of the local Act, which prohibits processions with bands on Sundays; whether he is aware that a considerable number of persons are reported to have been sent from London for the express purpose of assisting them in their determined and wilful violation of the law aforesaid; whether he is aware that nine Salvationists have since Sunday been committed for trial on a charge of "unlawful assembly and conspiracy to infringe the local Act;" whether he has been informed that further serious disturbances are expected on Sunday next, owing to the indignation of the inhabitants of all classes at the serious injury caused to the town, and its interests as a seaside resort, by this unseemly disregard of law; and whether he will so far assist the Local Authorities in maintaining the peace of the town of Eastbourne, comprising over 34,000 inhabitants, as to allow a certain number of detectives from the Metropolitan Police Force to be sent there, with a view to identifying certain prominent parties expected from London—prizefighters and others—in order the more readily to indict them on a charge of "conspiracy to break the law;" and, finally, will he advise generally as to the best course to be pursued by the Mayor and the Magistrates generally in maintaining law and order, whether by the swearing in of special constables or otherwise?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have been informed that, although there seemed at one time a probability of considerable disturbance at Eastbourne last Sunday, the timely action of the authorities was successful in preventing any serious breach of the peace. I am also informed that excursionists have arrived by train to join in the processions at Eastbourne. Eight of the nine persons committed since last Sunday appear to have come from London. The Watch Committee apprehend further disturbance on Sunday next. The Local Authorities have so far been able, although with some difficulty, to prevent serious disorders at Eastbourne; and I do not think any such emergency has arisen as to call for the intervention of the Metropolitan

  317
  Police. That Force is not too large for the needs of the Metropolis. It is not intended to supply the deficiencies of county or borough forces, and should not be used for that purpose unless where very special circumstances have arisen. The Mayor and the Magistrates are entitled to swear in special constables, and should not hesitate to do so, if riot or tumult is apprehended, or if their local force, assisted by the police of the county and neighbouring boroughs, is insufficient to maintain order.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to say whether he has received an official representation from the Mayor on the subject of the dangers apprehended next Sunday, and, if so, what reply has been sent?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received such a representation, and an application for the loan of Metropolitan Police, and in the answer I have just given I have stated generally the purport of my reply.

  THE CHIEF RESIDENCY MAGISTRATE AT BOMBAY.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware that Mr. Slater, a junior barrister, has been appointed by the Bombay Government to act as Chief Residency Magistrate at Bombay; and whether Mr. Slater is duly qualified, according to the regulations, to hold this appointment?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has received no official information of Mr. Slater's appointment; but, if appointed, he would be duly qualified, being a barrister of upwards of nine years' standing, and an advocate for some years in the High Court of Bombay.

  POLICE RETURNS.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, for the purpose of facilitating comparison between the three countries as to drunkenness, licensing, and criminality in general, he will advise with the Scotch and Irish Departments so that the Annual Police Returns issued by his own and the Scotch and Irish Departments may, in future, be based
  318
  on the same principle so far as legislation in each country may permit of?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,: My hon. Friend's object is undoubtedly desirable, but the matter is somewhat complicated, and I will give it careful attention, with a view to ascertain what can be done towards obtaining an approximate comparison.

  NORTH WEST INDIAN FRONTIER EXPENDITURE.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India a question, of which I have given him private notice, if he can now state whether the India Office will grant the return on the Paper relating to expenditure incurred since 1882 beyond the north-west frontier of India; or what information on the subject can be supplied, if not in the precise form suggested by the Return, then in some other form calculated to bring out the salient facts of the case.
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State is not in possession of information which would enable him to give the Return asked for, nor can he say without communication with the Government of India how far it is possible to procure the information desired, but he will during the recess see what information can be obtained from India, and if the hon. Member will move next Session, all details compatible with the public interest shall be given.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. S. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what business is to be taken on Monday?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Supply.
  MR. HUNTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Vote for £110,000 for the Grant to Scotland will be taken?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The suggestion was made, and I thought it was generally accepted, that the Vote should be taken after Class IV., directly after the Education Votes are taken.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government propose to go forward with the Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill? There has been much shillyshallying with this Bill, and

  319
  I think the time has come when the Government should say definitely when it will be submitted to the House and a decision taken upon it.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I really think the hon. Member is very exigent. There are several Bills on the Paper, including one of my own—the Coinage Bill—as to which it may be said the Government are shillyshallying for exactly the same reason—that we cannot say when they will be taken. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is most anxious to pass the Bill, and, there is absolutely no doubt that it will pass; but we cannot make special arrangements for that Bill at present, looking to the other business of the House.
  DR. TANNER: Night after night, when the Bill has been reached, it has been postponed without apparent reason. I hope some definite arrangement will be made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend is not aware of all the circumstances in relation to the Bill. I very greatly regret the delay should have occurred. I sincerely trust the Bill will be passed. No effort will be spared to reduce the controversy that has arisen to the narrowest possible limits. It is quite clear now that it is hopeless to expect to get the Bill through after 12 o'clock; we shall therefore make arrangements by which the Bill may be taken at a time, to allow hon. Members to express their views and take a Division.
  MR. SEXTON: Precisely; but we want to know when that will be.
  MR. CRAWFORD: May I ask the Lord Advocate when the Report of the Scotch Education Department will be in the hands of Members, and will the Vote for Scotland be taken before we have the Report?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: The Report has been in the hands of the printers for some time, and, I hope, will shortly be ready. I am not responsible for the time when the Vote will be taken.

  THE BEHRINGS' SEA SEAL FISHERIES.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what progress has
  320
  been made with the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States regarding the proposed arbitration on the Behrings' Sea Seal Fisheries?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,: The negotiations are not yet concluded, but there is every reason to hope that a satisfactory arrangement between the two Governments will be arrived at very shortly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1891–2.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1891–2.

    CLASS III.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £256,681, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
    MR. MORTON: There are one or two items under subhead A upon which I desire information. First, I would like to know the meaning of the entry "Clerk of the Chamber, who acts as sealer," £400. Then I find Preacher at the Rolls Chapel, £180, and allowance for expenses, £45. I thought the Rolls Chapel was closed. It serves no purpose, for there is scarcely a congregation, and the few persons who attend may find a place of worship very close by. But I wait to hear what is to be said as to these two items, and meantime I formally move a reduction of the Vote by £100, part of the salary of "the Clerk of the Chamber, who acts as sealer."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the Clerk of the Chamber."—(Mr. Morton.)
    DR. TANNER: We ought to get some information on these matters. It is known to the public, and recognised by the House of Commons,

    321
    at the salaries in this Vote are too nigh, and altogether in excess of work done. At the present day in these, I am glad to say, democratic times, the people want to know how it comes to pass that vast sums of money are voted year after year without explanation, except that these people have received appointments from officials in power. It is only reasonable that we should know why we vote the money. I also desire some information as to the duties of the Permanent Secretary and the Sergeant-at-Arms—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now entering upon other items. A reduction has been moved in reference to the salary of the Clerk of the Chamber. Other items may be referred to subsequently, but this must first be disposed of.
    DR. TANNER: The item I was about to refer to comes first.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is no matter, they both come under Sub-head A.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I will answer the hon. Member's second question first. The hon. Member asks about the salary of the Preacher at the Rolls Chapel—
    MR. MORTON: I rise to order. My Motion has reference to the Clerk of the Chamber.
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member will perhaps allow me to answer his question in my own way.
    DR. TANNER: I was ruled out of order.
    MR. JACKSON: I understood the hon. Member for Peterborough to say that he waited for an answer to his two questions. However, in regard to the other officer, I have only to say that the question has been put and answered a great many times, and I do not know that I can give the hon. Member any special details about the duties of the office. It is an office necessary for the establishment; it is filled by a good officer, who is certainly entitled to his salary.
    MR. MORTON: I shall go to a Division, because I believe this is a waste of money.
    DR. TANNER: I should like to know what are the duties of the Clerk of the Chamber who acts as "Sealer." It seems to me that anyone could go about with a lump of sealing-wax—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    DR. TANNER: Well, he gets £400 a year, and we want to know what he gets it for. We must remember that this is not our own money, but that of the British taxpayer.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I shall vote for this reduction for the reason that I think this is one of a considerable number of appointments in connection with the Supreme Court of Judicature that are unnecessary, and as to which men are paid large salaries for merely nominal work. As an illustration of what I mean I would refer to the post of Sergeant-at-Arms. Only a few weeks ago, Mr. Justice Chitty being called on to commit some one for an offence, inquired whether this officer any longer existed, for he had not heard of him for many years. A formal inquiry had to be addressed to the Lord Chancellor to find out whether such an officer still existed. Subsequently, Mr. Justice Chitty, in open Court, stated as an interesting fact that there was such an official. This Vote is different from the rest of the Civil Service Estimates. It is the result of a long system of personal patronage in the hands of the Judges. No doubt the system has been considerably pruned and reduced of late years, but I cannot help thinking it will bear still further pruning. And I would point out that if we can economise on this Vote by doing away with unnecessary offices, we shall probably be able to find money for an additional Judge who, in the opinion of many persons, is very urgently required to prevent accumulation of arrears in the Courts. For this reason I will join in the Motion to reduce the Vote by the salary of the office of Clerk of the Chamber. If the Motion were carried I do not suppose that the gentleman who occupies this particular office would suffer. I suppose he would still be employed in doing some sort of work.
    (8.5.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 60.—(Div. List, No. 376.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. TANNER: I see that there is a personal allowance to the Sergeant-at-Arms of £96 a year. There is no reason why this should be given, as the gentleman who occupies this post also receives a sum of £300 under the

    323
    Vote as Clerk of the Crown. We have had many Divisions on this particular portion of the Estimates. Again and again in this House the hon. Member for Northampton has called attention to the swollen and plethoric state of these Estimates, and, accordingly, we have had this reduction moved from time to time. For my own part I fail to see why there should be a personal allowance to any Sergeant-at-Arms. I move to reduce the Vote by this £96, and would ask for a reasonable explanation of the item. If such explanation is not vouchsafed, I shall deem it to be my duty to put the House to the trouble of a Division not merely on this but on many Votes.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £96, personal allowance to present Serjeant-at Arms."—(Dr. Tanner.)
    MR. JACKSON: I hope that it will be satisfactory to the hon. Member if I inform him that this item of charge will come to an end when the next vacancy in the office in question occurs. The officer who holds the post now has held it for some time.
    DR. TANNER: I always like to have a reason. It seems that the Government regard this as an extraordinary Vote, and the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman shows that I was justified in moving the reduction—because if the item were a rational one, it would not expire on the retirement of the present holder of the office. I will take what the right hon. Gentleman has said as an answer, and will not divide the Committee.
    MR. MORTON: I am not particular about going to a Division on this Vote now that we have heard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, but I must say it is an outrageous Vote. The gentleman who gets this £96 receives a salary of £1,500.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. CLARK (: I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Lord Chancellor's Private Secretary is paid £200 a year for doing the work of the Secretary of Presentations, which office has been abolished.
    MR. JACKSON: There is no charge under the Vote for that.
    DR. CLARK: I am only asking a question. You are giving an extra salary of £200 a year by this Vote to the Private Secretary of the Lord Chancellor. Ordinary Secretaries get £500, but the Private Secretary to the Lord Chancellor receives £200 in addition to £500.
    MR. JACKSON: We are effecting a saving.
    DR. CLARK: The Clerk of the Crown ought to do the work. He has an office with clerks, and it seems to me that when you are making a change, instead of handing over this £200 a year to a Private Secretary, we should have handed it over to a permanent secretary.
    MR. JACKSON: We save £500 a year.
    DR. CLARK: No; you save £300, because you give £200 extra to the Lord Chancellor's secretary.
    MR. JACKSON: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. He is quite right. This official has to deal with the question of the livings that are in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. Speaking from my own knowledge, I can say that I know of no officials who are more hardly worked and who do their work more ably than this official. We certainly thought we were making an effective economical arrangement that would be best for the interests of the public. I think we should permit the Lord Chancellor to know something about the management of his own Department.
    DR. CLARK: I am astonished at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. This is an office that we agreed should be abolished altogether, and now that you have abolished it you are handing over the work to a Private Secretary. I am rather sceptical as to the information the right hon. Gentleman has received in regard to the amount of work that has to be done. However, the present Lord Chancellor may not be long in office, and it is very probable that the noble Lord who follows him will make a change.
    MR. MORTON: I do not think we have received a satisfactory explanation of this matter. We ought to be told distinctly what this Gentleman does for this £200. This is one of

    325
    those extravagant sums that one is bound to protest against. I am sorry, especially at this time of the year, to be obliged to detain the Committee, but the only way to get reforms is to let the Government see—whatever Government may be in office—that we object to these payments. The only way in which we can protest is by moving a reduction of the Vote. I, therefore, move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £200 a year.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £200, part of the Salary of the Private Secretary to the Lord Chancellor."—(Mr. Morton.)
    MR. CALDWELL: This item affords a good illustration of the way in which work is done in these Departments. We find that the time of a man who gets £300 a year is so little taken up with the duties of his office that he can take upon himself the duties of another office for another £200 a year. This shows that formerly we had two men doing the work that ought to have been done by one. There is a Clerk of the Chamber, and I have no doubt if we went to the secretary to the Lord Chancellor and offered him the duties of that post for another £200 a year, he would accept them. I have not the least doubt that all round in these offices one man could do the work now done by three or four people.
    (8.28.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 60.—(Div. List, No. 377.)
    Original Question again proposed. (8.38.)
    (9.10.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. MORTON: I have to move a reduction of the Vote in respect to the Preacher at the Rolls Chapel, whose salary and allowances amount to £225. I understood the Rolls Chapel was to be closed, and whether it is closed or not I do not know; but I do know from my own knowledge that the chapel is not required and that this money is wasted. Not far off is the Church of St. Dunstan's-in-the-West, and recently the church of the neighbouring parish was
    326
    pulled down as not being required. I have visited St. Dunstan's-in-the-West, and I know there are many vacant seats there, certainly quite sufficient accommodation for the congregation attending the Rolls Chapel—
    MR. JACKSON: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be glad to be reminded that this Session we passed an Act for the purpose of enabling us to abolish the office, and to get rid of the salary and expenses on the next vacancy.
    MR. MORTON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the information, and that is a proof confirming what I say that this is an unnecessary expenditure. I do not wish to deprive the preacher of his salary, let him be transferred elsewhere, say to the East End of London; set him to work with this salary and I will offer no opposition. It is an unnecessary sum we are asked to vote. Can the Attorney General show us any reason why we should pass this Vote? The Financial Secretary is as such one of the most intelligent and best informed Gentlemen on the Government Bench, but upon this subject I suppose he knows nothing and has never been to this chapel—
    MR. JACKSON: I beg pardon, I have been there and know all about it.
    MR. MORTON: I am glad to hear it, but still I should like to know from the Attorney General why the office is kept up for the present year. It is, in my opinion, an absolutely useless expenditure. I do not want to bandy words across the floor, it will make no difference to my mind; and as a public man I object to public money being paid away for nothing. I move to reduce the Vote by £225.
    Motion made, and Question, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £225, Salary and Expenses of the Preacher at the Rolls Chapel."—(Mr. Morton.)
    DR. CLARK: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this. Surely he cannot have a more satisfactory answer than he has received; an Act has been passed to give the Government a free hand and they intend to abolish the office. It surely will be wasting time to take a Division.
    DR. TANNER: I have been to the church in question, and I know that it is attended by a very thin congregation,

    327
    and this is comparatively a large sum of money to vote for this purpose. I have opposed the Vote in former years, but now that we see our efforts have not been ineffectual, and that the Government have at last seen their error and intend to reduce this expenditure, I think my hon. Friend may rest satisfied. I hope the Government will deal with many other indefensible items of expenditure in the same way.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to hear the explanation the Attorney General rose to make just now. After all, we do not know what is going to be done; an Act has been passed to enable something to be done, but we do not know that the Vote will not appear again next year.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original question again proposed.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I would ask the attention of the Financial Secretary to the particulars given in reference to the clerical staff in some of these Departments. Reductions, we are informed, are to be made as vacancies occur. Among the officers of the Lords Justices of Appeal here is a principal clerk, receiving a salary of £600, and this appointment is to be filled on the next vacancy with an officer at the reduced salary of £400, an admission that a third of the salary hitherto paid is unnecessary. Then a junior, at £200, is to be abolished on the next vacancy arising. Then, further on, I find the present salary of the official solicitor to the Supreme Court is to be reduced when the vacancy arises, and in the central office of the Supreme Court the office of Clerk of Enrolments is to be abolished at the next vacancy.
    MR. JACKSON: That vacancy has occurred.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I am dealing with the items as they appear on the Estimate. Then the additional salary to a Master of the Supreme Court, who acts as Registrar of acknowledgments by married women, is to cease with the next vacancy in the office. Then the 14 first class clerks in the central office of the Supreme Court are to be ultimately reduced to 10, and 35 second class clerks are to be reduced to 28. It is true that the third class clerks will be increased from 25 to 35, but on the
    328
    whole there is a very substantial reduction in numbers and in the amount of salaries to be charged. If that is the case, what is the justification for spending this money for salaries which you admit are not warranted? You admit that some 12 or 15 officials are not necessary, what, then, is the justification for keeping these gentlemen in their office? The history of the office of the Supreme Court is a curious one; half-a-dozen men can go on permanent leave for two years drawing full pay and doing absolutely no work. I admit this Estimate shows that the Government have been overhauling these Departments to a certain extent, but what I complain of, and there is good ground for the complaint, is that having found that many of the offices are overpaid considerably, and many of the offices not wanted at all, you still continue to keep them on the Estimate for the Department, practically wasting the public money. Then, what is the condition of the Departments themselves? There is an amount of arrears affecting litigants which is little short of scandalous. In the business of taxation of costs the condition is such that nobody who knows anything about it can justify. You have seven taxing masters, but such is the state of taxation, especially during the long vacation, that solicitors have to wait months when they have passed July. The Attorney General knows that perfectly well. Now, seeing there is so much money unnecessarily expended, seeing that it is admitted there are more officers than are required in some Departments, surely it is reasonable to suggest that prompt measures should be taken to utilise the means that are available to enable suitors to get their business despatched with a little more celerity. If you have officers not at present employed, why not transfer them to other Departments? Shall I be told that once a man enters the Civil Service in one Department he must be looked upon as perfectly useless for any other Department for the rest of his life, unless he happens to be a private secretary, and then he can be transferred to a good post at the top of the Customs or the Excise, without experience or qualification for the post? Cannot the men in the subordinate position of junior clerks be transferred to Departments

    329
    where there is work for them? Additions are made to the various grades of the Civil Service day after day, and with each appointment you increase the amount of vested interest. Why not transfer the redundant clerks from one Department to another as vacancies occur; why go on making fresh appointments of men who will qualify for pensions and, perhaps, in turn become redundant? The whole of this Vote is open to observations of this kind, and I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Attorney General if it lies within his province, to give us some explanation why it is that admittedly excessive charges are still allowed to be presented under this Vote?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR R. WEBSTER,: I do not demur to the criticisms of the hon. and learned Member, which are based on sound principles, but if he thinks those principles have not been regarded and to a large extent adopted by the Government in relation to these matters, I can assure him he is mistaken. If the hon. and learned Member will compare the Estimates of two or three years ago with the present Estimates, he will find there have been large reductions in the number of clerks and in the public expenditure, and these reductions have been carried out with caution and foresight. Following suggestions made in Debate, a Committee was a short time ago appointed to consider these matters, and this Committee made certain recommendations as to the way in which and the time at which changes in the Central Office should be brought about, and changes in the staff and arrangements have been made in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. If there had been an attempt to affect changes by wholesale reductions or transfers, we should at once have had complaints of inefficiency in the services. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member that it is possible and desirable that clerks should be transferred from one Department to another Department where assistance is required, but such a transfer can only be made gradually. I heartily sympathise with the hon. and learned Member in his remarks on the delay in the Taxation Department; there are many complaints, and I know they are well founded, but the hon. Member must allow that this is a class
    330
    of work to which we cannot appoint inexperienced clerks, and he knows there have been complaints of inequality in taxation, and this inequality has arisen from inexperience. I hope there will be a greater amalgamation of Taxing Masters' Offices, with a saving of time and equalisation of work. This is a matter which has been considered by the Committee, and it has not been lost sight of by the Government. As to the transfer of clerks from one Department to another, there are, of course, always technical difficulties in the way, and I may mention that a large number of the redundancies and future reductions to which the hon. Member has called attention are personal appointments of the Judges, simply a matter of reduction, the officers not being available for other kind of work. It is a matter that is not lost sight of, but we must take care not to transfer men to do work that requires training and experience. What the hon. Member has said deserves and has received attention, but the matter has to be watched with reference to tabulated scales of payment, and I think anyone who has followed the changes made in the central offices during the last four-or five years must admit, and it has been admitted by hon. Members who have previously attacked the administration in regard to these matters, that by economy of labour there has been a saving of expenditure without loss of efficiency in the work. Indeed, I am not sure that in a few years we may not find we have reduced the staff a little too much. I can assure the hon. Member that the object he has in view is by no means lost sight of.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: I fully agree with the hon. and learned Member for Donegal as to the desirability of employing the redundant clerks in one Department to assist in the work of another Department.
    MR. JACKSON: We have no power to do that in cases where the appointment is that of personal clerk to the Judges. Those are the appointments to which reference has been made, and they are to be abolished on the next vacancy.
    *MR. T. H. BOLTON: Surely clerks may be transferred from offices where there is not sufficient work for the staff

    331
    to other Departments where there is work for them to do. If the Government have not that simple power of transfer, the sooner they come to Parliament and obtain that power the better for the public service. I do not for a moment suggest that the Government are not endeavouring to carry out, as far as they can, what they clearly appreciate as the wish of Parliament in this matter; but they seem to me to be disposed rather too much to recognise the claims of vested interest of clerks in the particular offices they hold and the discharge of the particular duties they now perform. Many of these gentlemen have legal knowledge and legal training which might be availed of in the Inland Revenue Department of Somerset House to the assistance of officials there. If they were transferred from one Department to another when there was a press of work, they could not reasonably object, and the public service would be benefited. As to the Taxing Office, there are occasional delays, but I am bound to say, from long experience of the office, that generally there is reasonable expedition.
    MR. MORTON: It appears to me that the transference of clerks from one office to another might be very easily accomplished. I shall be told that one gentleman cannot do another's work. On page 209 I find provision for third-class clerks. Two of these officers receieve fixed salaries of £300, and one receives £260. One of these receives 4s. 8d. per diem as a retired Naval Lieutenant. If a sailor can do a lawyer's work, surely there would be no difficulty in transferring a gentleman from the Chancery Division to the Queen's Bench Division. The other night we were told a sailor was the best man we could have as a Veterinary Inspector. I suppose that now we shall be told that a sailor is the best man we can have to do legal work. Now, I want information as to the Clerk of Enrolments—
    MR. JACKSON: I have already stated that the office was abolished on the death of the last holder.
    MR. MORTON: That is exactly the answer I got to the question I put on the subject, and, therefore, I want to know what business the item has in the account at all? Lord Romilly died some months ago, and therefore—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have laid it down more than once that hon. Gentlemen who propose to discuss the Estimates are bound to bring some intelligence and knowledge of the subject to their consideration. The hon. Member ought to be well aware that the Estimates were prepared months before Lord Romilly's death. The salary will, of course, not be paid subsequent to Lord Romilly's death.
    MR. MORTON: I should have thought the Secretary to the Treasury would have at once suggested that the item be struck out. There is an unfortunate practice of making use of money voted under one head to supply a deficiency under another head. I do not desire to detain the Committee unnecessarily; but with the view of settling this question and getting the principal part of this item removed from the Vote, I beg to move—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is trifling with the Committee. The salary will only be paid up to the death of Lord Romilly. The surplus cannot be paid to anyone else or used for any purpose that is not shown on the Estimates.
    MR. MORTON: Would it not be a proper thing to remove the amount at once?
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: On a point of order, may I remind the Committee that on a previous occasion it was ascertained that, instead of there being four Official Referees, there were, in fact, only three. The Government submitted to a reduction of the Estimate by £1,500 on the ground that that sum was admittedly not required. Therefore, I ask you, Sir, whether it is not open to any Member of the Committee, on finding that an office has been abolished on the death of the holder, to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the salary formerly paid?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Undoubtedly it is open to any Member to move a reduction of the Vote, but I have expressed the opinion that in this instance it would he trifling with the Committee to do so, inasmuch as this money cannot be paid.
    MR. MORTON: Under the circumstances, I will not press the matter to a Division.
    DR. TANNER: I should like to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury

    333
    whether any steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General in reference to the Registrar's Office of the Chancery Division. The Comptroller and Auditor General condemned the system of farming out the copying in this office. He considered the system of payment open to serious objection.
    MR. JACKSON: That does not come under this sub-head at all, but under Sub-head F, page 220.
    MR. COBB: I notice a small item for refreshment contractor. Is this for the contractor who supplies refreshments at the Royal Courts of Justice, and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the arrangements for supplying refreshments at the Courts?
    MR. JACKSON: I imagine that the sum is for the contractor who supplies refreshments at the office merely.
    MR. COBB: I cannot see anything in the Vote to show what the contract is, or how refreshments are supplied. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will afford us some information on the point?
    *SIR R. WEBSTER: No subsidy is given to the contractor, who is the cook at Lincoln's Inn.
    MR. COBB: I suppose that if there is no subsidy the Treasury will have some control over the terms of the contract?
    MR. JACKSON: No.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to tender my thanks to the Attorney General for the handsome way in which he has recognised the efforts of the Opposition to reduce the Estimates. At Wisbech I stated that, although we were in a minority, yet, by our pertinacity with regard to the Estimates, we had forced the Government to make considerable reductions, and to waste a little less money than is ordinarily the case with Governments. I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for having confirmed what I said at Wisbech in this handsome manner.
    DR. TANNER: I want some assurance as to the expenditure on the Central Office of the Supreme Court. How does it come to pass that there is an increase of £422?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: We have now been on this Vote since 8 o'clock and have not yet reached the only notice of reduction, namely, that in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill). I think the time has arrived when I may appeal to hon. Members to let us make real progress with the Vote. If so much time is to be devoted to every sub-head in the Estimates as is being devoted to the sub-heads of this Vote, it is impossible to close the Session in a reasonable time. I make no reproach; but I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen in the interest of the Committee generally to allow us to make Progress.
    DR. TANNER: I understand from the Papers that very few hon. Members will be present next week, and, therefore, I think I am justified in raising these points when there is a comparatively good attendance of Members. I assure the right hon. Gentleman the points I have raised are points that were raised in the Public Accounts Committee.
    MR. GOSCHEN: On his own showing, the hon. Gentleman is keeping other hon. Members from the opportunity of raising important questions in which they are interested. I beg of him to give way and let other hon. Members have a chance.
    DR. TANNER: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman in the words of the First Lord of the Treasury: Duty to the country should be the first and paramount factor in dealing with all matters in Committee of Supply. I am trying to do my duty, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to assist me: our united efforts may have results beneficial to the taxpayers.
    MR. MORTON: I suppose that some answer will be given on the points which have been raised. I notice that one Taxing Master gets a salary of £2,000. Why does that gentleman get £500 more than the specified maximum? I should be glad to fall in with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view, but I agree with my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) that we are here to do a certain duty:

    335
    we are pledged to economy, and it is our business to get these Estimates reduced.
    DR. TANNER: In respect of the Central Office of the Supreme Court, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the increase, £422.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sub-head A, be reduced by £422, in respect of the Central Office of the High Court of Judicature."—(Dr. Tanner.)
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The reason why one of the Taxing Masters receives £2,000 a year is that he held his office before the new rule under which the salaries were reduced came into force.
    MR. MORTON: Will the salary be reduced on a vacancy occurring?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Certainly.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: I should like to draw attention to the method of appointing Clerks of Assize. At present, the Judge who happens to go the circuit before a vacancy occurs has the appointment absolutely in his own discretion. The Judge may have a son, or a brother, or a brother-in-law, or some other relative at the Bar whom he appoints. There is no circuit where you could not select from the barristers a fit person to be Clerk of Assize. I think it is very hard on them that some man should be appointed who, perhaps, never had any practice as a barrister. I should be glad if the Attorney General would explain the system of payment.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Speaking from a knowledge of these appointments extending over 25 years, with one exception all the gentlemen appointed have been practising barristers. I do not say there have not been instances in which Judges have appointed relatives of their own, but I am not aware of any instance in which the duties have been inefficiently performed. Clerks of Assize used to be paid by fees, and the fees amounted to larger sums than the salaries now paid; that is why there is a difference in the salaries. On the Northern Circuit, where the fees amounted to a very large sum, a higher salary was paid than in other cases.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: I presume that with the exception of the Northern Circuit the salaries in future will not exceed £800.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Certainly.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I put down a notice of reduction of Sub-head F, but I believe it will not be necessary to move the reduction, or indeed to detain the Committee more than a minute or two, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has very courteously informed me he will be able to give a favourable reply in regard to the particular mischief against which my Amendment is directed. But I do desire to point to the very gross delay which has occurred in dealing with an exceedingly lax disposition of public money. In this Vote there is an item of £3,000 for the Scrivener of the Chancery Registrar's Office. Tear after year £3,000 has been shovelled out to the officer of that Department, and no kind of account rendered by him as to the way he has disposed of it. We do not know how much is retained by this gentleman—I do not say corruptly—for his own remuneration, and how much actually reaches the hands of the very poor class of law writers, who probably do a good deal of the work for which this money is voted. I rely upon the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made that the system will be altered, but I think I am justified in calling attention to the extraordinary delay which has occurred in dealing with what is now admitted to be a great mischief. In 1884 the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Treasury called attention to this matter, and in January, 1890, a Committee reported to the Lord Chancellor. That distinguished functionary knew in January, 1890, of this scandalously lax disposition of public money, and yet it appears that more than a year afterwards, namely, in February, 1891, the same lax system was continued. I think some explanation should be given by the right hon. Gentleman of that delay, especially as its seems to reflect somewhat on the care with which the Lord Chancellor discharges his duty.
    DR. TANNER: I think it is high time we received an assurance that

    337
    the system to which my hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the Committee will be changed.
    MR. JACKSON: It is a fact that a Committee was appointed, and that this Committee reported to the effect stated by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. Arrangements have been made by which the present system of having the work done by law stationers will be discontinued, and 40 copyists will be employed. Some preliminary matters are now under consideration, but the Lord Chancellor sanctioned the alteration in April last. It has been necessary to give notice to the law stationers of the termination of the present arrangement, and I understand the new system will come into operation after the Long Vacation.
    DR. TANNER: Another item calls for mention under Sub-head (G), the allowance to a Master in Lunacy £500, and allowances to Visitors of Lunatics £1,400. These are altogether on an extravagant scale, and two years ago the matter was under consideration. Really it is so difficult to get these reforms carried out that we must incur the risk of being a little tedious in Committee. I wish to ask if any steps have been taken to give effect to the opinion expressed by the Parliamentary Accounts Committee?
    MR. JACKSON: I believe the matter has been considered.
    DR. TANNER: And the result?
    MR. JACKSON: I really do not know.
    DR. TANNER: But are we to get no assurance on this matter? It is rather an extraordinary state of affairs. I do not wish to be troublesome, but I must press for something more satisfactory, and perhaps I had better move a reduction. I regret to find that the right hon. Gentleman, departing from the courtesy with which he usually replies, will give us no assurance that the recommendations of the Committee will be carried out.
    MR. JACKSON: I should have thought it would not have been necessary to give any assurance of the kind. I thought it was well known that the recommendations of the Committee have been taken in detail by the Treasury and dealt with, each item in order. I
    338
    should have thought no assurance was necessary.
    DR. TANNER: But I wish to avoid delay. The last item was under consideration for seven or eight years, and meanwhile waste of expenditure goes on annually.
    MR. MORTON: I observe an item under Sub-head H, £47 for a licence for the refreshment contractor at the Law Courts. A short time ago we discussed the question of having a refreshment bar in the Lobby of this House, and whether a licence was necessary in a Royal Palace. May I ask what this new item means? Has it been found necessary to apply to the Magistrate for a refreshment licence?
    MR. JACKSON: I believe it has been necessary to get a licence, and this is the cost of it.
    MR. MORTON: Then the Magistrates have licensed the Royal Courts of Justice as if the building were an ordinary restaurant in the Strand.
    DR. TANNER: I hope satisfactory measures have been taken to prevent those defalcations which in recent years we have had to provide for, and which last year amounted to £1,287 16s. 6d. There is also an item under Sub-head K, Central Office compensations, for which £325 is the amount asked for this year, as against £265 last year. In order to get some satisfactory explanation and assurance, I move the reduction of the Vote by £200.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item R Central Office Compensations, be reduced by £200."—(Dr. Tanner.)
    MR. MORTON: Surely some explanation is forthcoming?
    MR. JACKSON: The explanation is simply this: There have been reductions in the higher appointments and an increase in the lower appointments.
    DR. TANNER: This generalisation is far from being satisfactory. I feel indignant at the attempt to shuffle out of responsibility by the Treasury, and I must persist in my Motion.
    (10.18.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 91.—(Div. List, No. 378.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,068, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Land Registry."
    MR. MORTON: Here there are two items upon which I ask for a little information. A temporary professional assistant is engaged at 40 guineas a month, and his temporary employment seems to come near a permanent engagement, for he is employed for every month in the year. This I do not quite understand. Then, I find a clerk is in receipt of a salary of £350, while the maximum of the office he holds is set down at £250. The amount now paid is personal to the present holder of the office, but there are far too many of these personal claims; they are unfair to the taxpayers and to the Committee, and it is an absurdity that a maximum should be fixed, and yet officers be in receipt of salaries far in excess of the maximum amount attached to the offices they hold. To get information on these points I move the reduction of the Vote by £200. I am told there is little work for the office to do, yet there is temporary assistance paid for.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £200."—(Mr. Morton.)
    DR. TANNER: I may point out that this Vote shows a steady annual increase. It is £3,568 as compared with £3,553 last year, and turning to the previous year I find the amount was £3,375. How does this come to pass?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. Not only is this Vote not increasing, but large reductions have been made in it. During recent years considerable modifications have taken place in the office, so that, whereas between 1880 and 1886 the expense was as much as an average of £5,500, it has, under the re-organistion scheme carried out by the present Lord Chancellor, been reduced to about £3,000 during the last
    340
    two years. The increase of £15 on the present year is due to the fact that one clerk has become entitled to that increment on his salary. Of the clerks on the staff, one receives a maximum of £250, and the other a maximum of £400; but there is now holding the office worth £250 a clerk who under a higher scale is entitled to £350, and this item cannot be reduced until a vacancy occurs. As to the temporary assistance, it was necessary in consequence of large reductions made in the staff, and to enable the particular work for which professional assistance was engaged to be completed, the temporary assistance has been continued for 12 months.
    MR. HALDANE: I am unable to agree that this is a useless office. I regard it as the nucleus of a reformed land transfer system. I only want to know whether steps are being taken to bring the officials of this office and the Middlesex Registry under the same roof, and what progress is being made?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Not only are these steps being taken, but arrangements are being made to carry out the work of both offices by the same staff. We have brought in a Bill this Session to enable economonies to be brought about by transferring the fees to the Treasury. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Lord Chancellor is doing all he can to promote the efficiency of the staff. I do not think it will be too large for the work which has to be done.
    MR. MORTON: These charges having gone down for some years I notice are now going up. I hope they will not go up much further. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on my right who spoke about land registration. I have taken a great interest in that question, because in the colonies I have seen it carried out to perfection. I should like to see the colonial system adopted in this country, so that you could have your property transferred for a small fee. I do not think that would suit many hon. and learned Gentlemen, but it would be to the advantage of the public. After the statement we have heard from the

    341
    Attorney General, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    3. £391,100, to complete the sum for County Courts.
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee and of the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Vote to the condition of the County Courts of England and Wales, so far as it is disclosed by the Annual Returns sent to us, the last of which was issued about 10 days ago. That Return is not altogether complete, because it does not give information on some points which are really of value, and on which I think information should be given. For instance, it does not tell us the average duration of the cases, nor does it give us the dates of the cases. But, though not absolutely complete, it gives us a large amount of information, and I am bound to say that that information does not lead us to a very happy conclusion. When the Act of 1846, which re-constituted the County Courts, was passed, there was a statement inserted in one of the sections which showed that one of the main reasons for re-construction was the dilatory and expensive character of the working of the Courts in former days. Of course, in the 45 years that have elapsed there must necessarily have been a great improvement in this matter, but still there is room for further improvement, and it is my duty to impress on the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General the desirability of enforcing that improvement. The Return recently laid on the Table brings out several points very conspicuously. One is the expensive character of these Courts; another is the small number of days in the year that they sit; and another which must be taken into consideration in connection with the second point is that there
    342
    is a very large amount of arrears. The Return is conclusive on these points. Turning first of all to the expensive character of the Courts, I find on looking at the Return that out of somewhat less than £3,000,000 claimed somewhere about £1,500,000 has been decreed, and to obtain this sum no less than £543,000 had to be spent; that is to say, roughly speaking, for every £3 recovered £1 has to be spent by the suitors in fees. I do not press the point for I am afraid that the whole of our litigation is of an expensive character. But this is a matter which should be taken account of. But as to the other two points I would press them as strongly as I can on the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman. One would think that it would be a fair allowance to make to these Courts to give them a vacation of a couple of months, and I am justified in that conclusion by the fact that in the legislation of, I think, 1888, there is a section which provides for a certain period of vacation for these Courts, and which indicates the time at which the vacation should be obtained. In that section it was provided that no Judge should be obliged to hold any Courts in September in any year, but that if he did not wish to take advantage of that one month, he might, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, take any other period, or periods, but that the vacation was not to exceed four weeks in any year. I would allow a period double that which I say is a liberal allowance. Now, allowing a period of a couple of months' vacation, and giving the Sundays in the year in which no work is done, there remain out of the 365 days a little over 250 working days in the year. But in this list there is only one Court which sat more than 250 days in the year, and that was the Court of Northumberland. I find that taking the whole of the 55 Courts the average number of days during which they have sat during the past year has been 164. And this is not all, because there are few cases where the average has been exceeded, and some of the cases where the average has not been reached are very conspicuous. There is one case where the Court sat for 104 days only. That is to say, this Court sat four months out of 12. Another sat 109 days. There are 11

    343
    cases out of the 55 where the Courts have not sat for more than one-third of the whole year. Well, one could understand this if you also found that the work of the Courts had been effectually disposed of, but that is not the case. These Courts, which sit for such a short time, have left an enormous amount of arrears, and it is curious to observe that, whereas you would expect to find that where a Court has sat a short time only, a small amount of arrears would be left, and where a Court has been largely employed a large amount of arrears would remain, the reverse has been the case. The Courts that have sat the smallest number of days have left the largest number of arrears. I think that is a most unsatisfactory state of things, to which the attention of the responsible officers of the Crown should certainly be directed. We have seven Courts which last year sat over 200 days. These had a total of 159,000 cases entered; they disposed of 101,000, and there were pending at the close of the year 57,000. That is to say, the percentage of arrears on the number of cases decided was 57. But in the case of the 11 Courts I have referred to, where the number of days during which the Court has sat has been less than 134—and in some cases less than 110—though the Courts are nearly double in number, they had a less number of cases entered in them, and they decided a less number of cases than these seven Courts, and they left a larger number of cases pending, namely, 59,800, against 57,000. This shows a very unsatisfactory condition of things, and, further, I am told that these Courts are supervised by nobody. The Returns from some of the Circuits show a great disparity between the number of cases entered and the number disposed of, while the sittings are few in comparison with the work to be done and the expenditure incurred. In Northumberland the Court sat 262 days, in Birmingham it sat 202 days, and yet in Birmingham they have decided 28,809 cases, and they have 14,345 pending; whereas in Northumberland only 7,940 cases have been decided, and 4,118 are pending. I must call particular attention to the case of Taunton, which sat only for 130 days in the year. There were 7,980 cases entered, 3,840 were disposed of, and 4,140
    344
    are left pending; so that absolutely in regard to the number of cases decided the number of cases pending is in the proportion of 108 to 100. And there is a worse case than this—that of Bath and Devizes, which sat for only 123 days during the year, where the number of cases entered was 12,386, the number decided 5,864, and the number left pending 6,522. When you find such a state of things as this existing, I say your whole system is faulty. The facts show that the whole system requires supervision, and this might be facilitated if the Judges were required to report upon the causes of the varying conditions of business in their circuits. That is a thing with which we are familiar in other Courts, and I do not see why it should not be done in the case of County Court Judges. Arrangements might be made for Judges who are underworked to assist those who are overworked. I do not move any reduction in the Vote, but have only made use of the notice on the Paper in order to call the attention of the Committee to this matter. I trust I shall receive an assurance from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that the subject will be pressed seriously on the attention of the Lord Chancellor, so as to secure greater efficiency, more continuous sittings of the Judges, and less heavy arrears of cases pending at the close of the year.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I rise for the purpose of asking a question or two of the Attorney General with regard to any projected reforms he may have in his mind with reference to County Courts. The period of the Session will not permit, me to go at any length into the question, and I have no intention of doing so. I desire to ask, however, whether the Government have in view any redistribution of the circuits of the County Courts. As has been pointed out, there are many County Courts in which the work is very heavy indeed, while in others the Judges do not sit more than 100 days a year, and it is desirable that an effort should be made in the direction of re-distributing the

    345
    circuits. The Judges of the High Court sit, I think, a period of something like 213 days, and it certainly does seem an intolerable state of things that the County Court Judges in all the districts, who receive high salaries, should only sit, in something like 30 cases out of the 55, not much more than 100 days a year. I do not blame the County Court Judges for that. They have not the work. But I do blame the Treasury, who should long ore this have made some effort in the direction of redistributing the circuits. Something has been urged in former years as to the considerable amount of time which is spent by the County Court Judges in travelling. In some circuits time spent by Judges in travelling might be reduced by having fewer Court towns within a limited area. Take the case of Essex for instance. In that county you have no less than three towns with a trunk line of railway, distant some 24 miles from each other. Surely it would be a simple matter to arrange that the Court should sit in one of these towns to take the cases for the three. As to the expense of the County Courts, I would point out that the larger part of the outgoings in connection with the High Court of Justice is defrayed out of the public taxes, but in the case of the County Court, the money comes from the fees of the suitors and from stamps. The fees in the County Courts are nearly 100 per cent. higher than in the High Court of Justice, and the pressure of the fees on litigants deters people from seeking justice in what is understood to be the poor man's Court. Then, there is another point on which I would ask the hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney General to give us an assurance, and that is as to the amendment of the law with regard to imprisonment for debt. An amazing number of commitments is made by County Court Judges, but apparently upon no recognised principle. I have suggested the introduction of a measure laying down the principle that a man shall be committed only if he had sufficient means to pay the debt at the time the summons was taken out. I am told that the application of the Act in its present form operates most harshly. Another point to which I wish to call attention is this: there has been a large accession of work to some Courts through
    346
    the passing of the Employers' Liability and other Acts, and it might be desirable to centralise some of the special work, and to increase the judicial staff for the purpose, especially in the Metropolis. There are many other topics I should like to refer to, but at this period of the Session I will not do more than venture to put these questions to the hon. Member, and ask him if he can give us some assurance in the matter.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: I would urge on the hon. and learned Gentleman the desirability of rearranging the County Court districts in the Metropolis, particularly in the north of London for the convenience of Islington and St. Pancras, where there has been a large increase of population since the present arrangements were made. I am told that it is proposed to establish a County Court at Hampstead, and that a Petition has been presented on the subject. But I would venture to suggest that a Court is much more required in the northern part of St. Pancras.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: This question is a very large one, and I do not apologise for taking part in the discussion. One point has been omitted by the hon. Members who have spoken, and that is the position of the salaries of the Registrars. My hon. Friend near me drew attention to the fees of the County Courts and the high salaries of the Judges. Well, I venture to say that on the whole the County Court Judges are not overpaid, but some of the Registrars are, their income from fees being more than the salaries of the Judges. The County Court work of the country is becoming more important every year. Not a year passes without the passing of fresh legislation, imposing new duties on the County Courts. We have, for instance, now given them work to do in connection with the collection of the tithe: and I am not sure that it would not be a wise economy to increase the salaries of the Judges so that we might get the most competent men for the appointments and might have a claim on them to give up all their time to their official duties.

    347
    As to the inequality in the number of days that the Judges sit, I can assure hon. Gentleman that in some eases the Judges have to spend a considerable time in travelling, and it would, therefore, be well to consider whether some of that time could not be saved for effective work by a re-distribution of the circuits. There ought, in my opinion, to be two scales of costs in County Courts, one scale for defended, and the other for undefended cases. At present, if a grocer has to collect a debt of 10s. by the operation of the machinery of the County Court, the fees must amount to 3s., although the case is undefended. Similarly, in an undefended case for the recovery of £2 10s., the fees payable by the defendant amount to 21s. The time has come when the fees should be rearranged, distinct scales being provided for defended and for undefended cases. With respect to the question of imprisonment for debt, I do not think that anything can be better than the present arrangement. The County Court Judges exercise their power of committal for contempt of Court in respect of the non-payment of debts with the greatest caution. They do not commit unless they are satisfied that a defendant absolutely refuses to pay, although he is in a position to do so. They are exceedingly anxious to protect the liberty of the subject. I think my hon. Friend ought not to look merely at the number of committal orders, for in not one out of 10 does the defendant eventually go to prison. The orders simply act as an instrument for getting the money out of the debtor.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not deny the importance of this subject, but I hope my hon. Friend will be content with the protest he has made and the answer I have to make. I agree that it would probably be well to revise the scale of costs so as to lower them in cases where the amounts sought to be recovered are very small. It is scarcely fair to compare the expense with the amount recovered, for there is a large amount of work done in connection with unrecovered debts. To the criticisms that have been made with respect to the
    348
    number of days on which certain County Court Judges sit, I will reply by pointing out that the time occupied in travelling through a circuit must be taken into account. Circuit 57, for example, comprises Axminster, Barnstaple, Bridge-water, Wellington, Landport, South Molton, Taunton, Tiverton, and other towns. To get to these different Courts must naturally occupy a considerable amount of time. The question of the revision of the circuits is, however, one which the Government always keep in view. Changes can only be effected conveniently when vacancies occur in the judicial staff, but whenever opportunities arise steps are taken with a view to consolidate the Courts in such a way as to promote economy. A suggestion has been made by the hon. Member for Durham that in one particular county two Courts out of three shall be abolished. Such a suggestion would not be acceded to lightly by any one who knows how great a howl is heard in a locality whenever it is proposed that a Court should be abolished. I have myself received many letters complaining of the infrequency of the sittings of certain County Courts. It must be remembered that this Court is a poor man's Court, and it should be brought as nearly as possible to his door. I am not prepared to say that some Judges might not put in some more days' work in a week; but the question is not one that could be disposed of by mere criticism. Judges who are certainly not open to the imputation of shirking their work have told me that they frequently have to travel one whole day in order to sit for two hours on the following day. If they do not sit once a week or once a fortnight in certain places an outcry is at once raised, although there may be no urgent work to be got through. As to the time taken in getting through the work, I have known a case to last several hours, and then 30 cases to be got through in one hour. I have practised in the County Court where I have seen a distinguished Judge dispose of 60 or 70 cases in an hour with perfect satisfaction. The hon. Member for St. Pancras has urged a re-organisation of the Courts in London. I hardly think the question a pressing one, because locomotion in London is exceedingly

    349
    cheap, and if there is a Court within a mile, or mile and a half, of a litigant's residence he has not much to complain of. Under the County Courts Act all the newly-appointed Judges must reside in their districts, and under the same Act provision is made against Registrars receiving excessive remuneration, which formerly undoubtedly took place in some instances. I know of some Courts where the Registrar received more than the Judge. This, however, has been put an end to by the Act of 1888, and I do not anticipate there will be any such abuses in the future. I think I have answered all the points raised.
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: The Judge to whom I alluded to as having sat only 104 days was the Carmarthen Judge. On that circuit there are only six places of Session. The Taunton Court has no less than 13 Sessional places. It is clear, from a comparison of these two Courts, that it is not the mere difficulty in travelling which interferes with the number of days the Judges sit. If that were so, Taunton would be in a worse position than Carmarthen. But that is not so. Taunton is better than Carmarthen, though hampered with almost double the number of places of sitting. Surely he might occupy his time more fully in the interests of the public.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL&c.): I have noticed that there is very great inequality in the work of the County Court Judges. Their functions are not sufficiently supervised, and I am glad, therefore, to hear the Attorney General promise on behalf of the Government to re-arrange the circuits.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: What I said was that the desirability of doing so should be borne in mind when vacancies occurred.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am afraid that excessive regard is paid to vested rights. It seems to be assumed that when once a man is appointed to an office it is necessary to consider his position tenderly, and that no change can be made. If the circuits can only
    350
    be re-arranged when a vacancy arises, it seems to me it will be necessary to wait for the re-arrangement until four or five County Court Judges die simultaneously, for no change can be made in the event of one vacancy without disturbing the arrangements in adjoining circuits.
    MR. MORTON: I suppose the reduction in the amount of the Vote is due to the changes regarding bankruptcy. What has astonished me is that although the receipts have exceeded £400,000 there has been a loss of £100,000. How can that be explained? I know that the business in the City of London Court is so well managed that it is transacted at a profit. Why should not the other Courts be similarly managed? I have no desire to move the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. P. STANHOPE: I should like to draw attention to the increasing practice of sons of County Court Judges practising in the Courts over which their fathers preside.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not relevant to the Vote.
    MR. P. STANHOPE: I was going to suggest that the Lord Chancellor, when appointing County Court Judges (whose salaries are included in this Vote) should suggest the impropriety of such a practice.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The salaries of the County Court Judges are not included in this Vote.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough, I may point out that the position of the City of London Court is unique. It is worked at a profit because so enormous a number of undefended causes come before it. That is the Court in which I have seen from 60 to 100 cases disposed of in an hour. But the Provincial Courts do not get anything like the amount of business that passes through the City of London Court. In many the number of cases dealt with does not exceed 500 in a year, whereas in the City of London Court the number is 30,000 or 40,000. It is impossible to impose on suitors in the country Courts fees which would be

    351
    sufficient to ensure the working of the Courts at a profit.
    MR. MORTON: Is it not on account of the superior management in the City of London Court that the profit arises?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Certainly not.
    MR. MORTON: I would suggest that Parliament should be asked to transfer the management of these Courts to County Councils and Corporations; then, possibly, a profit would be obtained, as in the City of London.
    MR. ROBY: Is the item "allowance for subsistence of Judges" separate from the travelling allowance? I should like to know on what principle the travelling expenses are paid.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: There is a fixed allowance—3d. per mile by rail, 2s. per mile by road, and an allowance of 21s. per day.
    MR. ROBY: And that covers travelling and subsistence?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Yes.
    Vote agreed to.
    4. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £13,047, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Police Courts of London and Sheerness."
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: I wish to call attention to the necessity of a Police Court for Pancras. At the present time the Courts serving that district are situate outside it. Some cases are taken to Highgate, some to the North London Police Court, some to Clerkenwell, and some to Marylebone. All these Courts are excessively inconvenient for the populous portion of St. Pancras. I would suggest that there might be some re-arrangement of the Courts in the West Central District. There are three Courts close together—Bow Street, Marlborough Street, and Westminster—and one of these might be removed
    352
    to St. Pancras. There are three Magistrates at Bow Street, and two at each of the other two Courts, and I have not heard that they are overworked. I would suggest that one Court might be transferred to St. Pancras with great advantage to the public. I wish to thank the Home Secretary for the courtesy with which he received this suggestion when it was made to him privately some time ago. I believe the change I have suggested is a public necessary, and in the interests of my constituents I hope it will be effected.
    DR. CLARK: I understand that for these London Courts Parliament pays nearly £91,000 a year, and that £20,000 is received back in fees. I think we have cause to complain that the Imperial Exchequer should have to pay £70,000 for the London Police Courts, while every other large town in the United Kingdom pays for its own. The only course to adopt is to vote against the charge every year; then, possibly, we may in time get rid of this grievance.
    MR. WEBSTER: I should like to say a few words in support of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras. The population of St. Pancras numbers, I believe, 300,000; it is a population which, to some extent, works together, and has local interests. May I point out that the persons who find their way into the London Police Courts are not always Londoners; that a good many of them are individuals from the country; and that, consequently, there is a reason for charging the expense on the Imperial Exchequer? The present arrangements for St. Pancras are very inconvenient to those who have from time to time to attend the Police Court; and though there is no district in London which less requires a Court, yet it is necessary to have one, and that Court should be in a central situation. I therefore support the suggestion for a re-arrangement of the existing Courts.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I wish to ask the Home Secretary what

    353
    steps have been taken to provide female attendants for female prisoners at the various stations and Police Courts? The right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion promised that steps should be taken to avoid the necessity of leaving female prisoners under the charge of male warders.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I have promised that during the Recess I will endeavour to ascertain whether it is possible to re-arrange the Metropolitan Police Courts. It would be inconvenient to displace the old Courts and so interfere with the habits of the people who live near them. I remember I had a Departmental Committee which proposed to do away with Marlborough Street Police Court, but immediately the proposal was made there was a great outcry. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green will see from the Estimates that provision has been made for one female warder for each of the 14 Metropolitan Police Courts.
    MR. MORTON: This is one of the Votes I am specially pledged to vote against. I cannot understand why the taxpayers of the country should pay for keeping up the London Courts. Experience has shown that the City Magistrates do the work better than Stipendiaries, and I would suggest to the people of London that they should do away with paid Magistrates. I shall go with my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness into the Lobby against this Vote.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I think I am entitled to fuller information with regard to the appointment of female warders. The number provided for in this Estimate is exactly the same as in last year's Estimate. I want to know are there female attendants at police stations where women are detained at night? If so, what is the expense?
    MR. MATTHEWS: We have had female warders at Police Courts since December, 1888.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: But women prisoners are not detained at Police Courts at night, are they?
    MR. MATTHEWS: No.
    MR. ATKINSON: Having regard to the treatment of the Salvation Army at Eastbourne by the Home Secretary, I cannot have much confidence in the promises of the right hon. Gentleman, and if a Division takes place I shall vote against the Government.
    (11.42.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 48.—(Div. List, No. 379.)
    5. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £37,586, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Pay and Expenses of Officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I shall be glad if the Home Secretary will inform the Committee to what extent female warders have been supplied at police stations where women are detained at night?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,: A start has been made in that direction in some of the larger stations. I will give the hon. Member details on Report.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to move to reduce the salary of the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police by £500. I am told there is a place in Bond Street where fortunes are told at 10s. a head. The place is run by a syndicate, who have put a young lady named Kennedy in charge of the business, and, I suppose, make a profit. There is a considerable establishment, and a footman is employed. I want to know why the Chief Commissioner or

    355
    the Home Office prosecute poor people who charge 6d. or 1s., and do not prosecute those persons in Bond Street who charge 10s. a head? I am told that this business is carried on to a large extent. I am speaking from facts and not from mere hearsay, for a friend of mine sent his servant there with 10s. and he came back without the money. Vice seems to be peculiar to the West End of London, and the authorities appear to think it their duty not be interfere. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £500, part of the Salary of the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police."—(Mr. Morton.)
    SIR W. LAWSON: The Home Secretary does not appear to intend to answer. I hope the Committee will get some information on the subject. It appears that poor people are prosecuted for this sort of thing, while rich people are not.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I really heard the observations of the hon. Member for Peterborough so imperfectly that I do not feel able to answer him. The function of the police is not to play the part of public prosecutors, nor is it my function. The police are always glad to aid in bringing offenders against the law to justice when their offences are brought to their knowledge. I did not hear what the facts of this case are—
    MR. MORTON: I shall be very glad to repeat my statement.
    MR. MATTHEWS: There is no necessity for that. If the hon. Gentleman will lay the facts of the case before the superintendent of the district, I have no doubt that that officer will assist the hon. Gentleman in bringing the offenders to justice.
    MR. MORTON: I shall do nothing of the sort. The police and the right hon. Gentleman are paid to do this work. After what the Home Secretary has said, I feel it my duty to make my statement over again. My duty is to make
    356
    this statement, and it is the duty of the Home Secretary to see that the law is carried out. A friend of mine sent his servant to this place in Bond Street lately, and he was ushered in to see this young lady by a footman. He came back without the 10s. The police prosecute from time to time persons who tell fortunes at 6d. a head, and what I want to know is why they do not prosecute this person in Bond Street, who tells fortunes at 10s. a head. The business in Bond Street is, I am told, run by a syndicate, who divide the profits after paying the footman.
    (12.2.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 102.—(Div. List. No, 380.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. TANNER: I think this is a good opportunity to get some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote in reference to the occurrences at Eastbourne in connection with the Salvation Army.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question does not arise on this Vote at all.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £438,490, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies."
    MR. PARNELL: When the 12 o'clock Rule was suspended the Government undertook not to proceed with any Irish Votes after 12 o'clock. Although this particular Vote is not an Irish Vote, there is an Irish question of considerable importance which I wish to raise upon it, and I trust that as that question must give rise to a discussion of considerable length, the Government will consent to postpone the Vote, so that I and my friends may have an opportunity of putting our views before the Committee at a time when they can be fairly considered and understood.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I think the hon. Member will admit it would be a pity to close our discussion of Supply at this early hour (12.15). The Committee, I feel confident, desire to make progress. The hon. Gentleman suggests that this Vote should be postponed. It is understood that the Votes will be taken in their order, and unless it should be unanimously desired that this particular Vote should be postponed, I must adhere to that arrangement.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The arrangement made was that after 12 o'clock no Vote of any consequence should be proceeded with, but I see no reason why the Committee should not enter upon the consideration of this Vote. If the subject which the hon. Member desires to bring forward is one of such importance that the discussion upon it cannot be concluded to-night, Progress can be reported at a later hour. Why should we not discuss the Vote now for a reasonable time? If we are to close the Session at an early date, it is quite plain we must make greater progress with the Votes than we have made lately.
    MR. GOSCHEN: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, it is clear that I cannot consent to the postponement of the Vote.
    MR. PARNELL: I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has intervened in this discussion to prevent me from bringing before the Committee in a satisfactory way the very serious matters to which it will be my duty to draw attention when this Vote is discussed. I cannot see that it is my duty to make my statement at this late hour. The right hon. Member for Derby has stated that he cannot see any reason why the Vote should not now be proceeded with. I can see reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should not wish the Vote to be taken in the daytime, and why he should desire that it should be taken at an hour when the discussion cannot be fully reported.
    358
    It will be my duty to deal with matters which had their origin during the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office. It will be necessary for me to deal with considerations affecting the liberty of a prisoner who received his sentence under the policy and under the direction of the right hon. Member for Derby. I refer to the case of the prisoner John Daly. At this late period of the night I do not feel justified in bringing this subject before the Committee, because it cannot be profitably discussed. It is most unfair of the right hon. Member for Derby to insist that the subject should be opened to-night, and I shall do all I can within the Forms of the House to prevent the Vote being proceeded with at this late hour. I beg to move that you, Sir, do report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. GOSCHEN: I rise to a point of order. I understand that the hon. Member for Cork intends to call attention to matters connected with the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. I desire to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member would be in order in so doing on this Vote? I ask this question because the answer of the Chairman may influence the course which the hon. Member himself proposes to take. If he would not be in order in raising the question, I assume he would not object to the Committee making progress with the Vote.
    MR. PARNELL: On the point of order, Sir, I submit to you that the question of the right hon. Gentleman is premature; no question of order can arise until I have infringed a Rule of Order, or until any hon. Member considers I have infringed a Rule of Order. I did not say that I intended to discuss the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby as Home Secretary; I said I proposed to refer to circumstances in connection with a

    359
    prisoner, the expense of whose imprisonment comes under this Vote, and which imprisonment had its origin during the term of office of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. I respectfully submit to you, Sir, that to raise the question now, before it is alleged that I have infringed any Rule of Order, is entirely premature. I shall endeavour in any observations I may have to address to you to keep myself in order; I shall always be subject to your direction, and shall endeavour to observe your ruling; but until I break through any Rule governing debate in Committee I submit to you, Sir, no point of order can be raised.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is no doubt true that the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer refers rather to what would happen after the question to report Progress has been disposed of, and it may therefore be said to be premature. But I was about to point out, in reference to the Motion to report Progress, that so far as I understood the purport of what the hon. Member intended to discuss, it was difficult to say exactly what was his intention; but it did appear to me that it would probably be out of order, and it would probably save time if I expressly decline to put the Motion to report Progress, in order that we may see what it is the hon. Member desires to bring forward.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ATKINSON: It is a pleasant thing for us to notice now, and it will be a very pleasant thing for the country to see to-morrow, how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and the Member for Cork are drifting apart. It seems to me of very little consequence whether we discuss John Daly or any other prisoner; but whether they have been well or ill-treated we know that the hon. Member for Cork has been responsible for the imprisonment of a great number of John Dalys—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Motion to report Progress has not been put. The
    360
    Vote is now before the Committee, and to that the hon. Member's remarks are not relevant.
    MR. ATKINSON: The remarks that I have made are congratulatory to the House and to the country, that the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Party on the other side—[Cries of "Order!"]—or part of the Party—and the Member for Cork seem to have less understanding as to what they should do—
    THE CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the Vote. The hon. Member must confine himself to that.
    MR. ATKINSON: Then I beg to oppose the Vote.
    MR. PARNELL: I regret that I should have to proceed when it is quite impossible that I can go into the very important subject it will be necessary for me to bring before the Committee, but there is a preliminary portion of it which I may perhaps deal with, and in doing so I shall address myself to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. It is in reference to the prisoner John Daly. The hon. Gentleman will remember that he recently received a letter from a Member of this House, Mr. John Redmond, the Member for North Wexford, asking his permission to hold a private interview of a professional character with John Daly in Portland Prison, an interview as professional adviser. It appears that in relation to the case of John Daly and the justice of his conviction fresh information—fresh evidence—had been received in the shape of a very important statement made by Alderman Manton, of Birmingham, on the authority of the Police Superintendent of that district, and the statement was of such a character as to render it necessary or desirable, before bringing the case of John Daly before the House of Commons, and even before bringing it before the Home Secretary, that somebody should have an interview of a private character with this prisoner to obtain from him certain information with regard to the identity of an unknown

    361
    person whose name did not transpire at the trial, but who on sworn evidence was stated to have handed to Daly certain explosive material for the possession of which John Daly was convicted. In order to obtain the necessary information, my hon. Friend requested a private interview with Daly, and he understood from the reply received from the right hon. Gentleman that his request had been granted, and, in pursuance of that understanding, he went to Portland to have the private interview. On his arrival at the prison he found that the prison officials insisted on being present at the interview. Daly, although most anxious to have the opportunity of conferring with my hon. Friend in private, was unwilling to give the necessary information in the presence of the prison officials. My hon. Friend accordingly retired from the prison, and telegraphed to the right hon. Gentleman for authority to see Daly privately. He received from the right hon. Gentleman a reply by telegraph that the authority could not be given. Now, I wish to bring this matter again under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. This evidence, or further information, is of a most grave and important character. It is, in the opinion of Daly's legal adviser, absolutely necessary that he should have an opportunity of obtaining with the prisoner an interview of a confidential character in order to obtain further information with regard to this further evidence. The right hon. Gentleman has refused up to the present to grant this private interview. I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out strictly the rules which are enforced, for I know that in the case of convicted prisoners in Ireland their legal advisers are permitted to have private interviews with prisoners without the presence of a prison warder. It must be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that in cases of this kind there may be special reasons why it is impossible for such prisoners to confer freely with their legal advisers in the presence of prison officials. At all events, it is certain that Daly has declined, and, as I think, reasonably and properly declined, to give the necessary information in the presence of an official. What I now ask from the right hon. Gentleman is permission for the legal
    362
    adviser of John Daly to see the prisoner privately in accordance with the precedent set by the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Lord Lieutenant in regard to convicted prisoners under their jurisdiction, who are allowed private interviews with their legal advisers during their term of imprisonment. This is a subject of such very grave importance that I may be excused for pressing it very strongly on the attention of the Home Secretary. We believe that if an opportunity were given for the legal adviser of John Daly to confer freely in private with him, the result would be information of such a character being put before the Home Office as would lead to the re-opening of the case, and possibly—probably, as we hope—to the release of the prisoner. We think, under these circumstances, as there is no Court of Appeal established, and as the Home Secretary is the only Court of Appeal, that he ought to permit this interview between prisoner and legal adviser, which would be permitted if there were in existence in this country that Court of Appeal which successive Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have supported and advocated from time to time. I trust, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he will remove any difficulty in the way of this private interview, and that he will allow the legal adviser of John Daly to see him without the presence of a warder.
    MR. MATTHEWS: This question of interviews with prisoners is one which hon. Members sitting below the Gangway opposite brought prominently before the attention of the House at the time of the sitting of the Special Commission. At that time, and perhaps not without reason, they complained of the laxity of the rule. I recollect that they complained that representatives of the Times were allowed to see prisoners in custody within sight but out of the hearing of a warder. I remember at that time saying I thought the practice was one that ought to be reconsidered I said I thought it was not reasonable to allow a lawyer to see a prisoner in private except on the prisoner's own

    363
    legal business. Having had my attention directed to the subject, I believe the directions which I gave are in accordance with the public' declarations I made, namely, that when a legal person has bonâ fide business to transact with a prisoner, it is proper to grant an interview which shall take place out of the hearing of a warder. The privilege of absolute secrecy attaches to such communications, and we ought not to insist on imposing a witness in the shape of a warder, who might be compelled to state all that takes place. That seems to me to be a sound principle to proceed upon, but, as I think the Committee will see, it is absolutely essential, in order to guard the system from abuse, that clear and satisfactory explanation should be given to show that it is upon legal business of the prisoner's that the interview is desired. Now, even after the explanation of the hon. Member for Cork, I do not clearly understand what legal business Mr. Redmond proposes to transact with Daly. I can only say no sufficient reason has been stated why there should be a private interview. Mr. Redmond asked for an interview; and having gone to Portland for the purpose, and being informed that the rules did not allow the interview to take place without the presence of a warder, Mr. Redmond telegraphed to me that he wished to see the prisoner privately. My answer, not quite in the terms mentioned by the hon. Member for Cork, was that I saw no reason for departing from the usual Prison Rules in Mr. Redmond's case. If, however, I have before mo, or if the Governor has laid before him, substantial grounds for believing that the interview would be on legal business of the prisoner's, I should think it desirable that, although a warder should be in sight, he should be out of hearing.
    MR. PARNELL: I think the right hon. Gentleman must be under some misapprehension. As I understand the facts of the case from my hon. Friend, Daly did apply to the prison authorities to be permitted to see his legal adviser, Mr. John Redmond, upon his own (Daly's) legal business, and Mr. John Redmond wrote to the right hon. Gentleman stating that
    364
    he was desirous of seeing Daly as his professional legal adviser—that he was desirous of having a professional interview. If my memory serves me aright, these were the words my hon. Friend represented to me he had used in his communication to the right hon. Gentleman in asking for an interview, and the right hon. Gentleman granted the application. Mr. Redmond then proceeded to Portland Prison in the firm belief that he was going to obtain the private interview with Daly which he had requested from the right hon. Gentleman, and which he supposed the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to grant, and he was perfectly amazed, when ushered into the presence of Daly, to find that an official of the prison insisted on remaining in the room. I have only to repeat that in my belief the request was distinctly made to the prison authorities by Daly and by Mr. John Redmond to the Home Secretary that Mr. Redmond should see Daly as his professional legal adviser. I cannot suppose that the right hon. Gentleman, knowing as he does the circumstances and history of this case, would wish for a single moment to suggest that this interview was sought for any other purpose by Mr. Redmond than that alleged, or that it was other than a professional interview between client and legal adviser. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to giving the assurance that he will allow the interview to take place, in order that Daly may give the important information which he is anxious to give, and which my hon. and learned Friend, as a lawyer, believes to be absolutely essential in order to enable truth and justice in this case to be met.
    MR. SEXTON: I have listened with attention to the statement of the hon. Member for Cork and the reply of the Home Secretary, and I feel it my duty to say that not only has a case for a private interview been completely made out, but the right hon. Gentleman has himself admitted it. He has put before the Committee the principle that governs this matter, and the reasons upon which that principle is based. The right hon.

    365
    Gentleman has said that a prisoner is entitled to have an interview with his legal adviser in sight, but out of hearing, of the prison officials, who may disclose what passes between the legal adviser and his client. The hon. Member for Cork has stated that Mr. Redmond wished to see the prisoner to consult him upon evidence relating to the justice of his conviction, which evidence apparently rests first upon a statement of the Superintendent of Police of the district in which Daly was convicted; and, secondly, on that of a gentleman who heard the matter directly from the Superintendent, and who is a Magistrate in the borough. It is a matter of great gravity. It is said that Daly requested the interview on legal business, and undoubtedly it is legal business in which the prisoner is very closely interested. Following upon that, and confirmatory of it, we have the application made by Mr. Redmond, and I am bound to say that the name of the hon. Member for Wexford, well-known as a member of the Irish Bar, and as a Member of this House, should have been sufficient evidence of the bona fides of the application. There was an application by letter to the right hon. Gentleman for a private interview with Daly.
    *MR. MATTHEWS: No.
    MR. PARNELL: A professional interview.
    *MR. MATTHEWS: Not at that time.
    MR. SEXTON: I am going upon the statement of the hon. Member for Cork, who says that Mr. Redmond wrote to the Home Secretary to say he desired an interview upon professional business. Now, surely this is not Mr. Redmond's business as distinct from the prisoner's? The hon. Member for Cork has stated the object of the interview was to discuss matters of evidence having relation to the justice of the prisoner's conviction and I do not think that in common courtesy and common sense, after the hon. Member for Cork has stated on behalf of Mr. Redmond the object with which the application was made, any further statement can be desired.
    366
    If that is not the prisoner's business I do not know what is. The right hon. Gentleman has treated this matter in a somewhat pedantic spirit, and I think it would be only in conformity with the spirit of the rules and common sense if he were now to rise and say that such an interview does fall within the rules and shall be granted.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think I treated the matter in a pedantic spirit when I said that the speech of the hon. Member for Cork was not sufficient to justify the demand. It must be made clear to the prison authorities before they can grant leave that there is some bonâ fide legal business on hand; it is not necessary that they should know the particulars, but there must be some representations upon which the authorities may judge if the application comes within the proper category or not. I was unable to judge from the speech of the hon. Member for Cork what the legal business was, and Mr. Redmond's letter contained, so far as I remember, no explanation of the kind of business.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What did you let in Soames for?
    *MR. MATTHEWS: From the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast, I now gather, with some difficulty, that Mr. Redmond desires to see John Daly in order to ascertain from information Daly can give, coupled with subsequent information to be obtained elsewhere, whether he can make out a case for showing that Daly's conviction was wrong. That, I think, would come within the rule I have mentioned, and I think that Daly should see Mr. Redmond outside the hearing of the prison officials.
    MR. ATKINSON: I think if the Home Secretary were in prison and his solicitor were trying to get him out, he would consider that legal business enough. I cannot understand the ramifications of his mind which enabled him to decide that this was a case in which

    367
    Daly should not be allowed to see his solicitor. The fact is, the Home Office seem so determined not to let their Irish prisoners or their Salvation Army prisoners at Eastbourne see solicitors, or anybody else who wants to do them good, that it amounts to a craze. I protest against the way in which the right hon. Gentleman looks at prisoners. He may be a prisoner himself some day. I do not mean that he is more liable to that misfortune than the rest of us, but we are all afflicted with human nature. I think the right hon. Gentleman has shown great hard-heartedness not only towards John Daly, but towards the Eastbourne prisoners. I protest against this. I think the hon. Member for Cork has made out his case, supported by the talented Member for West Belfast, and I hope the Home Secretary will give way.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think we have reason to complain of the attitude of the Government. We ought not to be asked to take the Vote now. Many matters arise in connection with it. Contrast the manner in which Mr. Redmond was treated with the manner in which Mr. Soames was treated, or Inspector Littlechild, or any other gentleman connected with the prosecution before the Parnell or Special Commission. No one who takes up this Blue Book which deals with the treatment of these prisoners can fail to be struck with the facility afforded to the Times' pimps for seeing them for the purposes of the Parnell Commission, and frequently they were admitted against the protests of the prisoners themselves. Not once, but twice, and thrice were they allowed to be seen. If Soames failed to get anything out of them, then Pigott tried, and after him Littlechild. And all this was done to back up a bogus case on behalf of the Government, with no warder even in sight. Not only were these facilities given to the Times' men, but the Government actually, for their convenience,
    368
    brought over convicts from Ireland and kept them in London for three months. But here in this case the counsel for the prisoner, a Member of this House, desiring to see his client on a matter concerning the justice of his sentence and his liberty, after travelling some 300 or 400 miles, is denied the right conceded readily to the subordinate of the Times on a matter of far less importance. Can you expect the Irish people not to draw their own conclusions? This prisoner has been allowed to see three courses of the Times' spies, yet, when he wants to see his own legal adviser, it is denied him. This is not the way in which all prisoners charged with treason felony have been treated. Mr. Davitt was not treated in this way. I now understand the Government admit Mr. Redmond's title as the prisoner's legal adviser, and if it is right to admit him now he ought not to have been denied admission before. The Government and the right hon. Member for Derby have pressed the hon. Member for Cork to go on with this Vote to-night; but if we are to go on with it, it will take a very considerable time longer, and I think the Goverment might profitably agree to its postponement, and take some later Votes. I have matters to raise in connection with this Vote which will probably occupy some time in discussion. I have to refer to the treatment of the prisoner, James M'Grath, who died in prison. The right hon. Gentleman told me that the relatives of the deceased were communicated with before his death; but I have communications from his friends—most respectable people—directly traversing that statement. I have several other matters to mention, and several hours may be occupied.
    COLONEL NOLAN: To a certain extent thanks are due to the Home Secretary for the permission to Mr. Redmond to visit the prisoner. I think my hon. Friend is quite entitled to make a Motion to strike out the Governor's salary, for the action of the Governor of the prison was most unjust, and has caused a vast amount of trouble.
    MR. PARNELL: I do not desire to move a reduction.
    COLONEL NOLAN: A Motion to reduce the salary would be justified—
    MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Redmond never made any statement to the Governor, so far as I know.
    MR. PARNELL: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Mr. Redmond assured me that he made the strongest possible remonstrances to the prison officials, and gave the object and character of the business on which he wished to consult Daly.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I think the statement of the Home Secretary is a good reason for postponing the Vote in the interest of Public Business. I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in the interest of Public Business, it would be far better to go on with some other Vote. We are not yet in possession of all the facts of the case, and I have no doubt that if we have a short postponement, we shall be able to clear up all the facts in the case.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I will agree to postpone this Vote upon the understanding that further progress is made with the remaining Votes.
    MR. HUNTER: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how far he proposes to go to-night? The 11th Vote is for the Law Courts and Law Charges in Scotland, and I should oppose going on with that at this hour.
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman, I take it, proposes to proceed with Votes 9 and 10.
    MR. GOSCHEN: If there is no protest against the postponement—and I think I may take it that silence gives consent—we will now proceed with Votes 9 and 10.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    6. £135,894, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
    7. £23,866, to complete the sum for the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  REDEMPTION OF RENT (IRELAND BILL.—(No. 426.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    As amended, considered.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It would appear that Sub-section I should be amended.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after the word "one," to insert the words "and section three."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    DR. CLARK: There is an understanding that no business should be taken after 1 o'clock. If you, Sir, come in one minute before 1 o'clock after the business has been Supply, at 1 o'clock you leave the Chair, and the House adjourns; but if you come in one minute after 1 you sit until the Orders are gone through. I must say I fail to understand the principle of this. I do not think we should go on after 1 o'clock, and therefore I object to the consideration of this Bill. I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: The Bill is not opposed.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: All Irish Members on both sides of the House are in favour of the Bill, and I think it should be allowed to go on. If progress is not made with it it will be in great danger of being defeated, at any rate for the Session.
    MR. SEXTON: It will not take the House five minutes to dispose of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy), who has given great attention to the measure, will be obliged to leave in a day or two

    371
    to attend to some important business in Ireland.
    DR. CLARK: I will not further object if the Government assure us that they will not allow progress to be made with any other Bill after this.
    MR. ATKINSON: But I must object. If one Member is to be prevented from going on with his Bill other Members should not be permitted.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I would point out that when there is a purely Scotch Bill down, such as the Herring Brand Bill, we Irish Members do not interfere with its progress.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his objection?
    MR. ATKINSON: No.
    It being after Midnight, and Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 391.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. SEXTON: What do the Government intend to do with this Bill?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Unfortunately, though a Private Bill it is of a controversial character. There are two or three hon. Members who are opposed to certain parts of it, but I trust they will not press their opposition to an extreme length. They desire an opportunity of expressing their views, and therefore we cannot take the Bill until after 12 o'clock. Subject to getting on with
    372
    Supply, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will afford the House a fair opportunity for the consideration of the Bill, if the discussion is not carried to an unreasonable length.
    MR. SEXTON: When will it be taken?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: We cannot stop Supply.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.—(No. 407.)

    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Lords Message [23rd July], requesting a Copy of the Report, &c., from the Select Committee on Railway Servants (Hours of Labour), considered:—Printed Copy to be communicated.
  LUNACY BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 430.]

  CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 431.]
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after One o'clock till Monday next.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Petition of Henry Edward Montague Dorington Clotworthy Upton Viscount Templetown in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 208.)
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to; several others agreed to, with Amendments, and Consequential Amendments to the Bill; and several others disagreed to, for which they assign Reasons; The said Amendments and Reasons to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next. (No. 260.)
SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 48.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments; The Report thereof to be received on Monday next: and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 262.)
HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES BILL. (No. 234.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 259.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 263.)
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 259.)
  ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate enactments relating to the administration of the estates of deceased persons—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 264.)
  TURBART (IRELAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next: (The Lord Privy Seal [E. Cadogan].) (No. 265.)
THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS AND COLONIAL DEFENCE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD BRASSEY,in rising to call attention to the increased military contribution demanded by the Imperial Government from the Colony of the Straits Settlements for the maintenance of the garrison, said: My Lords, in calling the attention of your Lordships very briefly to the increased military contribution which has recently been demanded from the Colony of Singapore, my chief desire is to give to the Straits Settlements Association, on whose behalf I speak, the satisfaction of being heard by your Lordships, and of receiving from the Secretary of State an explanation of the reasons which have guided the action of the Government. As an impartial Court of Appeal for every dependency of the Crown which considers that it has a grievance, Parliament is a powerful link to bind the Empire together. I will begin with the admission that the Straits Settlements owe the prosperity which they enjoy to the protection afforded by England, the Mother Country, and may rightly, in point of principle, be called upon to contribute to the cost of Imperial defence. The grievance alleged is that the amount asked is excessive, and that the demand has been made suddenly, without previous warning or consultation. It is not necessary to dwell on the importance of Singapore as a coaling station and as a link in the chain of fortified stations which give protection to our great trade with the East. The importance of the position has been greatly enhanced by the opening of the Suez Canal and the increase in the number of steamers engaged in the trade with the East. The defences of Singapore were carefully considered by the Royal Commission on the defence of the coaling stations. The additional works recommended have been constructed by the colony at a cost of £81,000. The Imperial Government has provided the armaments. In addition to the cost of the defensive works, the Straits Settlements have paid a large military

  215
  contribution for the maintenance of the garrison amounting for the year 1868–9 to £59,000, and for the subsequent years to £50,445 per annum. In addition to the military contribution, the Colony of the Straits Settlements maintains a large armed police force partly for purposes of public order and partly for purposes of local defence. Up to this point the colony has cheerfully given its co-operation whenever called upon by the Home Government in matters of defence. The complaint which I have very briefly to submit arose out of the Despatch received by the colony from the Secretary of State in 1889. In that Despatch the colony was suddenly called upon to contribute £100,000 per annum out of a total military expenditure estimated at £136,000. In addition, they were to pay £60,000 for the construction of barracks; and they maintain a fine body of armed Sikh police for local defence and the maintenance of public order. The colony object to the demand which has been made on the ground that the garrison and the defences are mainly needed for the protection of stores of coal kept at Singapore for the general purposes of Imperial defence. The Straits Settlements Association complain that the charge which has been laid upon them is heavier than any which has been demanded from any other Crown Colony, and they point to the fact that while it is true their revenue is considerable, it is precarious, depending, among other sources, upon the opium farms, which are becoming less and less productive. The Governor of the Straits Settlements, under orders from home, was compelled to use official pressure to obtain the consent of the Governing Council to the payment required from the colony, but he did so under protest. In his Despatch of February, 1890, to the Secretary of State, he stated that he was wholly unable conscientiously to support the claims which Her Majesty's Government had made, and that every member of the Executive Council, in voting for the payment demanded, voted against his conscience and contrary to the views which he entertained. I hope that the Secretary of State, in his reply, may be able to announce some modification of the present demands, or at least to give explanations which will satisfy the colony
  216
  more fully than they are at present satisfied, and remove the sense of injustice which at present exists in regard to the demands which they are compelled to obey. In conclusion, I would say that it is scarcely possible to deal with a particular case apart from the general question of the distribution of charges for Imperial defence as between the Mother Country and the several colonies and dependencies of the Crown. It seems to me this subject calls for a full inquiry by a Committee or by a Royal Commission. Such an inquiry is desirable to establish a standard of strength at which the Navy and the naval stations should be maintained for Imperial purposes, and especially for the purpose of affording reference to our trade; and it is also desirable to determine the share of the burden which the Mother Country ought to bear in the charge for Imperial defence; to ascertain the mode in which the self-governing colonies may best cooperate, and to fix the basis on which the contributions of the Crown Colonies should be assessed. I must acknowledge that such a subject as this is too grave to be taken up at the fag-end of a fatiguing Session, but I hope it may be entertained at a later and more favourable opportunity.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, there is one point which appears to have been lost sight of by the Straits Settlements Association, and which has not been referred to by the noble Lord in his speech, and I think it ought to be put before your Lordships; it is that since the arrangement which was come to between the Government and the Straits Settlements in 1866 for the payment of £50,000 a year, in the time of the late Earl of Carnarvon, an arrangement was made for appointing Residents in the Malay States adjoining the Settlement, thus increasing the naval and military expenses for the protection of the Straits Settlements. Troops have been required for garrisons, and, on one occasion, when the war in Perak took place, the State of Perak had to pay for it. It has been necessary to have troops in Penang, as well as at Singapore, on account of British interests and the number of British subjects in the adjoining Malay States which have been virtually annexed. The trade with Penang and Malacca has very much increased, owing to the

  217
  arrangements made with the Malay States. The Singapore people were the people who asked to have those arrangements made in order that they might push their commerce and trade; and thus, I think, it is only fair that a larger amount should be asked from them towards the military expenditure now necessary.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this Motion has travelled, as he himself admits, somewhat beyond the terms which are on the Paper, and which are submitted for your Lordships' consideration, and he has raised questions of great importance, but also of great difficulty and complexity. I am not prepared at the present moment to deal with these questions; nor could Her Majesty's Government arrive at any decision upon them until they are submitted in a more definite manner for their consideration. The questions, as the noble Lord has said, are too large and important to be dealt with upon a Motion of this kind, and, I may add, that to find a reasonable solution of them will tax the resources of statesmanship. The noble Lord has suggested that the whole subject of Imperial defence might be referred to a Royal Commission or to a Committee. There is no doubt that such a Commission or Committee might be of great advantage in reporting upon the whole question of Imperial defence, and in laying down principles which might guide Her Majesty's Government in deciding what contribution might be fairly looked for from any particular colony. It might, for example, report whether, and how far, the British taxpayer should be relieved from the payment of the whole naval defence of the Empire, or how far the fact of the naval expenditure being undertaken by the Mother Country should be considered in deciding what military contribution a colony should be fairly called upon to pay for the defence of that colony. But it is manifest that such a Report, unless supported by the evidence of colonial statesmen qualified and authorised to give evidence upon the question, and to explain fully the views of Colonial Governments and Legislatures, would, I fear, carry but little weight, if any, with the colonies. Nor, again, could such a
  218
  Report, even if supported by such evidence, be held binding on our great responsibly-governed colonies. It might be of some assistance to Her Majesty's Government as laying down general principles, and it would tend to strengthen their hands both in this country and, perhaps, in the colonies when they were seeking assistance or a larger military contribution from them, but it would not relieve the Government of the day from an inquiry into each particular case, as the amount of contribution which can fairly be demanded must depend upon the special circumstances of each case—as, for example, upon the financial position of the colony, its revenue and expenditure, its trade, the sources of taxation upon which it can rely, and other local considerations. Having made these general observations upon the point to which the noble Lord has referred, I will now turn to the Motion before the House. I listened with attention to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, but I was unable to discover in it any new argument or any new ground advanced against the decision of the Government in addition to those which have already been urged by the Governor and Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements and by the Straits Settlements Association, and which will be found in the Parliamentary Paper published last March. These arguments have been dealt with in my Despatches of December 13, 1889, and January 1, 1891, and I have, therefore, but little to add to those Despatches. At the same time, as the decision of Her Majesty's Government has been questioned, I should desire, as shortly as possible, to state to the House the general bearings of the case, the principle which has guided Her Majesty's Government in the decision at which they have arrived, the main objections, which have been urged against that decision, and our replies. Before doing so, I wish to express my regret that there has been a feeling in the colony that they have been treated somewhat harshly and discourteously in that the decision of the Government was placed before them in my first Despatch in 1889, before they had had sufficient opportunity of discussing the subject in its details. Nothing could be further from my wish than to show discourtesy to the colony, and, indeed,

  219
  nothing could be more impolitic, in as much as we heartily desire the assent and co-operation of the colony in the decision at which we have arrived; but the following is an explanation of the course which was taken: The principles of the case had been fully discussed in the years preceding the transfer of the colony in 1867 from the Government of India to the Imperial Government. The main arguments now adduced were not only discussed in those years, but also at subsequent periods, notably in 1871 and 1873, when my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) was Secretary of State for the Colonies. Moreover the Government, before coming to a decision, had the advantage of the Reports of the Committee of 1871, and of the very strong Departmental Committee of 1888, before whom all the Papers and documents were laid and carefully considered, and also of the elaborate and carefully expressed opinion of Sir Frederick Dickson, Colonial Secretary of the Straits Settlements in 1888. There had been necessarily some delay in deciding this question of the increase of the military contribution, and as the year was almost at an end in which the re-settlement was to commence, and as the first considerable increase was to be made for the year 1890, it was thought desirable in the interests of the colony itself that there should be no further delay, and that the decision of the Government should be at once announced. Bat the announcement of the decision was not intended to lessen the colony's opportunities of arguing against it, and, as a matter of fact, they have very properly and fully availed themselves of their opportunities, as I am sure my noble Friend will admit, and they have been supported by the Straits Settlements Association. If the arguments that were adduced had prevailed with the Government there would have been no difficulty about altering the contribution for future years and repaying any overpayment in the years 1889 and 1890. I trust that this explanation will dispel the feeling in the colony to which I have referred, the existence of which, I have before said, I much regret. As regards the question before your Lordships, I think the noble Lord agrees with me that the question is what is the fair share
  220
  to be borne by the colony and the mother country respectively, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the respective interests at stake. In considering that question I would observe that, in the first place, it is not denied that the colony should pay more than it has done of late years. That obligation was recognised by the Legislative Council by a Resolution which was passed in February, 1890, and which will be found at page 20 of the Parliamentary Blue Book to which I have referred. It may also be taken as admitted that the colony should pay half of the actual cost of military defence in addition to the entire cost of barracks. That is recognized by the third Resolution of the Legislative Council of the same date. Now, in dealing with this question of what is a fair contribution to be paid by the colony, it is necessary to go back to the time when the colony was transferred in 1867 and to the understanding then arrived at. What was the chief object of the colony in asking to be transferred? It was this: The colonists wished to escape from the very heavy defence charges to which the colony was subject as part of the Indian Empire, and in all the negotiations which extended from 1858 to 1866 the Home Government steadily refused to take over the colony until they were assured that no charge would fall upon the Imperial Exchequer for either the military or civil establishments of the colony. The transfer was not desired by the Government, and was only made in the interests of the colony itself. The colony accepted the conditions, and the transfer was made. The correspondence in the Parliamentary Papers of 1862 and 1866 makes this quite clear. It is now objected—and the noble Lord has pointed out that objection—that it is unfair on the part of the Government to attempt to apply to the existing state of things the principles laid down in 1866, when Singapore was but a small colony, a mere trade depôt, whereas now it has become a port of great Imperial importance and of paramount necessity to the maintenance of the Empire. It is objected that, by the opening of the Suez Canal, Singapore, which was in 1866 a remote and unimportant colony and entirely disregarded as an Imperial military station, has now become an Imperial

  221
  coaling station, of primary importance to the naval, military, and commercial interests of the Empire. I have dealt with this argument in my Despatch of January 10, 1891, which is found at page 64 of the Parliamentary Paper of March, 1891, and I would venture very shortly to read to your Lordships one or two passages which afford the answer to this objection. I there pointed out that these views as to the position and unimportance of Singapore in 1866 are not in accord with the opinions expressed by the Local Authorities when discussing the proposed transfer from Indian to Imperial rule. At that time the colony, when seeking relief from the heavy naval and military charges imposed upon it by its connection with India, did not admit, what it now asserts, that Singapore was merely the chief town of a remote and unimportant colony, entirely disregarded as an Imperial military station. On the contrary, it represented that the importance of Singapore as an Imperial station was such that a large portion of the defence expenditure ought to come out of Imperial funds. The same arguments and representations were made in urging upon the Government of that day the importance of the transfer as an an Imperial station by the Singapore Chamber of Commerce; and in a resolution passed at a public meeting of the inhabitants of Singapore in 1861, it was, among other things, resolved—
  "That the greatly increased expenditure incurred for military purposes entailed by the expensive system of fortification now in progress, should not be borne by these Settlements, as it is undertaken for Imperial, and not local interests."
  And the same view was urged in a Memorial from the principal merchants in London connected with the Singapore trade in the same year. I twill be observed that the arguments now urged against charging Singapore with the cost of its garrison are identical with those used for the same purpose at the time of its transfer in 1866; and subsequently, in 1871 to 1873, the period to which I have before referred when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) was in office, those arguments were again brought forward, and again disposed of. Looking to this fact, then, that the arguments urged in 1861 and 1866 were
  222
  held insufficient, I see no reason, I confess, why similar arguments repeated now for entailing a larger charge upon this country should be held as valid. Then it is further objected that the contribution of 1866 was stated by the War Office to be fixed
  "With regard to the wants and means of the inhabitants of the colony,"
  and should not be increased. It is quite true that it was so fixed in 1866, and it is also true that it was fixed upon the same principle and upon the very same lines in 1889. Those who raise this objection have omitted to mention that, in addition to the words quoted, the following words were made use of in 1866 by the War Office:—
  "It being a sine quâ non condition of the consent of the Imperial Government to the transfer that it is to cast no additional burden on the Imperial Exchequer."
  Nor again has reference been made to the further stipulation that the Government could enter into no agreement, that it would not increase or decrease the garrison, if circumstances should require it. In support of the objectors' case, a Despatch of Lord Kimberley's to the War Office in 1871 has been quoted and relied upon. In it the noble Earl stated that he
  "Would not feel justified in imposing upon the Settlements any arrangement by which they will be rendered liable to an uncertain charge over which they have no control."
  But that Despatch referred to a very different question. When it is looked at it will be seen that it had no reference whatever to the cost of the garrison; it dealt only with the question whether the colony should be charged each year with the actual ascertained cost of the troops for the year, or whether it should be charged with the estimated cost, taking it for a fixed period. The former plan was the plan adopted by the Indian Government, but the noble Earl (Lord Kimberley) thought—and, if I may be allowed to say, thought correctly—that it would be better that the colony should know exactly what it would have to pay for a given number of years; and the principle of payment by estimate, and not by actual ascertained cost, was adopted, as I think, very much to the advantage of the colony. The colony made a very good bargain in 1867 by the transfer. The main object was, as I

  223
  have said, to get rid of the heavy charge not only for the military garrison, but also for the Navy, which it sustained as long as it was connected with the Government of India. Those charges, for some years prior to the transfer, fluctuated between 1858 and 1863 from 67 to 33 per cent. of the Revenue. In 1866, the year prior to the transfer, the charges amounted to 27 per cent. of the Revenue; while in 1868, the year after the transfer, they fell to 22 per cent. of the Revenue. They were further reduced, in 1871 and 1873, to about 16 or 17 per cent. of the Revenue, and they are now still further reduced by this last re-arrangement to about 15 per cent. of the Revenue. If the colony had not been transferred from the Indian Government to Imperial rule, its present defence charges would have amounted under the Indian scale to £236,800 per year, or 32 per cent. of its Revenue; whereas the £100,000 we now ask for is only about 15 per cent. of its Revenue. Perhaps I may be allowed to direct your Lordships' attention to page 12 of the Parliamentary Paper, 1891, and to a Table there set out, from which it will be seen that in 1872 the contribution of the colony in respect of military expenditure was reduced from £59,300, at which figure it stood from 1868, to £51,595, or 17·1 per cent. of the total Revenues of the colony, and that since 1873 the contribution has been £50,145. From 1871 to 1876 the percentage of military Expenditure to Revenue, as I have said, averaged 16 or 17 per cent., and then, owing to the fall in the value of the dollar in which these contributions were unfortunately received by the War Office, and owing to the very great increase of Revenue, your Lordships will see, if you look at page 12, that the percentage dropped gradually to 6·6 per cent. in 1887. No doubt the new charge will amount to about 15 per cent.; but that, as I have before pointed out, is a less percentage than during the years from 1871 to 1876; and the question we have now to consider is whether this is an unreasonable increase considering that it is a less percentage of the Revenue than from 1871 to 1873, and an extraordinarily less percentage than when the transfer was made. In fact, looking to the increase of Revenue, every re-settlement has been
  224
  in favour of the colony. I have pointed out that before the transfer of the colony in 1867 the percentage was 27 per cent. of the Revenue; immediately after it fell to 22 per cent. After 1871 it was 17 per cent., and now by the new arrangement it is about 15 per cent. Her Majesty's Government adhere, and have always adhered, to the principle of 1867, upon which the transfer was made, and it is not correct to state, as I think I have seen it urged by the Association and others, that the Imperial interest in the land defence of Singapore was recognised in 1866 by the assumption of the cost of the wing of the Hong Kong regiment there. This argument is founded on a complete misapprehension. The Government never consented to assume any part of the cost of the garrison of Singapore; on the contrary, between 1861 and 1866, it distinctly and repeatedly refused to take over the colony until it could be assured that no such charge would fall upon it. In order, however, to reduce the charge to the colony, without throwing any extra burden on Imperial revenues, it determined to keep one wing of a Hong Kong regiment at Singapore on the distinct understanding that it formed no part of the garrison paid for by the colony, and that it was liable to be removed whenever required elsewhere. This arrangement, which was continued under the agreement of 1871, is no longer practicable. In these days of quick attack, the garrison of Hong Kong must be at that post and not in Singapore. It has been found necessary to keep the wing at Hong Kong, and Singapore-must, therefore, now rely entirely upon its own garrison. This arrangement, however, saved the colony about £40,000 a year for over 20 years; and it is now rather hard to urge upon us that because they have been saved that sum all those years. The action of the Government should be considered as a recognition of Imperial interest, in the land defence of the colony, and as setting aside the agreement of 1866. Nor, again, is it just to urge, as has been urged, that the principle of the original agreement was abandoned by the arrangement made in 1884, under which the Imperial Government assumed the cost of the armaments, while the colony provided the

  225
  works. The transaction of 1884 had no reference whatever to the cost of the colonial garrison, but related solely to the cost of special works of defence then contemplated. The Parliamentary Papers of 1884 show that the question related not to Singapore alone, but to 10 or 12 colonies. It was then felt by the Government of the day that in spite of the agreement of 1866, to which they still adhered, it would be hard, in that special matter, to treat Singapore less favourably than, or on a different footing to, other possessions. To that extent the agreement of 1866 was departed from, and the military establishments of Singapore did cast an extra burden on Imperial revenues of about £194,000. That departure from the terms on which the transfer of the colony was agreed to in 1866 is no reason, however, for still further departing from those terms, and for permanently charging Imperial revenues with an expenditure for the garrison, which the colony, on its transfer, undertook to bear. The Home Government, I may observe, undertook to bear half the cost of Aden defences at the same time that it agreed to bear the cost of Singapore armaments, but the Government of India has never argued, as Singapore does, that the Imperial Government is in consequence bound to go further and permanently assume part of the cost of the garrison. But, my Lords, putting aside, for the sake of argument, the agreement of 1867 and other past arrangements, and assuming a large Imperial interest in the defence of Singapore, the contribution now called for is not too large in proportion to the respective interests—Imperial and colonial. It is worth considering, when we are charged with "harshness and extortion," what the British taxpayer pays in respect of the defence of this colony and of the Imperial interests therein. The cost of the military garrison and works is not nearly, as your Lordships know, the total cost of the defence. The naval defence forms a most important item in this consideration, and the whole cost of that falls on this country. In many cases it is extremely difficult to make even an approximate calculation of this cost, because, as a rule, ships are not told off for the defence of a particular colony, the policy of the Admiralty
  226
  being against assigning any fraction of the Fleet to particular areas. It so happens, however, as is pointed out in page 65 of the Parliamentary Paper of 1891, that out of the total force on the China Station it has been found desirable, for special reasons, to assign about 4,000 tons to what is called the Straits division, of which Singapore is the headquarters, and this force is rarely absent from Malayan waters. On the basis of a division of the aggregate naval expenditure by the total effective seagoing tonnage of the Navy, the cost has been calculated at (£40 a ton for effective charge yearly, £10 a ton for non-effective charge yearly), 4,000 × £50=£200,000 per annum; and this, therefore, is the sum which the mother country may be said to spend in the naval defence of the Straits Settlements, and which it may be assumed that the colony would have to spend were it an independent State. This calculation takes no account of the cost of defending the commerce of the Straits outside Malayan waters. It will, of course, be understood that I only refer to the amount thus paid for naval defence, for the purpose of showing that the British taxpayer pays a large share of the defence, larger even than the colony would bear if it bore the whole military defence; but I would observe that the cost of the Navy is not included in the calculation of the contribution to be paid by the colony. This, however, is not all. As regards the land defences, it must be remembered that since 1877 the mother country has laid out £194,000 in armaments and works, and that as the annual military expenditure is £136,000, and the colony, under existing arrangements, only pays £100,000, the mother country pays £36,000 a year still in respect of military defence. The reasons for our making this payment for the four years ending December, 1893, are stated in my Despatch to be—
  "Out of consideration for the colonial finances and in order to lighten the immediate pressure of an application, to the circumstances of the present time, of the original agreement upon which the colony was transferred."
  As Mr. Stanhope showed in the House of Commons some time ago, the charge now made for defence amounts only to 3s. 6d. per head of the population of the colony, while in the United Kingdom the corresponding charge

  227
  amounts to 16s. or more per head. The noble Lord referred to the works of defence, and he stated one objection that has been raised, namely, that the garrison and defences are mainly for the protection of the stores of coal at Singapore, which are kept chiefly for Imperial purposes. But in 1885, when there were rumours of war, the colony took a very different view of the situation. It was then represented to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that—
  "The increase of trade and agriculture in the States Settlements, and the large stocks of home and foreign products, including coals, which are stored there, must be subjects of the greatest anxiety, while the colony is at present practically undefended."
  It will be observed that not only "the home and foreign produce, including coals," but the valuable colonial docks on which the prosperity of the colony so largely depends, are now included in the defence which is now stated to secure Imperial interests alone. Then, again, it has been argued that it is not pretended that the defences, such as they are, cover the trade and town of Singapore. I might, perhaps, leave that to my noble Friend behind me to argue, but I may state shortly that the military opinion is that the new harbour defences taken in conjunction with the battery at Tanjong Katong, which was built at the request of the colony in 1868, and which has been re-armed with breech-loading guns in order to protect the town and roadstead, afford a degree of protection which would make an attack from the sea in the last degree in probable. I will only point out one other objection which has been made. I am unwilling to take up your Lordships' time, but it is important to satisfy the colony that we have a good case. The last objection I will refer to is that which regards Penang and Malacca. It is represented that no defences are provided for these places, while their revenues have to provide the cost of defending them. But this question of defending Penang and Malacca has been inquired into several times, and the Committee of 1871 reported that Penang and Malacca are, from their position and comparatively inferior importance, scarcely liable to external attack, and they did not recommend that any special protection
  228
  should be provided for them beyond the general protection which would be afforded by the Navy. That recommendation has been acted upon for some 20 years without ever having been called in question, and I must say it is rather late in the day to receive this objection as a reason why the colony should not bear the cost of its Singapore garrison. I trust I have established that the contribution now called for is—first, much less, in fact, less by one-half, than the colony would have had to pay if the transfer had not been made, and if it had remained under the Indian Government; second, that it is much less than the colony could be called upon to pay if the agreement of 1867 were strictly and rigidly enforced; third, that it is a very reasonable contribution if taken in consideration with the amount paid by the mother country for the Imperial interest in the defence of the colony; fourth, that it is a reasonable contribution when compared with the revenue of the colony, as it is based on a lower percentage than upon any former re-settlement or rearrangement of this question, and is more in favour of the colony compared with the increase of their revenue; fifth, I would add that, comparing it with the other colonies whose contributions have been revised, the Straits Settlement has not been dealt with unfairly. In conclusion, I would observe that, looking to the greatly increased and increasing cost and requirements of the military and naval services, and the consequent heavy and increasing burden upon the British taxpayer, Her Majesty's Government have had to consider, and in this they are only following the example of former Governments, whether some increase of colonial contributions should not be called for. In dealing with these questions, we have, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech in another place, "examined the matter in no narrow and exacting spirit." We have closely examined into the revenue, expenditure, trade, and sources of taxation in each colony from which a larger contribution is looked for. We have had no desire, and I think no Government would desire, to press for an extreme contribution or to bear hardly upon the colonies; and as to the particular

  229
  case now before us, I trust that, after what I have said, your Lordships will be of opinion that the decision of Her Majesty's Government is reasonable, and that this colony, considering all the circumstances of the case, has not been called upon to bear more than a just contribution towards its defence.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I think my noble Friend behind me was quite justified in bringing this matter before this House and those who have listened to the speech of ray noble Friend opposite will, I am sure, be glad that there has been an opportunity of thoroughly explaining the course the Government have taken in this matter. I was myself so constantly engaged during the time I was in office in a controversy of a similar kind, that I entirely sympathise with my noble Friend opposite in the difficulty which I have no doubt he has had in dealing with this question. I would make only one remark upon the statement with which the noble Lord commenced, in which I do not entirely agree with him, that is in regard to Her Majesty's Government having announced their decision in, I think, 1889, without having previously consulted the colony on the subject. The noble Lord said that that was entirely justifiable, because the principles upon which that decision was based had been laid down long before. That, no doubt, is perfectly true, but, at the same time, I cannot help thinking when there was to be an application of the principles in a new state of things it would have tended to smooth matters with the colony and would have been, I think, more judicious if the colony had been communicated with beforehand. Still, that is not really a very important point, because, as the noble Lord has said, there has been ample opportunity afforded for discussion, and I have no doubt that if the colony had been able to show that demand for increased military contribution was based on a misapprehension or that a change was advisable, Her Majesty's Government would have given their consideration to the argument; and if the decision had been found one which could not be supported, notwithstanding that it had been announced beforehand, they would have reconsidered the matter, and made any modification which might have been
  230
  necessary. My noble Friend has gone so thoroughly into the whole question, and dealt with it so fully and clearly, that it is only necessary for me to say very little. I can remember when this subject of the arrangements to be made upon the transfer of the Straits Settlements to the control of the Imperial Government from the Indian Government was under discussion, during the short time when I was Secretary to the India Office in 1864; and I well remember how strongly the Indian Department was at that time pressed by the Straits Settlements to make the change because they thought they were unduly taxed by the arrangements they were subjected to under the Indian Government, and certainly at that time, and I have no doubt afterwards there was no desire on the part of the Government to accept the change; on the contrary they disliked it very much. My chief then was the late Sir Charles Wood (Lord Halifax). He by no means desired that this change should be made, and he would have preferred that the original arrangements should have maintained. However, the conditions then agreed upon between the colony and Her Majesty's Government have been clearly stated by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Knutsford), and they were distinctly and plainly that the colony was to bear the cost of its military defence, and the arrangements that have been mentioned by the noble Lord that Signapore was not to be dealt with as an Imperial station were exactly then as they have been since. Since that agreement was come to, in what way has the situation changed? I think it has to some extent. The noble Lord read extracts from some of these Despatches, and I cannot help reading your Lordships one passage for the purpose of showing you how the matter was represented in 1861 by the Singapore Chamber of Commerce. They say that "Singapore is from its position the key of the China-Indo and Java seas, and is the coaling depôt" for mail and other steamers. There is the whole of their contention stated in plain language. That contention was taken into consideration when the conditions were agreed to in 1866. Now, in what respect has the situation changed? As I have said, I think to some extent it has, but then that change has been recognised by the

  231
  action of the Government at home. What has happened is that it has been found necessary to erect expensive fortifications at Singapore in order to meet the requirements of the present day. Her Majesty's Government did not expect the colony to be charged in 1886 with an extraordinary expenditure of that kind, and they very properly made themselves responsible for a considerable portion of the former armament, which may be called the extraordinary expense so incurred. That is by no means an argument why the original agreement must be set aside, but rather an argument, it seems to me, on the other side, and it shows that Her Majesty's Government have dealt generously with the colony in respect of an expense which could not have been foreseen, and which are no doubt heavy in amount. With regard to the figures which have been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government, I am not called upon to take any responsibility. It would require a most careful examination of the whole arrangement in order to deal with them, and to enable me to say that the sum arrived at is the exact sum which I should have arrived at myself if I had been responsible; but I see no reason to question that the Government have given full and fair consideration to the arguments adduced by the colony, and have arrived at what they conceive to be a reasonable and just settlement. Therefore, I do not desire to discuss the details of the arrangement, but would rather discuss the general principles of this matter, on which I entirely agree with the noble Lord opposite. In the first place, your Lordships must remember that this country has to undertake the whole naval defence of these colonies; that is the most important part of the whole matter, because there cannot be the least doubt that the safety of Singapore depends really upon our having the command of the seas. The safety of Singapore may for a time be guaranteed by fortifications, and it is very necessary there should be some fortifications to prevent any casual attack upon the colony by which it might be seriously damaged, or perhaps ruined; but in the last resort, if we were driven off the seas, there is no doubt that, fortifications or no fortifications, Singapore would fall. It is impossible
  232
  to put out of consideration the great expense which this country has to go to for naval defence, and the enormous advantage which the colony derives from this naval defence, to which it contributes nothing; and I make that remark not only in regard to the Colony of Singapore, but other colonies. In all these discussions it is most unjust and unfair to this country that you should look only to the military and not take into consideration our naval expenditure. With regard to the military expenditure, that has been divided by Her Majesty's Government in a way which, looking to the whole circumstances and revenue of the colony, they think just; and I think the simple fact which the noble Lord has stated, that the cost to every person in this country amounts, I think he said, to about 16s. a year, whereas in Singapore it only amounts to 3s. 6d., must carry conviction at once to everyone's mind that we are not treating the colony with any harshness which, of course, I should be sorry that we should do. The possession of this colony is, no doubt, of immense importance from an Imperial point of view, and, so far, I think it is quite right we should have contributed towards the works which have been recently erected, and in providing their armament; but the colony, although it may be of great importance in an Imperial point of view, must also be regarded as a great emporium of trade, and the maintenance of its position of great benefit to those who live in the colony; the merchants who have business in this great emporium, and the population inhabiting it live by that trade, and it is only reasonable that they should contribute to its protection in proportion to their means. No one can suppose that if Singapore was not rendered safe by the power of this country it would be in the same position it is in now, and in addition to that, as my noble Friend Lord Stanley of Alderley remarked, the advantages of the position have been greatly increased now that we have taken the protectorate of the various Malay States extending to the Siamese frontier. That has been a matter of great interest to Singapore, and it has been done in the first instance at the cost of the Imperial Government. Unfortunately there arose war in Perak, and

  233
  a great part of the expense in that war was paid by Her Majesty's Government, although I rather think the colony contributed something. The whole result of the matter is this: that I think in a question of this kind you must trust very much to the Government of the day to see that justice is done. It is a matter which can only be determined by the Colonial Office in discussion with the colony, and I can see no reason to suppose that on either side of the House, or in either House of Parliament, there is any disposition to treat the colony with severity or harshness in the matter. Certainly I should entirely deprecate such a course. I think we should err, if we err at all, on the side of not exacting the uttermost farthing, and I believe we have erred on that side, because if you look at what was paid by Singapore when under the Indian Government before the transfer took place, and if you look now to the sum which is demanded from the colony with reference to the improved defence which you have given to it, I think it will be seen that the colony has not substantial reason to complain. With regard to the very important and broad question which was raised by the noble Lord behind me (Lord Brassey) and which was touched upon by the noble Lord as to whether it would be desirable to have a general inquiry upon this subject. I should not like to commit myself upon that point. I should much doubt, looking to the various and different positions which our colonies occupy all over the Globe, some under responsible Governments and some Crown Colonies, whether any general inquiry would lead to any desirable result. For instance, I do not think it is at all desirable to raise this question with regard to the Australian Colonies or Canada. The Australian Colonies have been spending large sums in defending their ports, and Canada has also a considerable military expenditure. I doubt very much whether it would be advisable to re-open this question with them at the present time. Then, as to Crown Colonies. I think some light might be thrown on the subject by an inquiry, but I would make this remark, that whatever principles you lay down, the contributions must vary from time to time, according to the necessities of the case, and the changing aspect of affairs. I
  234
  exceedingly doubt whether you would find it possible to lay down any hard and fast rule. My own impression is that if you laid down such a rule on the Report of a Royal Commission or Committee five or six years hence you would have to modify that rule very considerably, and you would be considered to have bound yourselves by a set of regulations which, in point of fact, were not applicable to the new circumstances in which you were placed. However, I do not wish to express any strong opinion against such an inquiry if there are questions to be decided. All I desire to say, in conclusion, is this: that I have never myself had the slightest desire that we should press unduly upon this or any other colony; but, on the other hand, I think it only just and fair to the British tax paper that we should receive a reasonable contribution from these colonies for their defence, which if of importance to us is of far greater and primary importance to them.

INDIAN ARMY.

  THE CASE OF COLONEL GEORGE JACKSON, 5TH BENGAL CAVALRY.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, in rising to call attention to the case of Colonel George Jackson, commanding the 5th Bengal Cavalry, and to move for an Address for a copy of the Regulations under which officers of the old Local Indian Service may be compulsorily retired, said: My Lords, this is the first time since I have had anything to do with politics that I have felt it my duty to bring to the notice of Parliament the personal case of an officer, and in this particular case I am sure your Lordships will excuse me for so doing, because the officer was for four years on my personal staff; and, being under considerable obligations to him for his services, I feel it my duty to do my best to prevent him being treated with what I conceive to be injustice. I have had an opportunity of reading the whole of the Papers connected with this officer's case, with which Papers he was, of course, furnished by the Government, and I have reluctantly come to the opinion, in the first place, that Colonel Jackson has been treated with carelessness and harshness, almost amounting to injustice, by the authorities in India; secondly, that his appeal has not received that consideration

  235
  which it ought to have received from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India in Council; and, lastly, he has been told he will be placed compulsorily in retirement, and I am of opinion that the intention to treat him in that manner is contrary to the Parliamentary guarantee which was given to officers of the Local Indian Service, of which Service he is a member. Now, my Lords, I will deal very shortly with the military part of the case. Colonel Jackson is an officer who has seen 32 years' service. He served in the Umbeyla Campaign, and in Abyssinia. He did excellent service on the Staff of three succeeding Viceroys of India. He commanded for three years the Governor General's Body Guard. He was then appointed second in command of the 12th Bengal Cavalry, where the Reports of him were so good that he was specially selected to take the command of the 5th Bengal Cavalry, a regiment which, at that time, was in very bad order. The regiment was stationed at Mean Meer, one of the most unhealthy stations in India, and the regiment was, moreover, in a state of sickness, and inefficient on that account. Yet, notwithstanding that he had been in command of the regiment for only six months, a favourable report of the regiment was made in March, 1888, by Sir Hugh Gough, the officer commanding at Mean Meer; and afterwards, in October, 1888, when the regiment left Sir Hugh Gough's command, he publicly addressed it in terms which were positively enthusiastic, as regarded its condition, as compared with what it was when Colonel Jackson took command. The regiment then went to Delhi, and afterwards to Lucknow, and it was inspected by Sir Charles Gough in March, 1889. The inspection of the regiment by Sir Charles Gough was distinctly satisfactory. Colonel Jackson, unfortunately however, was not able to obtain the approval of Brigadier-General Luck, the Inspector General of Cavalry. The Report of Brigadier-General Luck upon the regiment was inconsistent with the Reports of Sir Hugh Gough and Sir Charles Gough. He reported unfavourably upon the regiment, and upon Colonel Jackson himself. I may mention that Sir Hugh Gough and Sir Charles Gough had been for the whole of their lives in the Indian Cavalry Service; whereas
  236
  Brigadier-General Luck—I do not mean to express any doubt as to his ability—was a British Cavalry officer, and could not be expected to know so much of the interior economy of an Indian regiment as officers who had been so long in the Service. The Commander-in-Chief, Sir Frederick Roberts, I do not know for what reason, but I presume because of the inconsistency between those Reports, determined that Colonel Jackson should have another trial, that another Report should be made upon him and his regiment, after which it should be considered whether he should remain in command of it. But at that time Colonel Jackson had the misfortune to lose his father; and a short time after the inspection of his regiment by Sir Charles Gough he applied for leave to go home upon his private affairs. He left India without any distinct intimation having been given him that he would prejudice his position in any way by going home on leave. And, therefore, he was, as your Lordships may well understand, somewhat surprised a few months afterwards to receive a private suggestion from the Adjutant General's Department in India that it would be convenient he should retire from the Service at the expiration of his leave. Of course, Colonel Jackson, having the proper pride of an officer, declined to accede to the suggestion. The next thing that happened was that he received an official intimation from the Government of India, through the India Office, containing, I think, the most extraordinary request that was ever made, or that I over heard of as having been made, to an officer. That was that he
  "should be called upon to show cause why he should not he retired from the Service at the expiration of his leave."
  I have always thought if any officer was to be compulsorily retired on account of certain charges brought against him, he should have an opportunity of meeting those charges, and that it should not be put upon him "to show cause why he should not be called upon to retire." Against that decision Colonel Jackson appealed to the Secretary of State for India in Council. The Commander-in-Chief had intended to give Colonel Jackson an opportunity of further trial before he went home on leave; and I should have thought the

  237
  Secretary of State for India in Council would have said that as Colonel Jackson had not had any intimation that he was to be compulsorily retired, he should go back to India; and if, after further trial, it appeared that he should not retain the command of his regiment, it should be given to somebody else. But, no; the whole of the papers were sent back to India, and after the expiration of a considerable time Colonel Jackson received another letter from the Secretary of State for India in Council containing no discussion, no explanation of any of the points he had raised in his appeal, but simply an intimation that it was desirable he should send in his application to retire. With considerable experience of such matters I do not recollect any case in which an officer was ever treated in that way before; but, still, I am not a military man; and your Lordships have in this House my noble and gallant Friend Lord Chelmsford, who was Adjutant General of the Army in India, under my late noble and gallant Friend Lord Napier of Magdala, who will be able to give your Lordships a much better opinion upon the military part of the case than I can pretend to do. But I say, supposing Colonel Jackson had not been quite up to the mark in bringing this regiment into good order, he should not have been called upon to retire from the Service. Why should not he have been put back to his old regiment, of which he would have obtained command in due course, or have been given some other employment in India? There was no reason, because I can assure noble Lords that there has not been a single word said against Colonel Jackson through his whole career with regard to his conduct as an officer, or as to his mental or physical capacity. Yet he is to be compulsorily retired. So far upon the military aspects of the case. I should like to say, with regard to the statement with which I opened, that I am afraid I must state my opinion that proper consideration has not been given by the Secretary of State for India in Council to this appeal. I hold that an officer has a right to appeal to the Secretary of State for India in Council if he thinks he has been ill-treated by the authorities in India; and if he does appeal, I think the Secretary of State for India in
  238
  Council is bound to make proper inquiry into the circumstances of his appeal. I think it would be only right in the case of an officer of upwards of 30 years' service he should be told that what he has put into his appeal is not correct if that be the case. Colonel Jackson, in his appeal, raised several points of most serious consequence in respect of the manner in which his case had been treated in India. I will not dwell upon them in detail, but there were most extraordinary inconsistencies and misstatements of matters of fact on the part of the superior officers on whose recommendations Colonel Jackson has been so treated. I would ask the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India whether he thinks an officer should be allowed to go home on leave without any notice from the Adjutant General's Department that he would be retired compulsorily, and that, when he gets home, advantage should be taken of his absence to force him out of the Service? The straightforward way of dealing with him would have been that he should have been told plainly that if he took leave it must be on the condition that he would retire from the Service at its expiration. But this is a military question, and I will not deal further with it. Now, I come to a part of Colonel Jackson's case which, to my mind, is more even important than the military question. In Colonel Jackson's appeal he said this, as he had a right to do:—
  "I desire to state that I am an officer of the local Service, and within the provision of the Henley Clause, under which, I apprehend, misconduct has hitherto been held to be a necessary precedent to compulsory retirement."
  I must here point out to your Lordships, and I should have done so before, that it is, of course, a very grave and serious matter for an officer to be removed from the command of his regiment, but the course taken with regard to Colonel Jackson by compulsorily retiring him from the service, adds to that the additional and most serious punishment of preventing him going on to serve for his Colonel's allowances—that is, the pension which Indian officers receive after a certain number of years' service. I may venture upon this matter to say that I have some knowledge of the ground upon which

  239
  Colonel Jackson makes this statement, because I happened to be Under Secretary of State for India under my late noble Friend Lord Halifax, then Sir Charles Wood, at the time when the question of maintaining a separate European Force for India was considered, when Parliament decided, after considerable controversy and difference of opinion, that that force should no longer be continued, and when there were apprehensions entertained that officers would not be treated, after the local European Force had ceased to exist, in the same way as they had been treated by the East India Company, A distinguished politician, whose name probably some, at any rate, of your Lordships will recollect, Mr. Henley, took this matter up, and in the House of Commons he introduced a clause into the European Forces (India) Act of 1860, by which all the advantages of their former position were guaranteed by Parliament to those officers in any alterations in organisation which might take place. That clause the foundation of Colonel Jackson's appeal, and I will venture to read it. It says—
  "Provided that the advantages as to pay, pensions, allowances, privileges, promotion, and otherwise, secured to the Military Forces of the East India Company by the 21st and 22nd Vict., Section 56"—
  that was the Act which transferred the Government of India to the Crown—
  "shall be maintained in any plan for the re-organisation of the Indian Army."
  The conditions of the East India Company's service were well known at that time. There had been a Royal Commission, of which my noble Friend the Earl of Derby was a Member and General Peel was Chairman, and the conditions under which officers served the East India Company will be found appended to the Report of that Commission. It was there distinctly stated that officers should remain on certain specified lists until they received their Colonel's allowances—of course, unless removed for misconduct or mental or physical incapacity. I may observe that his guarantee granted to these officers was heartily accepted by Sir Charles Wood at the time. He supported the clause. It was done with the full cognisance of Parliament; it was
  240
  alluded to on one or two occasions in General Orders, which were published in India, and the officers of the local forces were told over and over again that those privileges and advantages would be maintained to them. As regards this particular case and the manner in which this guarantee applies to Colonel Jackson, your Lordships will see it applies in this way: Colonel Jackson says that compulsory retirement from the Service—that is what the Secretary of State wishes to apply to him—unless for misconduct or physical or mental incapacity is contrary to the guarantee given by the Henley Clause. I suppose, my Lords, there is no man who could be relied upon to give a fair and authoritative opinion as to what the practice was in such matters better than the late Lord Napier of Magdala. Here is his opinion as to what the rights of the local officers are under this clause. He says in a Minute dated October 26th, 1871—
  "The Parliamentary guarantee secures to the officers of the local service all the rights and privileges which they enjoyed under the East India Company. There is no doubt that the East India Company possessed the power of removing officers from the service, with or without pension, but that power was never exercised except in eases of grave or scandalous misconduct of a nature requiring no judicial trial to verify it. Except in such cases no officer was ever removed from the Service"
  here is the point—
  "unless sentenced to such punishment by court martial. I think it cannot be disputed that this was a virtual contract between the company and those who entered its military service, and it appears to me that it would be a breach of the spirit of the guarantee if the Government were now to substitute a mode of terminating the service of officers which was never recognised or practised by the company."
  It might be supposed that this opinion expressed by Lord Napier of Magdala did not apply to such a case as that which I have brought before your Lordships, but I beg to assure your Lordships that that is not so, for this opinion was given in reference to a class of cases which were precisely similar. It so happened, just before I went myself to India in 1872, that the Government of India and the Government at home were in considerable difficulty in consequence of the great number of unemployed officers in India who were employed on "general service," as it was

  241
  called, which really meant doing nothing, drawing half-pay, and completing their time for their Colonel's allowances. Naturally, it was considered whether some of them should not be retired upon the pensions to which they were entitled. There was a good deal of correspondence between the Secretary of State in Council and the Government of India on the subject, and this Minute which I have read by Lord Napier of Magdala was written in reference to that particular class of cases. I read it for the purpose of showing that it would have been a breach of the guarantee then, in 1872, to force officers into retirement compulsorily who belonged to the local Service unless for misconduct or for physical or mental incapacity. The words used by the Secretary of State for India, and by the Government of India, were very much the same. It was laid down in Despatches of the Secretary of State that officers should not be retired unless for such causes
  "As would under the system in force before the amalgamation have led to their removal from the effective list, such as moral delinquency or intellectual capacity."
  And, again, in another Despatch the words are—
  "Clear misconduct or proved physical or mental inefficiency."
  I have shown your Lordships there is no pretence for alleging misconduct or physical or mental inefficiency in Colonel Jackson's case, and, therefore, I put it to your Lordships that he is protected by the terms of the Parliamentary guarantee, and the Secretary of State for India in Council, if he proposes to act upon the intimation which Colonel Jackson has received, would, in my opinion, be committing a broach of faith towards Colonel Jackson as an officer who has received this Parliamentary guarantee. That is my view of that part of the case. My Lords, I am sure my noble Friend will not, in reply to this argument, take any legal view. I am sure he will not say there is no legal claim; he will not say there is a legal right on the part of the Secretary of State for India in Council or the Crown to act in this way. That is not the question. The question is, whether the Secretary of State for India in Council is acting now in the manner in which
  242
  the Court of Directors would have acted if the case had occurred in their time; and if my noble Friend has the slightest doubt in that matter, perhaps he will allow me to remind him that this is not the first time when claims of this sort have been brought forward. When the Staff Corps was first formed in India in 1861 a great many complaints were made by local officers in India that they were treated contrary to the Parliamentary guarantee. My late Chief Sir Charles Wood was then Secretary of State for India. He did not treat these complaints as a matter of law. He appointed a Royal Commission, of which Lord Cranworth was Chairman, to examine into the claims of these officers. The members of that Commission made their Report, and he acted in accordance with their Report. In their Report they laid down most precisely that it was not a question of law at all. It is necessary, in order to support the claims of this officer, that I should read that authoritative interpretation in order to satisfy my noble Friend that this is not a legal case. They reported that the word "entitled," which was in the clause,
  "cannot be understood as referring to rights capable of being enforced in a Court of Justice,"
  but they proceeded to explain the way in which, in their opinion, the guarantee should be carried out. They said—
  "In any change of organisation the Crown should, as no doubt the Company would have done, preserve all the rules as to pay, pensions, allowances, and privileges, and the like advantages as regards promotion and otherwise which existed at the time the Act was passed."
  Now, my Lords, I think I may fairly, having shown the condition of the matter, and the rights, as I conceive them to be, of this officer under the Parliamentary guarantee, ask the noble Viscount the Secretary of State to produce in this House, if he can, any case of an officer who, in the time of the East India Company, was treated in this way, or any case of a local officer who has been treated in this manner since the Government of India has been transferred from the company to the Crown. I can answer for it that when I was in India, when I had to deal, in communication' with Lord Napier of Magdala, with the compulsory retirement of a certain number of officers under the

  243
  General Order of 1872, in no case of this sort was an officer compulsorily retired. I am quite satisfied that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India has not any desire to do injustice in this matter; but, as time goes on, these Parliamentary guarantees become liable to be forgotten; I doubt whether in India at the present time there is any single statesman or officer who has any recollection of the circumstances in which the guarantee was given, and I do not think there is any Member of the Indian Council except my old friend Sir Henry Rawlinson, who can have that knowledge which I myself happen to possess. I happened at the time to be connected with the India Office, and therefore I have some knowledge of this rather intricate matter, and if my noble Friend is doubtful upon the case, if he thinks that at any rate I have brought forward a primâ facie case to show that this officer has not been treated in accordance with the Parliamentary guarantee, I would venture to suggest to him that he should take the same course as was taken by Sir Charles Wood in a similar case. I do not think it matters a straw as regards the duty of Parliament whether the case is that of one officer or of 100 officers. If the Parliamentary guarantee has been given, it is as good to one man as it is to an entire army. And I would venture to suggest, in justice to this officer, that my noble Friend should refer this case to such men as I could name who are thoroughly conversant with these matters. For instance, my noble Friend the Earl of Derby, who was himself a member of one of these Commissions—a gallant officer, a friend of mine, Sir Thomas Pears, who was Military Secretary to the Council of India for many years, and I will name also Sir Martin Dillon, who was Military Secretary to Lord Napier of Magdala during the whole time he was in India. I think it would be only just and right if my noble Friend on reconsideration of this case, would refer this matter, which I take to be one of great public importance, namely, the maintenance of a Parliamentary guarantee, to a Commission composed of such members as I have named. If he would make such a reference as that, Colonel Jackson would be quite
  244
  satisfied, and I can assure the noble Lord that I should myself be quite content.
  Moved, "That an humble address he presented to Her Majesty for Copy of the Regulations under which officers of the old Local Indian-Service may he compulsorily retired."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  *LORD CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I have gone carefully over the Papers connected with the case of Colonel Jackson, and I have come to the conclusion that that officer has been treated with very scant justice indeed, and that his military reputation is really at stake. I would venture to say I have myself only a slight personal acquaintance with Colonel Jackson, and during the time that I was Adjutant General in India, Colonel Jackson was not named in any Reports which came before me. Therefore, I come perfectly unprejudiced to the consideration of this question. I would ask your Lordships' attention to two or three features connected with this unfortunate case. I would point out to your Lordships that Colonel Jackson was appointed specially by the Commander-in-Chief in India to a regiment which was acknowledged to be in a bad state. This was the state that the regiment was described as being in in a letter of Sir Hugh Gough's—the very officer under whom Colonel Jackson first served directly after Colonel Jackson was appointed to the command of the 5th Bengal, Cavalry. It says that he is much disappointed with the appearance and turn-out of the regiment; that there was a want of smartness, that they were dirty and slovenly, and that he was particularly dissatisfied with the troop horses; that he wished the Commander to select a picked officer, suggesting that Colonel Jackson should be appointed, and that he was very pleased Colonel Jackson had had the command given to him. My Lords, I am not going into the history of the case, I merely wish to say that Colonel Jackson was not treated with that fairness which one ought to expect from the Authorities in India, and I believe myself they have been entirely misled by the Report of the Inspector General of Cavalry. On the arrival of the regiment under Sir Hugh Gough's command it was inspected almost immediately, and Sir Hugh Gough reported that the condition of the regiment was very good, and that they

  245
  were steady on parade. Eleven days afterwards the Brigadier General of Cavalry, General Luck, came to the Station to inspect the cavalry there. I am well acquainted with General Luck, and I suppose there is not a smarter or more efficient cavalry officer to he found. He belonged to the Inniskillen Dragoons, and has always borne a high reputation as a British cavalry officer, but he had no experience whatever of native cavalry regiments. Sir Hugh Gough, who had inspected that regiment, and had himself made a Report upon it, had commanded a Bengal cavalry regiment, and he knew exactly what to make allowances for, and how to report upon it; but I suppose General Luck looked upon it from the standpoint of a British cavalry officer, and judged it by the standard of a British cavalry regiment; and Colonel Jackson having had really only two or three months' time to try and improve this regiment, naturally it did not turn out exactly in the way that General Luck would have wished. The Report of General Luck says: "The riding of the regiment is decidedly bad." Now, Sir Hugh Gough had given an opinion directly opposite to that. He goes on—
  "Then, as to the turn-out, there is a general want of smartness about the regiment."
  Sir Hugh Gough said the regiment turned out well. However, Colonel Jackson, after that Report, went on in command of the regiment, under Sir Hugh Gough, for about a year. On leaving the command there Sir Hugh Gough spoke to the regiment publicly on parade, and, after referring to their condition previously, expressed himself pleased to see the regiment in a condition so very different to that in which he saw it on joining it at Mean Meer. Surely the report of an officer of the standing of Sir Hugh Gough should be allowed to stand against that of an officer who, although a very smart and efficient officer of British Cavalry, knew nothing whatever of a native regiment. Then the regiment passed under the command of Sir Charles Gough; but, unfortunately, this regiment, the 5th Bengal Cavalry, was the very regiment which he had himself commanded, and very naturally he would look with disgust at the change which had come over it. But he reports of it in this way. He says—
  246
  "That the 5th Bengal Cavalry is generally in a good state of drill and efficiency, the regiment drills steadily, and, when well commanded, will do well."
  Then he reports—I am bound to read this—
  "Colonel Jackson does not possess any real ability, but is a very average officer. He appears to he deficient in tact, temper, and judgment, and he does not appear to gain the confidence and esteem of the men."
  Then, after that inspection took place in March, 1889, Colonel Jackson left the command, and he never came back to the regiment. Sir Charles Gough never saw him again. About a year afterwards Sir Charles Gough was called upon to report regarding the regiment, and took the opportunity of reporting upon it in these terms—
  "Colonel Jackson is absent, and has been absent during the greater part of last year."
  He had been absent, in fact, during the whole of it—
  "I attribute the vast improvement which has taken place in the 5th Bengal Cavalry greatly to the fact of his absence. I was asked to report upon it almost immediately after he had come under my command, and before I had had time to get an intimate knowledge of Colonel Jackson, from what I have seen of him since,"
  Now, I beg your Lordships to observe that Sir Charles Gough had never seen him during that time. He had never been under Sir Charles Gough's command since the year before this Report:—
  "I feel sure his return to the regiment would be disastrous to it; he is utterly deficient in tact, temper, and judgment."
  That is what is stated a year after he had seen him, for Sir Charles Gough had never seen him since the first Report; and yet he says that he is somewhat deficient in tact, and in his manner of dealing with the men. Surely your Lordships must see that a Report of that sort going up to the Commander-in-Chief in India was likely to do Colonel Jackson the most terrible injury and to damage his reputation, and I venture to say that if that Report had been brought to the knowledge of the Governor General in Council in India, I am sure he would not have paid any attention to such a Report as that. General Luck appears to have exercised a malign influence upon these Generals, and to have twisted and distorted

  247
  their views regarding Colonel Jackson into something totally distinct from what that officer really was. Then the Report comes up to the Commander-in-Chief, and the Commander-in-Chief, having taken General Luck's Report, and ignored altogether Sir Hugh Cough's favourable Report, reports in 1888 that he considers the Reports received were sufficient to require Colonel Jackson to retire, and that unless the regiment improved he would have to be removed from the command. A year after, the Commander-in-Chief again reports upon the regiment, and says that the Reports of the present year are again of an unfavourable nature. Now, that was not exactly the case; Sir Charles Gough's Report was not unfavourable. He distinctly stated to Colonel Jackson—"The confidential Report upon you is not altogether unfavourable;" and yet this Report says—"They are again of an unfavourable nature." It shows that the inquiry into the condition of this officer's qualities as a commanding officer have not really had fair play at all. Colonel Jackson had been reported upon as wanting in tact, judgment, and temper. That was principally based upon Sir Charles Gough's Report, and upon General Luck's Report, but there is a very curious correspondence which took place upon the matter. Colonel Jackson had an interview with General Luck in the presence of Sir George Greaves, the present Commander-in-Chief in Bombay, who was called upon to report as to that interview, which occurred during the camp exercises in 1888. General Greaves, being requested to report upon what occurred, stated that owing to the nature of the ground the lines of the 5th Bengal Cavalry had necessarily been thrown back from the general line of the camp—
  "General Luck found fault with Colonel Jackson for this, and his manner and voice were more harsh than is usual in the Service, especially as there were several junior officers present. Colonel Jackson's demeanour was calm and respectful, but it was evident to me there was ill-feeling between these two officers, irrespective of the particular circumstances of the moment. On thinking the matter over since, I have come to the conclusion that Colonel Jackson had more reason to complain of the ground assigned to him for his camp than General Luck had to complain of his use of it."
  I will not detain your Lordships further
  248
  upon this unfortunate case, but I would beg your Lordships to remember that Colonel Jackson's reputation as a cavalry officer, which never had any slur passed upon it before, is at stake. Colonel Jackson has on all sides received commendations and good reports from the different officers, different Viceroys, and general officers under whom he has served, and it seems to me this is a case in which a single officer has been able, by twisting and distorting reports with regard to Colonel Jackson, to do him a very serious injury in the estimation of the Governor General in Council and in that of the Commander-in-Chief in India. I trust the Secretary of State for India will see his way to rectify that injustice, and if it should be thought that for any reason Colonel Jackson should not be returned to the command of his regiment, at all events, that he may be allowed to succeed to that to which he has every right in my opinion, namely, his Colonel's allowances.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I am afraid that injustice has been done to one officer by the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken, and that is General Luck. Why there is any slur to be cast on General Luck's character I do not know. The noble Lord said at the outset of his remarks that nothing was to be said against General Luck, that he was an able and excellent officer, and immediately following upon that he insinuated that General Luck had a personal spite against Colonel Jackson.
  *LORD CHELMSFORD: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon; I read from Sir George Greaves's Report which stated that.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: Sir George Greaves's Report stated that. I am quite sure Colonel Jackson would never say anything of the kind himself. Turning to the question itself, I am sure your Lordships will believe it is a matter of very great pain to me to be compelled to say anything against the conduct of an officer in the Indian Service. But first I would say one or two words about the Parliamentary guarantee. The noble Earl who brought this matter forward stated that in no one case—and he quoted Lord Napier of Magdala as his authority—had any person been dismissed by the old East India Company unless after a trial

  249
  by Court Martial. I have not had time to have the whole of the records searched, but I can assure the noble Earl that upon that point he is entirely mistaken. There was a case which happened not long before the East India Company was dissolved, of an officer who had the command of a regiment which before that had been in very good order, but under his hands had got into disorder. There was no Court Martial held in that case at all, but he was dismissed by the East India Company.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Dismissed the Service, or removed from the command of his regiment?
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: He was removed from the command of his regiment and retired from the Service on pension. There was another case where an officer was tried by Court Martial for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman; the Court Martial acquitted him, but the Court of Directors having inquired into the whole case thought that although he had been acquitted of the charges brought against him he was not a person who should be allowed to remain in the Service, and he was treated in a similar way. I have shown your Lordships two instances, and I am assured there are many more, but I have not had time to look into the records of what was done by the East India Company. What was then done was that an officer was put upon an extraordinary or invalid list which practically was the same thing as putting him on pension. Now let me come to the Parliamentary Guarantee which rests, as the noble Earl says, entirely upon Mr. Henley's clause, that clause being put into the Act which made over the Government of India to the Crown. The noble Earl says I am not to look upon it in a legal point of view, but at all events I am entitled to look upon it in a legal point of view to see what the meaning of the Act of Parliament was. It so happens that this very question has been tried in a Court of Law, and I do not quite see why the noble Earl does not wish me to refer to it. There was one officer of the local force who was dismissed. He was an officer in the East India Company's Military service, and subsequently continued in the Indian Army when the Indian Military and Naval Services were transferred to the
  250
  Crown. He brought an action against the Secretary of State for India, as representing the Crown, for damages for having been placed on the Pension List, and so compelled to retire from the Army. That action was tried before Mr. Justice Grove, and I think it is right we should see what was decided in that case so that we can see what is the legal meaning of this Parliamentary Guarantee. It was contended by the plaintiff that the East India Company had by contract, expressed or implied, with its military officers, including the plaintiff, waived its right to dismiss them, and that the plaintiff retained his rights under such contract against the Secretary of State for India representing the Crown. That was argued at very great length, and the learned Judge says that this power of removal exists in the Crown for the benefit of the Empire, and for the benefit of Her Majesty's subjects, and could not be contracted away; otherwise any officer whom a jury might have considered physically and mentally deficient might retain his place in the Army, notwithstanding he was found unsuitable for the performance of his duties. Then the learned Judge proceeds to discuss this Henley Clause on which the noble Earl relied, and he says the contract must be taken to refer to the existing laws and customs and regulations subject to the military regulations, and not overriding the power of dismissal or removal. Then, with regard to Section 56, the enactment on which the noble Earl relies, he says that does not seem to alter this view, but strengthens it, by saying that all the forces should be subject to all regulations relating to the East India Company's forces as if they had throughout been acts relating to the forces of the Crown instead of the forces of the company. So far as the legal right goes, that case makes it absolutely clear that the power does exist in the Crown, and that, under the advice of the Secretary of State, the Crown can remove any officer, notwithstanding the Henley Clause, which was introduced no doubt for the purpose which the noble Earl stated. This question was discussed, as the noble Earl has said, in 1869, 1870, and 1871; and in 1872, when the noble Earl himself was Governor General of India, an Order was issued, stating that

  251
  unemployed officers who are ineligible for public employment by reason of clear misconduct or proved inefficiency, or have been removed for that reason, or who, by misconduct, have rendered themselves ineligible for regimental employment, "will be called upon to send in their resignation," that they will be called upon to retire, and if they fail to do so, they will be removed or put upon the Pension list. That was the noble Earl's own Order when in office in India. Now, other Secretaries of State have had this matter before them. The Duke of Argyll, in the year 1872, is discussing this question, and he writes in this way to the Governor General—
  "You are authorised therefore at once to call upon all officers who are pronounced by your Government ineligible for public employment by reason either of clear misconduct, or proved physical or mental inefficiency, or who, in the words of his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief, 'have been removed from their appointments for inefficiency.'.. to send in their application to retire upon such pension as they may be entitled to under the regulations; intimating to them, that should they fail to do so within a definite and short time they will be removed to the pension list."
  That was the case in 1872 in a Despatch written to the Governor General of India. It goes on to say, that to prevent the growth in future of a military burden rendered possible by the peculiar organisation of the Indian Service, an officer may, generally speaking, become unemployed in one of four ways. He may be removed for unfitness or inefficiency in his particular office or department—
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I think the noble Earl is not quite correct. I read that Despatch, and there is no intimation in it, that any officer, removed from an appointment because he was not fit for that appointment, should be compulsorily retired; it was evidently contemplated he should be employed in some other appointment.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: The way in which he speaks of it in this Despatch is very remarkable. He says—
  "They are to send in their application to retire upon such pension as they may be entitled to under the regulations, intimating to them, that should they fail to do so, they will be removed."
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but as this happened when I was in
  252
  India, I may be allowed to explain that that general order was only temporary, and applied to a certain number of officers. This officer has not been removed from the command of his regiment; he has not been given his throe months, and that general order has thereby lapsed.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: The reason I quote this general order is this: officers were all under the same Parliamentary Guarantee as Colonel Jackson claims to be under; and those particular officers who were placed on the pension list were under that guarantee.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I can only say that if my noble Friend can produce to me one single case of an officer who was retired under that order I will admit his argument, not otherwise.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: That is the order. What may have been done under it I cannot tell.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The records must be in the office.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: The noble Lord has read this Despatch, and he has quoted the opinion of Lord Napier, but there is one sentence in it which I would like to call your Lordships' attention to—
  "His Excellency then refers to the practice of the Court of Directors of the late East India Company, and expresses doubts as to the policy of placing officers on the retired list who may be unemployed through no fault of their own."
  Then he observes that—
  "Those officers who have been removed from their appointment from inefficiency or who distinct or undeniable misconduct have rendered themselves ineligible for regimental commands, cannot be considered unjustly treated if they are not permitted to succeed to colonels' allowances."
  That is clearly the case with Colonel Jackson; if he was removed from inefficiency, in spite of the so-called Parliamentary guarantee, in the opinion of Lord Napier he could not complain that he is deprived of colonels' allowances. That is only one Despatch of a number which I have here. There was a Despatch written by the noble Marquess opposite, the Marquess of Ripon, in 1884, when he was Governor General, addressed to the noble Lord (the Earl of Kimberley), stating that—
  "General Hardinge recommends that when cases of disabilities of an insurmountable

  253
  nature, such as those originating from want of nerve or judgment necessitate the exclusion of an officer from the position of commandant or second in command of a regiment, a special report should be made to Government, setting forth the Commander-in-Chief's reasons for with holding promotion from such officer."
  But goes on to say—
  "The State has a right to expect from officers a high standard of efficiency considering the liberal terms under which they are serving."
  In that I entirely agree, that you have a right to expect from officers not a moderate but a high standard of efficiency. I have here several cases of officers who were removed for inefficiency when not in command, but when second in command, and who were removed for this reason, that if anything happened they would be called upon to assume the command of their regiments, for which they were not fitted. Therefore, it has been applied to officers second in command. I have also a Despatch from Lord Randolph Churchill when Secretary of State, to the same effect, and concluding with the remark to the Governor General of India that if he finds any officer ineffiicient, and not able to perform his duty to the satisfaction of his superiors, he may rely upon his support in the removal of that officer. I think I have shown, at all events as far as the Parliamentary guarantee goes, there is no case for Colonel Jackson. Great caution, I quite admit, is necessary, and I quite admit that officers should not be dismissed rashly because the power exists; but all I have been urging is that the power does exist, and that the Government had a right to remove Colonel Jackson if he was proved to be inefficient. Leaving that part of the case, I will come to the question whether he was efficient or not. I am bound to say that if ever my character has to be defended, I hope it will not be defended by my noble and gallant Friend who sits behind me (Lord Chelmsford), for I certainly thought that he made a very weak defence. No doubt Colonel Jackson had not been in command of the regiment for some long time. He had been on the staff. There is no doubt he was a good officer, or was believed to be so, and was appointed to this regiment to bring it into order. The noble Earl and my noble and gallant Friend behind me have both quoted extensively from a Report of Sir
  254
  Hugh Gough. There are sentences in that Report which undoubtedly say Colonel Jackson was a moderate officer, but if my noble Friends had only taken the trouble to read that Report through, they would have seen an enormous number of faults that Sir Hugh Gough finds in that Report. But I do not think that Report ought to have been quoted, if I may say so with all humility to your Lordships, without going on to state what happened in reference to it afterwards. There was a letter, which was sent to Colonel Jackson; it is not a Report on the regiment made to the military authority in India. It was sent after the Inspector General of Cavalry had come, and then the real Report was made by Sir Hugh Gough. Now, I will read what Sir Hugh Gough said when he made his Report, not to Colonel Jackson, but to the military authorities—
  "Colonel Jackson is reported by the Inspector-General of Cavalry as a failure. He failed to bring his regiment into a state of efficiency; an opinion in which I concur. He is considered to have neither tact, judgment, nor qualifications, and I regret not being able to make a satisfactory Report on his regiment."
  That is some time after he had written the Report to Colonel Jackson and all I can say is that I think both those Reports should have been placed before your Lordships at the same time. The Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief were very much struck with the difference between those Reports, and they called for an explanation of how it came to pass that he should have told Colonel Jackson one thing, and should have formally reported to his superior something else; and then Sir Hugh Gough says—I am bound to say I think it is rather a lame explanation—that he thought the regiment wanted encouraging, that there were some good points about it, and he thought when he wrote to Colonel Jackson he would say all he possibly could in its favour, although he had not practically come to that conclusion himself. But now I come to the Reports of the Inspector-General of Cavalry, General Luck, because they really do bear upon this case very much. In March, 1888, the Inspector-General of Cavalry goes to inspect this particular regiment, and what did he say? He says—

  255
  "As a leader Colonel Jackson is wanting in dash, and unable to apply quickly his knowledge of drill, which is limited, to the circumstances of the moment. I recommend his removal from the command at the end of the year unless a very marked improvement takes place in the meantime."
  You cannot, I think, have a stronger Report against a man than that, saying he is unfit for his command and recommending his removal the next year unless a different state of thing's should take place in the interval. Then, what happens in March, 1889? Sir Charles Gough goes to inspect the regiment, for it had then changed its position and was under Sir Charles Gough. He says—
  "Colonel Jackson does not possess any real ability as a commanding officer, but is about a fairly average officer; is zealous and means well and is anxious to do so, but is wanting in manner and tact in dealing with men, and does not appear to gain their confidence and esteem."
  Now comes the Inspector-General of Cavalry again; and in March, 1889, the same month of the same year, what he says is—
  "In my opinion Colonel Jackson is not fit to command a regiment. I have no reason to alter the opinion I formed of him last year. His ignorance of drill on many occasions was most marked. I fear the regiment will never improve while under his command. They work well enough under their squadron commanders."
  Can you have a worse report than that of any officer? He says this officer is unfit for the command; that the men work well enough while under their squadron commanders, who do know their work, but that they do not work well when he comes to the front. Surely you could not have a worse report than that. Then the Commander-in-Chief is consulted, and he quotes this report and says—
  "I have no option but to report my opinion that Colonel Jackson should not be permitted to remain in command,"
  and he goes on to give further reasons. He says—
  "I saw the regiment twice last winter, first at the Delhi camp of exercise and afterwards at Lucknow,"
  and then he goes on to tell you his opinion of what the condition of the regiment is, and to say that he was not favourably impressed by it. First, then, you have the Report of the Inspector-General of Cavalry, and you have not one
  256
  single word in Colonel Jackson's favour to balance the arguments used against him in the Reports of the Inspector-General of Cavalry and the Commander-in-Chief. But in 1890 Sir Charles Gough goes to this regiment again, and although the words used by him were read by my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Chelmsford) I do not think he read them quite to the point. Colonel Jackson had gone away. What had become of the regiment in the meantime? Was it in the same state as when he left it? How was it found by Sir Charles Gough in 1890? What he says is—
  "Colonel Jackson is absent and has been absent during the greatest part of the past year. I attribute the vast improvement that has taken place in the 5th Bengal Cavalry greatly to the fact of his absence. I was asked to report upon him almost immediately after he had come under my command and before I had had time to get an intimate knowledge of him. From what I have seen of him since, and the improved state of the regiment since he left, I feel certain his return to the command would be disastrous to the regiment. He is utterly deficient in tact, temper, and judgment."
  And yet the noble Earl wishes me to say, in the face of the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, not only from these Reports, but from his own knowledge of the regiment, and when I am told that Colonel Jackson's return to the regiment will be disastrous to it, that I am prepared to step in at this stage and put down the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, the Governor General in Council, and say that this man ought to be reinstated. I think that would be a very strong measure for me to take. I doubt whether my noble Friend opposite, when Secretary of State, or any other Secretary of State, would take the responsibility of sending a man back to the command of his regiment after receiving these reports. Then, my noble Friend says no care has been taken to sift Colonel Jackson's case since he came home. I venture to say that no case has ever received more consideration. The noble Earl says it might be referred to three persons whom he named; but this matter has already been most seriously considered.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I referred to the question of his rights under the Parliamentary guarantee.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: I thought the noble Earl meant as to Colonel Jackson's conduct. I am speaking now of his conduct.

  257
  This matter has been referred to three of, probably, the very best men you could put your fingers upon for the purpose, members of my Council, Sir Archibald Alison, Sir Peter Lumsden, and Sir Donald Stewart. I think you could not find an officer in the whole Indian Army who knows more about such matters than Sir Donald Stewart. Those officers all came to the absolute conclusion that it was utterly impossible that this officer should be allowed to remain in command of his regiment. In the face of that does my noble Friend really think that a Secretary of State would step in and say this officer should be returned to his command? My Lords, that is the ease I have to lay before you. My noble Friend said when Colonel Jackson got home he was astonished to find he was to retire. Well, he must be a most extraordinary man if he was astonished when he got home, because he did not leave India until towards the end of 1889, and when he was in India he had received a letter from the Adjutant General, dated the 10th of May, 1889, and marked "Urgent," in which he was told that, owing to the unfavourable reports made upon him at the inspection of the 5th Bengal Cavalry, it would not be possible for the Commander-in-Chief to allow him to continue in command of the regiment. He knew that; he had it from the Adjutant General himself in May, 1889, and he could not, therefore, have been astonished at it when he got to England in 1890.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The noble Viscount must have misunderstood me in a very odd way. What I said was when he came back without having received any intimation from the Adjutant General, he was exceedingly surprised at receiving this intimation that he would be expected to retire.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: I will come to that part of the case presently. Clearly he had had warning enough. He was told in May, 1889, he could not remain in command of the regiment. My noble Friend says now that he went away under the impression that General Roberts would give him another examination. I will read the words of the letter—
  "Sir Frederick had hoped that you might have remained in India till the end of this
  258
  cold weather and have stood the test of another inspection."
  Not that he was not in his own right, but that General Roberts was willing to do it out of kindness to Colonel Jackson. When Colonel Jackson called upon the Commander-in-Chief at Simla he was told that every consideration had been given to his case; but he was told, that although the Commander-in-Chief's opinion of his unfitness for the command remained unchanged, it would be better for him to defer leaving the country until his case was settled. He was told that it would be better in his own interest that he should postpone his departure for England until he should have undergone another inspection which the Commander-in-Chief was willing to grant him out of kindness. That is precisely what the Commander-in-Chief told him; but in spite of that advice he left the country, and I do not know how he could have been astonished afterwards when he came to England to find that he was asked to take this course. There is a considerable gap in the correspondence, but before I finish I may say a letter was written to him privately. It was thought better that a private letter should be sent so as not to hurt his feelings, telling him that he might retire. The reason there has been delay was this: In consequence of the interest which I knew the noble Earl took in this matter, I was quite determined that Colonel Jackson's case should be re-considered in India if possible, and, therefore, I went out of my way to communicate with the Viceroy, begging him to look into the case and see if he could find any loophole in Colonel Jackson's favour. The answer I received was there was not another word to be said, and that there could not be; that the Viceroy had looked into the whole case himself and was satisfied that justice had been done. What more can be done in the face of these Reports? If the Commander-in-Chief and military advisers, after the satisfactory consideration which they had given to the case at my instance, said, and when the Viceroy also says that there is nothing for it but that the man must be dismissed, what could the Secretary of State do but this? There is one point more to which I will refer, and I cannot help thinking that this is at the bottom

  259
  of Colonel Jackson's feeling in the matter—and I feel it, too—that is, that he should be deprived of his Colonel's allowances. That is the point which Lord Napier alluded to when he said that if a man is removed for inefficiency—these are Lord Napier's own words—
  "They cannot be considered unjustly treated if they are not permitted to succeed to Colonel's allowances."
  Just let me point out, in order that Colonel Jackson should gain his Colonel's allowances, the alternative I should be put to. This officer cannot go back to his regiment. He would receive full pay for six years from the Revenues of India in order that at the end of that time he should receive his Colonel's allowances. Do your Lordships think I could stand up in this House, or that anyone representing the Government of India could stand up in the other House of Parliament, and defend such a course? I could not do so. My Lords, I have to apologise for having taken up some time in explaining this matter fully to the House, but I hope your Lordships will be content with my explanation.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I beg to move for the Regulations mentioned in my notice.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: I quite forgot to say there are no Regulations, and, therefore, I cannot give them. The only Regulations are the Statutes which refer to the East India Company. Those are Statutes which transfer these powers to the Crown; but there are no Regulations; had there been, they should at once be placed on the Table.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Am I to understand from the noble Viscount that there are no Regulations stating on what grounds an officer may be removed from his command to the Pension List? If so, it is a state of things which leaves the reputation of almost any officer in the power of the Commander-in-Chief in India, because the noble Viscount's explanation is simply repeating what the Commander-in-Chief in India has said, and there can be no remedy for any injustice which may be done by the Commander-in-Chief in India. I will not trouble your Lordships with an elaborate answer in regard to the course which has been taken in this case of
  260
  Colonel Jackson. I will simply say that every single point which has been made by the noble Viscount has been most carefully considered by me, and I can say that the noble Viscount has omitted to state whatever was in favour of Colonel Jackson, and has stated with great ability, and with all the authority which his position enables him to exercise, everything which can possibly be said against that officer. But I will prove to your Lordships in one moment how very cursorily and carelessly the attention of the noble Viscount must have been called to this case. The noble Viscount gave several Reports which were damaging to Colonel Jackson. He seemed to think it was a right thing for an officer commanding a division to state that subsequent experience had led him to a conclusion when he had no subsequent experience at all; he thought it was right that a Commander-in-Chief should make a statement of that kind, without examination, to the Governor General in India, in order that he might deal with an officer upon such a Report as that; and the noble Viscount laid great stress upon a Minute of the Commander-in-Chief himself, in which he said he could personally testify to the condition of the regiment, for he had seen it twice, once at Delhi, and once at Lucknow. Will your Lordships believe me when I say that that statement was entirely inaccurate—that the Commander-in-Chief had not seen the regiment twice, and that if the Governor General of India relied upon that statement he relied upon a statement which was contrary to the fact? Colonel Jackson, in his Memorial, put that before the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State considered it such a trifle for the Commander-in-Chief in India to send an inaccurate Report to the Governor General that he has not even taken the trouble to find put that it was inaccurate. I can assure your Lordships I have taken great pains in going into this case, and it is only one of the many extraordinary circumstances which show the manner in which officers are treated in India at the present time if Colonel Jackson's case is at all a specimen of the way in which business is done in the Adjutant General's office in India. I would take the sense of the House upon the matter;

  261
  but, as there are no Papers, it is impossible for me to divide.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

KYANG KHENG.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government have yet decided upon recognising the State of Kyang Kheng as tributary to the Burmese Shan State of Kyang Tung?
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, there is no doubt this is a very important question, and I am very glad the noble Lord has brought the matter forward. The Government of India are at present considering the matter; they have agents there looking into it, but they have not yet had an opportunity of considering their Report. I hope to be able next Session to give a better answer upon the subject.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would ask the noble Viscount whether the Commissioners are making progress in settling the boundaries with the Siamese Government?
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: Yes; I believe they are making rapid progress.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL. (No. 256.)
Read 3a (according to order) with Amendments.
Verbal Amendments made.
LORD BARRINGTON: My Lords, I have an Amendment to move upon Clause 18. It is scarcely worth while to recapitulate what took place yesterday. The sense of the House was very well proved by the Division which took place. Notwithstanding the able manner in which the noble Earl appealed to your Lordships in endeavouring to have the clause struck out of the Bill, it remains, having been carried by a large majority. I say nothing more, but that my sympathies are very much with the noble Earl, and I think that the sting of the clause might well be be removed by an Amendment. Therefore, I would now move to add at the end of the clause,
"Unless she produces a medical certificate that the employment will not be injurious to her health."
262
Clause 18 is to prevent an employer during the space of four weeks knowingly employing a woman after her confinement. There is no doubt that many women are able to follow their ordinary occupation in less time than four weeks. It was shown, upon very good evidence produced by the noble Earl, that many do so in 10 days or a fortnight, and I think that if a woman obtains a medical certificate that she is in a fit state there can be no possible objection to her being employed earlier than a month if she desires. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved, in page 8, line 39, at the end of Clause 18, to insert the words—
("Unless she produces a medical certificate that the employment will not he injurious to her health.")—(The Lord Barrington.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Before the noble Lord answers, I must call attention to the fact that no notice has been given of the noble Lord's Amendment; and without expressing any opinion upon it, I would point out that after the decision given in a much fuller House by a decided majority, it is very inconvenient that the subject should be brought forward in a very small House upon an Amendment of which no notice has been given.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): I think what the noble Earl has said is conclusive; we were told the other evening that it could not be done without notice.
*EARL WEMYSS: This is a very important proposal of my noble Friend's, and I think the Amendment ought to be considered.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: But there is no notice.
*EARL WEMYSS: I know—it is a matter of form. Why not postpone the Third Reading? There is no hurry. Instead of taking it now, postpone it; that will give time for notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Third Reading has been passed.
*EARL WEMYSS: Then I can move a postponement before the Bill is passed.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is a very inconvenient course. The House has decided this question by a large majority after a full discussion, and we

263
have now passed the Third Reading. It is really very inconvenient to put in Amendments without notice after that.
LORD BARRINGTON: I press my Amendment.
*EARL WEMYSS: I do not know what is the form; but I must say I think it is extremely desirable that this proviso should be appended to the clause. Surely the noble Lords on my right, if it is unnecessary that some women should be kept out of their proper employment for four weeks—that is, if their health as shown by a medical certificate admits of their resuming their work—do not wish that they should be deprived of their employment needlessly? My own impression is that the whole of this legislation is wrong so far as it is carried out in this particular clause. I divided upon it because Lord Hannen came to me and said—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble Lord? As I understand the Order of the House, it is irregular to move an Amendment at this stage without notice. I quite admit that from time to time by consent of the House formal Amendments have been made; but this is a matter of substance, and I believe, as a question of Order of the House, it is out of order to move such an Amendment at such a time.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Amendments moved, in Clause 26, page 10, line 29, after ("therein") to insert—
("And every contractor employed by any such occupier"); lines 39 and 40, to leave out ("in a factory or workshop.") The occupier of the factory or workshop,") and insert ("by the occupier of a factory or workshop, or by a contractor, the occupier, or contractor.")—(The Lord de Ramsey.)
LORD SANDHURST: I agree to that Amendment. Those words were originally inserted in the clause which I proposed.
Amendment agreed to.
Moved, "That the Bill do now pass."
*EARL WEMYSS: Now, my Lords, I move at this stage that the Bill be postponed, and I do so simply on this ground. As a matter of fact, I believe this proviso is one which we had every reason to believe would be accepted. It modifies the evil of the clause itself, and may
264
be of great advantage to those poor women who by the clause are to be struck out of employment for four weeks when they are perfectly able at the end of two or three to return to their work. I do hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and those on the Government side of the House, will allow the Bill to be postponed, in order that notice of this Amendment may be given in due form. I do trust that will be consented to by the leaders of this House.
LORD HERSCHELL: I feel sure that is impossible. The Motion has been put, "That the Bill do pass," and if you adjourn that Motion no Amendments can be put in after the Third Reading. An adjournment of the Motion "That the Bill do pass" will not enable Amendments to be put in.
*EARL WEMYSS: We were told that would be the proper course, and that it has been done.
LORD HERSCHELL: What was done in the case of the Gates and Toll-bars Bill was that the adjournment took place upon the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill.
*EARL WEMYSS: I can only regret, my Lords, that the Forms of this House should prevent a necessary modification of a very foolish and very harsh clause. The responsibility rests with others, and not with us.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not quite certain that my noble and learned Friend is accurate. I have a very distinct recollection of the Land Transfer Bill when the Motion was put that the Bill should pass; a Motion was then made upon that, and upon that Motion it was defeated.
*EARL WEMYSS: On the strength of that, I will move that this stage of the Bill be adjourned, and I will divide upon it.
Amendment moved, "That the Debate on the said Motion be adjourned to Monday next."—(The Lord Wemyss [E. Wemyss].)
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My impression is that the Amendment cannot be proposed after the Motion that the Bill do pass.
*THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In the case mentioned by my noble and learned Friend there can be no doubt that the Motion "That the Bill do pass" had not

265
been put; the Third Beading had been passed; and it was agreed that the Debate should be adjourned at that stage.
On Question, resolved in the negative.
*EARL WEMYSS: My Lords, I wish to give notice, in reference to the Motion for postponement of this Bill, that if the Bill receives Her Majesty's assent I shall next Session bring in a Bill to repeal the 16th clause.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. (No. 257.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TRUSTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 245.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 162.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

COUNTY COUNCILS (ELECTIONS) BILL.—(No. 248.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
*LORD HENNIKER: On Clause 4 I have an Amendment. It is with regard to questions which were put in Standing Committee the other day by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Lingen. The Amendment, I think, meets the wishes of the noble Lord as far as possible and clears up the difficulty. As the words stood, it might have been impossible for any Alderman or County Councillor to resign, but as they will stand by my Amendment, it is possible that there should be such resignation. That is my intention in moving this Amendment; in fact, that the law remains as it is at present.
Amendment moved, in Clause 4, page 2, lines 34 and 35, to leave out ("shall continue in office until that day") and insert ("their term of office shall be extended accordingly.")—(The Lord Hartismere [L. Henniker].)
*LORD LINGEN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for having introduced the words he proposes into the Bill, and I am quite willing to take his opinion, given no doubt under legal advice, that the words are sufficient for the purpose. The words provide that the chairmen and members mentioned in the beginning of the clause, whose term of office would have expired but for this Act on the ordinary day in November, "shall continue in office" until the new date; and this, it appears to me, somewhat infringed upon the privilege which is given by Section 36 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and which is embodied in the Local Government Act, 1888, to the effect that the office-bearers of the Councils may resign their offices upon terms to be settled by the bye-laws of their respective Councils. The bye-laws of the County Council of London state that those officers may retire upon payment of a fine of £1. The words which the noble Lord has consented to introduce will, I believe, be sufficient for the purpose. I have conferred with my noble Friend Lord Hobhouse upon the matter, and he is, as well as myself, satisfied with the words. I therefore beg leave to accept them. Perhaps your Lordships will grant me your patience if on the Third Reading of this Bill I make one or two further observations upon it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in line 42, to leave out ("shall continue in office till that day") and insert ("their term of office shall be extended accordingly.")—(The Lord Hartismere [L. Henniker].)
Amendment agreed to.
*LORD THRING: My Lords, I have to introduce an Amendment by permission of the Local Government Board. It is for the purpose of removing a doubt, which was considered to be serious, with regard to the qualification of a County Councillor. A Councillor would be disqualified under the Municipal Corporations Act if he holds any office of profit relating to the County Councils. There is a Return of County Council officers specially required. The Chairmen have been made Returning Officers, and they are entitled to fees and expenses. Those fees have not been received by the

267
Chairmen. They have appointed deputies who have received them, and they have not been disqualified. Of course the consequences of such disqualification would be most serious, and this clause has been introduced to prevent that. It can do no harm, and will remove the possibility of most serious consequences if it is retained.
Amendment moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new Clause:—
("It is hereby declared that a person shall not be disqualified, nor be deemed ever to have been disqualified, under section twelve of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, for being a member of a county council by reason only of his being appointed returning officer by that council, except where he has directly or indirectly by himself or his partner received any profit or remuneration in respect of such appointment."—(The Lord Thring.)
Amendment agreed to.
*LORD LINGEN: I have already stated to your Lordships such reasons as occur to me why I think that this Bill is an inexpedient one in regard to the County Council of London, and in answer to those reasons the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill has brought forward his own arguments, and I have no doubt he has brought forward those which he considers the strongest; but I really think that, if it were worth while at this stage to do more than notice them, there are some which call somewhat for the consideration of this House. It has been made a great argument against the London County Council that upon this question they changed their minds. Well, I will not say that their change of mind is supported by a proverb of some weight, that second thoughts are best; but whether it was consistent or inconsistent to change their mind, I think the real question before this House is whether their second resolution was an expedient one or not. I do not think the mere fact of changing ought to be quoted against them. Then another argument which my noble Friend brought forward was this: that although there was a majority of two to one in the County Council for retaining the old date of election, yet the County Council was not the only representative of the ratepayers who were also represented by the Members of Parliament who sat for constituencies within the County of
268
London. I do think, my Lords, that is rather an extraordinary argument for a Government which has brought in a Local Government Bill to put forward. The constituencies which they speak of were constituted in the year 1885, and the date of the Local Government Bill is 1888. If there was no occasion for a further and separate representation of the ratepayers, I really fail to see why the Local Government Bill was brought in at all. But, as I understand the Local Government Bill, it does give to counties representation, a representative and an executive function, over certain matters which Parliament is content to delegate to them. Another argument which was urged by the noble Lord was, that be the inconvenience what it might, it would only occur once in three years. If it occurs at all, that I think is very scant comfort indeed to the Council. I do not wish to bring these points before your Lordships, except in the way of protest against this Bill. I think it is a Bill which does not rest upon sound arguments drawn from the municipal government and condition of London. Regulations which may be desirable for small County Councils representing small areas plainly, as a matter of common-sense, do not apply to such a county as London. I venture to say that the attempt to apply such regulations to such a county cannot be lasting, and I believe that at no very distant day your Lordships will have this question before you again.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL.—(No. 243.)
Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Committee made, and to be printed. (No. 266.): To be considered on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.