Sitting of 17 March 1891

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL—(by Order.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. BARTLEY: I am sorry that I am again compelled to trouble the House in regard to this Bill, but it is a matter of very considerable importance, and I have placed on the Paper an Amendment which I beg to move:—
    "That the Order for Third Reading he read, and discharged, and that the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee.—That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert Amendments in the Bill providing that the triangular piece of land west of Gloucester Road Station be used only for railway purposes, or for the erection of buildings of a substantial and permanent character."
    The piece of land which is proposed to be taken for the purposes of this railway, is at the present moment a sort of "no mans' land," consisting of about two acres lying on the west of the Gloucester Road Station. It is surrounded by a number of good houses the proprietors of which object to its being converted into the sort of Cremorne which appears to be contemplated by the promoters of the Bill. I proposed an Amendment on the Second Reading of the Bill, but was unsuccessful. I must acknowledge that the Committee, to a certain extent, have modified the provisions of the measure, but I need scarcely point out how prejudicial and unpleasant it will be to the residents to have a resuscitation of such performances as those which were the principle features of the Cremorne Gardens, immediately behind their premises. I will not go into the question of whether Cremornes are necessary not, but what I do assert is that it is not the business of a Railway Com-
    1198
    pany to get land by compulsory powers for railway purposes, and then convert it into an exhibition. Similar exhibitions, such as the Fisheries and others, have quite ruined parts of South Kensington for residential purposes, and I think that a Railway Company which has obtained land for railway purposes ought not to be allowed to convert it by Act of Parliament into something else. I am quite certain that if the company came here with an original Bill for this object they would be defeated, and therefore I do not see why they should be allowed to do it under the provisions of an omnibus Bill. For these reasons I hope the House will agree to the Instruction I have moved.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," in order to add the words "re-committed to the former Committee."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'now read the third time' stand part of the Question."
    MR. COURTNEY: The hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) raised this question on the Second Reading, and it was again raised in Committee, but on neither stage was the hon. Member able to make out a case. The hon. Member says that the company, having acquired land for one purpose, ought not to be allowed to devote it to another; but this Bill will not give the company the power which the hon. Member imagines it does. The Bill leaves the question regarding the land exactly as it stood before, and the rights of the parties will remain the same. All that the Bill does is to leave to the company the rights they had before, and it would be altogether outside our Parliamentary practice to tack on to the Bill a provision which in effect amounts to an attempt to place a legal construction upon an agreement.
    SIR J. DORINGTON: As the Chairman of the Committee that dealt with the Bill I wish to say that the whole question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite was carefully considered, and it appeared that there was a misapprehension. There were two plots of land to which the word "exhibition" might apply; but the

    1199
    Committee inserted in the Bill a clause to provide that nothing in the measure shall apply to those pieces of land. We did not consider it right to impose on the company restrictions in regard to land which is undoubtedly their own, or to impose upon them fresh restrictions. I trust that the House will support the decision of the Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.—(by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. WHITLEY: Some objections have been raised to the Second Reading of this Bill by hon. Members opposite, and they are all directed to a clause which enables the company to build a hotel. On behalf of the company I am authorised to say that as there is a general objection to the clause, if the Bill goes to a Committee, the clause will be withdrawn. Under these circumstances I hope that the opposition to the Second Reading will not be pressed.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLNSHIRE RAILWAY (EXTENSION TO LONDON, &c.) BILL—(by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. JAMES: I beg to move as an Amendment—
    "That, having regard to the extreme importance of open spaces in crowded cities, this House is not prepared to entertain a measure which involves interference with a considerable area of open space in London."
    I am quite aware that this Bill is perhaps the most important Bill that has been introduced this Session, and I am
    1200
    prepared to admit that on general grounds it is not only wise but usual to allow such measures to pass a Second Reading so that the issues they involve may be considered by a Committee upstairs. The Amendment of which I have given notice affects however the question of open spaces in large cities, and I respectfully maintain that that is not a question with which counsel and Committees are as competent to deal as this House. It has been the usual custom when a projected line of railway approaches a large city to drive the railway through common land. In doing this the company pursued a worldly course, because the interests connected with common land were not likely to be defended by anybody, and a Railway Company were thus able to acquire large tracts of land without paying for it. This practice fortunately attracted the notice of the late Mr. Fawcett, and in connection with other Members who felt an interest in the subject, the Commons Preservation Society was formed and established. The result has been that the interests of the public have been carefully guarded, and a protest effectually raised against unnecessary aggression and invasion on the part of Railway Companies. There is, of course, some difference of opinion as to what an open space is—some people say that this House is an open space, while others look upon Westminster Hall and the Charing Cross Railway Station in the same light; there is a great deal of difference of opinion as to what may be involved in the definition of an open space, but I make this Motion in no sense in antagonism to this Railway Company, or to railways in general. Railways, however, are not everything, and it is not desirable that every other interest should be sacrificed in favour of a huge commercial speculation on behalf of those who desire to travel. No doubt it will be of advantage to Yorkshire and Lancashire to see this railway carried into London, and the hon. Members for Leicester (Mr. A. W. McArthur), and Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), will feel that it will benefit their constituents. From their point of view my proposition is a monstrous one; but I can assure the House that I would not propose it if I did not think that my case is a very strong one, and if I had not

    1201
    come to the conclusion that this Railway Company has no right to invade this open space. The open space chiefly affected by this Bill is the neighbourhood of Lord's Cricket Ground and St. John's Wood. Some of my friends say that I am opposing the Bill mainly in the aristocratic interests of Lord's. Now I am not the Member for Lord's, and I believe that their interests will be represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James). A great many of the public derive pleasure from University and public school matches at Lord's. But I know what has been attempted in the past to be done with open spaces. Not many years ago—some seven or eight—we were astonished when we came back to London to find set up in Parliament Square something like a sentry box which was to form one of the ventilators of the Underground Railway. So indignant was the House in regard to that proceeding that almost withoutprece dent the decision of the Select Committee was upset and the erection was removed. I think we should have the same objection to see anything done that would interfere with the use of Lord's Cricket Ground, and the public school and other matches which draw so many people together for harmless amusement and recreation. But quite apart from Lord's, there is the general question in regard to St. John's Wood, which comprises the large area known as the Clergy Orphans' School, the Zoological Gardens, and the disused burial ground of St. John's parish. I have been furnished with the following carefully prepared statement, which embodies all the material facts in relation to the history and character of the neighbourhood—
    "The suburb of St. John's Wood is on a slope which was formerly the property of the Knights Hospitallers of St. John. Some 350 acres known as the St. John's Wood Estate have now been for some considerable time owned by the Eyre family, by whom this large extent of land has been leased out in plots for the erection of residences. This Estate, which adjoins the western extremity of Regent's Park and reaches to South Hampstead, has an entirely exceptional character among the residential suburbs of London. The ground landlord under whom the suburb was laid out had ideas beyond the mere question of rent-roll, and exacted the construction of high-class villas, detached and semi-detached, with ample gardens and forecourts, allowing only such terraces of shops as would suffice for the service of the neighbourhood. This ideal of an open neighbourhood has been rigorously enforced up to
    1202
    the present day; and owners of leases who have from time to time desired to enlarge their houses have been met by the consistent objection that their proposed operation would militate against the open character of the neighbourhood, which the ground landlord meant to maintain, regardless of the heritage of bricks and mortar which he might secure to his successor by allowing the openings to be blocked. This is the main reason why the air of St. John's Wood is so much purer than that of other residential suburbs. The northerly winds sweep over Hampstead Heath, pass across St. John's Wood gardens and between the well-separated blocks of buildings, and reach Marylebone comparatively uncontaminated, and the air, passing over Regent's Park, reaches the thickly-built neighbourhood of Padding-ton in a far purer state than it would if Walpole Eyre had let the jerry-builder do his will with the estate of the old Knights Hospitallers. The open character of St John's Wood may be well exemplified by the remark that of the 35 acres which Sir Edward Watkin proposes to take for his terminus station, only about five are actually built upon, while 30 are made up of gardens, forecourts, and roadways. Besides this general freedom from close streets of lofty brickwork, St. John's Wood possesses two considerable open spaces a stone's throw north of Regent's Canal—to wit, Lord's Cricket Ground and the charming garden dotted with fine forest trees, laid out in the disused burial ground attached to St. John's Wood Chapel. The open suburb which Sir E. Watkin proposes to invade could not in the natural course of things be deprived of its valuable sanitary character for from 29 to 46 years, such being the time that the leases have still to run."
    In the circumstances thus sketched, the necessity for the proposed new railway ought to be completely demonstrated before the neighbourhood is invaded and taken possession of. Of course, the Bill has received the support of the provincial constituencies through which it passes. We all recognise that this Bill is the child of my hon. Friend the Member for Hythe (Sir E. Watkin). I have always regarded my hon. Friend as a great public benefactor, but I think he will himself admit that he has a great many irons in the fire. He is Chairman of the South Eastern Railway Company, of the Metropolitan Company, and of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company; he is the owner of Snowdon; he is engaged in disinterring coal in Kent, and he is the parent of the Channel Tunnel Scheme, and of an Eiffel Tower in London. One is almost tempted to say—
    "He doth bestride the narrow world
    "Like a Colossus."
    He is interested in so many large and vast

    1203
    undertakings that I think we should have further time for consideration before he is permitted to destroy Lord's and St. John's Wood. No doubt he has done a great deal of good, but sometimes in doing good it is possible at the same time to do a great amount of harm. It is because I am of opinion that this Bill is calculated to injure interests which are distinctly of a public character that I move this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "having regard to the extreme importance of open spaces in crowded cities, this House is not prepared to entertain a measure which involves interference with a considerable area of open space in London."—(Mr. Walter James.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR E. WATKIN: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that there was never any proposal to erect a station with steam and smoke in Parliament Square. The then Minister of Public Works proposed an extension from Paddington to Government land about Delahay Street. That was the project of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. BOULNOIS: I am quite aware that it is unusual to oppose a Bill of this nature on the Second Reading, and that the Chairman of Committees is most averse to any attempt to throw out a Private Bill upon this stage. But I think that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) has said quite sufficient to justify the House in taking the Bill into consideration; and I think I shall be able to show that there are exceptional circumstances which render it necessary in regard to this measure that the House should pronounce an opinion. There are three grounds on which I oppose the Bill; and the first is that there are a great number of persons who are injuriously and seriously affected by the provisions of the measure who are unable to be heard anywhere except through their Representatives in this House. The Bill affects a considerable number of persons whose property lies outside the lines of deviation, and although they may present Petitions they cannot be heard if the Bill goes into Committee. In such cases no com-
    1204
    pensation is given, and the only opportunity they have of presenting the hardships and grievances they may sustain is through their Representatives-in this House itself. Nor can the Representatives of the Crown be heard if the Bill is allowed to go into Committee. My second ground for opposing the Bill' is that the scheme proposed by this Railway Company is absolutely unprecedented. I know of no instance in which a railway has entered London by intersecting large and valuable residential property. The third ground for asking the House to interpose is the question which has already been raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead that a large area of open space—one most vital and necessary to the whole of the Metropolis will be taken away by this scheme. I do not know whether it is necessary that I should describe to the House the locality of St. John's Wood.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes, do. [Laughter.]
    MR. BOULNOIS: I could never understand why, when mention is made of St. John's Wood, there should be a laugh. I can only say that the residents of St. John's Wood do not look on this as a laughing matter. Probably the locality is little known to hon. Members who come from the country. They may drive as far as Lord's and occasionally go further, but they do not know anything of the unique character of the locality-Let me read a short description by a lady whose name I am sure will command respect—Miss Octavia Hill—who wrote a forcible letter to the Times of yesterday on this subject, and spoke of the neighbourhood as being singularly open and airy. She says:—
    "Here is a space, free for light and air to pass over to the more crowded districts, its wide streets bordered with gardens in which laburnum and hawthorn make the spring bright for all who walk from the Lisson Grove district to Regent's Park or Hampstead Heath, over which for all Marylebone the wind sweeps fresh and free."
    I do not know whether it is necessary that I should enter further into a description of the locality, but the promoters of the Bill in a circular which they have issued, say that the ground proposed to be occupied as a terminus is ground either built upon, or, in the natural course of things, to be built upon. Now where it is proposed to have the terminus

    1205
    there are 30 acres of fine open space, and these will be covered by a railway depôt. Let me describe this railway. It enters St. John's Wood, or South Hampstead, at the Swiss Cottage, and is to pass by a tunnel or cutting until it reaches Lord's. From thence it is to run in an open cutting, 250 yards wide, into a huge terminus covering 35 acres. The Petition presented against the Bill contains some 1,400 signatures, but only 100 of the persons it represents can be heard in Committee. Among the persons who will be seriously injured by the proposal, are 85 or 86 well known artists including Mr. Alma Tadema, Mr. M'Whirter, Mr. Bruton Reviere, and Mr. Harry Furness. It is said they can go to other spots to follow their profession; but will their patrons follow them? Then it is said there is a railway already in St. John's Wood. So there is, but it is under cover, and only passengers are carried on it. The proposed line, however, is not only "to carry passengers, but goods, coals, manure, fish, and every other abomination that can be named. Then it has been argued that the open spaces in the locality will not remain long, as the leases are short. That may be so as to some part of the neighbourhood, but in a greater number of instances there are independent freeholders on the estate, and it is extremely unlikely that they will make up their minds to convert their freeholds into leaseholds. But supposing all these spaces are built upon, it is perfectly clear that Regent's Park, Hampstead Heath, and Parliament Hill, will never be covered with houses. This proposed terminus is only 170 yards from Regent's Park. It is perfectly certain that Regent's Park will never be built upon, but can anyone deny that the smoke, dust, and steam, together with the smells which would come from the fish and manure trucks would seriously injure and pollute the salubrious-ness and healthiness of the park? Lord's Cricket Ground, I maintain, is almost as much a national open space as Regent's Park. The Cricket Ground is about the same distance from the terminus as the Park, and the promoters of the railway know, that unless they could arrange matters with the Marylebone Cricket Club, serious opposition would be offered to them. As a result, instead of there being a wide open cutting through
    1206
    Lord's, as shown in the deposited plans, four little tubes are to be pushed under the extreme eastern verge of Lord's, and for this concession the club are to receive a slice of the property which now belongs to the Clergy Orphan School. But does anyone imagine if the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Watkin) gets a foothold in Lord's, he will not eventually take the whole ground? If this railway is not a sham, if it is to have any traffic at all, the terminus must be a larger one than that which is now proposed, and to effect this Lord's must be acquired altogether. But what is to happen to cricket players even supposing the terminus remains as proposed? Fancy a match between Oxford and Cambridge, or Eton and Harrow, with the galaxy of beauty which is always to be found at Lord's on such occasions. If there is a south wind, dust and dirt will be blown from this terminus, and not only be a great inconvenience, but will damage the beautiful and costly dresses of the ladies. Artists, literary men, men of leisure, and those persons who naturally seek quiet and repose in this quiet neighbourhood are well aware that if it is for the public good, their comfort and convenience must give way, but they deny that there is any necessity for it. If there is any necessity for a new line of railway from the North, the company promoting it should be compelled to avail themselves of the district already occupied by rail ways where they would not be likely to inflict a real and lasting injury upon anyone.
    MR. BROADHURST: I rise on behalf of the constituency I have the honour to represent to appeal to the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I am much surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead should take the extreme course of trying to defeat the Bill on the Second Reading, and thereby deprive the promoters of the right of being heard in its favour. But my hon. Friend did not seem to throw his heart into the business of opposition; he rather spoke as a person who regretted he had undertaken the duty of opposing. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down pleaded somewhat pathetically for the interests of the people of St. John's Wood. No one desires seriously to

    1207
    injure the people of that district, or of any other district, but, of all the districts in London, St. John's is the one most blessed with open spaces, both in front and rear. As a matter of fact, it is surrounded by great open spaces. I support the Bill on behalf of the people of Nottingham. Nottingham has a population of 250,000. It is teeming with manufactures; it is alive with industry; and yet it is not served by any one main system of railway. Both the Great Northern and the Midland are only connected with Nottingham by branch lines, and there is a very large area untouched. I make no complaint against the Great Northern or the Midland for their passenger service, but it is not within the power of these companies to serve Nottingham as it ought to be served, considering its commercial position and its industrial necessities. The new line which this Bill contemplates will be an enormous blessing to Nottingham, and would afford opportunities for trade and commerce which it has never yet enjoyed. We should have direct communication with the furthermost parts of Scotland and every district in the South and West of England. Surely then an important borough such as Nottingham is at least entitled to be heard before a Committee, and is not to be disposed of in this off-hand manner by refusing to read the Bill a second time. My Colleague the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. A. Morley) presented yesterday a Petition in favour of the Bill signed by 16,000 persons, and I also presented a Petition bearing an enormous number of signatures. Every section of the commercial community of Nottingham is united to a man in favour of the scheme, and one of the largest meetings of the working classes ever held in the borough was unanimous in supporting it. Surely these are reasons why we should agree to-day to the Second Reading of the measure. Leicester, with a population of 150,000, is also in its favour, and a united population of nearly 500,000 in Nottingham and Leicester deserve some consideration. I should be sorry to advocate any measure that would wilfully or carelessly destroy open spaces, but I think we ought to regard the pressing necessities of a great community. Whatever shortcomings there
    1208
    may be in the Bill may be amended in Committee, and by opening up increased facilities for communication we shall really be providing for increased trade and increased prosperity for the communities interested.
    MR. BARNES: In the County of Derby we are fully alive to the absolute necessity of this Bill. At present we have only one railway, notwithstanding the enormous increase of traffic, and my constituents are of opinion that with one railway their interests are not adequately served; especially so far as the coal traffic is concerned. What' they require is a railway which shall enable them to get direct to London and carry their traffic south of London. I was somewhat astonished to hear the views of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Boulnois) as to the carrying of coal being an abomination. How are we to go on without coal? How is the industry of the country to be carried on without it? I certainly hope the House will allow the Bill to go before a Select Committee.
    SIR J. PEASE: If I were to register my vote according to my own personal interests, I should probably divide against the Second Reading of the Bill; bat I wish respectfully to call the attention of the House to the position in which some of these railway questions stand at the present moment. They seem to take up much more of the time of the House than they used to do; and I cannot help thinking that the House of Commons, in trying to do the work of Committees, is not only in that way occupying time which might more usefully be employed for national purposes, but is also preventing railway measures from receiving in Committees that consideration which commercial interests require. I can recollect the time when the Second Reading of a Railway Bill, except under special circumstances, was never debated in the House itself, but was sent to a Committee in which it could be fully considered and threshed out. It is all very well to talk of Mr. Briton Riviere and Mr. Alma Tadema and other respectable people in the neighbourhood of St. John's Wood, but the real question is how the interests of the Metropolis at large will be affected. I am astonished

    1209
    to hear hon. Members speak of the inconvenience of a railway when it is well known that the railways have been the great civilisers and convenience of mankind. The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the fish traffic. Of all the railways in London this is the one which would help us most in regard to the fish traffic. It would bring fish direct from Grimsby at a very materially reduced cost. I submit that all the points that have been raised in opposition should be dealt with in Committee, and I enter my caveat against the House going into these questions instead of leaving them to the Committee.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I agree that, as a general rule, it is better to relegate these questions to Committees; but for the last 15 years those interested in the preservation of open spaces have raised the question of Bills of this kind, because open spaces have not received good treatment at the hands of Committees. In the present case the question is not merely a question in regard to Nottingham. I am of opinion that there should be more communication between the Midlands and London; but the terminus should be well chosen, and that proposed has not been as well chosen as it might have been. I have put down an Instruction, in the event of the Second Reading being carried, empowering the Committee to consider whether some better site for a terminus could not be selected, and I understand that the promoters of the Bill are not unprepared to consent to that Instruction. On the strict understanding that the Committee will be able to consider the question of alternative termini, I will not object to the Second Reading.
    MR. JEFFREYS: I object to the Bill on account of its interference with Lord's Cricket Ground, which is the most unique space in London. I am told that the members of Lord's have agreed to it, but there has been no general meeting on the subject, and every cricketer and every member of Lord's that I have spoken to has objected to it very strongly. They do so because they are convinced that if there is a great terminus built on the other side of Lord's, the company will not be content with two tubes under the ground, but will presently want the greater part of the space. If
    1210
    the Committee agree to it, they may find themselves in a great minority at the next meeting. Lord's is not an aristocratic ground. If hon. Members will go there, not when the Oxford and Cambridge or Eton and Harrow match is being played, but on the date of any of the great county matches, they will be surprised to see many thousands of working men enjoying their holiday in a rational and orderly manner. For these and other reasons I venture to ask the House on this occasion to throw out the Bill, which I believe will be not only detrimental to the health of the neighbourhood, but to the well-being of the Metropolis.
    SIR H. JAMES: It is evident from what has been said in this House and outside that a great interest exists in the preservation of Lord's, and the House will agree in sharing that view. When the Bill was first introduced it was felt that a most serious attack was being made upon the preservation of Lord's Cricket Ground. The committee of the Marylebone Cricket Club, of which I have the honour to be a member, and the acting chairman of which is Sir Spencer Ponsonby Fane, is composed of cricketers like Lord Lyttleton, Mr. Ridley, and Mr. Walker, who have a most practical knowledge of what is necessary for the preservation of a cricket ground, and who, as every cricketer in England knows, are most jealous of the interests of the Club. The committee at first decided to oppose the Bill, and to try to prevent the substantial injury they thought it would do the ground; but they were approached by the promoters, who expressed their wish in no way to interfere with the ground. The Railway Company offered the Marylebone Cricket Club certain terms for the preservation of Lord's Ground. I do not recognise that offer as the substituting of four tubes instead of making an open cutting. What has in effect been done is the withdrawal of the deposited plans; and the promoters, instead of taking a substantial part of the cricket ground, have agreed to confine their operations to tunnelling a narrow strip at the extreme end, which forms part of the practice ground. The land required for the tunnel will be 124 feet in breadth, and the work is to be carried on between

    1211
    the months of September and April, so as not to interfere with the practice, and all arrangements have been made for the ground being left in as good condition for practice as it is now. The ground which the company will take will be 4,300 square yards. What do they propose to give Lord's in return? The committee have been long attempting to acquire ground belonging to the Clergy Orphans' School, and the Railway company will have to take that ground. In consideration of the right to tunnel, they have offered to hand over to the committee of Lord's an area which will make the ground perfectly square instead of irregular as now, and this area consists of 8,600 square yards, or double the extent of ground taken. In addition, the Railway Company agree to give Lord's a lease for nothing of 4,000 square yards more land, making in all 12,600 square yards for the right to tunnel under 4,300. In that case what had the committee to do? How could they with propriety oppose the scheme, and say that it would interfere with an open space, when in reality it added to the open space. I do not believe the Railway Company in the future will make any more demands for land. That which they now seek will give them room for 10 working rails, and they say that is all they will require. But if they ask for more in days to come they will be met by this agreement as an answer to their demand. I admit that in considering this matter the Committee of the Marylebone Club have never discussed the likelihood of the terminus causing damage to ladies' dresses on the occasion of the Oxford and Cambridge matches, but it will be open to the hon. Member for Marylebone to urge that point before the general meeting of the Club which has been called to consider the action of the Committee.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The opposition to this Bill going into Committee in the ordinary course is not based on any opposition to the railway or to the proposal that there should be a new terminus in London, but is simply directed to the fact that it is proposed to have the terminus in St. John's Wood. The hon. Member opposite—the Member for St. John's Wood—who seconded the Amendment, based his opposition upon two grounds: first, that St. John's Wood
    1212
    consists of open spaces which it is necessary to preserve; and next, that it would destroy Lord's Cricket Ground. We have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) that the committee of Lord's Cricket Ground have agreed to the arrangement proposed by the promoters of the Bill, and as to the open spaces the hon. Member says the land has been laid out for semi-detached villas, which he says are of great value to the Metropolis for the preservation of pure air. This is the first time I ever heard of the pure air of St. John's Wood permeating Regent's Park and the neighbourhood, nor; have we the slightest guarantee that the present state of things will be always maintained; and that these separate villas will remain a permanent institution. The owners will look after their own interests, and as the population increases this locality will naturally be converted into terraces, roads, and so on. It is impossible for the hon. Member to guarantee that this will remain an open space even until the leases run out in 30 years. They are not open spaces in the general sense of the word, and I cannot understand how anybody connected with the preservation of open spaces should have taken the matter up. The hon. Member opposite says that some 85 artists live there, and that the whole 85 object to this scheme. Now, I should like to know how many of these artists paint pictures that are worth looking at. At the most not more than five of them, and they will go on painting even if there happens to be a railway near. In fact, the whole opposition to the Bill is absurd. I advocate the making of a terminus where it is most desirable in the interests of the community generally, despite the objection of people who live in detached villas—and a very remarkable people some of them are—and certain artists who have been alluded to by the hon. Member for Marylebone. I hope, under the circumstances, that the House will read the Bill a second time.
    BARON F. DE ROTHSCHILD: As one of the Representatives of the County of Buckingham I support the Bill. Buckingham is a long and narrow county, with two large railways in connection with it; but neither of them connects the county

    1213
    either with the North or South of England. The passenger traffic is slow and inconvenient, with constant delays and stoppages, and the cost of goods traffic is exceptionally high. We have heard a good deal about the agricultural labourer, and only the other day we passed the Second Reading of a Bill to enable him to have small holdings; and I am convinced that no scheme could be of more advantage to the agricultural labourer in Bucks than to secure the advantage of direct railway communication. The population of the Metropolis is increasing enormously, and the more it increases the greater will be the demand for the agricultural produce of Buckinghamshire, and the greater will be the benefit conferred upon the people by the construction of a direct line of railway. Of course, when a new railway is proposed there is much opposition to it, but it seems to me that the House will consult the interests of the majority of the people by reading this Bill a second time and referring it to a Select Committee.
    MR. MURDOCH: This is the first time I have heard the terms of the arrangement between the promoters and the committee of Lord's Cricket Ground, but I feel certain that any committee of which the right hon. Member for Bury is a member will have done its best in the interests of Lord's. It is very likely, however, that the committee may not have had their attention called to what may take place in the future. I cannot help feeling that in the immediate future it will be found necessary to widen the approaches of this railway, and that can only be done in the westward, where Lord's Cricket Ground is situated. If it is found absolutely necessary to have better approaches, I am afraid that Parliament would not stand in the way, but would, in the interests of the travelling public, grant the increased accommodation required. Almost every railway in London—the London and South Western, the London and North Western, the Great Northern, and the Midland—have been compelled to widen their approaches. Those who approach the Bill in the interest of Lord's contend that there is no necessity for the railway taking this route at all. If it left the Metropolitan and St. John's
    1214
    Wood Railway more to the northward it would run well to the westward of Lord's, and there would be no necessity hereafter for encroaching upon the ground at Lord's. It might be more costly for the promoters, but that, I think, is not the question which this House ought to entertain. For my own part, I do not think that the promoters would be damnified by postponing the Bill for 12 months and coming next year to Parliament with an amended Bill. I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Bury and the committee of Lord's have confided too-much in the promises of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Directors, and, for my own part, I think it is a case where the old adage holds true that "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. "It will be far better for the members of the Marylebone Cricket Club to preserve the ground they have than to trust to the promises of the projectors of this line, which may never be fulfilled.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I hope the House will allow me to call attention to something more important than the interests of Lord's Cricket Ground, namely, the great industrial importance to the manufacturing districts and the working classes in the Midland Counties of a line of railway direct to London. When the Midland Railway proposed to come to London it was violently opposed by the Great Northern. It was urged that it would displace thousands of the working classes, and that there was no necessity for it at all. I should like to ask any Member of this House now what would be the condition of things in London if the Midland had not come here. All the great railway reforms which have taken place in London have been the result of the Midland coming here: we have secured more rapid and cheaper travelling, and the abolition of second-class carriages.
    MR. MURDOCH: The Midland came into London through a very poor district, and it was of advantage to sweep the property away.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Yes; and the Midland encountered the most violent opposition on that account. It is only fair to the Midland Railway to say that they have been the pioneers in every

    1215
    kind of railway reform. If it had been running, as the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway is, over other lines it could not have accomplished these reforms, and it is only because it has its own terminus that it has been able to do so. The proposition which the promoters of the Bill have made to the committee of Lord's Cricket Ground is a most handsome one, and I would point to the fact that no Member representing a district interested in the scheme has risen to oppose the Bill. The hon. Member for Chester, field (Mr. Barnes) spoke of the congestion of the coal traffic, and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Baron F. de Rothschild) called attention to the disadvantages to which the rural districts of Buckinghamshire are subjected owing to the want of direct railway communication. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) has spoken of the importance of the line to Nottingham; and, as I know every inch of the ground the line is intended to traverse, I can truly assert that there could be no more important railway for the development of the mining and trading interests it is intended to serve. Since the Midland came into London the constituency I have the honour to represent has doubled, and the traffic of the district has increased by more than 12,000,000 tons within the last 20 years. In 1870 the whole amount of coal raised in South Yorkshire and Derbyshire was between 10,000,000 and 11,000,000 tons, and it is now 22,000,000 tons. Nevertheless, there are complaints that the traffic is congested, and that it is impossible to have it conveyed with facility and without delay. The projected line will traverse an entirely new district—a district not touched either by the Midland or the Great Northern, and it is as important for agriculture as it is for manufactures. South of Leicester it will touch places which have no railway near them and with a sparse population, simply because the only means of communication is by carriers' carts. I may add that I am authorised to accept the modified Instruction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), and I hope the Instruction of the hon. Member for Gateshead will be withdrawn. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment. ["No!"] Oh, then I must make some
    1216
    remarks on the case for St. John's Wood. Never was a weaker case presented to the House. It must be remembered that the leases of the 30 acres of ground which this company proposes to take willlapse within 15 years, and then, as has already happened in other instances, these open spaces will be covered with closely-built streets. I trust that the House, because of an imaginary danger, will not prevent the Bill going before a Committee. The Railway Companies, probably from some pique against the President of the Board of Trade in reference to railway rates, have withdrawn all their Bills; and this, involving an expenditure of some £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, is the only one remaining to be dealt with. I trust, therefore, we will not arrest important industrial enterprise simply because of such imaginary dangers as are brought forward.
    MR. SEAGER HUNT: We have been told that we ought to support this Bill, because the hon. Baronet, who is the promoter, has selected the site for the terminus in St. John's Wood. Will the hon. Baronet say that he is prepared to drop the London portion of his Bill for this year? ["No!"] What, then, is the value of the assertion that he is prepared to adopt an alternative site?
    *SIR E. WATKIN: I rise to Order. I am not the promoter of this Bill. I am merely one of 12 Directors representing 12,000 shareholders, who are the promoters.
    MR. SEAGER HUNT: The hon. Baronet's position is quite important enough. If the London portion of the Bill were withdrawn, then the opposition, so faras St. John's Wood is concerned, would die away. The fact that certain residences would be spoiled, and that property would fall in value in consequence of this Bill, appeared to excite the derision of the hon. Member for Northampton. But the injury sustained by the owners of these properties is real; besides which, theerection of the terminus would adversely affect the squares and thoroughfares of Marylebone by drawing through them an immense amount of miscellaneous traffic. I sincerely trust that the Bill will not be read a second time.
    MR. COURTNEY: If I am not mistaken, there is a feeling in the House that the Bill ought to go before a Committee; and I cannot help thinking that the questions which have been raised are questions which ought to be determined not by the House, but by the Committee, who would be able to compare the balance of gains and losses of the various districts outside the Metropolis and in London itself. I refer to the manufacturing towns of Manchester, "Sheffield, and Leicester, and the agricultural County of Buckingham. There is no opposition in the Metropolis to the measure except in the area affected by it. I do not scoff at the gentlemen who, living in St. John's Wood, oppose the Bill; and I have no doubt that if I resided there I would oppose it tooth and nail to get the terminus sent elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford suggests that the great railway termini should be near together, and no doubt that is desirable; but the question whether this is a desirable arrangement, as proposed by the Bill, is one which should be decided by the Committee, and is surely not one which the House could determine. I hope the House will refrain from deciding questions which can only be properly investigated and determined by a Committee.
    MR. PICTON: Had it not been that the Rules of the House prevented it, I would have presented to the House a Petition from Leicester, signed by the merchants and inhabitants of Leicester in favour of this Bill, on the ground that the line would give direct communication between London, Manchester, Nottingham, and Sheffield. The earnest desire of large trading populations ought to be taken into consideration, and certainly ought to weigh against the sentimental interests of the romantic neighbourhood of St. John's Wood.
    MR. DE LISLE: This line will run through about 15 miles of the Division which I represent, and a Petition has been presented to this House, signed by some 15,000 of the ratepayers and leaseholders. The Town Council of Loughborough have petitioned against the Bill, but, as far as I can ascertain, that is on a question of locus standi as regards the site of
    1218
    the local railway station. I can endorse what has been said as to the great advantages of this Bill to various industrial centres, and I hope my hon. Friends around me will not continue their opposition to the measure.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I merely rise to ask whether the time has not come when the House should decide this question? I think the growing practice in this House of debating these Bills on the Second Reading is a very undesirable one. We have under the pressure of public business begun Morning Sittings to-day, and what has become of this Morning Sitting? It has been devoted to what I call the most trumpery opposition to a railway undertaking that I have ever heard in the House of Commons. It carries us back to a period 40 years ago, when I remember the Great Northern Bill was thrown out on the opposition of the Badsworth Hunt, merely because it would interfere with sport in their district. Are we really going back to those days? It would almost seem so when we find an hon. Member getting up and saying that in the future some interest in Lord's Cricket Ground may be injured which is not injured now. This is the opposition which is offered to a Bill for the promotion of a great industrial undertaking which is to benefit hundreds of thousands of our population. A more discreditable vote could never be given by the House of Commons than a vote which would throw out such a measure on such grounds as these. To give such a vote would show that the House of Commons, which professes to be the representative of the interests of the people, prefers the amusements of the few to the interests of the many. I am quite certain that the House of Commons will not give such a vote as that. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his place. I am quite sure that he is not about to vote against a Bill which, whatever else it does, must be for the benefit of the trade of the country, and of the district it will traverse, and of the great Metropolis it will serve. That these interests should be deliberately sacrificed by the House of Commons to the very trumpery interests set up in opposition to the Bill is a thing which I

    1219
    do not think will happen even at the end of the 19th century.
    MR. WIGGIN: It appears to me, from the speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) and the remarks made earlier in the day by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Barnes), that an erroneous impression has been conveyed to the mind of the House that the Midland Railway Company are unable to carry the traffic up to London. The fact is that during the late intensely cold weather there was a great scarcity of coal trucks, and it was on account of the want of such trucks that the hon. Member for Chesterfield could not get his coal brought up to London. I am satisfied, from my own knowledge, that the North Western, the Great Northern, the Midland, and the Great Eastern Railway Companies, which pass through densely-populated districts of the country, are quite able to bring all their traffic up to London, and a great deal more if they could get it.
    *MR. SCHWANN: I only rise to say that, in the opinion of the people of Manchester, which forms one of the termini of the proposed extension, this line ought to be made. We know that the line is one that would greatly lessen the cost of goods traffic from the great centres of northern industry to London, and we ought in these days of keen competition to welcome any investment that will promote improved facilities in the conduct of trade.
    (4.22.) The House divided:—Ayes 212; Noes 103.—(Div. List, No. 89.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection,"—(Mr. Boulnois,)—put, and negatived.
    Bill committed.
    Ordered, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to take evidence, and to Report to the House whether the site of the terminus proposed in the Bill is the best which can be devised in the interest of the people of London."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

QUESTIONS.

  THE SOUTH KENSINGTON SUBWAY.
  COLONEL HAMBRO: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if there is any foundation for the statement, made by Major General C. E. Webber, R.E., in a pamphlet which has been sent to Members of Parliament—
  "That Her Majesty's Government has given practical encouragement to the project called the South Kensington and Paddington Subway Tramway."
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The statement referred to in the question does not accurately represent the course taken by the Government with regard to the South Kensington and Paddington Tramway Bill—now withdrawn. The scheme had, I think, some good points, especially in so far as it aimed at providing better communication between the South Kensingtom Railway Station and the Albert Hall, and other public buildings in that neighbourhood, and no doubt the promoters believed that it would minister greatly to the wants of the public; but so far a it affected Kensington Gardens the view I took was that the making of the tramway would cause considerable inconvenience to the public during the time of its construction, and must involve the immediate loss of some fine trees, and serious risk to others, and that it would require a very strong case of public advantage to be made out on their side in order to overcome these objections. I was in correspondence in this sense with the promoters when the Bill was withdrawn; and I had not at any time undertaken to withhold opposition if the Bill should go to a Committee, much less did I ever promise to support it.

  COUNTY COURT ELECTIONS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the difficulty of providing for an accurate revision of the County Electors' Lists, and to the probable addition to county expenditure and possible breakdown in the proceedings for revising the Lists before November 1st, he will consider the

  1221
  advisability of postponing the County-Council elections to 1st January, 1892?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): When I intimated to the House my intention of withdrawing the Registration Acceleration Bill I stated that I would consider what other proposal could be made to meet the difficulties in connection with the preparation of the Register. I have given the matter my consideration, with the result that I have had a Bill drawn postponing the elections for County Councils to January 15.
  MR. J. STUART: Will that refer also to the election of the London County Council?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes.

  STUDENTS IN TRAINING COLLEGES.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that students in residential training colleges have little more than four months to prepare for the matriculation examination at the London University, whereas students in the new day training colleges have the full academic year for the same purpose; and whether he proposes to remedy this apparent injustice?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I am aware of the apparent anomaly; but it must not be forgotten that the day students have to pass their examination in technical subjects also in June, whereas the residential students have theirs deferred until December. It may be said, therefore, that although day students have the advantage on the matriculation examination, the residential students have the advantage on the certificate examination, as a whole, and can devote the first part of the year chiefly to academic, and the second to technical subjects.

  CARDIFF DAY TRAINING COLLEGE.
  MR. POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the prospectus of the Cardiff Day Training College, stating that—
  "In respect of the subjects in which normal students receive instruction in common with
  1222
  other students of the college, the Education Department accepts the results of the sessional examination conducted by the professors of the college"
  as qualifying for a certificate of merit; and whether these examinations are held by the Department as equivalent to the independent and uniform examination of the Department for the same purpose?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: The Education Department recognise in day training colleges examinations by the examiners of the college, usually the college professors, in certain subjects, but the papers will be sent to the Department, and the marks will be re-I assessed, so as to bring all students as nearly as possible into line. It may eventually be necessary to ask the colleges to appoint outside examiners, and also to submit the papers that are set to the Inspector of the district; but before laying down any rule, it has been thought expedient to wait for the experience of the first examinations in June and December.

  ALLOTMENTS.
  MR HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the expenses of a Sanitary Authority incurred in acquiring land for allotments, which are required by Section two (2) of "The Allotments Act, 1887," to be recouped out of the rents, include the annual instalments of the principal of the purchase-money, or only the interest payable on the purchase-money?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board have been advised by the Law Officers that the expenses referred to in Sub-section 2 of Section 2 of the Allotments Act, 1887, include the interest payable upon the purchase-money, but not the annual instalments of principal or payments to a sinking fund in cases where lands has been acquired by means of a loan repayable by instalments.

  MAIN ROADS AND COUNTY BRIDGES.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the cost of improving a main road or county bridge can be defrayed partly at the cost of a county and partly at the cost of the highway district or parish in which the road or

  1223
  bridge is situate; if so, what authority can rate the district or parish for such purpose; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of amending the Law on the first opportunity, in order to facilitate such equitable and convenient arrangements?
  *MR. RITCHIE: As regards a county bridge, under ordinary circumstances a Highway Authority would not be empowered to contribute towards the construction, or maintenance of such a bridge. Where, however, an entirely new structure is proposed, it might be practicable, under certain circumstances, to adopt the principle of joint contribution by the Highway Authority building the bridge and the County Council contributing to the cost under Section 22 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878. With regard to a main road, I do not think there is any way in which a Highway Authority can directly contribute towards the cost of the improvement of a main road. Although I am not prepared to give any undertaking as to proposing legislation on these matters, the point is one of which I will make a note in the event of any legislation on the subject of roads being proposed.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to that portion of the Annual Report of the Director of the National Gallery for 1890, in which he calls attention to the crowded state of the Gallery, and the impossibility of maintaining a systematic classification of the pictures until further accommodation is provided, and expresses a hope that the Treasury will not long delay to carry out the promise made by the First Commissioner of Works in 1889, that, inasmuch as the ground acquired for the extension of the National Gallery had been used for the National Portrait Gallery, the Government would, if more space were required for the National Gallery, remove St. George's Barracks elsewhere; whether the crowded state of the rooms, and the impossibility of hanging more pictures, now suggests an enlargement of the Gallery; and whether he will consider the advisability of removing St. George's Barracks, and thus
  1224
  ensure the safety of the National collection, which is now placed in the closest proximity to buildings and warehouses filled with inflammable goods, and exposed to constant risk of fire?
  *MR. PLUNKET: I have read the Report of the Director of the National Gallery for 1890. The Government will, of course, be prepared to carry out the promise I made on their behalf in 1889—that, when they are satisfied that more space is required for the extension of the National Gallery, it should be found in the adjoining barrack-yard; and I am sure that any representation made to the Government by the Trustees of the National Gallery will receive very careful consideration. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that in 1887 a very large extension of the exhibition galleries was completed, at the cost of £50,000, by which five new rooms, a vestibule, and a staircase were added to the hanging space. No doubt it would be better if the galleries were entirely detached from the barracks, which at one point they now adjoin, but this matter has not been overlooked; and some years ago the divisional wall between the two buildings, was carried up to a considerable height above the roof of the National Gallery, and all other possible precautions will continue to be taken for protection from fire.
  *DR. FARQUHARSON: Is it not a fact that portions of the barracks are actually in contact with the Turner room, which contains some of the greatest Art treasures in the Gallery; and whether two fires have not already taken place in barracks in or near London?
  *MR. PLUNKET: It is true that at one point the two buildings are very close together; but the precautions I have spoken of have already been taken, and we are at present considering a scheme for providing a better supply of water in case of fire.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state when the postponed surveys on the 1–2,500 scale maps of the six Scotch counties, Fife and Kinross, Mid and East Lothian, Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, will be

  1225
  undertaken; and if he can inform the House what length of time it will take to complete their survey in Scotland on the 1–2,500 scale?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The arrangement for the re-survey of the six Scotch counties on the 1–2,500 scale is to employ upon it four of the field divisions now engaged in re-surveying Lancashire and Yorkshire on the same scale. One of these divisions will commence work in Edinburghshire during the course of the present year, and the others, I hope, next year. The work in Lancashire and Yorkshire has been so heavy, and the town areas have been so large, that the re-survey has taken longer than was expected; it is, therefore, not possible at present to say when the three divisions will commence work in Scotland. No accurate estimate could at present be made of the date when the re-survey of the Scotch counties will be completed, but when once taken up it will be pushed forward as quickly as possible. The levellers are already at work in advance of the re-survey.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Do I understand there is no prospect of the survey of Fife being completed within a measurable time?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.

  ACCIDENT AT HIGHBURY STATION.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evidence at the inquest on George Wells, a platelayer of the North London Railway Company, who was killed at Highbury Station at 9 a.m. on 6th February, from which it appears that Wells came on duty at 6 a.m. on 5th February, worked till 5.30 p.m., resumed duty at 11 p.m. on the 5th, and would, if he had not been killed, have continued on duty till 5.30 p.m. on the 6th, and thus was on duty no less than 21½ hours, divided by an interval of only 5½ hours' rest, up to the time of his death, and would, if the accident had not occurred, have been on duty for 30 hours, with an interval of only 5½ hours; and whether the Board of Trade have made representations to the North London Railway Company,
  1226
  with a view to the prevention of such excessive hours of work; and whether he will consider the advisability of requiring Railway Companies, in the Reports they send in of fatalities and injuries occurring to individual workmen on their lines, to state the number of hours at which such workmen have been employed previous to the occurrences?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): My attention has been called to the fatal accident referred to, and I have received a communication from the Railway Company on the subject. The company state that on February 5th the deceased platelayer had been working at his ordinary duties from 7 in the morning until 5 o'clock in the afternoon; but, after having rested until half-past 11, was specially employed on overtime in a relaying operation, which could not be carried out until after the passenger traffic had ceased. They attribute the accident to failure on the part of another company's driver to give warning. I shall be glad to show the hon. Member the correspondence on the subject. I will consider the question of the Reports.

  ACCIDENTS IN MINES.
  MR. S. T. EVANS(in the absence of Mr. ARTHUR WILLIAMS,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government are prepared to take steps for giving practical effect to the recommendation of the Accidents in Mines Commission that there should be—
  "An official establishment of some permanent arrangement by which the merits of inventions and suggestions affecting the working of mines may he investigated promptly, thoroughly, and authoritatively."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I do not think that this suggestion is one which can be usefully carried out. Experience shows that the value of scientific discoveries is best tested by actual use and through the operation of a free and open market. I always communicate to the Inspectors, and through them to the mining industry, any new invention which appears to secure greater safety in the working

  1227
  of coal mines; but colliery owners and managers would not readily accept as authoritative the decisions of an official Board of Investigation.

  AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN RAILWAY TARIFFS.
  MR. S. T. EVANS (in the absence of Mr. ARTHUR WILLIAMS): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will obtain and lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Belgian and Austro-Hungarian tariffs for goods and passengers on the State Railways in those countries, showing the rates and distances in English money and miles, and a copy of the State Returns for 1888, showing the financial working of the railways in those countries?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have not the information referred to by the hon. Member; but I am in communication with the Foreign Office, with a view of ascertaining whether all or any of it can be procured.

  GAME IMPORTS FROM NORWAY.
  MR. BARCLAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state or give as a Return the quantity of game imported from Norway during the first quarter of 1890?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The import lists do not distinguish game from poultry. The imports of game and poultry from Norway in the first quarter of 1890 amounted to £3,246 in value, of which the great bulk is believed to have consisted of game.

  HOSIERY MANUFACTURE ACT.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of "James Holmes v. Frederic Hardwick" in the County Court of Leicester, 2nd December, 1890, in which a claim was made for penalties under "The Hosiery Manufacture (Wages) Act, 1874;" whether he has observed that, notwithstanding the provisions of the above Act for the payment of—
  "The full and entire amount of all wages, the earnings of labour in the hosiery manufacture …… without any deduction or stop page of any description whatsoever,"
  1228
  it was found that the law was powerless to prevent an arrangement by which workmen, after payment of their wages, were expected to pay back, and did pay back, 10 per cent. to their employer; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing an amending Act for the purpose of preventing an evasion by which Sections 2 and 7 of the above Act, so far as they forbid contracts contrary to its tenour, are made null and void?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have seen the case of "Holmes v. Hardwick," which was tried in the Leicester County Court on December 2 last, and, as I understand it, the deductions then in question were held not to be in fact frame rents. There was consequently no evasion of Sections 2 and 7 of the Act in question. The Judge offered to state a case to decide the point. The statute in question appears to me sufficiently stringent and penal, and I am not prepared to amend it.

  EXAMINATION FOR FOREIGN OFFICE.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any intention to adopt the recommendation made in paragraph 25, page 9, of the Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, namely—
  "That there should be one Foreign Service, entered by limited competition, and on the same examination as that which now obtains for the Foreign Office;"
  whether political economy is now excluded from the prescribed subjects in examinations for the Foreign Office; and whether, in view of the importance of the subject to members of the Diplomatic Services, from whom information is expected on the trade, commerce, and public economy of foreign countries, the Lords of the Treasury will insist that, if there is to be only one Foreign Service and one examination, political economy shall be an essential subject in that examination?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): There will in future be one examination qualifying for both the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Services. Political economy will be omitted from the examination. The subjects of examination are settled by the Secretary of State.

  THE GREENOCK POLICE FORCE.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the dissatisfaction which exists among the police force of Greenock at the scale of pensions awarded to them under the Act of last year; and whether, in drawing up that scale, any consideration was given to the fact that in Greenock alone in Scotland a police pension fund, showing a large surplus largely constituted of contributions from the men, existed at the date of the passing of the Act; and, if not, if the Scotch Office will consider whether the members of the Greenock force cannot in some way be recouped for the exceptional sacrifices which for many years they were called upon to make?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): Yes, Sir; the Secretary for Scotland has received representations showing the existence of some dissatisfaction among the members of the Force; but after giving the most careful attention to the question he does not think there is any real ground for complaint. A reference to the Act, and to the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Bill, will show that the existence of the Police Pension Fund at Greenock was taken into full consideration by Parliament when the Bill was under discussion; and there appears to be no reason to think that any departure is now necessary from the decision deliberately arrived at for dealing with the fund.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: There is a strong feeling on the subject, and, therefore, I should like to know whether the decision of the Department is final?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: When the Select Committee was sitting gentlemen were sent up to represent the interests of the Force. The case was very carefully considered, and I think if any dissatisfaction exists it is due to a misunderstanding of the results that were brought out in the inquiry.

  THE POST OFFICE MESSENGER SERVICE.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, considering that the Post Office has never proposed
  1230
  to undertake the so-called "Electric Call System," or the carriage of letters by special messengers, as proposed by the Boy Messengers Company, it is his intention to avail himself of monopolies vested in the Post Office, but not utilised by that Department, to prevent the establishment by private enterprise of services which would tend to the convenience of the public? and as I understand the Postmaster General has it in contemplation to institute some new Messenger Service, possibly he can give the House some information in regard to that Service.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENhad the following question on the Paper:—To ask the Postmaster General whether it is true that he intends to stop the carrying of written communications by the Boy Messengers Company, Limited; and, if so, whether it will be legal for the public to send those communications by Commissionaires, cabs, and private messengers?
  VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is true that arrangements have already been made whereby letters may be taken to railway booking offices, and forwarded thence at a cost of 3d.; and whether these facilities will be accorded equally to the Boy Messengers and District Messengers Companies?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I have given directions for the establishment of a service which will, I believe, meet such public demand as exists for the more rapid transmission of single letters. I have to point out that it is my duty to protect the public interests entrusted to the Post Office by Act of Parliament, and I cannot, therefore, without dereliction of duty, allow organised services for the collection and delivery of letters or the transmission of telegrams to be set up side by side with those of the Department. In reply to the question of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Carmarthen), I have to say I am advised that the conveyance and delivery of letters by the company is illegal, and if continued it will be my duty to take such proceedings as may be necessary to prevent infringement of the law. A person wishing to send a letter on his own private affairs may legally employ a special messenger on his own account.

  1231
  I hope the new service will be in operation at the latest by Wednesday in next week, and it will consist of boy messengers, who will be attached to all the principal post offices in London, where their services can be requisitioned, as they are now at the offices such as are open of the Boy Messenger Company. As we have a very large staff of telegraphic messengers always on hand waiting at those offices it is believed we shall be able to render very much more efficient service with a small addition to the present force than that which the Boy Messenger Company is at the present time offering to the public. In regard to the question of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, I have to say that an arrangement has been made with the Railway Companies to enable letters to be conveyed by railway which cannot be conveyed by post—that is, letters posted after the time when the mails are sent off. This arrangement does not apply to the Boy and District Messengers Companies, as their operations will be in competition with the service we propose to establish.
  DR. CAMERON: Will any arrangements answering to the electric call system be made?
  *MR. RAIKES: The matter is under the consideration of my expert advisers, and it is hoped and believed that some such service can be established.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the system he proposes to establish will be extended to provincial towns?
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: Will there be a number of boys always at the service of the public; and will it be necessary to come to Parliament for a Supplementary Vote?
  *MR. RAIKES: I do not think it will be necessary to come to Parliament for a Supplementary Vote. As regards the question put by my hon. Friend behind me, I shall be very glad, if the experiment succeeds in London, to consider how far and in what cases it may be introduced in the large provincial towns.

  BANKERS' BALANCE SHEETS.
  MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the paragraph in Saturday's Times, saying—
  1232
  "There is reason to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not propose-to give legislative effect to the suggestion that private banks should be compelled to publish periodical balance sheets,"
  if this statement is correct; and if he intends to try to give legislative effect to any suggestion that Joint Stock Banks should be so compelled?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I believe it will be unnecessary to exercise any compulsory powers as to the more frequent publication of balance-sheets, as I have reason to believe that the Joint Stock Banks will themselves act in this direction. I have heard rumours to the effect that my hon. Friend informed the banks that they need not fear that I should be able to bring any compulsion to bear on them; and I must not be lured by the question into any declaration that in no case would I ask Parliament for compulsory powers; but I shall be most gratified if the Joint Stock Banks should, as I expect they will, meet public opinion and the circumstances of the day of their own accord.

  THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
  MR. ATKINSON: I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state when the present agreement with the Bank of England expires; what are its terms and conditions; whether he proposes to make any change in the agreement now to be made; and for how many years he proposes to make it?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Bank of England holds its banking privileges, including issue of notes, upon condition of making certain payments to the Exchequer, under the Bank Act of 1844, but subject to redemption upon 12 months' notice and on repayment by Parliament of the debt due by Government to the Bank. The Bank of England manages the Public Debt at certain rates of remuneration fixed by the Act of 1861. These rates continued in force until the 5th of April, 1886, and thenceforward until Parliament shall otherwise direct. The Bank of England transacts the ordinary banking business of the Government, having the use in return of the Government balances. This agreement can be revised at any

  1233
  time. I have at present under consideration the arrangements between the Government and the Bank.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Newfoundland will be directly represented at the arbitration on the "French Shore Difficulty" by a delegate from the Colony or only through the Foreign Office?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have invited the Government of Newfoundland to name a delegate with full local knowlege to represent the colony on the Board of Arbitration, but no final answer has yet been received.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I understand that the sanction of Parliament will be necessary in regard to the arbitration, and I wish to know when that sanction will be asked for?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The attention of Parliament will be invited to the subject in the course of a few days, but not in this House.

  GAMBLING AT HORSE RACES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the measures taken against gambling at horse races in France, alleged to be occasioned by the great development of such gambling among all classes; and whether the Government will consider the propriety of taking measures to put down the evil in Great Britain?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I can only repeat the answer which I gave on the 5th inst.—that my attention has been called to this matter, and that the Government, while they will do their best to enforce the existing law, do not contemplate legislation on this subject.

  PROPOSED BOOKSTALL FOR THE LOBBY.
  MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the first Commissioner of Works if he can arrange for a bookstall somewhere in the Lobby for the convenience of Members wishing to buy and post newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, &c.?
  MR. PLUNKET: In answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I do not think I can arrange for a bookstall in the Lobby for the convenience of Members wishing to buy and post newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets. I do not know of any place in the Lobby that would be suitable for the establishment of such a bookstall. On some nights the Lobby is crowded, and the bookstall might be an inconvenience.

  KING JA JA.
  MR. CHANNING, for Sir WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether King Ja Ja has been removed from St. Vincent to Barbados; whether his servants refused to accompany him, and consequently caused him great inconvenience and annoyance; whether his wife also declined to be transported to Barbados; and whether, considering that it: is now some seven months since he was informed that it was Her Majesty's gracious will and pleasure to order his release and re-conveyance to Opobo, he can fix a date for his return to his own country?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Governor of Barbados telegraphed on the 11th inst that Ja Ja had arrived much improved in health. We have not heard any particulars. It is impossible to say at what date the political situation at Opobo will admit of his return. He will be sent back as soon as the circumstances are sufficiently favourable.

  TELEGRAPHING FIGURES.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to an article in the Journalist of 7th March, in which it is stated that, without making any concession to journalists, if he would arrange to allow figures, which take only a tenth of the time to write and the Department much less time to transmit, to be telegraphed as cheaply as the words which spell the figures, both journalists and the Department would be benefited, as the work would be done by each in less time, the transmission of Press messages would be accelerated, and the Department would receive the same payment for considerably less labour; and whether he will

  1235
  consider the expediency of giving effect to this recommendation?
  *MR. RAIKES: I have read the article in question, and I find that both the newspaper and the hon. Member have shifted their ground. What they originally sought was the assimilation of the method of counting figures in Press telegrams with that which obtains in regard to ordinary telegrams. A concession was involved in such assimilation, and I was not prepared to grant it. The suggestion now made is, that a new method of counting should be adopted. I have considered this method, but I do not regard it as being preferable to the present one, which affords greater security for accuracy in transmission.

  THE PAINTED HALL AT GREENWICH.
  MR. BOORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Painted Hall at Greenwich is being stripped of the greater part of the pictures and relics which form the chief attraction to visitors; whether it is also intended to remove the principal models from the College buildings; and when the several objects removed will be replaced?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): In the unavoidable absence of my noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty, I beg to state that a considerable number of the pictures, relics, and naval models now at Greenwich will be moved to London to form part of the collection to be shown at the Royal Naval Exhibition. From the liberality with which private owners have responded to the appeal made to them, that section of the Exhibition relating to naval pictures and portraits, marine models, and relics, promises to be quite unique from its magnitude and unbroken historical continuity. My hon. Friend could hardly expect that, when private individuals are thus bestirring themselves to assist the Naval Exhibition, the one great national collection of naval pictures and models should not contribute its share, especially when the inhabitants of Greenwich have in ordinary years the benefit of a gratuitous access to the only naval exhibition of pictures and models in the country supported by
  1236
  national funds. The pictures and models will return to Greenwich when the Exhibition is over.

  CO-PARTNERSHIP AND PROFIT SHARING.
  MR. CHAINING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the questions of co-partnership and profit-sharing will be included in the scope of the Reference to the Royal Commission on Labour?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must ask the hon. Member to wait till the terms of Reference are before the House.

  THE LEICESTERSHIRE REGIMENT IN BERMUDA.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether his attention has been called to a letter in to-day's Times from Lieutenant-General Newdegate, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Bermuda, exonerating the men of the 1st. Battalion of the Leicestershire Regiment from the disgraceful charges made against them sometime ago in a Dalziel telegram from New York? I have thought it right, Sir, to ask this question publicly in the House in the interests of a most gallant and deserving regiment; and I would venture further to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any additional information in relation to this matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I have seen the statement referred to by my hon. Friend, and from this, as well as from other information which has reached me, I am glad to be able to repeat what I have already stated in this House on a telegraphic despatch, that it is clear that what I then said was correct, and that the honour of a very distinguished regiment is entirely freed from an unfounded charge of insubordination.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether I am right in understanding him to have said that the Lords' Amendments to the Tithes Bill will be taken on Thursday.

  1237
  I would also ask whether he can state what business will be taken on Friday?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have every reason to hope that it will be possible to take the Lords' Amendments to the Tithes Bill on Thursday.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Will it be the first Order?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: It will be substantially the first Order, although we may have to take one or two small matters before it. I shall, however, be able to make a positive statement tomorrow on the subject. Arrangements have been made by which we hope to get the Amendments made by the Lords printed and circulated to-morrow, or, at all events, made available to hon. Members at 12 o'clock. On Friday we shall proceed with the Bills which are on the Paper for to-day, and with other Bills.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely when the Government will move the Speaker out of the Chair for the Civil Service Estimates?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope to do so on Monday, but we must take these measures by themselves first of all. One business must be finished before we go on with the other.

NATIONAL DEBT.
Return ordered—
"Showing, at the close of each financial year from 1835–6 to 1890–91, both inclusive, the aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Value of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt and ether Liabilities in respect of Debt, the estimated Assets, and the aggregate Net Liabilities, also the Exchequer Balances; and showing at the close of each financial year from 1835–6 to 1890–91, both inclusive, the Gross and Net Expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund on account of the National Debt, and other payments in respect of Debt (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 343, of Session 1890)."—(Sir William Harcourt)

NAVY (SHIPS AVAILABLE, 1ST APRIL, 1891.)
Return ordered—
"Of the Vessels in the Channel and Home Waters (exclusive of the Channel Squadron) available at very short notice, on the 1st day of April, 1891, under the several heads and conditions set forth in the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated 4th day of March, 1890, namely:—
1238

'(1.) Four Ironclads in commission as Flagships at Home ports fully commissioned having all their stores on board ready at a few hours' notice:

'(2.) Nine Armour-clads, in Commission, connected with Coastguard, ready for sea in 48 hours;

'(3.) Vessels in First-class Steam Reserve in Home ports, comprising, as from the 1st day of July, 1890, six Ironclads, two Belted Cruisers, and 16 Cruisers, besides Coast Defence Vessels and Gun and Torpedo Boats, these Vessels to be ready in five days or less;

stating the names of each of such Vessels, its displacement tonnage, thickness of armour, armament, and speed, and showing whether they were all at the above date provided with guns, and with stores, ammunition, and crews at hand, so as to be in all respects fit to go to sea within the prescribed periods."
"And of the same particulars in respect of the Channel Squadron at the same date."—s (Sir William Harcourt.)

STANDING COMMITTEE (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Campbell-Bannerman to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Law, and. Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
Report to lie upon the Table.

COLONISATION.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 152.]

MOTION.

  MAINTENANCE OF DESTITUTE PARENTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Bruce, Bill to amend the Law relating to the means of compelling persons to maintain their Destitute Parents, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bruce, Mr. Gully, Mr. Dugdale, and Mr. Lockwood.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 250.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [16th March] reported.
  First four Resolutions [see pages 1089–1096] agreed to.
  Fifth Resolution [see page 1096] read a second time.
  DR. CAMERON: I rise to move the reduction

  1239
  of this amount by the nominal sum of £1,000 on the Vote to account which it embraces for Scotch Education. I do so for the purpose of obtaining from the Government an assurance that in the expenditure of this money they will take care that the control of Parliament over the finances of the nation shall not be set at naught, and that the law shall not be disregarded. I do so in consequence of a remarkable Report which has been made by the Auditor General on the Scotch Education Vote. According to the Education Act of 1870, which is stated by the Auditor General to be binding in Scotland, no school is eligible for the annual grant in which the ordinary payment for the scholar in respect of elementary education exceeds the sum of 9d. per week. A further definition in the Scotch Act excludes schools in which the major part of the education does not consist of elementary instruction, but instruction in Latin, Greek, mathematics, natural science, and generally the higher branches of knowledge, from being deemed to be primary schools, and enacts that they should be deemed to be higher class schools. Now the Auditor General explained in his Report that from certain circumstances that came under his notice he was led to suspect that a number of public schools in Scotland received a share of this education grant which did not come within the definition of primary schools for which the grant is intended. I believe that in some previous year the Auditor General brought the subject under the notice of the Committee upon Public Accounts. Friction has existed for some time between the Department of the Auditor General and the Scotch Office on the subject; but at all events, according to this Report, the matter has now been brought before Parliament, and is to be found set forth in the Appropriation Accounts. It appears that a stated case on the subject was laid before the English and Scotch law officers, and that on the 3rd of May last the opinion was pronounced by a majority of them to the effect that, though the average amount of fees paid afforded a guide for determining the scale of fees, it was a question to be determined in each particular instance by whether a large number
  1240
  of scholars did or did not pay more than 9d. a week. Immediately on this opinion of the Law Officers being placed before him, the Auditor General applied to the Scotch Office, and said that as a matter of fact was involved it would be necessary before he could pass the accounts that in many instances a joint investigation should be carried on between his own Department and the Scotch Office, and that the inquiry should be undertaken locally into the real facts of the case. The Scotch Office, however, refused to accede to this request. Later another request of the same kind was made to the Office, and on that occasion they acceded to it, under protest. But shortly afterwards the Office withdrew from their agreement to the proposal, and the matter was left standing where it was. The Auditor General has pointed out that by their withdrawal, as the Estimates have been prepared and his Report brought before Parliament, any possibility of investigation has been thrown over for a number of weeks or months, and the whole matter delayed for another year. Now, the Auditor General, although he was not able to get the facts of the case in a number of schools which he suspected, and where the returns were stigmatised by him as erroneous and misleading, examined for himself the prospectuses of a number of schools and the admissions and explanations sent up by them. In the cases put before him by the schools themselves he surcharged the grants in the case of 15 of them, and he said he could not pass grants to the extent of £12,000 odd in connection with a number of schools which in his view were not within the class of schools to which this grant in aid of primary education should be made. I know different views are held in this House as to whether it is desirable that those public School Board schools should be carried on in the style which the Auditor General refused to pass. The Auditor General tells us that in certain schools, of which he gives the prospectuses, a very efficient course of higher education is provided, with readings in the higher classics. I know many hon. Members consider that it is desirable this class of education should be encouraged from educational grants, while others hold a different opinion. I am not going into that question, how-

  1241
  ever. What I maintain is that it is a matter of Constitutional importance, when Parliament passes an Act prescribing the way in which certain money is to be expended, when the Government refer to their own Law Officers the interpretation of that Act of Parliament, and when it receives from them an explicit interpretation, that hon. Members should have a right to demand that the Government shall not go outside the law in giving away public money to purposes for which it has never been provided for by Parliament. To some of my Colleagues from Scotland it may not much matter if they get a little more out of the Imperial Treasury, but I do not regard the matter in that light at all. I know that some hon. Members from Scotland are so exclusively nationalist in their sympathies that if they could get an extra £15,000 out of the Treasury they would accept it with gratitude; but it must be remembered, in connection with this, that any unfair distribution of the ordinary grants to education in Scotland carries with it an unfair distribution of the extraordinary grant, which is limited in amount, and every school in Scotland not entitled to that grant which participates in it diminishes by that extent the amount divisible among the other schools legally entitled to participate. I have no desire to interfere with the discretion of the Committee on Public Accounts, or in any way to forestall its deliberations. My object in bringing forward this matter is a purely practical one. This is a Vote on Account, and it refers to money which will be distributed next year, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give a pledge, if the House grants this £100,000 on account, that until the question is settled no portion of it shall be allocated in any case in which the Auditor General has any doubt as to the legality of the grant. If the contention of the Auditor General is correct, those payments are illegal, and it would require an Act of Parliament to set the matter right. What I contend is that while the law remains as it is it should be administered. If, on the other hand, it is disputed that the law is as laid down by the Auditor General on the dictum of the majority of the Scotch
  1242
  and English Law Officers of the Crown, then I contend that, pending an investigation of the matter by the Committee on Public Accounts, and pending the submission of this House of some remedial proposal by the Government, no portion of the money should be paid in grants with regard to the legality of which the Auditor General has any doubt. I ask the Treasury to give that assurance, and beg to move the reduction of the Vote.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£3,917,003," and insert "£3,916,003:"—(Dr. Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That '£3,917,003' stand part of the Resolution."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The hon. Member may rest assured that the matter will be carefully considered by the Treasury. There is no Parliamentary work which is more carefully done than this, and the special attention of the Public Accounts Committee will be drawn to the point.
  MR. CALDWELL: The Accountant General has gone into elaborate detail to show that the School Board Returns are practically fallacious. The whole gist of the Report is that Returns are made which have the effect of deceiving him, and he asks that an officer of the Education Department and one from his own Department should be sent into the localities to inquire whether these Returns are correct or not. I venture to say that no Government Department would refuse such an appeal from the Accountant General; yet the Scotch Education Department refuse to assist in making such a local investigation. Why? Because they know that these Returns are fallacious, and that the Government have been defrauded by them. What interest can any Department of the Government have in refusing to make a local inquiry which would have no other effect than to show how the facts stand? There is no use in having an Accountant General at all if he is not to have the means of ascertaining whether the Returns presented to him are true or false. If it were only the Government that was being defrauded I do not suppose that any Scotch Member would say one word about it. It is

  1243
  not, however, a question in which the Government alone are concerned. In Glasgow the question assumes an important aspect. There the School Board says: "We have not got sufficient money from the Government to free all the compulsory standards, so that it is necessary to have certain fee-paying schools to make up the deficiency." In the case of the school at Lenzie the accommodation is for 560 children, and the average attendance is only 201. Why is that school more than half empty? It is on account of the school fees, which are so high that the children have to walk a mile and a half to go to the free school, and some of them find it cheaper to pay the railway fare to Glasgow than to attend the fee-paying school. It is, therefore, not merely a question of defrauding the Revenue, but one in which the people in the localities suffer. It is only those who can afford to pay exorbitant fees who can send their children to school in these localities. The refusal of the Scotch Education Department to accede to the Accountant General's request that a local investigation should take place, is due to the fact that they know perfectly well the effect would be to upset many of the Returns sent in, and to show that schools are receiving grants which they are not entitled to. I hope, therefore, whatever course the Scotch Education Department may have taken in the past, the Government will back up the Accountant General in this, that there is nothing to conceal, and that there is no reason why, if a fair inquiry is asked for, any obstacle should be imposed in the way of that inquiry.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The hon. Member is hardly well advised in referring to a question which is at present sub judice. There is no indisposition on the part of the Government to get at the true facts of the case, but it is not a matter of plain sailing. In the first place, it is not quite clear what set of facts it is necessary to have in order to ascertain whether a grant is earned and is payable by the Education Department or not. The wording of the Act is such that it gives rise to difference of opinion among the Law Officers, and a certain amount of consideration is required in order to arrive at a proper
  1244
  standard as to what school is and what is not entitled to receive the grant. One view is that a certain proportion of schools must pay less than 9d. before the school can receive the grant, but there are other competing views. Counter proposals were made in correspondence between the Education Department and the Accountant General, and no agreement was come to, but I have no doubt the merits of that difference will be stated before the Public Accounts Committee, who will form their own opinion. The question involves large public interests in the distribution of the grant, and deserves dispassionate consideration.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think from the view expressed just now by the Secretary to the Treasury, it is obvious that this is not the moment to enter into a discussion of the merits of this question, but I think the hon. Member for Glasgow deserves credit for having brought this matter forward, because so strong a Report has not been made by the Controller and Auditor General to the House of Commons on any other subject in any part of the Estimates. My hon. Friend has long been opposed to these fee-paying schools as a matter of public policy, and he asked the House of Commons clearly to understand that, so far as judgment has hitherto been passed on the question in concern, the result of this defect in public policy has been that considerable financial abuses had occurred. We understand from the Secretary to the Treasury that the whole question will be inquired into by the Public Accounts Committee, and that it will be seen whether the Scotch Education Department should have responded to the invitation of the Comptroller and Auditor General and whether the Public Accounts Committee wish them to respond to it now. I was not surprised to hear that the Treasury pay the greatest respect to the opinions of the Committee on Public Accounts, and that there is not the least probability, or even possibility, of money being paid on account of any Service of which the Committee may disapprove.
  MR. JACKSON: That is in the ordinary course.
  *SIR G. TREVELYAN: Yes; in the ordinary course. Under the circumstances I must say I think my hon.

  1245
  Friend would do well to withdraw his Motion. I am, however, extremely glad he brought it forward, if for no other reason, because the other day a most important official of the Glasgow School Board declared that the whole thing was a mare's nest. I think the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of the House of Commons, is quite justified in calling attention to the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General, a high officer of the House of Commons, has reported on this matter as the principal financial question of the year, and that the matter is not one to be regarded lightly.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: As one who knows something about education, and the necessity for secondary education in Scotland, I am by no means sorry that the policy pursued by the Scotch Education Department has brought them into this difficulty. They tried to establish in connection with the education of Scotland a second grade system, under which there would have been odious distinction between classes of scholars attending the schools; and that was the origin of the difficulties in which they now find themselves. I trust that that is a policy which will be abandoned by the Scotch Education Department, and that they will revert to the ancient system which has existed in Scotland for centuries, under which there are no distinctions at all.
  MR. LENG: This controversy is of great interest to the School Boards who will be affected by the decision. In my constituency there is one school which alone receives a grant of £1,354, and it will be readily conceived that if this grant had been disallowed very serious inconvenience would have been caused to the School Board of Dundee. At the same time, I quite concur that this matter should be sifted. The School Boards have for some years past conducted their schools on the understanding that if the average fee does not exceed 9d. in the week the grants will be given. In Harris Academy, Dundee, there are 554 scholars paying more than 9d. a week; 196 paying exactly 9d.; 346 paying 8d.; and 108 paying 7d. per week. The fees above 9d. are stated to range from 10d. to 1s. 0½d. per week, while the reputed
  1246
  average fee is only 8·7d. Certainly the School Board in Dundee has conducted this school on the clear understanding with the Scotch Education Department that if they have an average under 9d. these grants would be given. Therefore, I think that whatever may be the decision as to strict legality, the inconvenience which will be caused by altogether withholding the grant should be avoided.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion; but, at the same time, I am not sorry—as other speakers have said—that the subject should have been brought forward. I should not have risen if some hon. Members had not taken it for granted that the feeling of Scotland is against these high fee schools. No doubt there is a feeling against them in some quarters, but it is by no means universal. These schools have done good work, and they continue to do good work. It must never be forgotten that our Scotch system of education is carried out under an Education. Act, and not an Elementary Education Act, as is the case in England. There' is no limit of fees in the original Scotch Act, but by an accident or slip of legisslation the 9d. limit, which is in the English Act, was introduced into the Scotch system. I trust the appeals which were made to the Government at the time when the fees were removed from the compulsory standards, to define for the future what should and what should not constitute the 9d. limit, will, in consequence of the present difficulty, be carefully reconsidered by them. I trust that during the present Session the Government will deal with this question by legislation.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The point here is that a deliberate attempt has been made to deceive the Treasury and the Education Department in regard to the amount of fees charged in certain Board Schools, especially in Glasgow. The Lord Advocate just now said the case was not one of plain sailing, and that there is a good deal to be said on both sides. No doubt there is a good deal to be said on both sides as to the question of the average 9d. fee, and whether you should take it for the whole of the children or

  1247
  only for individual children; but what is charged by the Comptroller and Auditor General is that there has been a deliberate attempt made to evade the law and suppress the amount of fees that were being charged by false Returns and misrepresentation of the whole case. I hope the matter will be discussed fully by the Public Accounts Committee tomorrow. No doubt there will be a field day. I hope my hon. Friend will not divide the House, though it is the worst case ever mentioned in the Report of the Auditor General.
  MR. CRAWFORD: I agree that the allegations that have been made against the action of some of the School Boards as to the making of these Returns are of a serious character; but that is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar is a Member of the Committee, as I am myself, and I am sure will agree with me in asking that these allegations should not at this stage be assumed by the House to have been proved. There will be extremely delicate questions which we shall have to consider in the Public Accounts Committee to-morrow, and I do not think we ought now to pronounce any judgment on them.
  DR. CAMERON: I never asked for the pronouncement of a judgment. All I asked of the Government was that, pending the decision of the matter, the Government should not use any of this money in this manner. We have received an assurance that the Government will give due weight to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, and will be guided by their Report. As, therefore, my object has been effected, I will not trouble the House to go to a Division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Subsequent Resolution [see page 1176] agreed to.
  Resolutions [March 16th] reported.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  "1. That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1890 and 1891, the sum of £249,800 10s. 11d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  "2. That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, the sum of £3,917,103 he granted out of the Consolidated fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolutions.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with an amended Title; as amended, to be considered to-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.
SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 220.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BARTLEY: I should like to say a few words upon this Bill, which deals with a subject in which I take the greatest interest. I think we shall all agree the Bill is a step in the right direction—in the direction of doing something towards making deposits in Trustee Savings Banks more secure. It is not an ideal Bill; it is not quite the idea that, if I had my own way, I should have liked to carry out. It would, perhaps, have been wiser to have made an arrangement by which the large banks should have developed like those have of a private nature, and been carried on under special charter, in a way most likely to increase the thrift of a district. Of course, banks are hampered by conditions that obtain in large institutions like the Glasgow Bank, and others which are carried on very well; and had this plan been adopted the smaller banks would have gradually closed and been absorbed by the Post Office Savings Bank. The scheme of the Bill, however, is very reasonable. The Bill really does two things, and is based on the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the House two years ago. It establishes a Board of Inspection or, what may possibly be called, a Board of Audit, and gives much greater power to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. I am not quite sure that this is wise, but I do not see

  1249
  that we can put into anybody else's lianas the same power, which must exist, in order that the object of the Bill may be carried out. The history of these banks everybody knows. They have succeeded in doing good service to the State in the past, and have been admirably conducted; while, no doubt, considering the enormous amount of money passing through them, there have been very few lapses. The amount of money depositors have lost, considering the hundreds of millions passing through the banks, has been very small—a great credit to the management. The rules we now have were framed by Act of Parliament, and are, no doubt, satisfactory in every way to secure, if carried out, proper management; but the difficulty has been in all cases that there has been no power, no controlling authority to see that the rules were carried out. The Bill accomplishes that object; it appoints a body of persons who will see that the Regulations advanced by the Act of Parliament are carried out. Three chief duties will devolve on the Inspection Committee. They must make a complete overhaul of existing Savings Banks, and this is no small matter seeing that there are over 300 banks holding 45,000,000 sterling, and having 1,500,000 depositors. The first duty will be a complete overhauling of these institutions. The great bulk of them are, no doubt, thoroughly sound. The next duty will be to establish a complete system of audit, and lastly, they must see that this system is really kept going. There is no doubt that the difficulty all through has been that a system of audit has not been strictly adhered to, and so laxity of management has crept in. The functions of the Committee will be in the nature almost of a Board of Directors to these great institutions. There is one point in which I cannot agree, and as to which, at the proper time, I propose to move an Amendment. We ought, I think, to appoint the Committee straight out, for it is rather a round-about method to appoint one Committee with the duty of appointing another. The hon. Member for Sunderland, whom I do not now see in his place, has given notice of an Amendment to the effect that no Amendment of the Savings Bank Act
  1250
  will be satisfactory which does not provide for a compulsory comparison of every pass-book with the ledger, and increase the maximum amount allowed to be deposited annually. I hope we shall not make this alteration, for, candidly, I think the State has gone far enough in relation to these banks. Hon. Members, I think, hardly realise the enormous responsibility of the State in connection with these Savings Banks. The State allows every individual in the country—man, woman, or child—to deposit a sum of money with the State security—guaranteed by the State—and returnable at par at any moment to the maximum amount of £200, and, therefore, if this privilege were availed of by every individual in a population of 40,000,000 then the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have to take charge of a sum of £8,000,000,000 sterling. I do not think that amount will ever be reached, but the way the amount held is increasing year by year under the growth of habits of thrift among the people, shows that certainly the time has come when we should say to persons who want to save more than £200 that they must avail themselves of the means of purchasing Consols, or the other means open through the Post Office and elsewhere of investing their money. A man who wants to deposit more than £200 may be fairly asked to take the risks of the ups and downs of Consols rather than to increase his deposits, for which the State is responsible. Another point the hon. Member raises is the compulsory presentation of pass-books can be inspection. I think the hon. Member when he makes that suggestion can hardly have practical knowledge of the working of these banks. I do not believe there is any bank where the sending in of pass-books can be insisted upon. A system by which pass-books are examined as they come in at any hour or any day is quite effectual, and, perhaps, more effectual than any other; and it may be one of the duties of the Inspecting Committee to carry this out. I hope the Bill will be read a second time this evening, and that a good Committee will be secured. The Committee will certainly have no sinecure office. There will be no honour or glory, but plenty of hard work, in the auditing of 1,500,000 of

  1251
  accounts amounting to £45,000,000 of money, and they will find themselves in hot water pretty frequently in the discharge of their duty. I hope that the Committee will be carefully selected, and that their labours may prevent the possibility of those grave catastrophes happening which have in the past so seriously scandalised the poorer classes of society. To encourage and protect habits of thrift among the poor is without doubt one of the most important things the State has to do, and we must be very careful to give security to the beginning of this habit. The first steps are the most difficult, and if there is then any idea of want of security the consequences are so serious that I am sure the Stats may well go out of its way to provide absolute security for the small savings of the community.
  MR. LENG: I concur in the hope that the Bill will now be read a second time. I have had occasion to make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interest of certain Scotch Banks, and I desire to acknowledge the very conciliatory attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman. He has made large concessions on consideration of the views placed before him, and the Bill in its present form is much amended as compared with the shape in which we had it before us last year. Several of the regulations which were then of a cast-iron character have been made considerably more elastic, and are now very much more likely to meet the requirements of the poorer class of depositors, and those who desire to make investments. I regret, however, that the limit of deposits within the year has not been increased from £630 to £50. I know there is a difficulty in making this alteration in Trustee Savings Banks so long as the limit of £30 is maintained in the Post Office Banks, but at the same time it seems to me that, as compared with the period when £30 was fixed as the limit, the ability of the working classes now to save money has increased very considerably, and the amount of possible yearly savings would now be more nearly represented by £50 than by £30. In the case of Scotch banks these deposit accounts are
  1252
  used in a more operative manner than is the case usually in England. Not only do depositors continue to add small sums during the course of the year, but they take out sums more frequently to meet payments of rent and other periodical engagements; but under the peculiar clause in the older Act they are limited to putting in £30, and cannot occasionally take out £5 or £10, so as to leave a total increase of £30. It is, I think, very desirable that this defect should be remedied. Still the Bill shows a great improvement in its form to that it had before. No sound Savings Bank will object to a thoroughly systematic audit, and the proposal in this direction contained in the Bill has for years been carried out in the bank with the management of which I am connected; there the audit is systematically carried out by one of the first accountants of the city. Only in the case of weak or improperly conducted banks can any objection be taken; but by every soundly conducted bank I am sure the regulation will be welcomed. I cannot concur with the hon. Member (Mr. Bartley) in the desire that these banks should develop into what I suppose would be called Joint Stock Banks. The reason that such large sums have been deposited in these banks in our large towns is that from the beginning they have been conducted by sound business men, actuated by benevolent and philanthropic motives, and desiring to encourage that national thrift of which we have heard so much in a recent Debate; and the fact that eminent citizens have given so much of their time—several nights in the week often—to superintending the operations, has given a degree of confidence to the working classes, which, it is to be hoped, will continue. I hope that the conciliatory spirit which the right hon. Gentleman has shown hitherto will be maintained in future discussions, and that comparatively minor matters which we may desire to have improved will have his favourable consideration.
  MR. E. BRODIE HOARE: The Bill is very much in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, and I only wish to refer to one important omission. A clause which did not come under the cognizance

  1253
  of the Committee, because the subject had not been raised to the prominence it now occupies. I think everybody will admit there is no class in the country which is considered worthy of so little sympathy as the bankers. On the one hand they have been represented as a sort of vampire, sitting in a strong room stuffed with gold, and fattening on the unearned increment; while on the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has represented them as having no gold and being a distinct danger to the community. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer is himself the largest banker in the country, and he, under one head alone—the Trustee Savings Banks—holds deposits of £44,000,000. But when we come to examine his proposals, his assets, liabilities, and securities, we find in the first place that he is insolvent. But that does not very much matter, for he an appeal to the shareholders and obtain the £6500,000 by which he is insolvent. When we come to look at the amount of his reserves, we find he has not a single light half sovereign. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has on this account £70,000 in the Bank of England waiting investment, and therefore, we may suppose the right hon. Gentleman thinks it right to hold £44,000,000 of other people's money, and the moment there is a demand for it, and the moment there is a run upon the banks and they come to him for assistance he must realise his securities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has sent me an authoritative copy of his memorable speech at Leeds, and having in mind what he there said, I hope he will, in Committee, introduce a clause—the right hon. Gentleman will not object to it as far as he is himself concerned—to bind his successors, in whom we may not have the same reliance, to keep an adequate reserve against such a very large liability.
  MR. HOWELL: I am glad we have got to the point when we are able to say a few words upon the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am exceedingly glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) is not present to delay the Second Reading. For nearly five years we have been trying to get
  1254
  something done for the Trustee Savings Banks, and I support the present Bill, not because I believe it is exactly the Bill we ought to have, and I hope we shall be able to amend it in Committee, but, under the circumstances, it is as much as we could expect considering the opposition which has been brought to bear. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) I do not think we need at all fear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will ever have £8,000,000,000 at command in the savings banks. The idea that every man, woman, and child in the United Kingdom should have in the banks an amount the total of which would reach that sum is to me a very pleasant prospect, but it is not likely to be realised. What I want to see is the savings banks in the country established by Act of Parliament for a specific purpose—a safe means of deposit for the people. I think I have a little more experience in regard to these matters than the hon. Member for North Islington, and I cannot pretend to say that the majority of these banks are in perfectly sound and solvent condition. My investigations have been a little closer than those of most hon. Members, and my conclusion is founded on facts which might have been brought before the Select Committee, as the hon. Member knows, had not certain circumstances prevented the evidence being brought forward. However, whatever may be the position of many of the banks, if this Bill can, and in a great degree I believe it will, create greater safety in the future, I am content so far as the present is concerned. I hope that some Amendments may be agreed to, so as to ensure more thoroughly and completely the enforcement of the provisions of the Act of 1863. If that Act had been really carried out by trustees and managers, we should not now be in the position we are to-day with regard to the Trustee Banks throughout the country. The hon. Member (Mr. Leng) has spoken of the, Dundee Savings Bank; but I am sorry to say that all the banks throughout the kingdom are not conducted on the same principle as the Dundee Bank is conducted, nor indeed are the majority of the savings banks in England conducted so well as is the smallest and

  1255
  humblest of the Trustee Banks in Scotland. In Scotland, so far as investigations have gone, the Trustee Savings Banks are carried on according to the spirit and letter of the law, with the result that in that country there have been no defalcations, and the depositors are not defrauded of their money. In this country, on the contrary, we have had a great number of very disastrous defalcations. Had it not been for the fact that a great many depositors in banks have died, and no applications have been made for the money standing in their names, the losses in some cases would have been enormously greater than any brought to light before the Select Committee. In one instance alone—an instance only partially investigated upstairs—in one bank in London the amount of money that thus fell into the hands of the Trustees in the course of a few years was £20,000, and this enabled them to tide over their difficulties. There would have been a thorough overhauling of these savings banks under the Act of 1887 had it not been that by the action of the House of Lords derelictions of duty were in that Act made criminal offences. But for this we might have been able to have investigated many circumstances which might have prevented losses. However, it is in the hope and belief that this Bill will do something to make deposits more safe in the future, that I support the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope it may be possible to introduce in Committee some small Amendments which the Government may be able to accept with a view to induce managers and trustees to carry out the law in reality, so that depositors may be no longer defrauded. I wish the Government could see its way to increase the maximum amount of the deposits. The hon. Member for North Islington does not want that, because, as he says, people can buy Consols. But they do not understand Consols, and if they did they might not, perhaps, buy them. I should like to see the sum of, £30 per annum increased to £50, and the maximum yearly amount from £200 to £400. It is, however, not for us to do anything that might wreck this Bill, and if the Government cannot see their way to
  1256
  increasing the maximum I will support the measure, as far as it goes, in the hope that these savings banks, as aids to thrift, will become more flourishing than ever throughout the country.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Having been Chairman of the Committee to which this subject was referred two years ago, I wish to express a general approval of the details of the Bill. It affords an illustration of the fact that the delay of a year in the consideration of the Bill is not always thrown away, and I am glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has availed himself of the opportunity to remove points of difficulty which have occurred. As to the Committee of Inspection, however, I am rather disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Islington that the method proposed is a roundabout process. Almost everything will depend on the constitution of the Committee. If it is to consist of nominees of the Government, then the Government will be practically responsible for the savings in the Trustee Banks. Two years ago the Select Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that the Audit Board should not be a Government Board, and that the Government should not undertake an audit for the savings banks. I hope that some other means will be devised of selecting the persons who are to form the Committee of Inspection. In regard to the general subject of Trustee Savings Banks, I must again point out that, if the regulations laid down by the Act with regard to Trustee Savings Banks are properly carried out, there can be no doubt that security will be afforded to the depositors. Those regulations, however, have not in some cases been properly carried out, especially in the case of audit. Many of the banks, of course, carry out a system of continuous audit, which makes them perfectly safe, but undoubtedly a small section of the smaller banks do not strictly carry out the regulations with regard to audit, and the result is that the depositors are placed in considerable danger. The scheme of the Bill is to supply this deficiency.
  MR. FINLAY: I wish to express in one sentence

  1257
  the interest taken by my own constituents in this measure, and to say that it is regarded by them as being a very useful and valuable Bill. I would, however, call attention to the date of November 20th, 1890, mentioned in the 10th section, and suggest that it should be altered to 1891, in order to give time for the savings banks to come within the operation of the Act.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am gratified to see that there is a general consensus of opinion in the House in favour of the Bill, and I thank hon. Members for the reasonable criticism which has been offered. When the Bill gets into Committee it will be my anxious wish to meet any reasonable Amendments as far as I can. I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite that the audit must not be one instituted by the Government, and that the Committee of Inspection must not be nominated by the Government. Its constitution will be a question to be dealt with in Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  (6.40.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. BARTLEY: I think the Bill would be got through in less time in Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think also it would be more convenient if the Bill could be discussed in Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think it would be better to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee, on account of the danger that there may not be sufficient time found for its discussion in the House. My experience last year was a rather unhappy one in this respect, and I should prefer to have the Bill referred to the Standing Committee, so that we might make progress with the Bill while other business was going on.
  MR. HOWELL: I think the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised to take it in Committee of the Whole House. Otherwise I am afraid we shall have to move Amendments at a later stage, which will raise the whole of the questions involved in the Bill. If the Bill goes to a Standing Committee and discussions occur upon it in this House in addition, we shall run a great risk of losing the Bill altogether. As one desirous of seeing the Bill passed into law, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to agree to the measure being dealt with by a Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I suggest that we should, in the ordinary way, refer the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, and see how we get on. If it be found impossible to find time for it, or if the proceedings be delayed, the Bill might then be referred to the Standing Committee, if hon. Members assent to the adoption of such a course.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: If the right hon. Gentleman waits until the Amendments are on the Paper he will be able to form a judgment as to whether the Bill is likely to occupy much time or not.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.

  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL [LORDS] (No. 216.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  *MR. H. J. WILSON: I do not think this Bill ought to be allowed to pass without some explanation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I can only speak with the permission of the House. The hon. Gentleman was not present when I made a statement with regard to the Bill, when it came up on a previous, occasion. This is a Bill to enable

  1259
  Children to be taken out of the custody of parents who are not treating them properly. Judging from the representations received from all parts of the House, there appears to be a unanimous feeling that the Bill should be passed into law as soon as possible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  ASSESSMENT OF TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.—(No. 221.)
  Considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 182.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I had no idea the Bill would come on this afternoon. I am indebted to the Attorney General for his courtesy the other day in suggesting we should arrange when the Bill should be taken. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had given me any intimation he wished to take it this afternoon, I might have been able to come to some arrangement with him. I hope he will defer the Committee till to-morrow.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Conybeare).
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a mistake. He asked me if it was important the Bill should come on, and I told him I must take it whenever I could. I hope he will not press his Motion.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I had no idea the Bill was likely to come on, and under
  1260
  the circumstances I cannot withdraw my Motion.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be more convenient if the hon. and learned Gentleman withdrew his Motion and allowed Clause l, which is purely formal, to be passed.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have no objection to that course; my Amendment does not apply to Clause 1.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

ARMY ANNUAL BILL.—(No. 240.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause.
  (Marine Officers may sit on Courts Martial on Marines afloat).
  The provisions of the Army Act, enabling Marine Officers to sit on Courts Martial on Marines ashore, shall in future be extended to Courts Martial on Marines afloat.—(Sir John Pope Hennessy.)
  —brought up, and read first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I have been in communication with the hon. Member (Sir John Pope Hennessy) with regard to the Amendment he has proposed, and I have explained to him it is not possible for the Amendment to be inserted in the Army Annual Bill: it ought to be proposed on the Naval Discipline Bill. I have given the hon. Member for North Kilkenny an undertaking that when my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty brings in the Naval Discipline Bill he will consider favourably the proposal of the hon. Member.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I also have been in communication with the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He explained to me what the Secretary of State for War has now said, but he

  1261
  did not at all agree that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was satisfactory. We would be willing to allow the Bill to be taken now provided the right hon. Gentleman will agree to either bring in a short Bill himself, giving effect to the proposal, or say that the Government will support a Bill brought in by a private Member.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is impossible for me to give that undertaking considering the state of public business. I will communicate with my noble Friend and see if he is willing to undertake that task.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think in that case the Bill had better not be proceeded with, especially as it is already passed ten minutes to 7.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Bill reported without Amendment, to be read the third time to-morrow.

  PUBLIC BODIES (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL—(No. 233.)
  Considered in Committee and reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to certain officers in India." [East India Officers Bill [Lords.]
  That they have agreed to, Tithe Rent Charge Recovery Bill, with Amendments.

  TITHE RENT CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 207.)
  Lords Amendments 207 be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 251].

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged Mr. Burt from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufacture; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William M'Arthur.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTION.
  BETTING AND GAMBLING.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. PICKERSG1LL: I rise to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the growing prevalence of Betting and Gambling; to ascertain to what extent the Statutes dealing therewith are evaded; to con eider whether any, and what Amendments should be made in such Statutes; and to Report their opinion thereon to the House."
    I do not think I need occupy much time in discussing the evils against which this Resolution is directed, because they are recognised and sufficiently obvious. The existence of gambling hells in the West End of London is notorious. The statement was recently made in the Echo newspaper that within a one-mile radius of Liverpool Street, City, there are 18 such establishments. Mr. Montagu Williams, the Police Magistrate, is responsible for the statement that within the district of his Court there are upwards of 60 betting and gaming houses; and, more-ever, throughout the Kingdom, in every country town, there have sprung up within recent years betting clubs which imitate Tattersalls. I do not think, therefore, I need trouble the House with further illustrations, but I should like to quote one authority, because when I state it is the authority of a man who has had a life-long connection with the turf, it will not be thought he is prejudiced either against horse racing itself or, I presume, against betting upon horse racing. The gentleman to whom I refer is the well-known Mr. William Day, who, in the Contemporary Magazine, for June, 1890, quoted and endorsed the following words:—
    "The extent to which the evil of betting is carried on in the large and important towns of A."—the names are not given—"with 50,000 inhabitants, and B., containing over 76,000, is

    1263
    almost incredible, and is doing terrible injury not only to the men but to the women and children of those places, who, if they cannot obtain the where withal to indulge in this evil by honest means only too often resort to means which are dishonest."
    I can understand the position that the instinct of betting and gambling is ingrained in our countrymen, and that it is useless to take any action against a universal instinct; but I do not sympathise with it because I believe that if the opportunity and facilities for laying out money in betting are decreased, the desire to bet will not be so insatiable as some people profess to believe it is. But whatever may be said in favour of that position, it is not a position which bas been taken up by the Legislature of this country; nor do these arguments lie appropriately in the mouths of the Executive Government, because the Executive Government are active enough with reference to these questions in some directions. Only a little time ago half a dozen bargemen on the Thames were arrested and carried off to prison for gambling for pennies on a boat on the river. Their work for the day was done, and they were beguiling away their leisure hours in a manner not essentially different from the way in which their betters—sometimes, at all events—amuse themselves. Justice was rigorously dealt out to those men, but they and their class ask why they should be punished whilst, for example, the fashionable baccarat players are allowed to continue on their course with impunity? Again, scarcely a week passes without a raid on some betting club in the East End of London. People at the East End want to know why the same measure is not dealt out to the clubs at the West End of London. Thirdly, the police are constantly interfering with bazaar lotteries or Christmas goose clubs. They are, no doubt, infractions of the law. I do not object to this action on the part of the Executive Government, but I ask for a fair and an equal law, and for an impartial administration of that law. I should like to point out that, historically, it is not true that the Executive cannot put down gambling, and I think that lotteries are a very significant illustra-
    1264
    tion of that truth. Years ago, as every one knows, lotteries were as prevalent and as mischievous in this country as betting is now. For many generations the Government were very half-hearted in their dealings with lotteries; they actually patronised State lotteries while they endeavoured to put down other kinds of lotteries or "little goes," as they were called. This unequal dealing with a great mischief was practically inoperative, but at last the Government put down State lotteries. From that time—1826—the lottery mischief has practically ceased to exist. My subject naturally divides itself into two parts, the question of gaming or gambling and the question of betting. According to English law gaming may be unlawful, either by reason of the place where the gaming is carried on, or by reason of the unlawfulness of the game itself. As regards the first reason, the law mainly depends on a Statute passed as far back as the reign of Henry VIII.; as regard "the second reason, it depends upon a series of Statutes which were passed in the reign of George II. The Statute of Henry VIII. has commonly been regarded as aimed exclusively at the encouragement of sports which were calculated to" promote the defence of the people; but I should like to point out that the Preamble of that Statute alleges as mischiefs aimed at not only the decay of archery, but the impoverishment of the people. I think, therefore, we may regard that Statute as a Statute against gambling in the ordinary sense of the term; and although the Statute is no doubt an ancient one, and may perhaps so far be supposed to have lost a great part of its authority, I should like to point out that that objection is met by the fact that the Statute is practically embodied in the Gaming Act passed during the present reign. What, then, does the Act of Henry VIII. prohibit? Put shortly, it prohibits the playing of certain games in a common gaming house. But what is a common gaming house? It is clear from the reasonings and arguments of Sir Henry Hawkins in the Park Club case, that a bonâ fide members' club, or even a private house, may be a common gaming house within the Statute; and there is in, an old authority a passage which

    1265
    strongly, as I think, supports that contention. I refer to a passage in Dalton's Justice of the Peace, which runs as follows:—
    "It was resolved in 3 James 1. that if the guests in any inn or tavern call for a pair of dice or tables, or for their recreation play with them, or if any neighbours play at bowls for their recreations, or the like, there are not within the Statute of 33 Henry VIII., c. 9."
    It would seem, then, that playing for mere recreation is the test of innocence, and that if a few neighbours even meet and play in such a way and to such an extent as cannot fairly be regarded as playing for recreation's sake, then ipso facto, the place where they play, becomes a common gaming house. Secondly, what are the games prohibited by the Statute of Henry VIII? Certain games are named. I need not say a word about them, because, so far as they are concerned, the Statute may be regarded as repealed by subsequent legislation. But after the enumeration of particular games comes a general prohibition in the following terms:—"Any new unlawful game hereafter to be invented." The Park Club case decided that baccarat is an unlawful game within the meaning of the Statute. In the next place, I desire to say a word or two about the Statutes of King George II., which I think are of extreme importance with reference to the legality or illegality of baccarat. I pointed out just now that the games which are within the Statute of Henry VIII. are not absolutely prohibited, they are only prohibited under certain circumstances, that is when they are played in common gaming houses; but the games which come within the Statutes of George II. are absolutely prohibited whenever, wherever, and however they may be played. Those games comprised certain games well known to our ancestors, such as basset, hazard, and roley-poley. But I call special attention to the general prohibition in the 13th George IL, chap. 19, which is in these words—
    "Every other game invented or to be invented, with one or more die or dice, or with any other instrument, engine, or device, in the nature of dice, having one or more figures or numbers thereon."
    I think it will be conceded at once that baccarat comes within the mischief of
    1266
    this Statute of George II, and I submit also it falls within the express words of general prohibition. It is quite true that dice are not employed in the game of baccarat. Cards are used, but cards are used, as I submit, to perform the function of dice. The cards are not used as they are ordinarily used. The court cards are ignored altogether in baccarat. The object of the game is merely to make up particular numbers, and drawing a card at baccarat is an act essentially of the same nature as casting a die. Therefore, I submit that the card at baccarat is "an instrument, engine, or device in the nature of dice," and falls within the Statute of 13th George II., chap. 19. I should like to point out one construction which the Courts have put on the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division in the Park Club case. Since that case was decided an action was brought in the Blooms-bury County Court to recover money lent for the purpose of playing at baccarat, and Judge Bacon, in that case, entered judgment for the defendant, on the express ground that baccarat is an unlawful game. According to the Solicitor's Journal, of the 20th of October, 1889, Mr. Poland has given an opinion that it is illegal to allow baccarat to be habitually played in bonâ fide members' clubs. If that is so, why has not the opinion of so eminent a criminal lawyer been acted upon? Not long ago, at the trial of an action in the Mayor's Court, it was sworn that baccarat was played nearly every night at the Brabant Club, Philpott Lane. Why was not the Brabant Club prosecuted? It is true that in one case the police did proceed against a duly constituted members' club—the Cranbourne—and convictions were obtained against all the members of the club on the ground that they were joint owners of the premises, and were, therefore, liable under the Statute. But the Cranbourne Club was only a very humble affair, and was mainly frequented by foreigners. I want to know why the poorer classes are alone interfered with, while the so-called better classes are allowed to go scathless? To prosecute for an offence of this kind only one portion of the community, and that the poorer class, is not only ineffective but is positively mischievous, with

    1267
    regard to the object we have in view, because it inevitably arouses public sympathy on behalf of those who have broken the law. I ask, therefore, not only for a just law but for its impartial administration. As to the second, and perhaps the more important portion of my subject—the prevalence of betting—the evil is almost intolerable in extent. I do not desire for one moment to suggest that we ought to make the making of a bet a criminal offence. That would be, if not absurd, at all events ineffective, because it would be far out-running public opinion. I desire not to deal with the public who are led to make bets, but to make the law stringent, so as to confine within narrow limits, and if possible to suppress, the operations of bookmakers and betting commission agents. It is singular to see the extent to which the law protects the betting commission agent and gives him a distinctly legal status. The Bishop of London stated recently that he once saw the name of one of these persons on a Church Building Committee, and when he remonstrated he was told that he was discrediting the members of a recognised and useful profession. Whether it is useful or not can scarcely be a matter of question; but it is certainly recognised by the existing law. I cannot understand why gentlemen interested in racing, and even in wagering,—should have any tender feelings towards bookmakers, the majority of whom are, not to mince matters, simply swindling the public. Speaking of them Mr. William Day said:—"It is impossible to obtain a fair price about any horse you may wish to back." The recent move-anent in France against the pari-mutuel has attracted much public attention, but the pari-mutuel itself was a protest against the unfair odds which the bookmakers exact. This machine of the pari-mutuel, by which the public are able to make their own odds, and to dispense with the bookmakers altogether, is not unknown in England. It was tried upwards of 20 years ago on the Wolverhampton racecourse. A prosecution followed, and after an elaborate judgment by Mr. Justice Cockburn, the machine was decided to be an instrument of gaming
    1268
    within the Vagrant Act of George IV. I should like briefly, in the next place, to review the legislation of the present reign with regard to betting-houses and places. The Betting Houses Act of 1853 made it criminal to advertise a betting house; and Anderson's Act in 1874 was, I believe, designed by the Legislature to suppress all advertisements which offered information for the purpose of making bets. The Courts have, however, put upon the latter Act a much narrower construction. In 1883 a sporting prophet, under the name of "Centaur," advertised in the Licensed Victuallers' Gazette his "wire finals" to be sent direct from the race-course for 2s. 6d. each. He was convicted by a Metropolitan Police Magistrate under Anderson's Act, but the Court of Queen's Bench decided that the Act did not apply to offering information as to bets that were not made in a house or place kept for the purpose of betting. In "another place" a Bill has been bought in by Lord Herschell, the object of which I understand to be to make criminal the sending to minors of such advertisements as those referred to in the case of "Centaur." I cordially approve of that Bill so far as it goes, and think that its scope might be widened, so as to include all advertising tipsters, without in any way prejudicing the legitimate interests of racing in this country. I mean those tipsters who pretend for a consideration varying in degree from a shilling to a sovereign to send, in anticipation, the names of winners and who do a great deal of mischief in promoting betting and affording facilities for it. And now let me say a few words upon the question, what illegal betting is. Betting carried on at an office or place under certain circumstances is illegal, and the question is, what place, and under what circumstances? Now, first with regard to illegal betting, the word "place" has received very wide construction, and includes a stool, stand, or umbrella, and Mr. Justice Hawkins, in "The Queen v. Cooke," laid it down that the ordinary operation of bookmakers in an enclosure is illegal, irrespective of their doing business under an umbrella or a stool; in spite of this, at Epsom, Ascot, Goodwood, and elsewhere,

    1269
    these things go on not only under the eyes of the police, but under their protection. I submit that the stewards, as proprietors or occupiers of the enclosure, are responsible, and until these gentlemen are placed in a criminal dock, I contend that to put down the humbler votaries of pitch-and-toss is a scandal on the administration of the law. It may be said that the law only applies to ready-money betting. That is not so; but, even if it were, in every enclosure ready-money betting goes on. But, further, I submit that the prior deposit of a stake is not essential to the illegality of a bet; though the Preamble of the Betting Act refers to ready-money betting, the enacting part of it prohibits also "betting with persons resorting thereto." According to the suggestion of Mr. Justice Blackburn, and as laid down by the author of a little book on the subject, Mr. Stutfield—a work which has received the commendation of the Queen's Bench, it is illegal to bet indiscriminately against all comers. As regards the policy of the law, it may well be doubted whether ready-money betting is not less mischievous than betting on credit, by which persons may be led into liabilities they never will be able to meet. I now proceed to establish my point that the law throws its ægis at present around the betting commission agent. In the first place, the ordinary betting commission agent, who does his business at an ordinary betting club, may advertise in the public papers or by circular for clients; secondly—and what is probably of more importance—if I authorise a commission agent to make a bet for me, that authority becomes irrevocable on the making of that bet by the agent, and the agent can recover from me the amount of that bet in a Court of Law. That is the decision in the case "Read v. Anderson," a decision upon which lawyers of standing have raised doubts whether it is good law; but, unfortunately, it has never been appealed to a higher Court, and so we are governed by that decision. What is the effect of that? A commission agent makes a bet with a bookmaker—he may and, I believe often does make it with himself—but suppose a commission agent receives a commission to make a bet, and makes
    1270
    it with a bookmaker: it is true that the commission agent is not under any legal obligation to pay the bookmaker; but if he does not he is turned out of his profession, and loses his livelihood. Then the commission agent, having paid the bookmaker, can come into a Court of Law and claim to recover the money from his principal who authorised him to make the bet, which is therefore enforceable, though it is said to be void. I may give an illustration of the mischief of the law as declared in "Read v. Anderson," which was quoted by the Archbishop of Canterbury. A young clerk committed suicide after having been found to be fraudulent in regard to cheques to the amount of £2,000. After his death accounts were found which had been furnished to him by a commission agent and made out in the most systematic manner, and letters from the agent were also found showing "that occasionally small sums were remitted to him as winnings, but more frequently he was asked for cheques for large amounts to make good losses. My point is this, the demand for cheques to make good losses was a perfectly legal demand, enforcible by law according to the decision to which I have referred. The commission agent may not receive the money in advance, but having made the bet and paid it, the law permits him to recover it from his unfortunate victim. I contend that the state of the law is scandalous, and ought to receive the immediate attention of the Legislature, so that not only should the bet be non-enforcible, but that every transaction arising out of the original bet should be tainted by it, and no contract under it should be en-forcible. That appears to me one important respect in which the law ought to be amended. Before I sit down let me say a few words upon betting clubs and their position in the eyes of the law. The ideal Tattersall's is, I suppose, a select club where gentlemen of wealth and position meet and make wagers on horse races for" mere recreation," as the old law writers say, and the stakes are lost or won with complete indifference. That is the ideal Tattersall's, but what is the real Tattersall's? It is composed mainly of professional commission agents and bookmakers, who entrap the foolish

    1271
    and inexperienced, many of their clients being dishonest and embezzling clerks, and servants. An enormous number of betting clubs have grown up in imitation of Tattersalls, which, I presume, must stand or fall with it. Whether these institutions fall within the Betting Act or not has never been decided; but Sir A. Cockburn, when Attorney General, suggested that the test was" holding a bag against all comers." Is not that the position of all bookmakers at Tattersall's? There is much in the Statute Law on betting and gambling which requires amendment from a technical point of view, in order to facilitate prosecutions, but I have confined my remarks to the more public aspects of the question. I submit that I have shown the present state of the law to be unsatisfactory, and that there is a primâ facie case for the inquiry I ask. The Resolution is almost identical in terms with one which was carried in this House 57 years ago. Since then the forms of gambling have undergone considerable modification, and I hope the House will grant the Committee for which I ask, in order that a practice which admittedly has given rise to an enormous brood of evils throughout the country may be adequately investigated, and that, if necessary, suitable modifications may be made in the law. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the growing prevalence of Betting and Gambling; to ascertain to what extent the Statutes dealing therewith are evaded; to consider whether any, and what, Amendments should be made in those Statutes; and to Report their opinion thereupon to the House."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    MR. MORTON: In seconding the Motion, I need not go into the technical and legal aspect of the question, because my hon. Friend has dealt with that thoroughly, and as I am not qualified to do. Only this I say, in relation to the legal doubts and judicial decisions, that if the law is not strong enough it is the duty of "Parliament and the Government to make it effectual for carrying out the object
    1272
    desired. Within the last few months the country has been shocked by scandal in relation to gambling in the higher grades of society, and I have ventured to put several questions to the Home Secretary in regard to baccarat playing. I cannot say that I got much satisfaction from the answers of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot say that I gained much information, but this I did learn that baccarat is an unlawful game; but it appears that the unlawful game may be played in your own house. In clubs it has practically been held to be unlawful; and the authorities have taken proceedings against the Adelphi and other clubs. I am told that in regard to the Adelphi Club the players, under some old Act of Parliament, might have been prosecuted had the case gone on; but it was not thought necessary to go on with that part of the case. But so far as I can understand if the game is unlawful in clubs it should be unlawful anywhere. Of course I am quite aware that, do what we like, we cannot put down gambling or any other vice by Act of Parliament; but we may do something, and other vices have been restricted by legislation. I noticed in reading the other day that this House has put down gambling within the precincts of the House. In the journals of the House I find it recorded that on November 8th, 1768, the House passed the Resolution—
    Ordered," That the Messengers in waiting do take care there is no gaming or other disorders in Westminster Hall or other passages during the sitting of Parliament."
    Whether it was against Members or against the outside public this order was at that time directed I do not know, but we do know there is no gambling in Westminster Hall or other approaches to the House now, and, therefore, the Resolution has been successful so far as it was directed. So we may well suppose the action of the House might be effectual in other cases. Duelling and cock-fighting have disappeared. With an earnest application of the law against all offenders, no matter whom, we probably should not have much difficulty. There is no doubt with regard to my question the other day had this baccarat playing

    1273
    taken place at a club, and if persons of not such a high social standing been concerned, we should have had some action taken by the authorities. As I understand it, the game of baccarat is unlawful, the spirit of the law is broken by it, the clear intention of the law being to put an end to gambling by games of chance. If there is any doubt about baccarat being unlawful within the meaning of the Act, let a case be tried. I do not expect a Tory Government to be quite so strict in these matters as a Radical Government might be, but still a Tory Government should try and prevent the spirit of the law being systematically broken. It appears to me that the higher the social standing of the people engaged in playing this unlawful game the more is it the duty of the Government to take every means to put it down. That the vice of gambling is spreading and causing ruin among the younger part of our population there is too much reason to believe. I am told that a recent prosecution of a club was undertaken at the instigation of a lady who wished to save her son from the temptation of gambling. I am told, on good authority, that an immense amount of gambling goes on in clubs at the West End of London on Sunday evenings, that this is well known, and that the police might, if they chose, easily find it out. I really think the Government might allow this Resolution to pass, and a Committee to be appointed, that an inqpiry would do no harm, and possibly it might be very useful in collecting facts upon which an Amendment of the law might be based.
    MR. S. SMITH: I think the House is much indebted to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green for the very clear and luminous manner in which he has set forth the state of the law on this subject. I think the inconsistency and futility of the laws we have hitherto passed in this House on the subject of gambling must have come home to the mind of every Member of the House. No one will deny that the evil against which the Motion is directed is one which has enormously increased of late years. It must be
    1274
    within the experience of every Member that some one or other within the range of his acquaintance has been utterly ruined through gambling habits. Homes at one time happy have been reduced to misery by this vice. Many such cases are known to me. This vice has spread through every class of society. Gambling Used at one time to be regarded as the vice of a section of the upper classes. I am sorry to say that it still continues to be a vice of that section, but it has filtrated through all classes of society down to the lowest, and it is indulged in by old and young, down to mere errand boys. It is difficult to say who are the greatest sufferers from this vice, so widespread are its consequences. It is notorious that in the industrial districts of the Midlands and North of England the cases are common in which clerks and artisans have lost their situations, and have been reduced from competence to poverty. Many of them are unable to pay their debts, and frequent embezzlements arise in consequence of losses through betting, the result being in numerous cases the loss of situation and character. Nearly as many are ruined by this vice as by intemperance. It seems to me that the evil has become so serious that it demands the attention of Parliament—and in this connection I must say how sorry I am to-night to see such a small gathering of Members to deal with one of the greatest evils which affect our country at the present moment. If the House will allow me, I will, as a specimen, read an extract from a letter received from a working man in Scotland on this subject—for the vice has spread to Scotland, and is nearly as great an evil there as it is in the North of England. This writer puts the matter so forcibly that I think the House will bear with me whilst I read a short extract. He writes—
    "You will allow me to call your attention to the case of poor hard working men who try to bring up their sons to he useful citizens, and after all to become the victims of the bookmaker, which leads to a dissipated life. In Scotland betting is increasing to an alarming extent. The bookmaker takes from Is. upwards, and very often collects in shops privately, such as publicans, barbers, tobacconists, &c, and then the gentleman bookmaker makes his call in due time before the race, and when the bettor

    1275
    is successful the money pained is drunk until they make themselves actually no better than beasts for several days, or as long as the money lasts."
    This describes the case of tens of thousands of people in our country. It is a deplorable state of things. The bookmakers are ubiquitous. They are to be found in every grade of society, and in every part of the country—even in our villages. I am told that in a great number of cases they are the local publicans and tobacconists; and I understand that the gains they make are enormous. I am informed that as much as £500,000 passes through the hands of some bookmakers in a year, and the average daily bets placed by one are said to amount to £5,000, Some bookmakers have accumulated large fortunes, and live in the suburbs of London in magnificence. I say this is an utterly rotten state of things, and that these men are following an illegal calling. If the law were properly administered, these men would not be allowed to exist. They are simply pests and ulcers on our social system, and ought to be stamped out. Of late years there has been a great increase of betting clubs, some of which have been successfully prosecuted in Liverpool and London; but it is inconsistent to prosecute humble clubs while leaving Tattersall's untouched. I would desire to emphasise the moral degradation that is brought upon all who are connected or identified with the betting practices of the turf. There is nothing which more thoroughly degrades men, which so robs them of all higher and nobler sentiments, and which makes them more dead to the higher calls of life. I believe it is a rare thing for a confirmed gambler ever to get cured, and that the vice often ends in suicide. And here I would make a quotation from Mr. Greville's Memoirs.
    "In the 'Papers' of the late Mr. Greville you will find him making the following humbling confession in his journal, with reference to his attendance at the Races on Epsom Downs:—'This demoralising drudgery reduces me to the level of all that is most disreputable and despicable, for my thoughts are eternally absorbed by it. Jockeys, trainers, and blacklegs are my companions, and I cannot leave it off, though I am disgusted with the occupation all the time.'"
    1276
    A London newspaper thus describes a scene at Epsom—
    "Looking round upon the gathering on the ground, one could not help speculating on what might not be the moral effect on England if Epsom Eowns had yawned open and swallowed up that betting, swearing, brutal looking, brazen-throated throng. There they came, streaming up through the clover fields, gay with buttercups and clumps of yellow furze, in hideous din and uproar, as though there were no larks carolling overhead, nor musical tremor of breeze in the woodlands, and nothing delightful in the hazy sunny landscape around. There was a general atmosphere of blackguardism and vulgarity; and a positive relief it was to get out of the thick of it into the quiet green lanes again."
    The question before us is how to deal with this pestilence which is sweeping over our country like a plague. It is all very well to make raids upon betting clubs, but that is only tinkering with the evil. Something more radical is required—something more in the "root and branch" style. The cause of the spread of betting is the portentous increase and circulation of the sporting papers, of which in London there are 15 registered and several not registered, some of them claiming a circulation of 90,000 a day. These papers contain columns of impudent lies under the name of sporting tips. An equally potent cause of the spread of this vice is the space devoted to betting by the ordinary Press, which carries this information and the temptation to bet into all our homes, and spreads it before the eyes of our children. I certainly do not envy the mental calibre of the people who feed on the rubbish served up to them in the sporting papers. Such foolish and vapid nonsense as the prophecies and articles contained in these newspapers it is difficult to conceive that any intelligent human being can read with pleasure. But even the ordinary press is not much better. I glanced at some of the daily papers this morning, and found that they contained on an average from two to three columns, of this stuff. All these papers contain the impudent lies of tipsters. Surely the editors of the newspapers must feel degraded at putting into their journals statements from tipsters which are nearly always discredited by the facts,

    1277
    but which lure thousands of dupes to their ruin. I have obtained the opinion of a chief constable of one of the largest cities of England as to the cause of the great increase of gambling which has taken place during the past few years, and this is what he says—and I commend it to the attention of the House, for no one is more fitted to express an opinion—
    "The principal cause of the increase of betting is the facilities and means afforded by the daily Press. Every day contains the Sporting Intelligence, and under that head is all the information as to the odds where they may be obtained, the various 'tips,' &c, which inflame the imagination and prove a terrible temptation to youths to speculate, and then, having lost, to obtain somehow the money which has to be paid."
    This is the cause of the increase of gambling, and I say it is needless for us to do anything unless we go to the root of the mischief. It is useless for us to declare lotteries illegal, and it is grossly inconsistent to prosecute old women as fortune-tellers if we tolerate these impudent tipsters. We allow fortune-telling to go on in these sporting papers to a gigantic extent and I say that we should either cease to meddle with these matters at all, or proceed on logical grounds that approve themselves to common sense and are likely to attain the result aimed at. Some people will say, "If you interfere with sporting intelligence you will be striking a blow at the liberty of the Press," but I deny that. Such liberty was never contemplated. The liberty to do wrong, even if done within the letter of the law, is more honoured in the breach than the observance. The conductors of many reputable papers would gladly rid their columns of betting news, but they are forced by competition to give them. One paper, the Leeds Mercury, ought to be mentioned with honour, because for years it has maintained its powerful position while excluding betting news from its columns. I say, therefore, that if we are to accomplish anything let us go to the root of the matter and declare not only betting illegal, but the publication of betting intelligence. It is said, however, that there is gambling on the Stock Exchange
    1278
    and in the commercial markets. Well, every one must admit that there is a great deal of illegitimate and reckless speculation in this country, and if you can invent a law to put a stop to that, by all means do so. But I see great difficulties in the way of legislation of this kind, the difficulty of drawing the line between what is legitimate and what is illegitimate business being almost unsurmountable. But the fact that we are powerless to repress all forms of speculation is no argument for leaving untouched this most fruitful of all forms of demoralisation. No possible defence can be put forward in favour of betting on horse racing or other sports. In conclusion, I would turn for a moment to the moral aspect of the question as contra-distinguished from the legal, and would urge that what is wanted is a change in public opinion on the subject of betting, and a higher standard adopted among those whose duty it is, from the great positions they hold, to set a good example to their less favoured fellow-countrymen. I think very serious consequences may result in the future if those in high places do not realise that their duty is to set a good example to others. I am sure it is in the minds of many people throughout this country that some of the oldest institutions of our land—institutions which are deeply rooted in the affections of the people—may be severely shaken in the future if more deference is not paid to the moral sense of the community. There are many persons who are naturally conservative in character, and who would not like to see any violent change in the historical institutions of this country; but who, nevertheless, are gradually being brought to feel that under possible circumstances great changes may be forced on the public by the character and behaviour of those who are highly placed in the country. In this matter of setting a bad example by staking immense sums of money on games of hazard and horse racing, it is most important that this House should send forth a clear and decided expression of opinion; and I believe that much good would result to the future of this country if the House would speak out with no uncertain voice in favour of putting an end to that unbridled spirit

    1279
    of betting and gambling which of late I has raged like a pestilence in this country.
    MR. M. J. STEWART: I am satisfied that the speech to which we have just listened reflects in great measure a large body of opinion outside this House, and though that opinion may not seem to be shared by the great majority of Members of this House, judging from the small attendance to-night, there are many present who are determined to use their utmost efforts to check, and, if possible, to exterminate this evil. Gaming and betting are matters with regard to which the House of Commons should speak with no uncertain voice, as the country will look to our views on such subjects for guidance. We should, at all events, satisfy our constituents that this matter is not wholly disregarded. Though it is not easy to keep a House on such a night as this, I am glad to see there are a certain number of men who are ready to stand up and speak their minds on the subject. I suppose most hon. Members have been on a racecourse. I am bound to say that of recent years I have not been near one, and the reason is that some of my great friends—men I was at college with, and men with whom I have since been associated—have not only lost their all, but have ruined their families through their gambling propensities, as displayed on the racecourse. The destruction and woe and misery which have been entailed on different noble families through this cause are so appalling that I should shrink from stating individual cases. We know that the racecourse does not necessarily entail gambling and betting. Horse-racing is one of the noblest pastimes if properly conducted, and it encourages the breeding of good horses. When, however, that sport is demoralised and lowered, as it so frequently is in these days, it is time to resist the pressure placed upon us to induce us to attend race-meetings, and to warn others, especially the young,
    1280
    from going near them. If gambling and betting were put down on the racecourse it would be better for our sons and our friends, and for all who attend race-meetings. This is a very important matter, and I have no doubt it is one upon which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther) could bring his great influence to bear. I do not think the appointment of a Select Committee would do any good. Its sittings would occupy a long time, and I do not think we should get any legislation in the present Parliament. I do not think Parliament could be expected to put down sporting papers, as proposed by the hon. Member opposite. We know that such papers, especially in the North, are sold in large numbers, on account of the information they contain. We could not go to the proprietors of newspapers and say they must no longer publish them. We must endeavour to improve the tone of those about us, and to deter the young from entering upon the paths of folly. If we can do that we shall be very much better without Acts of Parliament. My assertion is that the law is strong enough at present, and that it is already far beyond public opinion, so that there is neally no use in bringing in Bills and passing new Acts of Parliament. I hope the present legislation will be put in force, and that we shall have much better supervision exercised by the authorities over places where betting and gambling are carried on. The poor man's club and the rich man's club should all be under an equal law, and that law should be impartially administered. I hope this Debate will do some good in showing that this House is interested in the question, and is desirous of seeing the law strictly enforced.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The House must be indebted to the hon. Member for the clear statement he has made in introducing this subject. There is nothing to be said for the vice of gambling, but as it grows up under many different aspects, the opportunities of reaching it by means of the law are extremely limited. Do

    1281
    hon. Members who have referred only to peculiar forms of gambling associated with cards, dice, and betting, not hear from time to time of "corners" in iron salt, and copper, and of transactions on the Stock Exchange, which are as dangerous, as pernicious, and as nefarious as any that take place in the paddocks or the clubs? I think that in expressing their indignation against gambling as a vice which has no redeeming feature, hon. Members ought not to omit forms of gambling which work equal misery, ruin, and disaster on those who engage in them with those which have been made the special subject of attack to-night. A Select Committee has been asked for, but if a Select Committee were to be appointed its range would be infinite, and hon. Members would not readily see the end of its labours. In all transactions in life we desire that no man should take advantage of another, or avail himself of superior judgment or knowledge in order to make a profit out of his neighbour. The basis of the Civil Law is that no man should make any bargain with another in which he has any improper advantage, and when he contracts he should disclose all that he knows. But this is the very opposite of our law, and the doctrine of caveat emptor requires a man to look after himself. Take the case of bargains for cargoes to arrive at a certain time. What are these transactions but another form of betting, because the possibility of arrival or non-arrival of a certain number of cargoes is made a reason for the arbitrary fluctuations of price, in the course of which great fortunes are made or widespread ruin caused. The Debate, however, has been confined to the forms of gambling known as cards and betting on horse races. I do not wish to defend those forms of gambling; indeed, I readily recognise their evils. I think that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green found fault, as far as card-playing was concerned, both with the law and the manner in which it was administered and put in force. I confess that I love the sweet simplicity of the Common Law. I like
    1282
    the rule which says that no game was unlawful, and that a wager was a perfectly legitimate form of human ingenuity, but which says also that if a man gathered people together in what was called a gaming-house for purposes of profit, this is a common nuisance, which the law should strike down. Time after time the Legislature has made enactments against forms of gaming. In Henry VIII., c. 9, 1541–2, it was provided that—
    "No manner of artificer or craftsman of any handicraft or occupation, husbandman, apprentice, labourer, servant at husbandry, journeyman or servant of artificer, mariner, fisherman, waterman, or any serving man shall from the said Feast of St. John Baptist play at the table, tennis, dice, cards, bowls, clashe, coytinge, logatinge, or any other unlawful game out of Christmas under pain of 20s., to be forfeit for every time, and in Christmas to play at any of the said games in their masters' houses or in their masters' presence; and also that no manner of person shall at any time play at any bowle or bowles in open place out of his garden or orchard under the pain for every time so offending to forfeit 6s. 8d."
    In the time of George II. faro, ace of hearts, basset, and hazard were picked out as being unlawful; and I think that these statutory attempts at suppression have been failures. They were an unwise extension of the broad plain principles of the Common Law, which does not attempt to deal with any form of game as being unlawful in itself, but which deals only with the social evil of gathering persons together for the purpose of profit. If, for example, a Select Committee were to recommend that baccarat should be put down, I believe that such advice would be bad, and that this form of gaming would revive in some other form subsequently. The hon. Member says it is wrong to allow the clubs of the rich to escape, while those of the poor are punished. I agree with the hon. Member. But was not the Park Club a club of rich and influential men in the West End of London, and was it not successfully prosecuted? I and the Metropolitan Police have spent many months in endeavouring to get at another club, whose name I will not mention, but which, I believe, has been carrying on gambling to an extent that is ruinous to all concerned. But our efforts have been baffled, because we cannot get persons to come forward and swear to

    1283
    facts which are necessary before the police can take steps to enter the club. I ask hon. Members not to believe that there is any remissness to put the law in force. When the authorities do not always seem to be as active as some hon. Members wish them to be, it is because there are difficulties in their path owing to the sympathy of the general public with the offenders. There are, perhaps, other causes why it is sometimes extremely difficult to enforce the law. We all know many charitable and good people. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) has ever ventured to touch such a thing as a charitable lottery with the tip of his finger. But there are such things; and no one could live on the other side of St. George's Channel, or have any remote connection with that country, without being the recipient of bundles of tickets for lotteries and raffles designed to relieve some charity. The law strikes at these things; but those who have to enforce the law shrink from doing so against lotteries. I have always written in the terms of the severest remonstrance I can command: but I have not gone further. The hon. Member for Flintshire says that the increase of gambling is due to the sporting newspaper. I believe that the hon. Member is right. I believe it is because there has sprung up of late years a mass of penny and halfpenny newspapers filled with nothing but trumpery predictions and inflated descriptions of horse racing that young men, who might be better employed attending to their ledgers, are induced to read and sometimes to follow the advice given. Has the hon. Member for Flintshire the courage to start on a crusade against these newspapers?
    *MR. S. SMITH: Yes, certainly.
    *MR. MATTHEWS: Then I ask this House whether it is prepared to embark on such a crusade as will strike at the root and cause of this racecourse gambling. For my own part, I am not prepared to assent to the statement that gambling has, on the whole, increased. I am afraid, however, that it has descended to a somewhat lower sphere of society, and has assumed a different form. In my younger days pitch and toss was
    1284
    very common, but I believe it has now ceased to have charms. There was also a great deal of public-house gambling which I can remember in my younger days. [Loud laughter.] I speak of what I saw as a philanthropic observer. I agree, however, that gambling has assumed another form. In no form has the spirit of gambling been more mischievous than on the Stock Exchange and in the mart, and I hope the House will not be led away by such shadowy distinctions as satisfy the minds of some hon. Members opposite. It is impossible to define bookmakers in a Statute in such a way as to enforce against them penalties of which the public judgment would approve, and that is an essential of legislation. How are you to distinguish between the legitimate and illegitimate bookmaker? If any one of us makes one, two, or three bets against a horse, is he a bookmaker? When does the intolerable and unpardonable sin of betting begin; and when does legitimate business end, and illegitimate begin? If you do not carry the public mind with you, if you do not carry the common sense of the House with you, I defy you to pass legislation against gambling and horse-racing which would hold water for a moment. We would have the hon. Members for Flintshire and for Bethnal Green crying out for something more severe, and for more action on the part of the police. I think the charge against the police is one which comes with very ill grace, especially from the Legislature. There is no duty on the police to enforce penalties. We have no Public Prosecutor—I am speaking broadly—except in capital offences. And I protest it being made a matter of reproach against the police that they do not prosecute, whenever a primâ facie case against the betting laws can be made out. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green is just as much a custodian of the public morals as is a policeman. If the hon. Member chooses to consider Tattersail's an illegal establishment let him prosecute. For my part, I should be sorry dogmatise on that subject. I should be sorry to assert that Tattersall's is within the meaning of the Act with any positiveness of affirmation. I am inclined to be of opinion that it is not, and I would not on my own responsi-

    1285
    bility direct a prosecution against Tattersail's. If the Member for Bethnal Green thinks otherwise, it is his duty to bring forward that matter himself in the Criminal Courts. I emphatically disclaim, for my own part, anything like the duty of doing so.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is not the duty of the police to prosecute a club. May I point out that scarcely a week passes without the police prosecuting some club in the East End of London?
    *MR. MATTHEWS: I have asserted that everybody has a right to prosecute, and therefore the police do so when the necessary evidence is procurable. But when the hon. Member chooses to assume that betting at Tattersall's is unlawful, and that the police deserve censure because they do not prosecute that establishment, I assert that such a charge cannot be justly sustained. The police do not possess evidence to show that the transactions there are illegal, and they would be exceeding their proper functions if they prosecuted. With regard to the betting commission agents, I confess that I have no sympathy with them. Theirs is rather a dirty and a shabby trade. But I cannot help pointing out to the hon. Member that it would be extremely difficult to frame a law which would strike at them, and which would not also strike at other agents who take commissions. It is to be observed that a commission agent derives no profit himself whether a bet is won or lost. He carries out the instructions he receives, and he must back or lay according to the wish of his employer. I am bound to say that much as I dislike betting, and the commission agent's relation to it, yet I do not see how you are to frame an Act to strike at them which would not also strike equally at the Stock Exchange jobber or the commission agent in the Cotton Market. Therefore, Sir, while I sympathise in the
    1286
    main with the feelings expressed by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, I ask the House to consider what practical good could be expected to follow from the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate to what extent the Statutes are evaded. I do not think the Statutes are evaded. Many cases of gambling do not fall within them. For instance, if baccarat, roulette, or any other game is played in a private house that certainly is not an offence against the Gaming Laws, and it would be most absurd if the House were to pass a law enabling the agents of the law and the police to enter private houses to see whether a man is playing at baccarat for a penny or a farthing with his children or his grandchildren. Such an investigation of the amusements of every private family would be a most intolerable tyranny, and the country would not bear it for a moment. Any attempt at an enactment of that sort would be the height of legislative folly.
    *MR. MORTON: I do not wish to interfere with such play as that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but with such play as we have heard of as taking place at Tran by Croft.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I must humbly and respectfully ask the hon. Member where is the scheme by which it can be ascertained what kind of baccarat is played, and how is he to ascertain that baccarat of any sort, or of either sort, is played in any house unless the house is to be entered and searched? Will he say that every house, from 10 in the evening, is to be liable to be searched? Will he picture to himself the consequence if every house is to be liable to be entered and searched by the police to see whether baccarat is played or not?
    MR. MORTON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is sworn evidence that baccarat was played at Tranby Croft?
    *MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of any sworn evidence.
    MR. MORTON: That is to come.
    *MR. MATTHEWS: I am always willing to submit to interruptions, but not to a running fire of them. I would again ask how possibly, if a thing of that sort is to be turned into an offence against the law, how can it be suppressed or put down by the police except by domiciliary visits? The information is not to be got. If the hon. Member were himself taking part in the game, I am quite sure he would not voluntarily go and tell the police. We do not have domestic spies and traitors in our social life, and the only possible means by which the thing can be ascertained will be that the police should have the power of entry and search. That would be simply intolerable. There are some defects which are due to the state of the law, and some due obviously to the defects of its machinery. The House does not want a Select Committee to advise it on the subject. I have here in my box a Bill which I prepared three years ago to consolidate and amend the law relating to gaming; but I have been prevented from bringing it in, partly because I had not the time, partly because I did not think it was pressing. I want no Select Committee to point out what are the requisite amendments in the law. I do not see that the law fails to reach very serious abuses of gambling, either in card playing or betting. It seems to me to reach all the real evil of that class of misdemeanour, and the reason why the law is not more efficient to prevent those practices is because of the great difficulty, the absolute impossibility, of proof. No legislation could overcome that difficulty. And so, although I repeat that this discussion may have done good by showing what the opinion of this House is about such pursuits, I strongly deprecate the appointment of a Select Committee, as the inquiry would end in no commensurate benefit.
    (11.7.) The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 70.—(Div. List, No. 90.)

    FOREIGN ENGAGEMENTS.
    MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I am sensible that this is a matter of some delicacy to invite a Parliamentary discussion upon, namely, the Treaties of Commerce with foreign Powers; but I shall be very careful to say nothing offensive to any foreign nation, and, therefore, this objection will not apply to my remarks. The notice which stands in my name is as follows:—
    "To call attention to the provision in the Treaty of Commerce concluded with Belgium in 1862, and with the Zollverein in 1865, in restraint of preferential importation by British Colonies of goods of British origin; and to move, That, in the opinion of this House, Foreign engagements which hinder the full development of trade within the Empire should he terminated as soon as practicable."
    I must point out that in 1888 I moved for and obtained a Return of the Treaties of Commerce in affairs between the United Kingdom and foreign nations, which precluded preferential fiscal treatment of British goods in the Colonies and Dependencies of the British Crown. This Return showed that two such Treaties were in force. A Memorandum was issued at the time which showed that there were the following Treaties between this country and foreign Powers which expressly precluded preferential fiscal treatment. There was a Treaty of Commerce concluded with Belgium in 1862, which contains a stipulation that articles of produce and manufactures of Belgium shall not be subject in the British Colonies to other or higher duties than those imposed upon similar goods of British origin. This Treaty was terminable by 12 months' notice on either side. There was also the Treaty with the Zollverein of a similar nature, and containing similar provisions that articles manufactured there shall not be subject in the British Colonies and foreign possessions of Her Majesty to any higher or different duty than—
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at twenty minutes after Eleven o'clock till To-morrow.

FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 17.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without further amendment: The Report of the amendment made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 59.)
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 Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 68.)
POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 51.)
Reported from the Standing Committee, with amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 69.)
SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 48)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which has for its object to bring into a single Code the law relating to the sale of goods, I do not intend to detain your Lordships with any observations upon the subject of codification generally. I think that whilst at one time there was a disposition, perhaps, to exaggerate the effect and advantage of bringing the law on any particular subject into a Code, and to suggest that if you could only codify the law the necessity for lawyers and litigation would be at an end; on the other hand, there was, perhaps, a disposition to depreciate the advantage of codification, which I think are very real. There can be no doubt that at if the law can be put into such a shape that by reference to a single Act
  1182
  of Parliament containing, perliaps, not a great many sections, you may ascertain what the law is on particular points where otherwise you would have to consult the text books and verify all the authorities cited. Great advantages are likely to result, and it would be likely to diminish the amount of litigation. But the experience which has been derived from the passing of the Bills of Exchange Act, which codified the law relating to mercantile instruments, has shown that there is another and unexpected advantage to be derived from codification. It may be that your Lordships know that the Bills of Exchange Act which was passed in 1882 in this country was adopted by the Colony of New Zealand in 1883, by the Colony of Victoria in the same year, by the Colonies of South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania in the following year, by New South Wales in 1887, and by the Dominion of Canada in 1890; and thus the consequence has been that upon an important branch of Mercantile Law—and it is one of very pressing importance—we have obtained now a uniform law in the Mother Country and in the greater proportion of self-governing colonies. I think your Lordships will feel that is an advantage derived from codification of no small importance; and that if we could have a similar Mercantile Law for all parts of Her Majesty's dominions where English laws prevail, and where there is not some special system, it would undoubtedly be very much for the benefit of commerce. In this connection I would venture to suggest whether some communication might not be made to the Crown Colonies, where the adoption of this Code would be appropriate—I mean those not having a special system, to which it would be inapplicable—with the view of seeing whether in those colonies the Code could not be adopted in the same way as it has been in the whole of the Australasian Colonies and in Canada. Obviously there would be an advantage in extending the area of such a system as that. The present Code which I have to submit to your Lordships deals with the law of the sale of goods, a branch of the Commercial Law, which is of great importance and interest. I do not intend to trouble your Lordships for a moment upon the general details of the Bill. I will only say that the Bill was

  1183
  drawn by Judge Chalmers, of the Birmingham County Court, the draftsman of the Bills of Exchange Act, which will afford your Lordships a guarantee of its being a faithful representation of the law on the subject. It was considered after the first draft was prepared by my noble and learned Friend Lord Bramwell, who made various suggestions upon it. With the like assistance I went with the draftsman carefully through all its provisions, and, therefore, I am in a position to make myself responsible for the Bill. I do not suppose, of course, that it is without some imperfections; probably it would be impossible for anybody to produce any Code of which that could be said; but I can say that it has been made as perfect as was possible, and in recommending it for Second Reading I can assure your Lordships it has received no small amount of pains and care.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): I understand the noble and learned Lord to suggest that when the Bill is passed and has become law I should recommend it for the consideration of the Crown Colonies.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Seeing that the Bills of Exchange Act has been adopted by the Australian Colonies and by the Dominion of Canada, I suggested whether some communication might not be made with Crown Colonies where the adoption of this Code would be appropriate—where, of course, a different system of law does not prevail.
  *LORD KNUTSFORD: Certainly; I will take immediate steps to that effect.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: I entirely agree with everything the noble and learned Lord has said about this Bill in particular and about codification in general; but I should like to ask him what he proposes should be done with this Bill if your Lordships read it, as doubtless you will, a second time; whether he proposes that it should go before your Lordships in Grand Committee? I cannot help thinking that, however carefully the Bill may have been drawn, and it certainly, in my judgment, is uncommonly well drawn, it is exceedingly desirable that it should go before a Select Com-
  1184
  mittee to be considered, as in the case of the Partnership Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I quite agree. It certainly was my intention, when it went in the ordinary course to Committee, to move that it should be at once-referred to a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 60)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD BRABOURNE: I have too much respect for your Lordships' House and for myself to waste time in further delaying the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill, which I have all along regarded, and still regard, as a foolish, unnecessary, and mischievous measure; but I must enter a last protest against it. It has been defended on the ground that it will diminish friction; but I do not think that the Government are aware of the amount of friction that will be caused in many parts of the country, especially in the Western and Southern Counties, by this measure which they have introduced. I think, probably, it will be found that about the time of the next General Election the friction will have come to a head. By that time the agriculturists will have discovered what this Bill means, and I wish the Government, then, joy of the result. I only wish to point out to-night the maximum of injustice that is going to be done by it. You are not content with interfering with all the arrangements that have gone on perfectly satisfactorily for a great number of years; you are not content with telling the poorer occupiers throughout the counties of England that they are henceforth to break their contracts with the landowners, but you are going to invite them to do so just in the middle of the period which would be covered by their contracts. You will not even give sufficient time for new contracts to be made to carry

  1185
  out your own views. I have never known a Bill that was so little called for, so little supported by Petitions, or so little considered by a large proportion of those who have to bear the burden of these charges. It is a measure with which the Government have proceeded simply and solely without considering them. My Lords, I will say no more, but leave the Bill with that parting benediction.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Amendment moved, in line 19, leave out ("owner of the rent-charge") and insert ("person entitled to the sum ordered to be recovered.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  *LORD BRAMWELL: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to call his attention to his third Amendment. I think the expression proposed to be substituted for the words in the clause is a very awkward one. The words which I refer to are "the sum ordered to be recovered." I would suggest to the noble Marquess it should be "ordered to be paid."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no objection.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: I think the clause would then be better English. That is my only reason for suggesting it.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not think that will do, because it is not the fact; it is not "ordered to be paid" under this scheme. The Courts do not order it to be paid. They only order it to be recovered in a particular way.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: From a literary point of view, I think the language of all Acts of Parliament is a matter of despair; but I am in the hands of the noble and learned Law Lords as to what those words are likely to be held to mean when they are considered in a Court of Law. If they can agree upon the subject I am very willing to be guided by them.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: For my own part, I must confess I take the same view as my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell, that in order to be consistent with the language of the principal Act, which certainly is peculiar language, the words should stand as the noble Marquess has put them on the Paper.
  1186
  In the 1st sub-section the words are that "the Court may order that such sum may be recovered," and these are the very words.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: May I call attention to Sub-section 2, which provides "the like powers of distraint for the recovery of the sum ordered to be paid?" If there is no order to pay, that section is wrong; if there is an order to pay, I think it is better the language should be consistent.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid my humble lay mind would rather agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, but I think I must leave the clause as it is.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think here the draftsman has intended to cover both processes of recovery, and I am not certain if you strike out "to be recovered" and put in "to be paid," you may not get into some difficulty.
  THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY: The difficulty is that in the previous section there are the words "the sum ordered to be paid." As it is hopeless to reconcile them, I beg to move the insertion of the words.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: I do not press my objection if the noble Marquess does not desire to adopt it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: There are some words on page 3, line 20, relating to service, that the County Court may direct what service is to be good service for the purpose of this Act "on the owner of any lands or tithe rent-charge." In the preceding sub-section and in Clause 4 we have also service "on the occupier" mentioned. Here it should be—
  "Shall be good service under this Act on the owner or occupier of any land, or on the owner of the tithe rent-charge."
  I therefore, move to insert after "on the owner" the words "or occupier."
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think there can be no objection to this. Although, beyond all doubt, it is for the purpose of service on the owner that the rule is extended, still the words can do no harm.
  THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY: I have no objection under those circum-

  1187
  stances, though I do not quite know what service you have to make upon the occupier.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: In the preceding sub-section it is provided that there shall be service upon the occupier in addition to the owner in certain cases.
  THE EARL OF KIMBBRLEY: I think it is quite right.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think there can be no harm in it. I imagine the owner must be a person who can be found, and you can as well find him as the occupier.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: At line 21, page 5, I have an Amendment to leave out the words "or equity," which are needless. There are no suits in equity now. The word "law" is quite enough, and, therefore, these words had better be out.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I had put down this same Amendment for the Standing Committee, but I abandoned it for this reason: Though I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend, I am told this is copied exactly from the clause in the County Courts Act. It is quite true that in one sense, no doubt, it may be said because a mistake was made there, that is not reason for repeating it here; but the words having been used there, and this being a question of appealing from the County Court, it might give rise to some question if you omit the words here.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid if the noble and learned Lord strikes out words simply because they are useless, he will establish a very bad precedent. There is usually a wealth of language in Acts of Parliament, which seems surprising to the ordinary lay mind.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of it, it strikes me, is this: The County Courts are Courts of Law, and they have a jurisdiction peculiar to themselves. The framers of the County Courts Act had that in view in using those two words, and, therefore, there might be soma difficulty caused if they were struck out here.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD HERSCHELL: On page 6, line 2, with reference to what I called attention to when the Bill was before the House at the last stage, I propose to insert the words "liability of the tithe rent-charge owner;" because it is quite possible that he may have appealed against his rating, and his rating might have been reduced on account of his liability to such remission as is mentioned. That is the way in which the question would ordinarily arise, though it could not be urged strictly if the remission had been taken into consideration.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am bound to say this has alarmed some of the authorities very much. My mind is not quite subtle enough to see the absolute necessity for it; but I certainly cannot see the danger of it in any respect. I will admit it for the present, without, however, desiring at all to be understood as giving a guarantee that I shall be able to bind myself to it.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the words as they stand will come to the same thing. It is impossible that the remission as an actual fact can have been taken into account, and, therefore, the "remission" there means remission to an equivalent amount.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Then I may perhaps propose it in a slightly different form which may get rid of the objection, and make it perfectly clear, if the Court is satisfied that neither the remission nor the amount of liability have been taken into account. I think that would include all the points.
  Moved, to insert after "that," the words "neither the remission," and after "liability thereto" to leave out the word "not."—(Lord Herschell.)
  On Question, agreed to
  *LORD BRAMWELL: I think the Amendment I am now going to move is perfectly accurate and free from any objection. It is on page 6. The 5th sub-section says that "any clerk of the Commissioners of Taxes shall, &c." That is really a most original proposition. It is not right to impose a duty upon clerks of a Public Body, and, therefore, my proposal is to leave out the words "any clerk to," leaving it to the Commissioners, and they will appoint the way in which it is to be done.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly will not oppose that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not know whether the noble Marquess has anything to suggest with regard to the form of Clause 13; but I wish to make a suggestion upon it which I may tell your Lordships I have reason to know the noble Marquess will not object to. It is in the Reference to the Act, that the short title should be the "Tithe Rent-Charge Act, 1891," and not as in line 28, page 6, "Tithe Rent Act." The proper term is tithe rent-charge, as tithes have ceased to exist as tithes since 1836, and I think the noble Marquess shares my feeling for calling things by their proper names.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I share it when the names are not too long; but I think in this case it is a very reasonable insertion to make.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Now, my Lords, I have to move the addition of a new clause, which, I am afraid, is subject to what my noble Friend Lord Brabourne said was his benediction—the parting benediction he bestowed upon the Bill. I have only inserted it because I thought it more convenient that the Bill should come into operation at once, and I have had no information of a different kind. But it is quite obvious that the Bill cannot come into operation on the 31st March unless it has been passed by that time, which would not be the case if by any accident the Bill is delayed in another place. If so, it is obviously necessary that those words would require alteration; but unless they are inserted now in the Bill, it would not be competent to the House of Commons afterwards to alter it, and it is absolutely necessary to put in some date or another.
  Amendment moved, to add the following new Clause after Clause 13—
  "This Act shall come into operation on the thirty-first of March, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD BRABOURNE: It seems to me rather an unnecessary thing to add to this mischievous Bill. It is bad
  1190
  enough to say that you will allow people to break their contracts in future, but why they should be allowed also to do so in the middle of the annual contract period I cannot understand. It seems to me an unnecessary addition to its injustice, and I think it would be much better to postpone the date until the end of the time for paying the charge, which is in October, and allow the start to be made then. But, I suppose, it will be-quite unavailing to make that or any other suggestion in face of the unholy alliance between the two Front Benches in this House; and as it has only occurred in this House, it is an alliance which astounds me. In another place the Bill was the subject of considerable opposition on the part of a mournful array of 162 men—Tories and Unionists—who devoted themselves to-fighting against it; but when the Bill comes to this House we find all as sweet as sugar, the two Front Benches vieing with each other in paying mutual compliments. I can only say, after the observations which the noble Marquess has made with regard to the date of the Bill, that we poor agriculturists who are going to have this unnecessary measure forced upon us are still able to say, "Thank heaven we have a House of Commons!"
  LORD HERSCHELL: I must entirely repudiate having been, in the noble Lord's phraseology—I do not know whether I should say, guilty of paying compliments to the noble Marquess, and I am not aware that from the Front Bench on which the noble Marquess sits, complaints have been addressed to this side of the House. Those are, I think, altogether creatures of the imagination of the noble Lord. But for myself, if I may be allowed to explain the position I have taken up with regard to the Bill, it is this: so far as it is designed to relieve the occupier of this payment, and to cast the burden which has always fallen ultimately on the owner, it may be directly, and in the first instance, on him entirely, I approve of the object of the Bill; and I do not know that the Party to which the noble Lord has alluded, to which I belong, has ever objected to the Bill so far as it embodies that principle. Some may have thought it does not go far enough, or that this, that, or the other provision ought to

  1191
  have been contained in it; but in so far as it carries out that principle, I cannot acknowledge for a moment that I have been guilty of the slightest inconsistency as a Member of the Liberal Party in desiring to see a Bill having that as its main object passed into law. As to the provisions contained in it, as far as they are consistent with that object and carry it out, I have done my best undoubtedly, as far as was in my power, to make the Bill which I believe to be a sound one, as good a working Bill as I can. I am not conscious of having done anything in that respect inconsistent with the full performance of the duties of a Member of the Party to which I belong, about which, the noble Lord opposite seems so anxious. It is very evident that he feels it is a serious matter that there should be a falling away of any Liberal Lord from the principles which he has avowed, but, at the same time, I must confess I am not conscious of having laid myself open to such a charge. If we had been desirous of making this Bill, in any respect from our point of view, stronger or more extensive, or more practical, we are perfectly aware that we should have been wholly and entirely powerless in the matter. All that we could do, and all that both my noble Friends on this Bench, and others have endeavoured to do is this: that approving of the principle of the Bill to which I have alluded, we have endeavoured to so assist in framing the measure that it shall, containing that principle, be most effectually carried into law.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only wish to say that I am not aware that in bringing forward this Bill, either in regard to the form of it or in conducting it through the various stages, there has been either on this side of the Table or the other any abandonment of the principles ordinarily followed in conducting public affairs. Certainly in this House it has always been the maxim of otiose who are the Opposition at the time undoubtedly to give effect to their principles, and, undoubtedly, to insist that those principles shall receive a fair hearing; but, at the same time, to do their best as Members of the Legislature in order to ensure that whatever Statute is put upon the Statute Book shall be as
  1192
  workmanlike an enactment as possible, and shall be so constructed as to be beneficial to the people. I also beg to say that the noble Lords opposite, who have, I think, never paid me any compliment at all, have not usually failed as regards avoidance of compliments which we on this side observed when in Opposition in trying to follow that very elementary rule. I do not think that this Bill is, or need be, a Party question; its first object is to relieve the tithe owner under circumstances of great trial, especially in one particular part of the country, but its more general, more prominent, and wider object is to give a true rendering in practice of the intention of the Act of 1836, to remove an abuse which has grown up insensibly and without being observed, and to place on the owner of the land that burden which Parliament intended he should bear, and which Parliament did not intend he should place upon the shoulders of the occupier.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed as amended (No. 70.)

  REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 53.)
  House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: and Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN WRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 61.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT, 1890, AMENDMENT BILL. (No 58.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  EVIDENCE BILL [H.L.]—(No. 71.)
  A Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to evidence: And
  TRUSTEE BILL [H.L.]—(No. 72.)
  A Bill to consolidate enactments relating to trustees—Were presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed.
DOCK ACCOMMODATION AT GIBRALTAR.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the next Navy Estimates, a Vote will be proposed for the commencement of a Government dock at Gibraltar, said: My Lords, in a Paper which was recently published by the First Lord of the Admiralty an allusion was made to the subject of my question, and I, therefore, may conclude that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any provision for the commencement of the dock at Gibraltar; but I trust the noble Lord who represents the Admiralty, who, for reasons which I think have so misled the Government, have departed from the Resolution which they have announced, not once, but three times, during the course of last Session, will be able to give your Lordships some assurance in the matter. I invite the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, as well as the noble Lord who represents the Department, to give his personal attention to this question, because if he will consult the opinion of the Naval Service in general he will find, as the House and the public, I am sure, will feel its importance and urgency. It is not a question which is to be put off, but is one to which attention is urgently demanded. At the commencement of last Session the noble Lord told me the Government were still hesitating, but in the month of April that they had made up their minds that the dock should be constructed. The noble Lord then laid before the House particulars showing exactly the manner in which it was to be made, and he announced improvements, which met with the general approbation of the naval profession. Finding that nothing was being done, in August, before Parliament was prorogued, I ventured once again to ask whether the Government intended to proceed with the dock. My noble Friend was not then in the country; but the answer I received from the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government was that a Committee had been investigating the matter, and had decided that it was desirable the work should be commenced, but that
  1194
  their Report had not then been laid before the Admiralty. I presume that by this time, all parties being agreed as to the desirability of our having such a dock—a desirability which has been recognised over and over again by the Admiralty—there can be now no obstacle in the way, excepting that of expense, which can possibly delay the commencement of this dock. I will not attempt to weary the House by recapitulating all that may be said as to the importance of this matter. I can only say that I have over and over again referred to naval authorities—I do not urge my own opinion the least in the matter—but I have inquired very closely, and from all I have been able to ascertain from a large number of men in the Navy, and those who are most acquainted with the Naval Service, I have only found one officer who is opposed to it, and my late noble Friend Lord Carnarvon, I believe, stated that in his opinion it was undesirable. The reason why it was ever considered on the part of Lord Carnarvon, and perhaps one or two others, undesirable was that the harbour of Gibraltar is a bad anchorage. There is no question about that, but the improvements which my noble Friend announced will go a long way towards meeting that difficulty; and whether it be bad or good, there is no question that a dock can be constructed there. Without that dock your Lordships must remember that we have really, in this respect, got all our eggs, as far as the Mediterranean is concerned, in one basket. The only prospect of a large fleet manœuvring in the Mediterranean has, in the event of accidents in case of war, or receiving damage at the present time, is of being able to lay up in one of those very fine docks (there are four of them) which we have at Malta. But your Lordships will remember we have other countries to consider, and what they are doing. Although we are now, happily, on excellent terms with our neighbours, yet we do not know what circumstances may arise, and France at this moment has two excellent dockyards, one at Toulon, which is a first-rate harbour, and she has a naval establishment at Marseilles. Both of those places are capable of supplying the wants of a Navy, which is, be it remembered, only by one vessel inferior to our own upon that

  1195
  station. And another tiling must be borne in mind. Although I do not know what the engagements of that country with ourselves were with regard to Tunis, there is no question whatever that France is establishing herself very firmly on the North African coast, and if, as Napoleon said, "Antwerp was a pistol-shot directed at the head of England," so in future we may come to regard the establishment of any foreign naval station at Tunis as a pistol-shot aimed at Malta. That is a very important matter. We have lost our former excellent positions. We were in possession at one time, I think for 70 years, of the best harbour in the Mediterranean, Port Mahon, but we foolishly surrendered that position, contrary to the advice of Lord St. Vincent. We subsequently surrendered Corfu, and now we are reduced entirely, as far as regards the safety we may say of our vessels in time of war and the safety of our naval equipment, to that one place which I have mentioned—Malta—with its four docks. As your Lordships know, we have another establishment; but one which I think Her Majesty's present Government, no more than any other Government which may succeed them, will ever succeed in improving, that is Cyprus. We certainly have Cyprus. But there is really only one other alternative, which I shall be happy to communicate at some other time to the noble Marquess on that station besides Gibraltar. I do hope the Government will give their attention to this matter. I can assure the noble Marquess and the Government that it is one which is looked upon by the Navy as absolutely essential to the safety of our Naval Forces in the Mediterranean in the event of war; and I am surprised to find that the matter has been deferred so long, the necessity for it having been so often admitted, and merely, as I fear, upon the question of a paltry expense of s£400,000. Your Lordships will recollect that although difficulties may arise and events may take place within the space of a few months, or even weeks, yet the construction of a dock at Gibraltar is a matter the necessity of which having once been admitted cannot possibly with any safety be deferred. It will take at least four years before
  1196
  your dock can be in working order; and, therefore, that being the case, I would venture most respectfully to urge upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of at once proceeding with this work, and I also hope the noble Lord will be able to give some very good reason why it has been so long postponed.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, knowing the very great interest which my noble Friend takes in this matter, I am not the least surprised at his repeating the question which he has put to me on three or four former occasions. As I told him last time, there had been some opposition to the scheme proposed, and a Committee had been appointed to inquire into our position at Gibraltar in reference to the matter. That Committee was appointed in April last, and Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett was Chairman of it. They examined a large number of witnesses, naval, military, and civilians, and reported in September last. They were opposed to the idea of the dock being constructed and managed by a private company as had been suggested, and recommended that it should be built with Imperial funds, and wholly and solely managed by the naval authorities. They also recommended that the New Mole should be prolonged, and that another Mole should be made for commercial purposes The Report was only received in September last, as I have said, and the estimated cost of the work was so large, and so many Departments and interests had to be considered and consulted in the matter, that no action has yet been taken by the Admiralty. No Vote, therefore, was proposed in the Navy Estimates for this year, there being so many more pressing, and, as the Admiralty think, more important matters to be considered. As regards next year, we cannot at present forecast what provision should be made for a dock at Gibraltar.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.