Sitting of 23 June 1892

QUESTIONS.

  BAND PLAYING IN LIMERICK.
  MR. JOSEPH NOLAN(for Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN,): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Irwin, the Resident Magistrate in Limerick, dissented from the decision of the Limerick Bench of Magistrates in regard to the prohibition of band playing until the election is over, the Government will cause the order of the Magistrates to be withdrawn?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I am informed that the Resident Magistrate did not dissent from the decision of the Limerick Bench of Magistrates, but he threw out the suggestion that until the election is actually in progress it might be sufficient to prohibit the band from playing on Sunday and upon other days after nightfall. The Executive Government
  1832
  have no power to interfere with the discretion of the Magistrates in this matter.

  ELECTION CONFLICTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Having reference to the same subject, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have not been able to give notice, but which perhaps he can answer off-hand: Whether, having in view the possibility of conflicts arising between rival political parties in Ireland during the forthcoming Parliamentary elections, the Government will take special care that peaceable citizens who desire to record their votes shall have all necessary protection in doing so?
  MR. MADDEN: If my hon. Friend requires information as to any specific occasion it will be necessary for me to make inquiry; but, of course, it is the duty of the Government and those responsible for the peace of any district during the elections to take care that the peace is preserved, and to the best of their ability this duty will be carried out.

  SORTING CLERKS IN THE DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  MR. NOLAN (for Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN): I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why, since the acceleration of the day mails to the North of Ireland, the sorting clerks of the Dublin Office have been compelled to perform a third daily duty, and this in direct opposition to the understanding under which they entered the Service, which was to the effect that their daily duty was to be performed in two periods; whether he is aware that this duty keeps the staff practically on duty from a very early hour in the morning until late in the evening, and forces the majority of them, who have to live through necessity at long distances from the General Post Office, to walk three hours a day going to and from their duty; and if he will see his way to abolish this duty by keeping the staff up to its full strength, as it has been considerably short for a long period, and by having the night mails disposed of in the various travelling post-offices, which would meet the exigency which created the duty complained of?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): A Report has been asked for from Dublin upon the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question. As to the third paragraph, the information in the London Office shows that there are twenty-six vacancies in the staff of 262 sorting clerks at Dublin not yet filled up. Some delay has arisen in the re-construction of the arrangements, but a Committee appointed for the purpose has now reported, and soon the staff will be brought up to its proper strength.

  ANNUAL LEAVE OF PRISON OFFICERS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to the fourteen days' annual leave granted to the officers of Her Majesty's Convict Prison, Portland, which leave is to be taken under the regulations as to one seven days before the 1st July in each year, and as to the remaining seven days after the 1st July, whether it was intended that such divided leave should be granted to the prison officers so far as possible when convenient to them, especially having regard to the fact that, when they were formerly allowed eleven days' leave of absence, such leave was not only granted without apportionment into two halves as now, but was obtainable when most convenient to the applicant?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): It is intended that leave should be granted when most convenient to the officers, subject to the requirements of the service and the claims for preference of choice among the officers themselves. It was found formerly when no system was followed that applications for leave were made at the same period of the year, with the result that they could not all be granted. The present system has been in force at other convict prisons, with the result of spreading the leave more equally over the year.

  ELECTION PLACARDS ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman can
  1834
  answer a question of which I have not been able to give him notice: Whether he is aware that at High Barnet a placard inviting the electors to vote for the local Conservative candidate is affixed to the Court House; and is that consistent with the law?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid I cannot answer the question without consulting the Statutes.

MOTION.

  ADJOURNMENT—THE DISSOLUTION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not quite see why we should adjourn to Monday. I presume we have to adjourn over one day because we have to wait for certain Bills to come to us from the Lords. But, as I understand, the House of Lords will finish these Bills on Friday; consequently if we have a Sitting on Saturday, instead of adjourning from now to Monday, the Dissolution Councils could be held on Monday, and the Writs issued the same day, and then Saturday, about which day there has been some little dispute, would be included in the permissible days on which polling might take place. Now, we fully understood that as soon as the necessary business was disposed of the Dissolution would take place. At the same time we were no doubt informed—in fact, we know—that a certain time would have to be allowed to the House of Lords to discuss and pass certain Bills sent up to them from this House. We allowed the House of Lords ample time. We passed—I think we were urged to do so—the Agricultural Holdings Bill before Whitsuntide, and we anticipated that the House of Lords would pass the Second Reading of that Bill before Whitsuntide. But they did not do that, and they also took two days extra holidays for their Whitsuntide Recess beyond that we thought sufficient for ourselves, although our labours are more exhausting than those of the House of Lords. On Monday they passed the

  1835
  Second Reading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, and then they absolutely adjourned it for three days and only took the Bill in Committee on Friday. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) told us to keep a special eye upon the House of Lords to see how long those noblemen sat each day, and I have kept an eye upon their proceedings. On Monday they adjourned before dinner, at seven o'clock. On Tuesday they adjourned important matters they had under discussion shortly after seven o'clock, and then amused themselves for some time discussing some question in relation to the Earldom of Mar, which can scarcely be said to be of great public interest. On Wednesday, of course, the House of Lords does not usually sit; but I think under the pressure of business, and to further the desire in the country for a Dissolution as early as possible, they might have stretched a point and sat on Wednesday, but they did not. But, Mr. Speaker, anxious as the noble Lords seem to have been to adopt a dilatory policy in regard to the Public Business of the country, they have not the staying power some of us have in this House. Do what they would they were unable to extend what they are pleased to call their labours up to Saturday. So it becomes clear they will finish on Friday, and if we have a Sitting on Saturday we can have the Dissolution on Monday. Generally speaking, and I think almost always at the end of a Session, Saturday is taken to expedite business and bring the Session to an end; and I must say it seems somewhat strange that the Government should now refuse a Saturday Sitting, not only to bring the Session to a close this week, but to expedite the Dissolution. Yesterday I asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consider the expediency of meeting on Saturday to finish the business of the House, and the only reason the right hon. Gentleman could urge against adopting that course was that he had given an assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that the Dissolution would not take place before Tuesday. But, Sir, I am authorised by my right hon. Friend to
  1836
  say that he will entirely release the right hon. Gentleman from any pledge he has given on the subject. It may suit my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, and perhaps others in the House, that the arrangement should not be altered in connection with the elections; but my right hon. Friend feels that he ought not to stand in the way of what he considers the desire and wish of a great number of electors, and I need not say that at the present moment we are all anxious to please the electors. Therefore, perhaps, it will remove any difficulty the First Lord of the Treasury may feel as to his having given a pledge, that my right hon. Friend entirely releases him from it. We do not—and I cannot urge this too often—for a moment ask that all the elections shall take place on Saturday. The First Lord of the Treasury said that Saturday would be a disfranchising day, because small traders could not leave their business to vote, and Jews could not vote on that day. But the small traders are in the habit of voting in the morning. We know perfectly well that they can and do vote then, when they have plenty of time, because their business does not begin until the evening. As regards Jews, they, no doubt, are in considerable numbers in some constituencies; but in other constituencies they may be said hardly to exist as electors. Where they are in large numbers the returning officer no doubt will take the fact into consideration and appoint a day other than Saturday; but in other places the returning officers would comply with a strong feeling that Saturday is the most convenient day for the great body of the electors. All we want is that Saturday shall be a permissible day for polling. But what do we find? That the House of Lords have gone out of their way to prevent Saturday being available, but when the efforts of the House of Lords have failed, and when Saturday can be included in the available polling days, this recourse is had to the expedient of adjourning from Thursday to Monday, and the First Lord steps forward and jokingly says he would be happy to do what is desired, but he has given a pledge he must adhere to. I think we ought to

  1837
  make this perfectly clear to the electors, that a great many of them are to be disfranchised by the action of the Government. In saving this I do not pretend to be quite free from Party considerations. I have no doubt that all electors are ready to sacrifice some portion of their time and even a certain portion of their salaries to perform their duty in voting, and many of them will be the more induced to do this when they detect what I cannot help calling this shabby trick to defraud them of the constitutional rights given them. I am glad to see the Attorney General in his place. I asked him yesterday whether he confirmed the view of the First Lord with regard to the issue of the Writs by post on the day of the Dissolution Council. I asked the First Lord whether it would be possible for a returning officer to send an accredited messenger to receive the Writ, and the Attorney General confirmed the view of the First Lord that this could not be done. The Attorney General was perfectly right, but I have obtained an opinion on this matter which perhaps the House will allow me to read, showing that it is perfectly practicable with a little goodwill to bring Saturday within the polling days. This is the opinion of an ex-Attorney General who is unable to be present to day, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). He cites the different Acts which apply, and this is his conclusions:—
  "It would apparently be illegal to deliver the Writ to a special messenger who would be an agent appointed by the Sheriff. It must be conveyed to the Sheriff's office or the General Post Office, as the case may be, by the officer appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Statute, 58 George III., is imperative that a messenger of the Great Seal shall forthwith—[forthwith is underlined]—carry such of the Writs as are directed to the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex to their respective offices, and by the third section this direction is enlarged so as to include any Sheriff who shall hold office within the Cities of London and Westminster or the Borough of Southwark, or within five miles thereof. It seems clear, therefore, that in all London, in the wide sense, Writs must be delivered by the officer performing the duty of messenger to the Great Seal at the office of the Sheriffs on the day on which the Dissolution takes place."
  I suppose the Attorney General accepts that?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): That is well understood.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, if the Council is held at some reasonable time, and if the Writs are issued immediately to the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, and they are at their offices to receive them, then three clear days will bring us up only to Friday, and an election can take place when it is desired and when it is so determined by the Sheriff on the Saturday. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who for the moment is Leader of the House, whether we are to understand that all due speed will be made at the Writ Office to forward the Writs immediately to the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, so that it may be possible to include Saturday within the permissible days for polling?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The hon. Member has again brought forward a subject which has been fully discussed more than once within the last few days—the question of including Saturday as a polling day—and he has frankly admitted that he has brought it forward to-day to serve his purpose in regard to the coming General Election.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: No, I did not say that. I think that is the right hon. Gentleman's inference.
  *MR. RITCHIE: It is the natural inference to be drawn from what the hon. Member said. I do not propose again to go into the reasons why, in our opinion, Saturday is not that advantageous day for polling, so far as the great mass of the electors are concerned, which the hon. Member professes to think it is. Instances have again and again been given within the last few days to show that in cases when the polling has been fixed for a Saturday the poll has been smaller in the same constituency than when the polling has been on another day; and we know also that when Saturday has been within the available days for polling, it has rarely been availed of, just because it has been felt not to be a convenient day. As a fact, the selection of that day would dis-

  1839
  franchise electors of the Jewish religion, and, I think, a large number of small shopkeepers. The hon. Member does not think the latter class would be affected, and there is our difference of opinion. I am convinced that in the East End of London to fix the polling day for Saturday would disfranchise a large number of this class. I do not say they could not vote. Of course they could, but you would call upon them to do so at a considerable sacrifice of their business interests, which perhaps many of them, not such keen politicians as the hon. Member, would not be prepared to make. It is admitted that, so far as Jews are concerned, Saturday would be a disfranchising day for them. To say that the working classes do not have sufficient opportunity for voting on any day but Saturday is to ignore the facts of the case. The hours of polling have been extended to enable the working class electors to record their votes, and I do not think there is the slightest evidence of value to show there is any difficulty whatever in that respect. So we have by a Saturday poll one class certainly disfranchised, and probably a considerable portion of another class, and I find no evidence that anyone would gain by the Saturday poll. But the hon. Gentleman insists upon Saturday—
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Saturday being included in the possible days.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I was about to say insists upon Saturday as our final day for sitting prior to the Dissolution; that we should adjourn to Saturday instead of Monday. Well, the answer to that has been given, and it is absolute. My right hon. Friend, as the House knows, was unwilling to name an absolute day for the Dissolution. He stated that, so far as he could foresee, it would not be later than Tuesday or Wednesday in next week; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton insisted upon a day being named absolutely. It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that the right hon. Gentleman will release my right hon. Friend from that undertaking; it was far more than a personal promise. Does the hon. Member imagine that only the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton is interested in the decision arrived
  1840
  at? Is the hon. Member not aware that the fact that Tuesday was fixed was at once made known all over the country, and arrangements have been; made to carry out the necessary preliminaries in accordance with that fixture. Though the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton may be quite willing, it is quite impossible now to alter the arrangement. Even if it were possible and desirable, I think the hon. Gentleman underrates the difficulties in the way; he thinks the measures now before the House of Lords, in which possibly Amendments may be introduced, could readily be dealt with.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: We will pass them all.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member is complaisant as regards Amendments he is not aware of. But I am informed that even if the House of Lords proceed with the greatest rapidity in carrying out the duties which devolve upon them, it would not be possible to ensure a Dissolution before Tuesday. We do not think it is desirable that this House should be asked to meet on an extremely inconvenient day when no practical effect will be derived from so meeting. We think it is not possible to depart from the arrangement made; it is not practicable and it is not desirable. The hon. Member has remarked upon the House of Lords disposing of business at an early hour, and he has argued that they have no right to take up so much time with Bills now before them; but let me point out it is not a matter of so many hours each day. Bills have to go through certain stages; and although each stage may not occupy a long time in a Sitting, still it is necessary that Bills should go through the stages. It is no answer to say they can be disposed of quickly. Then the hon. Member asks if, so far as London is concerned, the Writs will be delivered on Tuesday. I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware of the fact that Writs must be delivered to the returning officer before four o'clock in the afternoon. There will have to be two Councils held on Tuesday—one for Prorogation and one for Dissolution—and I can quite conceive that the difficulties will be very considerable in arranging all that

  1841
  is necessary in order that in due course of law the Writs for London may be delivered to the returning officers before four o'clock.
  MR. CREMER: I think the hon. Member for Northampton is justified in pressing this question again and to the last moment, though I have little hope that we can induce the Government to give way. We should, however, be neglecting our duty if we did not give expression to what I know to be the feeling of large masses of the electorate of London in this matter. It is a very simple matter we ask—that among the days on which the polling may take place Saturday shall be included. If hon. Members opposite think their prospect of being returned to the new House of Commons is improved by the polling being held on any other day of the week, we are willing they should have the opportunity; and no doubt the returning officers will meet their wishes in this respect. There are some constituencies in which Saturday polling is absolutely necessary. I do not speak of my own constituency when I say this, because I do not believe it will affect me very seriously whether the polling takes place on Saturday, Monday, Tuesday, or any other day; but I am satisfied that there are constituencies, especially in the East End, in which numbers of electors will be practically disfranchised if the polling takes place on any other day than Saturday, because many of them are not able to return from their work till nine or ten o'clock at night, except on that day. I do not think the people of London or of the country generally will be deluded by the statement that it is impossible for the House of Lords to get through its business in time to enable the Election to take place on a Saturday. We have seen Bills rushed through this House by suspending the Standing Orders in cases of emergency, and the same course could have been adopted in the House of Lords. Their Lordships cannot sit for a few hours longer when it is absolutely necessary, but they can find time to disport themselves at Ascot. I do not mean to say that I envy them: they are welcome to go there if they like to do so; indeed, I should not mind if they stopped there altogether.
  MR. SPEAKER: These constant references to the House of Lords and the tone of the hon. Member are out of Order.
  *MR. CREMER: We have been told that it is impossible for the Bills now before their Lordships to be advanced in a more rapid way.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I was referring to the tone in which the hon. Member spoke of the Members of the other House of Legislature. It is necessary that Members of this House should treat their Lordships with respect, and the hon. Member has not treated them with respect.
  *MR. CREMER: I am sorry to have shocked hon. Members—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  *MR. CREMER: I will not repeat the expression I used just now. I will only say that we have instances on record in which Bills have been advanced various stages in a rapid manner through both this House and the House of Lords, and that what has been done before could have been done again, if there had been any desire on the part of the Government to have had the polling on the Saturday. I suppose it is of no use to appeal to the Government at this stage to allow the electors to poll on Saturday in those constituencies in which there is a strong desire to do so; although it must be seen that the convenience of a large number of voters in some London districts would be met by arranging that the Election should take place on that day.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I think we have a right to protest against this delay, as well as against the convenience of the whole country being subordinated to that of a few individuals. I We do not wish to lay down any hard-and-fast rule as to when the Election should be held, but we think that the returning officers should be allowed to choose the day which would be most convenient for the polling. I consider that the Government have, by their action, shown a want of confidence in the returning officers. The Jews and the small shopkeepers now appear to be the only hope of the Tory Party.
  MR. CAUSTON: I waited to see whether any of the hon. Members on the other

  1843
  side of the House who represent London constituencies would rise to protest against the Election not being held on the Saturday before I rose to speak on the question. It appears to me that the Government have been struck with the remarkable results of the County Council Elections in London, which were held on a Saturday. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has stated that it was a small poll; but I would ask him to compare it with the polling which took place at the previous County Council Election. He would then find that there was a considerable increase of the numbers polled this year, as against those who voted at the last election. It is perfectly clear that Saturday is the most convenient day for the working men of London to record their votes. In those districts in which there is a large Jewish population another day could, of course, be selected for the Election. The small shopkeepers would suffer no inconvenience from having the Election on a Saturday. I consider that the case set up by the First Lord of the Treasury has altogether broken down. It was well known to the Government that there was a general desire for a Saturday polling, but in spite of that they have done their best to make it impossible. Therefore I utter my protest, and I think some of the London Tory Members should do likewise.
  MR. LAFONE: I should like hon. Members who plead for a Saturday polling to come down to my constituency and to air their opinions on the subject in the quarter frequented by the costermongers. There are many similar constituencies throughout London and in the country. It would be found that if the polling were to take place on the Saturday it would practically mean the disfranchisement of the whole of the costermonger class. The costermongers could not vote on a Saturday, because they go out early in the morning and do not get home until ten or eleven o'clock at night. Saturday is really their harvest day. If the hon. Member for Northampton would come down to my constituency, I would take him into the costermonger quarter, and
  1844
  if he did not there learn a lesson I should be very much surprised.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BRITISH COLUMBIA (LOAN) BILL (No. 432.)
  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  DR. CLARK: This is a Bill to enable the Government to make a loan to British Columbia. The Colonial Government wishes to develop its fisheries, which are chiefly in the hands of natives and Chinamen, and to get white men out there in order that the fisheries may be carried on in a more scientific manner than hitherto. It is proposed to use the unfortunate crofters for the purpose. Certain statements have been made by the Government, and especially by the First Lord of the Treasury on the Second Reading of the Bill, which I have been unable to refer to before. We have been told that no crofter holdings have been taken in order to make the great deer forests, which form about three millions of acres; but if the First Lord of the Treasury will only read the evidence which was given before the Royal Commission, he will find that something very different is the case. The Rev. Angus McRae, minister of the Free Church of Scotland, Glen Urquhart, Inverness-shire, gave the following evidence before the Commission:—
  "I beg to submit to the Royal Commission that there has been a decrease of the population of this parish during the last 'census decade' of 342 in a population of 2,438, which I ascribe principally to our large deer forests. The late laird of Glenmoriston, who was one of the kindest and most humane proprietors in the North, erred latterly in adopting the system of turning farms into deer forests; but it is to be hoped that the young heir will reverse this system as soon as he gets full possession of the estate. The deer forest of Balmacaan, in Glen Urquhart, is about twenty miles in length, and is rented for £3,000 per annum; to this forest a great deal of good land has been added, even within the last sixteen years, besides the large tracts that were added to it at different periods formerly. About the year 1867 the whole township

  1845
  of Balmacaan where there were over twenty families who were living pretty comfortably, had to be turned out in a body, as the place was to be added directly to the forest."
  The witness goes on to give details, and then says—
  "Of course, there was a small forest above the ordinary pasture, from time immemorial, but recently there has been added to it the grazing of about ten thousand sheep."
  The Rev. James Bain, the Rev. Roderick Morison, ministers of the Established Church in Duthill, Inverness-shire, and Kintail, Ross-shire, also gave evidence of the effects of the deer forest system in the country, and the evidence generally shows that the right hon. Gentleman has made assertions which are the reverse of the truth in regard to the matter. So far as even the Island of Lewis is concerned, the evidence given before the Commission shows that the people there thirty years ago were much more comfortable than they are at the present time: and I would ask the House to listen to the statement made by the Rev. Malcolm McRitchie, minister of the Free Church at Knock. Stornoway. He said—
  "Having been born in Lewis in the year 1803, and since intimately acquainted with every part of it, allow me to submit the following statement bearing upon the condition of the island as a whole, as contrasted with what existed within my own memory; and also a more particular statement as to the condition of things in the quoad sacra Parish of Knock, in which I have laboured for many years as a minister of the Gospel, and at a former period as teacher. My recollections of Lewis go back for seventy years, and I well remember the comfortable circumstances of the large population that then inhabited my native Parish of Uig. The population of the parish then would be about three thousand, as against the present population of 3,489: but how different the comfort and the circumstances of the population of sixty years ago! All the people were then in a state of comparative comfort, having arable land, and hill pasture for sheep and cattle, whereas now poverty and want largely predominate. Increase of population cannot here be the cause of the immense difference in the condition of the people. The present population of 3,489 is only some 448 more than fifty years ago, when the parish had a population of 3,041, and when the circumstances of the people were much more comfortable, and this is so in the face of the large increase in the value of the fishing industry since 1831, affording a source of income to the people many times larger now than it was then. Why, then, the unfavourable condition of the people as contrasted with their condition then? Simply
  1846
  because the large reaches of pasture ground then in their possession have been taken from the people since, and are formed into sheep walks and deer forests without any abatement of rents formerly charged, yea, with increase in many cases."
  After giving facts which are very important, he goes on to say—
  "Close upon 23,000 of the crofter population in Lewis pay only about £8,200 of the £20,000 rental yielded by the island, while the other £12,000 are paid by a few large farmers and sportsmen. The soil in possession of the large farmers is by far the best in Lewis, and yields, considering its quality, a far lower rent than the portion in possession of the crofters. The best of the land was taken for the purpose of forming those large farms, and the crofters were driven from them and huddled together on inferior ground."
  Another minister of the Established Church, the Rev. Angus Maciver, of Stornoway, says of the crofters—
  "Fifty or forty years ago they were quite comfortable and able to live well, but now they find it very difficult to make, a bare living. The population has increased enormously for the last forty years, and instead of the proprietors seeing to the comfort of these people by giving them more lands, they have just been deprived of them in proportion to the increase, and these made into sheep farms and deer forests. The result now is a congestion of population in the various districts where they reside: and unless a very decided change takes place soon, a chronic state of destitution will be the consequence."
  This evidence, it will be seen, is entirely opposite to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Then, again, the Report of the Royal Commission gives details with reference to four parishes as typical of the whole. The parishes chosen for the purpose are those of Farr in Sutherland, Uig in Lewis. Duirmish in Skye, and South Uist in the Long Island.
  MR. LAFONE: I rise to Order. Is it right that the House should endure this extended argument when the hon. Member has driven the whole of the Members on his own side out of the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER made no reply.
  DR. CLARK: The hon. Member has referred to the costermongers in his constituency; he should listen to the grievances which I have no doubt they would like to ventilate. I am engaged in bringing forward statements to show the mistakes which have been made

  1847
  and the fallacies of the arguments which have been urged in support of this proposal. The Royal Commission state in their Report that, taking the four typical parishes I have referred to, it appears that out of 3,266 families 309 depend upon the cultivation of the soil; that 825 families, comprising more than one-fourth of the population, are without land, and without regular access to local wages; and that thirty occupiers, or less than one per cent. of the whole community, are in the occupation of nearly two-thirds of the land. Now, this is a state of things that cannot go on. I contend that the Government are simply making the parishes into a pauper warren, and seriously affecting the moral standard of the people. The amount of this loan is a mere drop in the bucket. The only way to provide a remedy is to break up the large grazing and sporting tracts of land, and to restore the people to it. There is as good land in Caithness as anywhere, except in America, and the crofters can live upon it if allowed to do so. But they are paying higher rents than they are here. The right hon. Gentleman has an estate, but like a wise man he is selling it before this deer business bursts. In the eastern portion of the Highlands there is plenty of room, and the people are not satisfied, and ought not to be satisfied, until they have a chance of living comfortably in their own country. In Caithness the arable farms are so large that the railway will take you five or six miles through one immense farm, all arable and all cultivated. But take the cultivated land of Caithness, the best half is in the occupation of twenty-five persons; the remaining and worse half being left to 25,000 occupiers. Retribution, however, is taking place. The men who have improved the estates and made large farms are now ruined, and the bulk of their estates are in the hands of Trustees; while the £10 and £20 men are living comfortably, owning the land and getting a decent return from it. The men who have made improvements are not receiving from them three per cent. I will not oppose the Bill further, because I believe it may be useful to a section other than the crofters—the men who are fishermen only. These are the men who are
  1848
  wanted for the development of the Columbian fisheries, and I shall watch the experiment with interest, as you are endeavouring to relieve fishing congestion. I trust that both Governments will see that any company which is formed makes proper preparations in order that these people may not be exposed to hardships on their arrival.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [Lords].—(No. 413.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; read the third time, and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 6) BILL [Lords].—(No. 414.)
  Reported, without Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; read the third time, and passed.
  EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].—(No. 412.)
  Reported [Provisional Order confirmed]; read the third time, and passed.

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Leave given to the Select Committee on the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) to report their Observations to the House. — (Mr. Sidney Herbert.)
  Report, with Observations, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 314.]
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Orders of the House, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put until Monday next.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock till Monday next.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Earl of CLANWILLIAM.
Viscount DONERAILE.
(Claims to vote for Representative Peers for Ireland)—Ordered and Directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl of Clanwilliam and the Viscount Doneraile to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such reports to be sent to the said Clerk of the Grown in Ireland. And it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Reports of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Robert Bourke, G.C.I.E., having been created Baron Connemara of Connemara in the County of Galway—Was in the usual manner introduced.

CASUAL WARDS BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill he now read 2a.—(The Lord Henniker.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have to present a Petition in regard to this Bill from the Guardians of the Kensington Union, and I may be allowed, perhaps, to say that I entirely concur with the statements set form in it, and as it is very short, with your Lordships' permission I will read it—
"Without expressing any opinion as to the desirability, or otherwise, of the provisions of the Bill, your petitioners, as persons interested in the administration of the Poor
1774
Law, are of opinion that it is inexpedient that a measure embodying important questions of principle should be introduced into Parliament at so late a period of the Session when the full consideration which such questions require cannot be given to them."
That, my Lords, is signed by several members of the Board of Guardians of the Union.
LORD BASING: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble Friend in charge of the Bill whether he thinks it absolutely necessary that it should be passed into law within the very short period that now remains of the present Session, that is to say, without adequate discussion. The subject is a very important one. I do not deny that the provision of casual wards in the Metropolis should be made uniform, and ought to be made subject to some more satisfactory authority; bat it is not only the Guardians of certain Unions, who might have to be coerced into providing casual wards, who are concerned with the Bill, but the Metropolitan Asylums Board would have a right to say whether it is reasonable that such provision should be made without their view being heard. My Lords, I maintain that it is very important that they should be considered, being, as they are, about the most, influential and important body of voluntary workers in the Metropolis, or any other part of the Kingdom. I believe they have not I been consulted as to the very important part that is assigned to them by the Bill in relation to the management of casual wards.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed, in my private capacity, to say that I also presented a Petition the other day, very much of the same tenour as that presented by my noble Friend opposite, and I very much trust that the noble Lord who represents the Department will not press this Bill at this period of the Session. There is one clause in it which provides for an alternative body who would have the authority which the Board of Guardians at present have, and I think it is extremely undesirable, at this period of the Session, that they should be brought in in that way. I shall be very glad to

1775
hear that my noble Friend has no intention of proceeding with the Bill.
LORD HENNIKER: My Lords, this is a Bill of some importance, and one which will occupy the attention of Parliament hereafter; but, in the face of the feeling that has been expressed in this House and outside, that those who are connected with the different Boards of Guardians in London require more time to consider it, the President of the Local Government Board does not wish to press it, and therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will move that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Moved, "That the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged."—(The Lord Henniker.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am very glad that the noble Lord has taken that course. I have no wish to oppose the Bill on its merits; but I am glad on the simple ground stated in the Petition, namely, that the various Boards of Guardians of London have not had an opportunity of thoroughly considering a measure which is to them, of great importance. Otherwise, my Lords, the measure is one worthy of the consideration of your Lordships; but I think it is the more reasonable course not to press it.
LORD HENNIKER: I hope it will be understood, as I expressed to your Lordships, that the reason why I withdrew the Bill was that the different Boards of Guardians wish for more time to consider the measure, which, however, is one of great importance.
Motion agreed to; Order discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I think it due to those of your Lordships who addressed me upon one subject the other day that
1776
I should offer a few words of explanation on that subject—namely, with regard to the Christian Brothers. My noble Friend, Lord de Vesci, who is not, I think, in his place, asked me whether I would make a statement to-day with regard to the attitude of the Government on that question. In the course of the Debate on Monday night, it was intimated by several noble Lords from Ireland that they were under the impression that the Government had made some arrangements with the Christian Brothers' school's, whereby there should be some modification of the Conscience Clauses which they might be induced to accept,, and which would produce a novel state of things. My Lords, I wish to say—and I hope the noble Lords will accept the statement as genuine—that there has been no arrangement whatever with reference to any modification of the Conscience Clauses, constituted under legal sanction with especial reference to these schools. And, perhaps, if the House will allow me, I may read exactly what the First Lord of the Treasury did say upon that subject in the House of Commons. He said—
"The suggestion had been made that his right hon. Friend proposed, not merely to suggest to the consideration of the Commissioners two alternative Conscience Clauses, but also desired to have the other rules and regulations of the Board overhauled, with a view of modifying the present 3ystem, by which education was regulated in Ireland, Suggestions had been made that his right hon. Friend desired, either directly or indirectly, to open up the vexed and much controverted question of emblems. That was not the conclusion from anything his right hon. Friend had said, and did not express either the view or inclination of the Government. That being so, he thought both his hon. Friends, who were the only representatives that day of Ulster opinion on that question, would feel that the Government had not in any way attempted to import into this Bill any question to which legitimate objection could' be taken by any section of Protestant opinion in any part of Ireland."
My Lords, it is true, therefore, that, inasmuch as nothing new was imported into these Conscience Clauses, no change was contemplated in them. It is true that no mention whatever of these special schools is made in the Bill that I had the honour to introduce. Therefore I trust that your Lordships will understand that there has been nothing

1777
novel in that respect; that the only means whereby these schools can come under the operation of the Act is by adopting one of the two Conscience Clauses sanctioned under Parliamentary enactment: either the one under Rules by the first Act, or that defined in the Act of 1878.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Earl Cadogan.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: May I ask the noble Earl, whether it is the fact that they have the option now of having the Conscience Clause under the Act of 1878, or whether they are not obliged to conform themselves to the Conscience Clause under the Rules of the Commissioners?
EARL CADOGAN: The Government have taken no step themselves in that direction. All they have done is to refer the two Conscience Clauses for the consideration of the Commissioners; there has been no arrangement for any modification of those Conscience Clauses, or for any alteration in them.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is not exactly what I wished to ask. I want to know whether these schools have now the option. If they have not, I understand that it is referred merely for the consideration of the Commissioners that they should be able to adopt the Conscience Clause of 1878.
EARL CADOGAN: They have the option of adopting either as it is, as the law stands; both Conscience Clauses are under the authority of legal enactment. The first, it is true, was made by conditions and rules by the Commissioners under the powers of the Act; and the Conscience Clause of 1878 was made directly by the Act itself; but, as the law now stands, the Commissioners have the option, and all that was done by the Government was to refer the matter to the Commissioners as to which they should adopt.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The Commissioners have the option, no doubt, of imposing either Conscience Clause; but the school authorities, I apprehend, have not now the option, although they might have the option if the Commissioners so resolved.
EARL CADOGAN: That is the very point that has been referred to them.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee according to order.
Clause 1.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I think it is perhaps convenient that I should explain to the House the circumstances under which I feel it my duty to withdraw the Amendment that stands in my name. It is found that it will be impossible to accept any Amendments to this Billon the present occasion, owing to the position of affairs in another place, to which I cannot in detail refer; but I may simply say what I think many noble Lords know to be the fact that, if any Amendments are proposed, and if this Bill goes back to the other Mouse, the passing of it will be imperiled; and I am afraid it is very doubtful whether it would ever be allowed to become law. My Lords, we consider that it is of vital importance that this Bill should become law during the present Session. Undoubtedly there are Amendments which might very properly be made to the Bill, and those Amendments are, I am sorry to say, required by certain deficiencies in the Bill which the noble Marquess pointed out the other day, and in some of which I entirely concur. My Lords, I think I have sufficiently shown that concurrence by having myself placed on the paper an Amendment in the sense indicated by my noble Friend. But, all things considered, I am afraid there is no other course open to us to pursue. We are anxious that this measure should be passed during the present Session; we believe; that if Amendments are carried, and the measure returns to another place, for reasons which all your Lordships are acquainted with, the passing of the measure will be greatly imperilled; and, much as I regret it, our duty will be to resist any Amendments at this stage of the Bill.
*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, the position of affairs seems to be that your Lordships are asked to pass a Bill which, as I endeavoured to point out on the Second Reading, has fifteen clauses applying

1779
compulsion to Ireland, and one subsection absolutely sweeping those fifteen clauses away. My Lords, but for a sense of deference to your Lordships, I should say that the Bill is absolute nonsense. As to the Amendments that I have put on the Paper, I think they are all of them very important; but I should be very sorry to imperil the passing of this Bill, because I think it is a very important Bill, and will be of immense use to Ireland; and I certainly should be the last one to move an Amendment if I thought that by doing so I should imperil the Bill. But, my Lords, I think that this treatment of your Lordships' House is not at all what it ought to be, if I maybe allowed to say so; it is an absolute mockery that your Lordships should be asked to consider the Bill, and then that your Lordships should be told that you are not allowed to amend it in Committee—not even to dot an or cross act; therefore it might just as well not have been sent up to your Lordships; and, though I am not prepared to move any Amendment, I must protest most emphatically against this treatment of your Lordships' House. It is absolutely useless for your Lordships to sit here and consider a Bill, if you are not allowed to amend it. My Lords, under the circumstances, and after making this protest as strongly as I can, I shall certainly withdraw the Amendments that I have on the Paper, being told that if I move one of them, or carry one of them, it will lose the Bill; and it is for that reason alone that I take this course.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I cannot too strongly endorse every word that has fallen from my noble Friend. Speaking for the part of Ireland with which I am connected, I can only say that, if the Bill passes in its present form, it will be an absolutely dead letter; but of course, in the face of the statement made by my noble "Friend, the Lord Privy Seal, I can only acquiesce, and I also withdraw the Amendment that I was about to move in the place of Lord de Vesci, who is unfortunately absent.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I have heard the statement that has just been made by the Lord Privy Seal with some surprise, because it appears to
1780
place us in a very unfortunate and peculiar position. There was great anxiety expressed in another place for an early Dissolution, but they were assured that that was impossible, at any rate so early as was desired, because, if it took place, it would be impossible for this House to consider the Bills that were being sent up to it, and to make the Amendments which might be the result of their consideration. And now, my Lords, the Dissolution having been postponed, we are told that if we consider Bills, and make Amendments in them, it would be impossible for those Bills to pass, and therefore we must make no Amendments.
EARL CADOGAN: Not all Bills.
LORD HERSCHELL: This appears to be the most important of those that have come before this House. The other House have been told that it is impossible to dissolve so early as was anticipated, and was generally desired by many, on that account; and then, when we come to the consideration of Bills, we are told that if we consider them—and it is no use considering unless we can act upon that consideration—the Bills will be lost, because there is not time to consider them in the other House. With reference to the subject itself of this measure, I certainly cannot help feeling that, in introducing a measure of this description into Ireland for the first time, probably the end, which all of us desire, would be likely to be better attained ultimately by proceeding without framing too hard and fast a line, allowing a little power of relaxation beyond even what one would desire, perhaps, ultimately to see. You may mitigate the difficulty of enforcing it in the first instance, and may gradually bring about the state of things you desire more effectually, in that way than if, in the first instance, you tried to do too much. Personally, therefore, although I quite see that this is a very elastic clause, I can conceive that, not looking to the moment only, but looking forward, when you have introduced this system and gradually put it into force, you may ultimately find yourselves in as good a position as if you had done more in the first instance.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I am particularly interested in the Amendments that were to have been moved by the noble Marquess, because, as a Magistrate, I shall have to administer this Act, and I look forward with considerable apprehension as to how I am to put the Act into force. But certainly, in view of the very important character of this measure, I do not think that anything of that sort should stand in the way of the Bill being passed this Session. If it is found practically difficult to carry out, I have no doubt that the Lord Privy Seal, who has had considerable experience in the charge of Irish measures, may very likely have, in a short space of time—or whoever may happen to have the charge of Irish business—to deal with an Amendment of this important Act. But whatever defects there may be in the Bill, they should not be allowed to stand in the way of passing this very important measure.
Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

CORONERS' DEPUTIES BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
Clause 1.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this Bill proposes that—
"Every coroner in a county or borough shall appoint, by writing under his hand, a fit person, approved by the Lord Chancellor, not being an alderman or councillor of the Council I who appointed the coroner, to be his deputy."
To the appointment of a deputy in this way I take no objection; the only point that I raise is as to the authority that is to approve the appointment. It appears to me that, where the Council of a borough or county make the appointment of the principal, the Coroner himself, it would be better that they should approve of the deputy, rather than that the Lord Chancellor should. My Lords, if you trust them to appoint the principal, you can surely trust them to appoint the deputy; and I do not see any reason for bringing the Lord Chancellor into the matter at all. Objection is taken to this by some of the Councils,
1782
and I think reasonably. One objection which they take is that if the Deputy Coroner comes to be an applicant afterwards for the office of Coroner, the fact that he has been so approved may be raised and alleged as a reason for appointing him in the place of any others who are competitors with him. And I think the principle is an unsound one. I think that the person who appoints should be the person to approve the appointment of the deputy. I shall therefore move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "Lord Chancellor" and insert the words "Council who have appointed the Coroner"; and then there is a consequential Amendment, to leave out the word "the" and insert the word "such."
Amendments moved, in page 1, line 7, omit the words ("Lord Chancellor") and insert in lieu thereof ("Council who have appointed the Coroner"); and in line 8 omit ("the") and insert ("such").—(The Lord Herschell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble and learned Friend was good enough to call my attention to this point the other day. I am sorry- to say that at that time I did not know anything of the history of the Lull; but I understand now that it was originally a Bill introduced by a private Member, and afterwards taken charge of by the Government. With regard to the Amendment that my noble and learned Friend has moved, I confess that I do not regard it as of great importance one way or the other; but I have ascertained that this matter was the subject of Debate in the House of Commons, and a Division was taken upon it; and I should be disposed to leave the Bill as it is, and not to accept the Amendment. The reason, understand, that was urged for the Amendment, was that where the Council of a borough appoints the Coroner, there is no such provision. The freeholders, as your Lordships are aware, originally had the appointment of the Coroner, until, under the Local Government Bill, the appointment was given to the County Councils. The question, as I understand it, in the House of Commons, was whether there should be a uniformity in practice, both in the counties and boroughs, and as to

1783
that whether the counties should conform to the practice in the boroughs, or whether the boroughs should conform to the practice in the counties; and it was determined that the approval should be by the Lord Chancellor. My Lords, I am sure the Lord Chancellor, either the present or any future holder of the office, is not anxious to increase the number of his responsibilities; but I think the objection taken by my noble and learned Friend is not a very sound one. I do not think that making the appointment subject to approval means a veto; it is not that the Lord Chancellor intervenes in the question of an absolute preference for this or that particular officer; it is that, if there is any objection to him, the Lord Chancellor ma}r exercise a veto. The words are "with the approval," I am aware; but one knows what that means; that is practically giving a veto if there is any objection. And, my Lords, inasmuch as the Coroner is a judicial person, I think, if any veto is to be exercised, it should be exercised by some person entrusted with judicial powers, and not a popular body. I therefore must say that I am not able to accept the Amendment of my noble and learned Friend.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am rather surprised to hear the argument of my noble and learned Friend. It is no doubt a fair mode of putting the case to say that an officer, who is a quasi judicial officer, should be appointed by a judicial person.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say appointed.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That his appointment should be approved,—that argument is worthy of consideration. But in this case I cannot see what force there is in it, because Parliament has decided that, not only the deputy, but the principal officer, who is a judicial, or quasi judicial, officer, shall be appointed by the Council; therefore the matter is decided in the very teeth of the principle which the noble and learned Lord wishes to apply to this case. I have always heard that it was a principle that the greater included the less; but in the present case the Lord Chancellor seems to think that the less is of more importance than the greater, because he
1784
argues that in the case merely of appointing a deputy you want the con firmation of a high law officer, and not in the case of the Coroner him self. I see no object in the Lord Chancellor confirming in this case; he is less able to judge whether the deputy is a fit person than the County Council, because he cannot know the qualifications of the different people in the county likely to fill the office so well as the Council. There fore, why should we go out of our way to give to the Lord Chancellor a troublesome duty, which is not in the slightest degree necessary, and to take away from the counties that which seems an obvious part of their business; and why we should put this slight upon them I am unable to conceive.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, my noble and learned Friend is under a misapprehension, I think, in one respect. He said that there was a discussion in the other House on this point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So I was told.
LORD HERSCHELL: But I am told that the proposition for the insertion of "the Lord Chancellor," and insisting upon it, came from the Government, and, as I am further told, under the impression that the Lord Chancellor insisted upon it. So far as the Home Office were concerned, I am told that they were quite prepared to put it in the way I suggest, but they said they could not, because the Lord Chancellor insisted that the appointment should have his approval. Therefore I do not think it would be found that there would be the slightest difficulty in the other House in accepting my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All I can say is that the Lord Chancellor never heard of it till my noble and learned Friend was good enough to call my attention to the fact. But if it is the fact that the Government supported it in the other House, I must say at once that, without consulting them, I cannot express their opinion upon the point.
LORD HERSCHELL: Perhaps if I put the Amendment off till the Third Reading, my noble and learned Friend

1785
would inquire if that is so, and then, if there is no objection, except the supposed objection from himself, perhaps we might amend the clause at that time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no objection to put it off for the Third Reading, and in the meantime I will inquire. Speaking for myself, I must say that I regard with very great jealousy Bills being introduced by private Members and afterwards adopted by the Government without sufficient knowledge.
Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
Amendments made.
Clause 62.
*LORD WATSON: My Lords, I have an Amendment to move on Clause 62. I propose that your Lordships should delete the words in line 22, "nor as an election agent in any Parliamentary election." I may call attention to the fact that by Clause 61 the Commissioners are empowered to appoint a clerk, and the duties of the clerk are prescribed by that section; but not one of the duties required of the clerk by this Act has the smallest reference to Parliamentary elections. Clause 62 as originally framed forbade the clerk or any partner or any person in his employ or that of his partner to act as agent or solicitor in the trial of any offence in the police court. That enactment is a very proper one, which I should not ask your Lordships to disturb. Then it goes on to provide that these officials, who are in no wise connected with Parliamentary elections from the duties they are to perform, shall be incapable of acting as agents in any Parliamentary election—a provision for which I can find no justification whatever in the facts of the case, and which would, I am certain, put Parliamentary candidates, in many parts of Scotland, to a great deal of inconvenience and much disadvan-
1786
tage. I do not know that it is necessary to say more; but I should like to point out to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, that although this Bill has been before the country and before the House for the last ten years, this Amendment was not known until the other day to those parties who are personally interested in the matter. One reason, I observe, that was urged for not permitting them to discharge these duties was that they are well-paid officials. That may be true of one or two town clerks to the larger cities and burghs; but when I toll your Lordships that these are gentlemen of good standing and position in their profession, and that the rate of remuneration for the duties of police clerk ranges from the large sum of between £5 and £10 in some burghs to sometimes £50, and in a very few cases reaching or exceeding £100, I think your Lordships will not regard it as a proper provision to make them rely solely upon their salary as clerk. But, my Lords, there is a still further objection. I am sure that all those who are concerned in the administration of the law will feel the force of the observation that I make, namely, that legislation upon a subject which the Bill does not contemplate—which is beyond the scope of the Bill—ought not to be hidden away in the middle of a single clause in a Bill of five hundred and odd clauses. The Bill deals with police administration exclusively, and this Amendment, which was introduced at the eleventh hour, which occupies about half of one line in this enormous Bill, is a piece of legislation which has reference solely to the Representation of the People (Scotland) Art. My Lords, I move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment, in page 28, line 22, delete ("nor as an election agent in any Parliamentary elections.")—(The Lord Watson.)
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment, and I think that some of the reasons which the noble Lord has urged are very forcible, and will undoubtedly make impression upon your Lordships' minds. The one, I may say, which influences me most in

1787
accepting the Amendment is the one which the noble Lord put last, namely, that this is not really a subject that ought to be legislated upon in this Bill; it appertains to Election Law; and, if the change in the law that is proposed is right, as to which at the present moment I do not think it necessary to express an opinion, I think it ought rather to be made as an Amendment to the General Election Law of the country than, as the noble Lord says, hidden away in a Bill dealing entirely with municipal matters.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Further Amendments made.
Bill, as amended, agreed to: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be reported To-morrow.

TELEGRAPHS BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, before I move the Amendment which stands in my name, I should like just to explain to your Lordships what its effect would be. At present, as I read the Bill, the Post Office has complete power, if it thinks fit, either to place overhead wires in a neighbourhood, or, if the owners of the property object to overhead wires, to take them before the Railway Commissioners, and to put private individuals to a large expense in consequence of their thwarting this influential Government Department. My Lords, I think that is scarcely fair. I may tell your Lordships that many of the inhabitants of Wimbledon, who are thirty thousand in number, object strongly to overhead wires; and the County Council of Surrey, of which I have the honour to be a member, absolutely refuses to allow any overhead wires under any circumstances; therefore we cannot be surprised if those who are subject to this authority think they are rather hardly treated if the Post Office has the power, which I understand it will have by the Bill, to fasten overhead wires upon them. My Lords, the clause which I have drafted, and which I venture to move, would, I
1788
think, not do any injustice to the Post Office, and it would certainly be a great satisfaction to those who are immediately affected by it. I may be met by the remark that this clause ought to have been moved in another place when the Bill was in Committee. The simple reason why it was not is that Bills have been so hurried, I do not say intentionally, in another place during the last ten days or a fortnight that it would have been undoubtedly impossible for those affected by this provision to know what was going on. If they had been aware, this Amendment would have been moved in another place; as it is, I venture to move it now.
Amendment moved,
In Clause 1, page 1, after Section 2, add "Provided always, that the Postmaster General shall not consider that the inhabitants of any district or any Public Authority are debarred from the public convenience of telegraphic communication in any case where it is practicable to effect such communication by means of underground wires, and where such refusal to consent to the construction or maintenance of a work arises from the circumstance that the telegraphic communication is effected, or is intended to be effected, by means of overhead and not by means of underground wires."—(The Viscount Midleton.)
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I am unable to accept the Amendment; but I think there is a point which I must take beforehand. The noble Lord' moves it as a proviso to Clause 1, and it is obvious that it is a proviso to Clause 2. We must dispose of Clause 1 before I make the answer to what the noble Lord-has said.
Clause 1, without Amendment, agreed to.
Clause 2.
*LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, taking the proviso as moved to this clause, I must ask the House not to accept it. I think, if your Lordships will look at the clause, you will see that it is designed only to meet extreme cases, and is certainly one that will not be used unless it is absolutely necessary, because the delay and expense which will be caused by it, not only to private individuals, but also to the Government Department itself, will be sufficient guarantee, I think,

1789
that the machinery will not be put in force except in an extremely urgent case. The noble Lord has raised the question of overhead wires and underground communication. My Lords, I shall agree with him in the abstract that underground wires are very much better than overhead wires when that method of communication can be obtained, and probably the House will agree with that in the abstract; but the design of Clause 2 is only to provide for the extension of the telephone into sparsely populated districts and to places where the expense of carrying a wire underground would practically be prohibitive, and if this proviso were put in it would nullify Clause 2 altogether, and really would have the result of making one or two owners complete masters of the situation, enabling their prejudices to prevent all telephonic communication in the district. The provision which is contained in the clause was deliberately approved of by a Select Committee of the other House, and it is in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on telephone and telegraph wires appointed by the other House in 1885. It has been a long time before the public and Parliament, and I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment which is now moved. I have only to say finally that in many cases the working of the ordinary line of a telegraph, and still more of a telephone, would be seriously affected if it had to be laid underground. I do not say that that is of universal application, but the acceptance of this proviso might force the Post Office into an expense which would be prohibitive, and would altogether prevent the extension of telephonic communication to the districts to which it is intended to extend it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I very much regret the decision at which the Post Office has arrived. I think the proviso that I have ventured to suggest for insertion would only have done scant justice to those affected by it; but I do not propose at this late period of the Session to put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing upon the Amendment, especially as the Government have taken up their position,
1790
and I should probably be beaten if I did so.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3, 4, and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, the object of this Amendment which I have to move is to prevent the alteration of the law by a side wind in a matter on which it should not be altered without the full knowledge of all concerned. The Bill as it stands, especially Clause 6, would give the London County Council certain powers within the City of London which are now exercised by the Commissioners of Sewers, and the object of the Amendment is to maintain the existing law which was settled after careful discussion when the Electric Lighting Act of 1882 was passing through Parliament. The only effect of the Amendment, so far as we know, is to preserve the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Sewers in the City of London, but it has, of course, this other effect, of which I think your Lordships will approve: that if this Amendment is inserted there can be no difference between the Local Authority which has to exercise the powers under this Bill and the Local Authority which gives or withholds consent under the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. On those grounds, my Lords, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved,
To omit the word ("in") in line 32 to the word ("Council") in line 35, and insert ("of the Local Authority as defined by the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, for the district within which such electric line is laid.") (The Lord Balfour.)
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to; and to be reported To-morrow.

LAND COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, this Bill provides for an increase of sala-

1791
ries of the Land Purchase Commissioners, and for reducing their number when vacancies occur, if the business should permit. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Cadogan.)
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: I should like to ask my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal why this increase of salaries should not be for this year. The Land Purchase Commissioners apparently will have just as much to do this year as next year. What is the object for the increase of salaries being postponed for a whole year?
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, the Bill is practically a Treasury Bill, and is one with which this House, I am afraid, is incompetent to deal; but I will make inquiries, and will answer my noble Friend's question at the next stage.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to order).
Clause 9.
*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I have a further Amendment upon the Paper, which I beg to move in consequence of the statement made by my noble Friend when we were discussing this Bill on the Second Reading. At that time I objected to a smaller sum than £100, which is the sum named under the present law, being applied to drainage and other improvements in Ireland; and my noble Friend stated that this clause only applied to buildings, to which I should have no objection; but I think it is a ridiculous thing to talk of creating a drainage district and allowing an advance of £50. I, therefore, beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved, in page 3, line 27, after ("loan") to insert ("for the erection of buildings").—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, as I intimated on the last occasion that the Irish Government take the same view as the noble Marquess takes with regard to this clause, I see no objection to his Amendment if it is satisfactory to him.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have been requested, by my noble Friend, Lord Stalbridge, to move the Amendment that stands in his name; but, with your Lordships' permission, I will defer doing so till the Third Reading to-morrow, when I will submit it to you in an amended form.
Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION ACT (1882) AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this Bill has passed through the other House of Parliament by general assent; its object is merely to give the Commissioners of Works power to extend the Schedule of the Act of 1882, which refers to ancient monuments, and I trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Stanhope.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, this is a Bill to give more elasticity to the division of the money, which division is at present fixed by Act of Parliament as a certain amount for England and a certain amount for Ireland; this Bill will enable the money to be divided by the Treasury and the Agricultural Department together as it is required by the one country and the other; and I trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Viscount Cranbrook.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Viscount Cranbrook.)
*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, this is a very peculiar Bill; it is very much on the lines of the Bill your Lordships discussed the other night, but it is a thousand times worse for the landlords of Ireland; it proposes to put upon the fee a very large sum of money indeed—namely, loans advanced under previous Acts of Parliament. The Drainage Bill merely dealt with loans of the future; this Bill deals with loans of the past. Clause 6 states that—
"Sections 5 and 6 of the Public Works Loans Act, 1889, shall apply to any rent-charge created before the passing of this Act."
And then it goes on to say that it shall apply to any rent-charge created either before or after the Act of 1881; therefore it takes in the whole of the advances in Ireland. Now these Sections 5 and 6 of the Act of 1889 were
1794
so complicated that at the time I asked a question upon them, and in reply for the Government the noble Lord (Lord Cadogan) said he was not surprised at the feeling of uncertainty which I described as existing as to the exact interpretation to be placed on these sections, and he promised that the matter should be looked into, and he would give me further information. But, my Lords, from that day to this, I am sorry to say, my noble Friend never gave me that information. My Lords, the effect of applying those sections to this Bill is simply that it will add very much to the complication, because, if those sections were complicated as applied to the former Act, they will be a thousand times more complicated under this Bill as applied to many other charges of a different description. This Bill brings in rent-charges under other Acts which are entirely different from the Drainage Act; it brings in the 1881 charges as well, which are far more complicated. Therefore I think it is essential that we should know what we are passing into law before we pass this Bill with this clause in it, because nobody, up to the present time, has explained what those sections mean. The general object of this Bill is simply to make the landlords ultimately liable for loans made to tenants. My Lords, the landlords of Ireland have protested against these loans being made over and over again. We know perfectly well that those loans have very often been obtained by tenants and very badly applied; we have seen it all over the country. We have not had one word to say as to the granting of these loans; our protests have not been attended to; loans have been made to tenants by the Board of Works against our wish and advice. And now, my Lords, the Board of Works actually come down, at this period of the Session, when they know there is no attendance in another place, and slip in these clauses, which are virtually to place the re-payment of these loans upon the fee simple of the landlord's property. My Lords, in the Drainage Bill the other night, Her Majesty's Government took credit for the fact that, at any rate, the landlords would have a veto if one-third objected to the drain-

1795
age scheme; but here they have never had a veto at all, and Her Majesty's Government admit that a veto would be necessary if they are to be made responsible. My Lords, the sum of money is very large indeed. I have taken a Return of the 31st March, 1891, of the Board of Works itself, which says that their land improvement loans amount to 5,070 in number, and in amount to £1,304,053; and their district drainage loans amount in money to £608,000. It is fair to say that some of the former have been borrowed by the landlords, and therefore, of course, the landlords are liable to the amount borrowed by themselves; but a very large proportion was borrowed by the tenants, and it is sought to make the landlords responsible for that. But here, in addition, my Lords, is a loan to the tenants under the Land Act of 1881, amounting to £608,000, every bit of it borrowed by the tenants against the landlords' wish; and it is sought to put the whole of that, on the termination of the tenancy, upon the owner in fee. I do not think that a more monstrous proposal has ever been made; it is nothing but unadulterated robbery. The noble Marquess, the Prime Minister, the other night said that somebody must pay; but surely the noble Marquess would not wish the wrong person to pay. No doubt the Board of Works has committed itself; and I think it would not be at all a bad plan if a Committee of your Lordships' House inquired into the proceedings of the Board of Works in Ireland; I can assure your Lordships that they require looking into carefully. The Board of Works advance money to all sorts of people who are incompetent to repay it, and now, because they have made a number of bad debts which are on their books, they are going to try and make the persons who did not borrow the money repay them, in order to try and put the matter right. What would your Lordships think of any tradesman, who, because he had bad debts, tried to make someone else pay them? That is very much what the noble Marquess hinted at the other day on the Drainage Bill. My Lords, I pass to another point—one which was very carefully
1796
debated. I am not sure whether the Amendments were put in in your Lordships' House or not; but under Section 31 of the Act of 1881 the Board of Works were only allowed to lend the money to a tenant when they were satisfied that the tenancy or security which the tenant might have to offer was such as to insure repayment of principal and interest within such a number of years as the Treasury might fix. That is what the Board of Works have not done, to my certain knowledge. And Sub-section 52 further expressly provided that any such loan should not have priority over rent—and yet here, by this Bill, it is to have priority over everything the landlord possesses—unless the landlord was a party to the advance, and agreed to postpone the rent to the advance. But, my Lords, the landlord did not agree in these cases. And it was further provided that the loan shall not have priority over any charge or incumbrance of the tenant of which the Board of Works may have had notice in writing given them before making the advance. The effect of that is that the landlord, the owner in fee, is to pay this charge, and anybody else, from whom the tenant has borrowed money, will come in before the landlord, the owner in fee, if he has given notice; and the incumbrancer, who has given notice, has priority over the landlord's interest, and even over the Board of Works claim. This, again, is a monstrous suggestion. But, my Lords, there is another point. Last year the noble and learned Lord mentioned, when the Drainage Bill was before the House, that there was a suit which had not been decided in Ireland, the case of the "Attorney General v. Ireland." That was a suit for the recovery of £1,007 of these loans. In the case of Mr. Ireland, the tenancy had come to an end, and the Board of Works sought to make him pay for moneys that the tenant had borrowed, and for all the arrears due by the tenant. That case was tried in the High Court of Justice, Ireland, and it was unanimously dismissed with costs. Therefore this clause in the Bill is to over-ride that decision. And, my Lords, more than that, in this Bill there is a provision

1797
in the Schedule to wipe out that claim as against Mr. Ireland; and therefore Mr. Ireland, because he took action last year, is to have his claim wiped out, and every other landlord in Ireland is to pay the interest on these charges. Nothing in the world, I think, can better show how unfair this proposal is. My Lords, I pass on to Clause 7 of this Bill, by which it is proposed—
"In addition to any sum payable in respect of principal and interest under any loan hereafter granted, or in respect of any rent-charge hereafter granted"—
my Lords, I am not a draftsman, but I should have thought a rent-charge is not granted; I should have thought that "created" was the proper word there—
"by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, there shall be paid to the said Commissioners one shilling in the pound on the said sum as receiver's fees thereon."
The effect of this clause is that the landlord will have, in addition to the other charges placed upon him, a charge of a shilling per cent. to pay if the tenant makes default, and the rent-charge is not paid within one month. I think that is a most monstrous proposal. What is proposed to be done is simply that a receiver is to be established to recover this debt if the tenants do not pay, and the charge of a shilling is to be added for the payment of the receiver's fees. Naturally, my Lords, if a tenant does refuse to pay, and the Board of Works can come down on the owner in fee, and can force the owner to pay-not only the interest on the original grant, but this receiver's fee as well, they will do so. It is a curious thing, but that entirely over-rides the Act of 1887, by which, in any proceedings against the tenant, including proceedings by the Board of Works, where there is an order for payment by instalments, if the tenant proves that he cannot pay any charge, he is to have a reasonable time given him for payment. If the tenant is to have time without a receiver being put on, why should not the landlord have time also? I cannot see why there is to be one law for one class and another law for another class. My Lords, I pass to Clause 9. Here is a clause which I
1798
believe does not exist in any other Act of Parliament at the present time, as I am informed on good authority. Here is a subordinate department in Ireland given power to levy charges upon the fee. I draw noble Lords' attention to this, because I think it is a legal question—
"A certificate purporting to be under the common seal of the Commissioners of Public: Works in Ireland shall be conclusive evidence—(i) That any sum stated therein to be due to the Commissioners and to be charged on any property named therein is so due and charged."
That is to say, if the Board of Works. Ireland—and I say distinctly that the Board of Works, Ireland, is not to be trusted—choose to charge any property in Ireland with a sum of money, the owner of that property has no appeal whatever. That again, I think, is an outrageous proposal. In this very case of Mr. Ireland who appealed against the decision of the Board of Works, and saved paying £1,007 in costs, he would have been unable to have appealed under this clause. Why should this subordinate Department of the Treasury in Ireland be given this power to place any charge upon any property without any appeal whatever? My Lords, I shall certainly, in Committee on this Bill, move the rejection of these clauses, or at any rate try to effect their amendment. I should prefer the rejection of them, and I hope the noble Lord will agree that those clauses should be left out of this Bill.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I think this Bill is the most flagrant instance of ex post facto legislation that I have ever seen since I had the honour to have a seat in this House. The original Act placed the tenants in this position: that, upon the interest which had been created by them under the Land Act, they were permitted to borrow a certain sum of money; that sum of money and the objects to which it was to be applied were to be defined and regulated by the Board of Works. Ireland—no other body had any responsibility, except the Treasury, who were behind the Board of Works. The landlord was not consulted; he had no power of objection, although he might be perfectly aware that the money obtained would not be honestly

1799
spent, and that the objects professed to be aimed at were not the real objects for which the money was borrowed. Instances occur to everyone, who has any knowledge of the course of things in Ireland, in which such things have actually been done. My Lords, what happens? A Bill is introduced into another place at the fag end of the Session. The Members who represent the interests of the tenants are thoroughly alive to every dodge and device by which a further portion of the landlords' interest can be confiscated. My Lords, I do not blame them in the least; they are there to represent a particular class, and they do their duty admirably; but the landlords of the South and West of Ireland are almost entirely unrepresented in another place, and the consequence is that clause after clause has been slipped into Bills affecting Ireland which never would have passed your Lordships' House for a single moment if the full purport of them had been understood. I cannot at all subscribe to the doctrine of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, that somebody must pay. Of course somebody must pay. A person who has made an unfortunate advance always has to pay, and why not the Board of Works and the Treasury? If they think proper, without consulting anyone interested in the land, to place a particular value upon a particular security, and they find out that they have made a bad bargain, why should they be allowed to add another security over which they ought to have no control? It is not common fair play between man and man. If the landlords are eventually to be mulcted in the advances made upon the security of the tenants' interest, let the thing be fairly stated, and let them have an opportunity of objecting, if they think fit, to the advance which is sought to be made. And now, because the Court of Appeal has wisely decided that they are under no liability, we have a Bill brought into the other House, and finally brought up to this House, which is to place upon them a liability which does not attach to them at present by law, but is to be placed upon them by ex post facto legislation on the part of your Lordships' House. I really
1800
trust that a Bill, which so manifestly infringes the principles upon which your Lordships' House has always acted, will not be allowed to become law in its present shape. Personally I would far rather see it thrown out altogether than passed with these clauses in it to which the noble Marquess has called attention. I do hope that the common principles of fairness will not be departed from in this instance, and that your Lordships will decline to recognise the claim on the part of the Board of Works, which I think never should have been set up, and which, if any private individual or company of any kind were to make, would be scouted out of your Lordships' House with contempt. I cannot understand upon what principle of law or equity legislation is to take place in the direction indicated by this Bill, and why a body of men, who have never had any opportunity of giving their opinion on these advances, and who, in many instances, derive no interest from the advances when made, should be made the scapegoat for the indolence or ignorance of the Board of Works. It is the old classical principle, Delirant reges plectuntur Achivi. But I do not see why that most unenviable position should be forced upon the landlords by your Lordships, who have had nothing to say, and who, in many cases, would, if they had been able to, have objected in the strongest manner.
LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, I ventured the other evening to make a few remarks upon another Bill, and all I wish to say upon this Bill is that what I said upon that occasion applies with double force to the Bill before your Lordships now. I am not going to repeat those words, but I merely wish to point out that the force of this Bill is in Clauses 6 and 7, the object of which is to relieve the Treasury and the Board of Works from what they have undertaken to see done at the expense of the landlord. What they undertook was to give the tenants loans for carrying out improvements upon their farms, and at the same time they were pledged to Parliament to send down competent men to see that those works were properly carried out, and that they had proper security for the

1801
repayment of the loan. My Lords, what is done on this occasion by these clauses? It is proposed to refer to certain sections in a former Act, the force of which is not at all clear, as the noble Earl said in response to a question of the noble Marquess a little time ago. The effect of that is to try and over-ride these clauses, and make the landlord responsible for advances that he has had no voice whatever upon. And when a tenant borrows in Ireland under the Board of Works, he is not even bound to give the landlord any notice whatever. I have frequently found my tenants have borrowed large sums, and have spent them, without any knowledge of myself or my agent that any such sum was borrowed or supposed to be expended. I think this is a Bill of such great importance, and does such gross injustice to the landlords, that I must ask the Lord President, who has charge of the Bill, seriously to consider what the position is. I suppose, if we propose to make Amendments in this Bill, when it conies into Committee we shall be precisely in the same position as the noble Earl just now told us he was in with regard to the Education Bill, because it will throw the Bill out; but, as the noble Marquess has said, I would far rather see the Bill thrown out altogether than that these clauses should be allowed to stand. The noble Marquess said that he thought an inquiry was necessary with regard to the proceedings of the Board of Works, Ireland. In that I entirely agree, and I will mention to your Lordships a case that came under my observation. A railway was to be made, and it was necessary for the Board of Works to send down a gentleman to examine the course of the line, and see whether it was correct; he was called before the Privy Council; I was one of those at that time opposing this line, and, being anxious to get at the bottom of this gentleman's opinion, I stood beside counsel, and made him cross-examine him very closely as to what he knew of the line. He said he had been down and examined it, and knew, of his own opinion, that it was a proper line, properly engineered, and so on. When we cross-examined him, it came out that he had taken an outside car and
1802
travelled over the road that runs in some parts almost parallel, it is true to the line, but still, except in a very few instances, it was not at all near the line. Yet he came to the Privy Council to swear that the line was a proper one, and that he had thoroughly examined it. That case was a very strong one, and it strikes me as showing that the Board of Works require overhauling. I know that these loans, which the Board of Works have granted to tenants, have not been carefully spent, and that they have been given in many cases where they ought not, and the money has not been expended at all, but has been employed, in many instances, to pay the rent. My Lords, I protest strongly against these clauses, and I hope the Lord President will see his way to amend the clauses in Committee, or to withdraw the Bill.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, I am rather unexpectedly, owing to the absence of my noble Friend the head of the Government, in charge of this Bill. Generally speaking, the Public Works Loans Bills, and Bills of a financial character, pass without opposition, and in fact upon the present occasion I understand there is no opposition to the passage of the Second Reading that I have moved to-day. With regard to the objections that have been raised by the noble Lords behind me, to a person listening to them I am bound to say they have considerable force, and, if the clauses have the meaning which they put upon them, it seems to me that there are objections to be taken to them; that is to say, if their view be correct, which it is very difficult to ascertain at a moment's notice. But if it be correct that persons are made responsible for loans which they gave no authority for borrowing, and then the charge is made upon their fee simple, though the loan was never advanced to themselves, or with their consent, that seems to me rather a strong measure. I can only say that I will take care that this matter is represented to my noble Friend in charge of the Bill, and no doubt he will be able to give some explanation of the subject.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MAURITIUS LOAN BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, I move the Second Reading of this Bill, and I desire to express, on behalf of the Government, and I am quite sure I may express it on the part of all your Lordships, our deep regret at the calamity which has overwhelmed the Colony of Mauritius, and our sympathy with the sufferers. I regret to say that the accounts which were first sent over by telegraph have unfortunately been confirmed by the despatches I have received. I may mention to your Lordships that there have been 1,200 deaths, and a vast number of wounded; that the damage to Government property and private houses is estimated at about £193,750; the injury to the crops is calculated at fifty per cent.; and to the factories and nulls there is a loss of 2,500,000 rupees. Altogether the Governor informs me that he is under-estimating the loss of every kind at 18,000,000 rupees, which is about £1,162,500. As your Lordships are aware, the Lord Mayor, at my request, was kind enough to open a subscription list, and appointed a Sub-Committee to deal with the case; very good work has been done by that Committee; and contributions have been very liberal. And perhaps I may express the pleasure with which I have heard of the kindly sympathy shown in a very practical manner by the inhabitants of the neighbouring island of Réunion. When they heard of this calamity, they called a public meeting, subscriptions flowed in, and a liberal contribution was sent over at once to Mauritius. My Lords, I also desire to express my admiration—an admiration which your Lordships will also feel—for the calm and gallant manner in which this calamity has been faced by all—by officials and unofficial; by poor and rich; and also for the exertions that have been made
1804
to meet the suffering of the poorer classes. My Lords, I have nothing more to add, because I am quite sure that your Lordships will have great pleasure in giving a Second Reading to the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Knutsford.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not like to let this occasion pass without saying on my own behalf, and I am sure on behalf of everyone on this side of the House, how entirely I agree with every word that has been said by the noble Lord. Everyone who has heard of the frightful calamity which has befallen the Colony of Mauritius must feel the deepest and most profound sympathy with the population, not only for the immense loss of property, but for the even more terrible loss of life incurred on this occasion. My Lords, I do not think I can add anything further, except to say that we only hope that with the energy, and also the calmness, in meeting this calamity, which the noble Lord says has been evinced, the inhabitants of Mauritius may, with the assistance given, most properly, by the Government, and most cordially concurred in by this House, be able to restore Mauritius to its former condition of prosperity.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.

SHOP HOURS BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I shall not have to detain your Lordships many minutes in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, because the provisions of it are, with one exception, identical with the provisions of the Act passed in 1886 for three years, and which has been continued up to the present time. That Act was passed after the subject of shop labour had been most carefully investigated by a very strong Select Committee. The exception to which I referred is the

1805
insertion of Clause 8, which provides for the appointment of Inspectors. The Bill as originally introduced into the House of Commons this year included women, and also a clause for inspection. Upon the question of the inclusion of women in the Bill, there was a considerable discussion in the other House, and the Bill was read a second time upon the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The Select Committee, who took evidence, and went thoroughly into the case, cut out the words by which women were introduced, and in fact restored the Bill to the same state as the Act of 1886, except as to the clause for inspection. The Inspection Clause as originally introduced in the House of Commons provided for the appointment of Inspectors by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, following the precedent of the Factories and Workships Act, 1878; but this was altered by the Select Committee, and I think properly altered, and, as your Lordships will see, by Clause 8 the appointment of Inspectors is now vested in the Council of any county or borough; and, in the City of London, in the County Council. I therefore ask your Lordships, as this is a Bill the principle of which has been approved and acted upon ever since 1886, the only difference being from the necessity of giving more effect to that principle by the appointment of Inspectors, to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Knutsford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): As my noble Friend is in charge of the Bill, I will ask him a question which I should naturally have asked of one of my noble and learned Colleagues: namely, whether he will be good enough to explain what is the meaning of Clause 6? I have been endeavouring to bring my intelligence to understand it, and I confess I am unable to do so. Clause 6 says—
"Where the employer of any young person, as defined in this Act, is charged with an offence against this Act, he shall be entitled upon information duly laid before him."
What does that mean?
LORD HERSCHELL: I think "before" must be intended to be "against." I have been endeavouring to understand it, and that is the only conclusion that I can come to. And I do not understand why all these provisions are repeated.
*LORD KNUTSFORD: It is intended to make the Act permanent, and, therefore, it is thought more convenient to re-enact the whole.
LORD HERSCHELL: But when one is obliged to look at it again—and we are now asked to pass the Bill—there seems to have been some slip, and it is desirable to put it right if it is to be a permanent Bill. It is nonsense as it stands now. Then Clause 10, I think, needs a little looking into—
"Nothing in this Act shall apply to shops where the only persons employed are at home, that is to say, are members of the same family there, or to members of the employer's family dwelling in a house to which the shop is attached."
I understand the last part of it: that nothing is to apply to members of the employer's family dwelling in a house to which the shop is attached; but, if you look at the former part, nothing is to apply to shops where the only persons employed are at home, that is to say, are members of the same family dwelling there. I suppose the latter part is the definition of being at home. But those, I suppose, need not be the employer's family, if they are all of the same family. Yet those persons are only exempted if they are living in the shop—not if they are living in a house to which the shop is attached.
*LORD KNUTSFORD: I have only just had this Bill entrusted to my care. Those two sections have been in full force, and I do not know that any misapprehension has arisen upon them, or any question, since 1886. But as regards Clause 6, it appears to me it means that where the employer of any young person as defined in this Act is charged with an offence against this Act, he shall be entitled, upon information duly lodged before the Court—that is what it must mean—to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court.
LORD HERSCHELL: That is the meaning, but it must mean that there

1807
is to be an information laid against the person brought before the Court—that the employer shall be entitled to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender, upon information duly laid against him, brought before the Court.
LORD THRING: My Lords, I can explain from memory exactly what is intended. This is a clause that has been inserted in a great many of the Factory and Workshops Acts, and it means that if a man is brought up before a Court, and, when he comes up, pleads that the offence was, without his privity and knowledge, committed by one of his under people, the Court may, if it is satisfied that the master was not to blame have that person summoned in his place.
LORD KNUTSFORD: This is a clause that was in the Act of 1886, and has been in force ever since; but I think that what the noble and learned Lord opposite suggests will probably meet the case. I will call attention to the further point in Clause 10, which also has been in operation since 1886. I understand it to mean, members of the same family dwelling there, or members of the employers' family dwelling in a house to which the shop is attached.
LORD HERSCHELL: But there is the shop.
LORD KNUTSFORD: No; there may be a family dwelling there, or there may be members of the employer's family in a house to which the shop is attached.
LORD HERSCHELL: But if they are not members of the employer's family, I think the noble Lord will see that they must live in the shop to come within the clause. The truth is that this Act of 1886 was one that received the Royal Assent on the day of the Dissolution in 1886, and no doubt came up to this House without ever being seen.
LORD KNUTSFORD: But it has been through two Select Committees in another place, and has received their approval.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Perhaps it may have a better fate this time, as the Dissolution has not come so rapidly, and the noble Lord may be
1808
able to introduce some Amendment into it.
LORD KNUTSFORD: I should not like to lose the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only express my satisfaction that, as these sections have been in force for so many years, they have not come before me in my judicial capacity.
LORD KNUTSFORD: No doubt if they had they would have received an excellent interpretation at the noble and learned Lord's hands; but it is something in their favour that they have been in operation during these years, and no doubt has been raised upon them.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

NORTH BORNEO.
QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
*LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, in laying before you a few observations relating to affairs in Borneo, I promise to be very brief. The subject is one which well merits the attention of Parliament, and specially at the present time, in view of the nature of the difficulties with which the North Borneo Company are contending, and which threaten to make it difficult to maintain, in the vast territory committed to their care, that well ordered government which it was the intention that they should exercise. Perhaps it is not superfluous to mention that, if you regard Australia as a continent, Borneo is the largest island in the world, abounding in vegetable and mineral resources; and, though perhaps not adapted for settlement, yet offering a wide field for British capital under European supervision. Borneo lies on the high road of our great trade to China and Japan. Its north-west coast, with which I am more particularly dealing, is hundreds of miles in extent, and it possesses several secure and capacious harbours. At Labuan and the mouth of the Brunei river good coal is found on the surface. In short you have every condition that would make Borneo suitable for a coaling station, which, in certain contingencies, we should scarcely like to see in possession

1809
of a hostile Power. Omitting earlier, but not unimportant, history, I may mention that in 1877 Sir Alfred Dent acquired from the native chiefs a perpetual lease of certain extensive territories, and that he applied for a charter of incorporation of a Company that he was about to form. After some considerable delay a charter was granted in 1881; and finally, in 1888, a British Protectorate was established over the whole of North Borneo. I can only approve of the policy which led to the granting of that charter and the establishment of a British protectorate. The country was derelict. The native chiefs were feeble, ignorant men wielding no authority. My own impression of the necessity for British occupation was very materially strengthened in the course of a morning call which I had an opportunity of paying some five years ago upon the Sultan of Brunei. A charter having been granted, the British North Borneo Company was formed. The Directorate included the noble Lord (Lord Elphin-stone), who I hope will say a few words upon the present occasion, and it included Sir Harry Keppel. The Chairman was Sir Rutherford Alcock, who, after years of efficient service, has lately retired in favour of Mr. Martin, the well-known banker. The authorised capital of the Company was £2,000,000 sterling; of this sum about £500,000 has been actually subscribed. The returns from the capital, which has been contributed by the shareholders, have been hitherto scanty; and I am bound to add that the shareholders of the North Borneo Company have shown exemplary patience. In saying this I make no reflections upon the administration of the affairs by the North Borneo Company. On the contrary, I desire to say that they have achieved a very large measure of success under extremely difficult circumstances. It must be obvious that in first setting up an orderly and civilised Government in an undeveloped country, inhabited by pirates and barbarous nomad tribes, the expenditure must be largely in excess of the receipts. Everything has to be formed; highways have to be made; a
1810
Civil Service has to be established; police have to be organised; and communications, both internal and external, have to be created. Since the first constitution of the North Borneo Company the expenditure has largely exceeded the receipts. No doubt the income is increasing, but the expenditure has more than kept pace in most years with that increase. And, unfortunately, the income is derived from precarious sources. The main source of income is the planting of tobacco. In the1 year 1890 a sum of more than £36,000 was obtained by the sale of land for the purposes of plantations. Unfortunately, partly from the inexperience in first cultivation in a new country, and partly from the uncertainty of the clin e, the produce from the tobacco plantations, although of excellent quality, has been disappointing in quantity. The result is that at the present time the income derived from the sale of lands and from the plantations has temporarily ceased. The income derived from taxes and customs depends, almost as much as does the sale of land, upon the fluctuating fortunes of the tobacco planters. The income of the North Borneo Company varies with the number of Chinese employed upon the plantations. To put it shortly, the total income of the North Borneo Company has fallen from £101,000 in the year 1890 to £70,000 in the year 1891; meanwhile the expenditure has increased, and is now greatly in excess of the income. It must be obvious that it is extremely difficult to make a reduction of expenditure in Borneo in the present condition of that country. The main expenditure is incurred in the maintenance of a police force, and, if you largely reduce that police force, you run the risk of depriving the planters and their property, of that protection which it is the first duty of a Government to afford. In view of the financial difficulties, which I think I have sufficiently indicated, it seems to me that at no distant date it may be necessary for the Imperial Government to step in. My Lords, I would venture to say that, if that step should some day be taken, it would not be a misfortune for Borneo. The administration of the Government must in many

1811
Departments be much more efficient under the Crown than under any Commercial Company. I will illustrate this position by one or two practical examples. For the maintenance of law and order in North Borneo a Sikh police force under English officers is kept up. The Sikh police force is recruited from retired soldiers from the Indian Army. It must be evident that a Commercial Company can have no advantages for organising such a force as I have described. If you turn to the Civil Government, it must be clear that a service under the Crown has more prestige and attractions in many ways than can be offered by a private company. The Crown offers a wider field; it offers better prospects of promotion. The Government can give pensions. A Commercial Company, not sure of its future, cannot do so; and, unless you give pensions, it is extremely difficult to constitute a permanent Civil Service animated by a thoroughly loyal spirit. My Lords, I have had more opportunities than fall to the lot of most men of seeing the members of our Colonial Service at their work, and I desire to bear my hearty testimony to the efficiency and the zeal and the patriotism with which they discharge their duties in distant places, very far away from public observation; and I can desire nothing better for North Borneo than that it should be committed to their care. I feel confident that, if Borneo should ultimately be placed under the direct authority of the Crown, the progress will be more rapid, planters will feel more confidence, and railways and other public works, which are necessary for the development of the country, will be more readily undertaken. My Lords, whenever the time arrives when, in the judgment of the Government, it is proper that they should step in, as I have suggested they should, and take a general control over North Borneo, various plans will have to be considered. It might possibly be easily arranged that a Deputy Governor or Resident Administrator should be appointed in that country, acting under the supervision of the Governor of the Straits Settlements, and charged with the collection of revenue and the maintenance of order.
1812
It is quite clear that a Resident Officer of the Crown would be better able to deal with the local requirements than a Board of Directors consisting of busy men sitting in London, and unable to visit the countries over which they have no control. If North Borneo should hereafter be treated as a Crown Colony, the North Borneo Company might be kept alive as a land-owning company, and, by gradual sales of land, they might be able to repay to the shareholders the sums of money they have advanced under the encouragement of the Government, and for a great public object. Under any arrangement that is made, I feel sure that those who have supported the North Borneo Company, under the encouragement of a Royal Charter, would find, their claims duly and properly considered. Another alternative that suggests itself would be an extension of the control, now exercised by Rajah Brooke over Sarawak, over the whole of North Borneo. Sarawak is an admirable example of what can be accomplished in substituting order for anarchy, and civilisation for barbarism, by a single English family unaided by the Government, and working with a free hand. But the objections to giving that increased responsibility to Rajah Brooke, or any individual, are obvious—you place vast territories under the control of one man, who may or may not have a competent successor. There is a third and last alternative which I would suggest for the consideration of the Government. It is one that seems to me the preferable solution. It would be that a comprehensive plan should be devised under which the territories of the North Borneo Company, Sarawak—should the Rajah consent—the protected States of the Malay Archipelago, and the Straits Settlements, should be combined into one large colony. In some of these protected States, which are more advanced, there is a surplus; in others, which are less advanced, there is a deficit. The total revenues now raised from the territories I have mentioned amount to £1,500,000 a year. With such a large revenue it is plain that great things might be done. It would be possible to relieve the

1813
British taxpayer of any further charge for the maintenance of a coaling station at Singapore; the native territories might be more rapidly developed than at present; mines, which are now neglected in these native territories, might be worked; the Colony of the Straits Settlements, which now practically consists of two sea ports, being extended to the mainland, might probably, at no distant date, be connected by a railway with our great Indian Empire. My Lords, I desire to acknowledge that I owe the suggestion which I have ventured to place before your Lordships, largely, to Mr. Croaker, a gentleman whom I had the honour of conveying to Borneo at the time he was temporarily appointed to take charge of the duties of Governor of North Borneo, and whose long service under Rajah Brooke, and now under the North Borneo Company, make him an exceedingly competent authority. I may urge that the suggestion that I have made, for the adoption of a comprehensive plan for dealing with the countries which I have brought before your Lordships' notice, is in harmony with the process of grouping and federation which of late years we have adopted in various parts of the Empire—certainly to the local advantage, and greatly for the promotion of good relations between the mother country and all parts of the Empire. In conclusion I would submit to your Lordships that, sooner or later, it may become necessary, and I think it is already desirable, that the Government should exercise a more direct authority over North Borneo. With or without Imperial control, it is clear that the Imperial Government never can be absolved from responsibility for the good government of territories over which it permits the British Flag to wave.
*LORD ELPHINSTONE: Before the noble Lord answers for the Government I, as one of the Directors of the British North Borneo Company, would like to give a brief narrative of what the Company has done, and also at the same time to call your Lordships' attention to the state of the country now, as compared with what it was previous to the year 1881, when, by the grant of a Royal Charter, we assumed all the rights over a territory of 131,000 square
1814
miles, with a seaboard of nine hundred miles, and with a population estimated at 150,000—I say estimated at 150,000, because, although we have endeavoured by a census to arrive at what the population really is, there has been so much difficulty in numbering the scattered tribes in the interior that we are obliged to take a rough estimate. My Lords, when I first visited the country over forty years ago the greater part of the country, so far as we could see from the rivers which we went up, was covered with a dense forest, and, as I have good reason to remember, an almost impenetrable jungle. There was no industry, no trade, no revenue; slavery and kidnapping were rampant; there was no security for life or property; and, to put the whole thing in three words, "Might was right." On the east coast, where our seat of government now is, the population was sparse, and the settlements very scattered; and this was due entirely to the dread of the ravages of pirates by sea and to the very natural dread of head-hunters on shore. I think it is scarcely too much to say that every man living on or near the coast was a pirate at heart, and, whenever he had an opportunity, he was a pirate indeed; and it was for the purpose of destroying a strong piratical stockade, and dispersing a band of pirates, that the ship, to which I then belonged, was sent to the north east coast of what is now British territory. The last piratical raid upon our coast was in 1879, when the Balagnini tribe carried off or murdered sixty-five of the Bajans or Sea Gipsies — a wandering race living entirely in boats upon the sea shore. I referred to the fear and dread of head-hunters. I do not know whether your Lordships know about them. They are what one might call the "Braves"; they were supposed to be brave men, and at any rate they considered themselves so; but I think your Lordships will agree with me that a more cruel, cool-blooded, cowardly system of murder among any class of people never existed. Originally it was the custom to take the heads of their enemies who were killed in battle, and these were kept as trophies; but gradually it came to be considered as the correct thing that a man should be in possession of a certain number of

1815
heads. It is said, and I believe with truth, that the success of a young man, aspiring to the hand of a dusky maiden, depended upon his being in possession of one or more heads. And the victims might be members of a friendly tribe, or might be his personal friends. They were taken by treachery and ambush—it might be man, woman or child—a head was a head, and a head had to be taken. Only a few years ago many of the houses, or huts, were ornamented with a string of heads hung up round about them; and it even went so far that there would be a periodical balance of accounts between tribes; the number of heads taken or lost would be counted; and, if any deficiency were found upon the part of the stronger tribe, that deficiency was very soon made up. That was only one of the difficulties of old customs that we had to contend with. There was another custom, even more ghastly, and that was the custom of human sacrifice. The object of this human sacrifice was to enable the living to send messages to their dead friends or relatives; and for this purpose they would take a slave, bind him, and after certain religious ceremonies had been gone through, one after the other stuck a spear into him an inch or two—not to kill him—and at the same time give him a message to a dead friend. This went on till the victim died of severe wounds, freighted with messages which I have not the slightest doubt he never delivered. That custom still goes on—not in our country, but further south. There the custom is, if the people wish to send a message to a dead friend, that they club together and buy a slave, and, after the religious ceremonies are gone through, they all together thrust their spears into him, giving him a message for the dead. That at any rate has the advantage of being instantaneous death; whereas the old custom was what I might describe as slow torture. That was the state of the country up to not long before the grant of the Royal Charter. In our country, as in Sarawak, all these horrible practices are put an end to; order has been established; slavery and kidnapping are very rapidly being abolished; religion is being attended to—we have Protestant and Roman Catholic missions, with churches and
1816
schools; 650,000 acres have been leased for the cultivation of tobacco; a trade in timber with China and Australia has sprung up. That trade generally is also increasing is shown by the shipping returns, which show that in 1890 67,000 tons entered our ports, and 65,000 tons were cleared outwards. Then, my Lords, I turn to our revenue — our revenue proper. The noble Lord says that our revenue is decreasing and that bankruptcy is looking us in the face. Our revenue proper, that is without the sale of land, is rapidly on the increase. In 1885 the revenue proper was £22,000; in 1890 it was over £60,000; and in 1891 it amounted to over £71,000. The noble Lord, in referring to the decrease in our revenue, has, I think, fallen into this error: that he has called the money, derived by the sale of land for tobacco and other cultivation, revenue proper. That, my Lords, is necessarily a very fluctuating revenue, and we do not call it revenue proper. To show you how it does fluctuate, I may state that in 1888 the land sales amounted to £49,000; in 1889 to £51,000; in 1890 to £44,000; and in 1891 to £1,500. As I say, our revenue is increasing, and has increased between the years 1890–91 by over £11,000; and that, I must point out, without any assistance from the Government; we have asked for nothing and we have received nothing. On the contrary, it may be said, and it is said by some, that we have rendered assistance to the Government by having relieved them from the administration of the Island of Labuan which was a source of trouble. In one way, my Lords, the Government may help us—I do not say whether they will, but they could very materially—and that is by assisting us in the construction of a railway across the country. A railway is very much needed to open up the country. In that way the Government could assist us, somewhat in the manner as it has been proposed to assist the British East Africa Company. Then, again, as I have described, the natives formerly had no security for life or property—they had no protection—whereas now, under our rule, they follow their avocations in peace and safety; they hunt, they collect jungle

1817
produce, they collect edible birds' nests, gutta-percha, and pearls, and they also cultivate sago, pepper, and small quantities of tobacco. Then again gold is found, not in any great quantity yet, but it is found in the beds of some of the rivers in sufficient quantity to enable the Chinamen to make a living of four shillings a day; and I have not the slightest doubt that some day we shall find the matrix, and that it will become a profitable industry. And coal we know exists in some parts of the country. My Lords, I quite think, with the noble Lord opposite, that the time may and will come when the Imperial Government will be constrained to take over the administration of North Borneo. I think so on account of its geographical and strategic position, within a thousand miles of Singapore, and situated in a direct line—almost niidwav—between Australia and Hong Kong, with some of the finest harbours in the world round the coast, and especially the east coast. Whether the district could be administered more economically under Imperial than under company rule is, I think, open to question. There is no doubt, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that Imperial Government has many advantages—necessarily so—that as a company we cannot possess. But, if a comparison be instituted with the progress of any modern Colony, British or foreign, it will be found that there is not one which can show such good results in so short a time, and, at so little cost. My Lords, I confess I doubt whether the suggestions shadowed forth by my noble Friend would altogether recommend themselves to the shareholders, unless, of course, the Government are prepared to deal with us on very liberal terms. The shareholders have waited patiently for the reward which they have every reason to hope will be theirs at no distant date, and, unless they were very liberally dealt with, I think they would hesitate to abandon the prospect which they have kept steadily in view for so long. I admit that, so far, the venture is not a financial success. Our expenditure exceeds in a measure our present revenue; but there is no reason to suppose that that will go on; on the contrary we are able to make very large reductions which
1818
will at any rate balance them. We have had, with all our difficulty, the satisfaction of feeling, and I think we may take a pardonable pride in feeling, that we have been laying the foundation of what promises to become a thriving and prosperous Colony of the British Crown.
*LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord who first spoke drew a somewhat gloomy picture of the Company's position; the parts in shadow were very largely predominant over the parts in light; but another painter has been at work since then, and has thrown in a few lights, and certainly has made it a more agreeable picture to look upon than it was when it left the hands of the noble Lord opposite. I would observe that to my mind it is not at all clear how the state of things would be improved if this territory were made a Crown Colony, unless indeed at the expense of the British people, by grants in aid and loans, and in other ways by which money is drawn from the pocket of the British taxpayer. A colonial administration, though it may have a considerably greater prestige than the administration of a company, could not certainly be more cheaply or more economically carried on. The great complaint against colonial government is that the staff which the Governor or the administrator has is always in excess of what the colonists think necessary, and they look upon the staff of the Colonial Government as a happy home for Englishmen. I do not really believe that it would be possible, merely because a Colonial Government would be able more easily to engage Sikhs perhaps for the police, for a Colonial Government to be administered more cheaply and economically than that of a company. The territory has already been placed, as your Lordships are probably aware, under Her Majesty's protection by an Agreement made on the 12th May 1888; so that as regards any outward attack the Company are well secured, and it would be in no better position if the territory were turned into a colony. The revenue that is derived from duties and taxes could not be diminished, unless indeed, as I said before, at the expense of the British taxpayer, or unless the noble Lord opposite can prove

1819
that a Colonial administration is absolutely cheaper and more economical than the administration of a Company. My Lords, I have ventured to throw out these suggestions; but, so far as regards the question really put before us by the noble Lord, I would submit that it is not ripe for consideration. It has been stated by the noble Lord who followed that the Company have not sought to put an end to the Agreement of 1888, by which Her Majesty's Government are bound not to interfere in the administration of the Company except so far as is provided by the Charter. If the Company desire to raise this question they will of course do so in an official form, with full particulars of their position, and with a statement of the financial conditions which they are ready and prepared to meet. Then due consideration will, of course, be given to a statement of that kind. What the result of such consideration would be I am certainly not in a position to say; nor would it in my opinion serve any good purpose now to discuss any of the other plans which have been suggested by the noble Lord opposite for getting rid of the Company. From what he has said I do not think that he has sufficiently appreciated the difficulties that would necessarily follow upon any of the changes he has suggested.

THE CASE OF EMILY WILLIAMS.
QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
*LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I have brought forward the question which stands in my name on the Paper of your Lordships' House, owing to the very great interest which is taken in the subject in the district of Fulham, and at the same time to strongly support the petition for inquiry into the case from the district, and also because of the danger which I think may occur to the successful working of the prevention of the Infectious Diseases Act of 1891. And what I am about to say to the House I have taken from the local Press where the case is reported verbatim. In regard to part of the question that I have put down, I have already got an answer, owing to the courtesy of the Permanent Secretary of the Local Go- 1820
vernment Board; but I wish to call particular attention to the severe fine which was inflicted, and the comments of the Magistrate when inflicting, it; and also to lay before the Home Office whether they consider it is advisable that the Medical Officer of Health, with a population, of 90,000 to look after, should engage in private practice. In regard to this case I found it out because I visited the hospital where this child was taken in, and, having ascertained that there was nothing whatever the matter with her when she was taken by the Magistrate's order to the Fever Hospital, I went as rapidly as I could to the Local Government Board Office to try and ensure the isolation, of this child. I also went to the Home Office and laid the matter before the Permanent Secretary, and I am extremely glad to say that I have had a communication from the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office saying that while Mr. Matthews, the Home Secretary, considers that
"The action of Dr. Cooney and Dr. Bruce in a case perhaps of difficult and doubtful diagnosis does not appear to him open to criticism"—
and I may say at once that I have no intention of criticising the diagnosis of these gentlemen—
"yet, looking to the evidence subsequently produced before the Magistrate, and to the fact that on 5th June the child was removed from her mother's house to the Middlesex Hospital, and that the requirements of the Public Health Act were there by practically satisfied, he has thought it right to advise Her Majesty to remit the penalty and costs in this case."
That I think is a very satisfactory and just conclusion for the Home Secretary to come to, if I may presume to say so. My Lords, the facts of this case are as follows:—On the 19th May the parish doctor was called in to see the child, Emily Williams; he considered that she was suffering from scarlet fever and gave an order for her admission into the Fever Hospital; that was not an order from the magistrate, but merely one ensuring her admission when the child was sent there. But half an hour after this parish doctor had made the examination of this child, which I understand was rather a cursory one, another doctor was called in who certified that she had no symptom whatever of scarlet

1821
fever; and the mother, under the circumstances, when the ambulance came for this child, refused to let her go. About fourteen days later this child was again seen by three medical men, Mr. Cooney, the Medical Officer of Health; Mr. Wells, the Public Vaccinator and Workhouse doctor; and Mr. Bruce, of the Fever Hospital; and these three gentlemen, all officials, concurred in the idea that the child had scarlet fever. I might say that one medical man, Dr. Clarke, had had charge of this child for a period of ten days, and had left her convalescent after some trilling ailment, and was perfectly certain that she had no trace of scarlet fever. The Medical Officer of Health nevertheless applied, on a certificate, signed by himself and his official colleagues, to the Magistrate for an order to convey this child to the West London Fever Hospital. In the meantime one of these gentlemen who did not think the child was suffering from scarlet fever telegraphed to the well-known expert, Dr. Cayley, to come and see the child, and I might mention parenthetically that Dr. Cayley, upon whom the Magistrate afterwards cast very severe aspersions, is a distinguished expert in fevers. He went down to see this case out of pure philanthropy, and had no intention or expectation of receiving any fee. He also saw the child, and came to a very strong conclusion that there were no symptoms of scarlet fever in the case. He was applied to as to what ought to be done, and he remarked that under the circumstances he could not recommend the child going to the fever hospital; but that the best way out of the difficulty would be that she should be taken to the Middlesex Hospital, where he was consulting physician, and placed under his care, and where, if the case proved to be scarlet fever, I and to which he had no doubt whatever that there was no scarlet fever, she could be isolated. I should just like to read a note which Dr. Cayley wrote to the admitting officer at the Hospital, because of the remarks of the Magistrate. He says—
"I should be much obliged if you would take the child in under me. There is a local dispute as to whether it is scarlatina, and if it is not admitted into the workhouse it will be sent to one of the Asylum Board Hospitals. I am satisfied it has not got scarlatina."
1822
Of course it must occur in a general hospital sometimes that a patient is taken in ailing from something or another which may eventually become scarlet fever; but there is provision made in these hospitals that, as soon as anything of the kind occurs, the patient is isolated; communication is made with the London Fever Hospital where patients pay for their treatment, and the organisation of that institution is very good; an ambulance is rapidly at the door of the place from which the communication has come, and probably in an hour or so the patient is in the hospital. This child was under the supervision in the Middlesex Hospital of Dr. Cayley and his assistant house physician, the latter of whom watches the cases during the former's absence, and also under the care of another officer called the resident medical officer, a man of considerable experience. But Dr. Cayley did not rest there. He sent to the Fever Hospital for the principal physician, a certain Dr. Phillips, who came to the conclusion, as Dr. Cayley did, that there was no symptom of scarlet fever. I do not of course defend the mother for evading this Magistrate's order; but there is ample evidence in the case that the child, when taken away, was as well as any one of your Lordships is at this moment. And your Lordships will find it difficult to believe that an officer was sent to that hospital who carried that child away to the fever hospital, where she is at this moment located. Then, in regard to the remarks of the Magistrate, he first of all characterised that letter which I have read from Dr. Cayley, as stating what was very far short of the case; and he doubted Dr. Cayley's honesty and his motives in attending this case. I do not think Dr. Cayley's reputation is likely to suffer owing to what I must term the intemperate remarks of the Police Magistrate, who appeared to be suffering from some irritation; but, as the Police Magistrate said he should like to know what the hospital authorities would say, and what the public who subscribe to the hospital would say, and what course the College of Physicians would take—I may say that I was not myself present at the next meeting of the

1823
Board of that charity—but they immediately passed a vote of confidence in Dr. Cayley; and as regards the admission of the case, I should be glad to defend his conduct against any body of subscribers who might be called together. And, more than that, I have had an opportunity of speaking to the distinguished President of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Andrew Clarke, and he says that Dr. Cayley is one of the most highly esteemed Fellows of the College, and is undoubtedly one of the highest authorities in cases of fever that exists in London. In regard to the absolute legality of the action of the Magistrate I should like to call to the attention of the Home Office that the Act provides that, where there is not means of isolation in a house, a child or patient may be removed by the order of a Magistrate; but this patient was in a hospital where, as I have said there are means of isolation, and the patient could be well treated, in fact as well treated as if she was in the fever hospital itself. To that point I invite the attention of the noble Lord who will reply to the question. As regards isolation in a doubtful case, I went to see the Permanent Secretary of the Local Government Board, and he was good enough to make a special communication, that this child should be isolated, and Dr. Brydges, the Medical Superintendent, informed me that every care had been taken already, before my notice went to the Local Government Board, and that everything as regards isolation was satisfactory in that respect. Further, in regard to this Act, the Magistrate said that in future he should grant these orders on the certificate of the Medical Officer of Health, without allowing any discussion whatever. Now the Act says that on the certificate of any duly qualified practitioner an order may be granted. But, my Lords, does not that seem a tremendous power to put into the hands of the Medical Officer of Health, who will virtually issue all these orders himself? And, considering the very large population that this Medical Officer of Health, who is also the parish doctor, has to superintend, which really means that he has to do with a population considerably over 90,000, I do
1824
ask your Lordships whether it is advisable that the Medical Officer Health should continue in private practice as well. What I very much fear is that, if some very careful inquiry, for which I understand a Petition has been presented and very strongly supported, is not made into this case, we may succeed through the arbitrary action of officials, in making this Act, which is intended for the benefit of the whole community, extremely unpopular and almost unworkable. In support of this Petition I have thought it well to lay these facts before your Lordships. I have taken everything I have said from the public Press; and I hope the Home Office will give serious attention to the matter, which is I think one of very great importance, and that the inquiry desired may be instituted.
*LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, the noble Lord has put his case so clearly and so well, and has stated the details of this sad case so very fairly, that I shall detain your Lordships but a few minutes. There is hardly anything that the noble Lord has said, with the exception of the matter that I shall deal with presently relating to the Magistrate, in which I do not myself cordially sympathise with him. My Lords, this has been a bad and certainly a very sad case; and I think the very fact of the noble Lord having brought it forward in this temperate way, knowing as we all do that he is chairman of a hospital, and that a large part of his time is devoted to good works, will do a very great deal of good. With regard to the question that he has asked me, as regards the medical officer taking private practice when he has the supervision of a very large number of human lives, I cannot off-hand give an opinion upon that; I am not prepared to answer him upon the point; and that point, I think, has not been raised in his question; but with regard to what he said, towards the close of his remarks, as to the effect that the action taken in this matter may have upon the working of this Act, I think he was perfectly justified and right in what he said. The Act of course that he refers to, and which your Lordships doubtless know, is the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and if, as the noble Lord truly says, the authority which is wielded by public officials becomes

1825
so arbitrary as to tear children away from their parents, the symptoms in those children being subject to great differences of opinion amongst doctors, then I say it is only another case where it is most absolutely necessary to have the supreme control of the Home Office to keep those officials in order. The noble Lord knows as well as I do, that the Medical Officer of Health has to be very careful in this matter as regards taking in time any cases of contagion, which may rapidly spread into disease and cause a very great amount of misery; but, at the same time, there is no question about it that when, in this case, there was a very large difference of opinion amongst most competent men on both sides, although I daresay the diagnosis of the case may have been difficult, it would have been more advisable for the Medical Officer of Health to have waited a little; and especially with such a weight of evidence against the child having scarlet fever at all. My Lords, with regard to the question which the noble Lord has put about the Magistrate, I desire to speak with the utmost caution. The Secretary of State has not had the benefit of hearing the Magistrate's views on this case, as he is away on leave of absence, and therefore I am sure the noble Lord would not wish me to make any remarks without our having been able to hear what the Magistrate has to say. The unfortunate part of this business certainly arose in what the noble Lord has called a local dispute. It was also of course intensified by the mother's refusal to allow her child to go; and, in passing I would say that although, of course, the mother behaved wrongly, at the same time she behaved most naturally; and one cannot help regarding her action with some amount of sympathy in such a case as this. My Lords, I think I have answered every part of the noble Lord's question except one, and that is with regard to isolation. The noble Lord wishes to know whether there is every means of isolation in the West London Lever Hospital. That is so. There is every facility for isolation in that Hospital.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I merely wish to make one remark. I think my noble Friend behind
1826
me has not at all exaggerated the importance of this case. There is nothing in the world that is more dangerous, and more to be deprecated, than the unwise administration of these somewhat arbitrary laws. I entirely approve of the laws for the protection of the public health; but, if you administer those laws in the spirit in which this case was dealt with, you will set the whole population against the laws, and you will entirely fail in enforcing them at all. My Lords, the point that I do not understand at all—and I daresay the noble Lord is not in a position to answer is this: How could the Magistrate come to a decision that the child should be removed from the Middlesex Hospital where there are every means of isolation? I am not a lawyer, and I do not pretend to interpret the Act; but I am confident, as a layman, that I express the opinion of everyone who knows that. Act when I say that I believe no one ever for an instant supposed that it could be possible that a child, who was in a house where there was ample power of isolation, could by a medical officer's order be taken to a fever hospital. Undoubtedly, if there were means of isolation in a house in which I had a child ill, and I was advised by the proper medical authority that there was every means of isolation, nothing would induce me to comply with a Magistrate's order except force. I should like to know what possible ground there could be for an order to remove this child from one of the principal hospitals in this city, where there is ample means of isolation. I maintain that the child must have been complying with the provisions of the Act. With regard to the Magistrate's conduct I agree with the noble Lord that we should exercise the greatest caution in judging of magistrates doing their duty. One can only judge from the reports in the newspapers. But this I will say, that I am extremely glad the Home Office have remitted the fine; and, if they should find, as I hope they will not, from an examination of the Magistrate, that he has at all acted in the manner which the newspapers represent, I hope the Home Office will, in some way or other, endeavour to prevent such vagaries in the future. Things of this sort occur

1827
to anyone who is a Justice of the Peace and has to administer the law; but nothing in the world is so foolish as to deal with cases arbitrarily, and, where there is a doubt, to enforce the law against the feelings of the people, and with a chance of bridging the magistrate's decision into considerable opprobrium. On the other hand, I wish to say that the Magistrate's explanation may be amply sufficient to clear him of all blame, and I only say what I have said upon the supposition that it may be possible to explain what has been reported in the papers.

COLONIAL STOCK ACT, 1877, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
FORGED TRANSFERS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
GALWAY INFIRMARY BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
NATIONAL DEBT (STOCKHOLDERS' RELIEF) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
POOR LAW SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
BRITISH COLUMBIA (LOAN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; B read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (INVERNESS) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
MILITARY LANDS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
POLICE RETURNS BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock.