Sitting of 27 February 1893

QUESTIONS,
  SHEERNESS DOCKYARD MUD.
  MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.): In consequence of a communication I have received from the Admiralty, I beg to withdraw my question to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty as to whether he can now state when the Report on the deposit of mud from Sheerness Dockyard on to the Essex fishing grounds will be produced?

  THE RAILWAYS AND THE GOVERNMENT TELEGRAPHS.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the sentence in the Report of the Revenue Estimates Committee of 1888 respecting the cost to the public from the "enormous increase of services gratuitously performed for the Railway Companies," by reason of their increased use of the privilege of sending certain telegrams free granted them in 1870; what was the number of these messages in the years 1871 and 1892; and also of

  415
  the public messages in those years; what is the present state of the negotiations on the subject referred to by the late Postmaster General, in reply to a question in this House on the 22nd February, 1892; and whether, pending any settlement of the question, care will be taken that the privilege shall not be increased, or extended to new undertakings by any Private Bills?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): This matter has been engaging my close attention. Statistics of the number of telegrams sent free of charge for the Railway Companies in 1871 can only be given as regards the Companies of England and Wales. In the case of these Companies the number sent in 1871 was 87,201; in 1892 it had risen to 1,329,531, an increase of more than fifteen-fold. During the same period telegrams of all other descriptions rose from 9,573,548 to 57,871,429, an increase of about six-fold. The negotiations to which the hon. Member refers have resulted in the commutation of the privilege into a right to send a fixed number of messages and words per annum in the case of the Midland and Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Companies. Negotiations with other Companies are in progress, and it is hoped that all the Companies will recognise that it is desirable, in their own as well as in the public interest, to accept the principle of commutation. As regards Private Bill Legislation, Her Majesty's Government will, of course, watch closely any Bills introduced into Parliament tending to the extension of the privilege referred to.

  THE SUNNINGWELL CHARITIES.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether the Charity Commissioners have considered the objections to the proposed scheme for the regulation of the Charities and Poor's Land of Sunning well, Berkshire; and, if so, whether they have decided to make the scheme accord with the general wish of the ratepayers, including the principal landed proprietor of the village; and, if it has been arrived at, what the final determination of the Commissioners is?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): The objections to the proposed scheme for the regulation of the Sunning-well Charities have been considered. With a view to meet the wishes of the ratepayers generally, the Commissioners have decided to modify it in the following particulars:—by providing (1) that the number of representative trustees shall be four, to be elected by ballot on the plan of "one man one vote," the election to be held in the evening, so as to enable the labourers to be present; (2) that one only of two co-optative trustees (an existing trustee) shall be named in the scheme; and (3) that the buildings erected for a school and adapted for a master's residence, being subject to an educational trust, shall be occupied by the trustees for the purpose of a public elementary school, on condition that rates, insurance, and repairs of the premises be provided otherwise than from the income of the endowment.
  MR. DODD: Might I ask whether, under similar circumstances, similar schemes will be drawn?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Each scheme will be considered on its merits. I trust the representative element will always be in the majority.
  MR. COURTNEY: Does the principle of "one man one vote," as applied in this case, mean that the ratepayers are to vote for one trustee only, or to give one vote each to as many trustees as are to be elected?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: One vote each to as many trustees as are to be elected.
  MR. COURTNEY: That is not one man one vote.

  KEW GARDENS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (Longford, N.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with reference to his recent courteous promise to Mr. F. G. Heath, and to a similar promise made in an interview given to Mr. Heath by the First Commissioner of Works, that the best consideration should be given by the Government to the question of an earlier opening of Kew Gardens, any decision had been arrived at; and, if so, whether it was in the direction of a

  417
  favourable relaxation of the present rules in the interests of the general public?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this. The question has, as promised, been carefully examined. It has been ascertained that the opening of Kew Gardens to the general public in the early morning instead of at noon would entail a considerable increase in the cost of maintaining and managing the Gardens. At present, although the general public are not admitted till after 12, any persons who desire to study the plants and collections in the Gardens, from a scientific and horticultural point of view, are able to do so in the morning by applying to the Director. Very large numbers of persons avail themselves of this privilege, and are allowed to handle and examine the plants in a manner which would not be possible if the general public were admitted. They value this privilege very much, and I have received a Petition signed by many scientific men praying that no change may be made in the present regulations. It is also the fact that on Bank Holidays, when the Gardens are open at 10, comparatively few persons enter them till after noon. Under all the circumstances, the Government has not felt that a strong case has been made out for incurring the additional expenditure.

  UNCOMMUTED PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all perpetual pensions have now been commuted; and, if not, how many and which of them remain uncommuted, and why; what is the total amount paid for the commutation of such pensions, and the total annual vale of those not yet commuted; and in what cases have payments been made, and to what amount, in respect of annual sums granted to meet specified expenses and outgoings on the part of the pensioner, which expenses and outgoings had for some time ceased, and the allowance for which had still been paid to the pensioner?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): All the pensions have not been commuted. Those which were not commuted
  418
  in 1887 are set forth in the Report of the Select Committee of that year. Since then, three pensions have been commuted—namely, the Duke of St. Alban's, Lord Downshire's and Lord Exmouth's. The Minute relating to these cases was laid on the Table in July, 1890. No further commutation has been effected. Negotiations have taken place in some cases, which have fallen through. In the case of Lord Rodney, the Court disallowed the terms agreed to —namely, 27 years' purchase. A Minute relating to this case was presented last year. The amount paid for commutation appears in the Parliamentary Returns. The annual value of the remaining pensions is about £8,500. The last part of the question seems only to apply to the cases of the Duke of St. Albans, as Master of Hawks, and Lord Downshire, the particulars of which will be found in the Minute presented to Parliament.
  MR. HANBURY: Do these particulars give details showing what was paid for the actual pension and what was paid for the outgoings and special expenses to which I refer in my question? Do they give these items separately.
  SIR W.HARCOURT: I do not know. I will inquire, and try and get any further information the hon. Member may desire.

  THE NEW REGISTRATION BILL.
  MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, under the scheme of the Government for the alteration of the Registration Law, it is intended to retain the services of the assistant overseers for preparing the lists of voters, or whether it is intended to dispense with their services?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): The Bill contemplates that the duties at present performed by overseers and assistant overseers shall be transferred to the District Registrar. Not only is there no reason why the assistant overseer should not be appointed to that office, but there is a clause in the Bill which specially points him out as suitable for the appointment.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL BOARDING SCHOOLS.
  MR. BONSOR: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether 1,000 acres of dairy land in Sussex, 37 miles from London, have been contracted for as the site for the boarding schools for 700 boys, 350 girls, and 120 infants of the future Christ's Hospital, which, by the scheme approved by Her Majesty, are to 'be built within a convenient distance from the City of London; whether the whole Governing Body of 43 set up by the scheme approved of such location for a metropolitan foundation of three centuries' life in the City of London itself; and whether he will be good enough to give the reasons for such a choice?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I am asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this. The Council of Almoners of Christ's Hospital, with the consent of the Charity Commissioners, have concluded the purchase of about 1,000 acres of land near Horsham, on which their new boarding schools are to be built. The Charity Commissioners have no knowledge whether any members of the Governing Body dissented from the purchase. The choice was that of a Governing Body, eminently qualified to act for the best, and the Commissioners saw no ground for withholding their assent to it.
  MR. BONSOR: Does the hon. Gentleman consider 37 miles a "convenient distance from London"?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: The distance is getting less every year. The Charity Commissioners have specially considered this matter, and felt that they could not interfere with the deliberate decision of the Council of Christ's Hospital.

  LAND OWNERS IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will institute the inquiries necessary to prepare a Return of owners of land in the Metropolis, in supplement of the Returns of owners of land in the United Kingdom; and whether, if fresh legislation is required to enable such a Return to be obtained, he will introduce a Bill for this purpose?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The difficulty which would attend the obtaining of an
  420
  accurate Return of the owners of lands and premises in the Metropolis, with the extent and gross estimated rental of the lands owned by them, would be enormous, and the expense which any attempt to obtain such a Return would involve would be very serious. I cannot undertake to propose legislation for this, purpose.

  ALLOTMENTS IN LINCOLNSHIRE.
  MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, whether on the Crown estates in the parish of Moulton, Lincolnshire, the rent of farm land has been reduced to £1 an acre, whilst the Commissioners have hitherto declined to make a similar reduction in the rent of the land let to the Sanitary Authority for allotments; and whether the Commissioners will re-consider this decision, and let land for the purposes of allotments at the fair agricultural rent?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The farm from which the allotment land was taken is a straggling one, being some four miles in length, and comprises land of a most varied description, some of which is not only far from accessible but is also very liable to floods. That taken for allotments is valuable and is near the village, and having regard to the allowance which it was necessary to make to the tenant in order to obtain possession of it, and to the outlay necessary to adapt the land for letting in allotments, the Commissioners of Woods could not let it at less than the rent fixed without incurring an actual loss.

  DUNFANAGHY POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN (Donegal, W.): I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he has received a Memorial from inhabitants of the districts of Dunfanaghy and Creeslough, County Donegal, praying for an evening delivery of letters at villages on the route between Letter-kenny and Dunfanaghy; and whether he will be pleased to accede to the prayer of said Memorial?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have received the Memorial to which the hon. Member refers, and I should have been very glad if the circumstances had enabled me to

  421
  accede to its prayer. It appears, however, that no arrangement could at present be made for the purpose, except at an outlay far in excess of the Revenue. The subject shall again be considered a few months' hence.

  TRAWLING ON THE SCOTCH COAST.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government intend to act on the recommendation of the last Fishery Board Report (p. xxvii.), that the Vigilant is not worth the money she costs to keep up, and should be superseded by a steam vessel; also that, in view of the recent extension of the area where trawling is illegal, there should be three efficient steam gunboats, each with a steam launch, to act as a sea police all the year round?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): That the Government does exercise considerable control over the trawling on the Scottish coast is proved by the fact that since the 10th of February two trawlers have been arrested actually at work off the coast of Caithness, while proceedings have been taken against a third trawler against which a complaint was lodged. If it is found that the protection against trawling is inadequate, application will be made to the Admiralty for further assistance.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.): Is not the Scotch Office continually receiving complaints as to the insufficiency of the present arrangement, and will application be made to the Admiralty for another vessel?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The matter is always before the Scotch Office. We hope before the summer season to have an extra vessel.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have the Vigilant removed not only from the East Coast but also from the West Coast?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: If the protection on the East Coast is found to be inadequate further action shall be taken in the matter.

  POSTAL ORDERS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience and expense, falling chiefly on the poorer classes, of the regulations at present in force in regard to postal orders; and whether he can arrange that any sum not exceeding £1 can be transmitted at a uniform poundage, no extra charge being made when more than one postal order is required to make up the amount?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The point raised by the hon. Member is not so easy to arrange as might be supposed. There are now 14 denominations of orders which were arranged with great care, keeping two objects in view—1st, to keep the poundage low; 2nd, to give as many denominations as could be offered at the low price. Every additional denomination increases the working expenses. The hon. Member suggests that two orders should be sold at the price of one, in certain cases, but this proposal would admit of abuse, as orders so obtained might then be used singly without any poundage having been paid upon them. An uniform poundage could not be given without increase in the charge for the two smallest denominations, which represent nearly 7,000,000 of orders per year.

  THE CLONAKILTY AND ROSSCARBERY RAILWAY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare,, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in regard to the proposed Clonakilty and Rosscarbery Railway, at the Cork Assizes in 1891, the County Grand Jury passed the sum of £30,000 on the promise of the late Government that, if the Grand Jury passed £30,000, the Government would give the additional grant of £20,000 to finish and complete the line, and that the Grand Jury also passed a resolution calling on the Government to give the additional grant without delay; and whether the present Government will endeavour to carry out the promises of the late Administration in this matter?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I do not find that any such promise of a grant was made by the late Government, and as the

  423
  line was not scheduled under the Light Railways Act of 1889, no grant could be made.

  SALARIES OF ANGLO-INDIAN OFFICIALS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the Deputation, re Exchange and the Services, which waited on Lord Lansdowne; and whether it is intended to take any steps to relieve the condition of affairs from which Anglo-Indian officials now suffer?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): Yes, Sir. The subject is under consideration in connection with the currency question.

  BELFAST EXCISE COLLECTION.
  SIR EDWARD HARLAND (Belfast, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what were the several amounts in the years 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, and 1892 derived from the Belfast collection, under the heads of Inland Revenue and Excise Duties, for the purpose of Imperial Revenue; and which probably embraces, amongst others, Income Tax, Probate and Stamp Duties, Publicans' Licences, and a considerable portion of the Spirit Duties?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The following was the amount of Inland Revenue received in the Belfast collection, exclusive of the portion applicable to the Local Taxation Account—1888, £1,629,868; 1889, £1,677,708; 1890, £1,895,354; 1891, £2,027,664; 1892, £2,104,742.
  MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.): I wish to ask whether the amount collected in Belfast is not mainly due to Excise Duties on articles exported to Great Britain for consumption there?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I fancy it is so. I will inquire and let the hon. Member know.

  SLAVE TRADING IN MALAGASY WATERS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, by the existing Anglo-Malagasy Treaty, we have the right of searching
  424
  any Malagasy or Arab vessels suspected of being engaged in the slave trade in the waters of Madagascar, and of dealing with such vessels and their crews as though engaged in piratical undertakings; whether there has been a distribution of French flags to Malagasy and Arab dhows on the coast of Madagascar; whether Her Majesty's Government have lately given orders to the officers of the British Navy to in no way concern themselves with exercising a police control over dhows in the territorial waters of Madagascar; whether an indemnity has been granted to the owners of dhows flying the French flag searched for slaves in Madagascar waters by the British gunboat Redbreast; out of what fund this indemnity has been granted; and whether there will be any opportunity of discussing the matter on the Supplementary Estimates?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The answer to(l)is that we had powers of search under the Treaty, but under Art. 96 of the Brussels Act all stipulations of Conventions concluded previous to the Act which are inconsistent with it were repealed. By the Declaration of August 5, 1890, Great Britain recognised the Protectorate of France over Madagascar with its consequences. The obligations of the Brussels Act are imposed alike on Powers exercising Sovereignty or Protectorate. Great Britain, and all the other Signatory Powers, have recognised that France undertakes the obligations of a Protectorate as regards Madagascar, inasmuch as the formal engagement of the French Plenipotentiary to apply, as necessity should arise, the provisions of Arts. 30 & 41 to Madagascar was recorded, without objection, in a Protocol annexed to the Act. The Protectorate over the Island includes the territorial waters. (2.) We have no knowledge of any distribution of flags. (3.) The instructions framed and issued under the late Government to Naval officers since the ratification of the Act inform them that they have now no power to search vessels in the territorial waters of Madagascar. (4 and 5.) No indemnity was granted by Her Majesty's Government, but Admiral Kennedy spontaneously and of his own hand paid £10 to the owners of two dhows which were seized

  425
  under a misapprehension by the Redbreast before the instructions were received.

  IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS.
  MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the National Teachers will be paid their capitation grant, in lieu of the school fees, as provided for under the Irish Education Act?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The issue of the capitation grant awaits the passing of the Supplementary Estimates, and payments will be made as soon as possible after the money becomes available.

  THE BRUSSES MONEY CONFERENCE.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any further Supplementary Estimate will be submitted to the House for the costs of the International Monetary Conference, Brussels; and, if not, out of what rate the costs have been defrayed?
  SIR J. HIBBERT: The expenses of the British Delegates at the Monetary Conference, amounting to £328, have been charged, in accordance with precedent, to the Vote for Temporary Commissions, sub-head S, "Commissions not specifically provided for."
  MR. TOMLINSON: Is that Vote included in the Supplementary Estimate?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes, Sir.

  THE EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) COMMISSION.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the original Estimate for "Temporary Commissioners not specially provided for" for 1892–3 was £8,000; whether the sum now found to be necessary for the above service is £10,700; and whether the excess over the original Estimate has been partly caused by the costs of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Commission?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The original Estimate for "Commissions not specifically provided for" was £8,000. It is now estimated that the total sum chargeable to the sub-head will be £10,700. There will be some 27 Commissions or Com-
  426
  mittees, of greater or less importance, chargeable to the sub-head, none of which were known of when the Estimate was framed, and it is not possible in strictness to say that the excess over the original Estimate was due to one of these rather than to any other. But, in accordance with practice, the Supplementary Estimate mentioned the largest item of all these Commissions, that for the Metropolitan Water Supply, as sufficient by itself to account for the excess over the original provision.
  SIR J. GORST: What is the precedent the right hon. Gentleman relies on?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I will state that in reply to another question later on.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman then ear-mark the excess of the Estimate to one Commission only?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: We have acted on precedent. This Supplementary Estimate; was prepared in the usual way by the proper branch of the Treasury. It has been the practice that the item which asks for the largest amount shall be specially named in the Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that the expenses of the other Commissions should not come within the purview of the House of Commons?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No; I contend nothing. It will, I think, be for the Chairman of Committees to say whether any discussion should be raised.
  MR. HANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no portion of the £2,000 shall yet be paid for the Evicted Tenants Commission?
  SIR J.T.HIBBERT: The Commission which will require the largest amount will take £3,200, and the Evicted Tenants Commission, which requires £2,170, is outside the other item.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): May I ask whether, seeing that when the original Vote for Temporary Commissions was passed the Metropolitan Water Supply Commission was in existence, it is possible to include in the Vote the expenses of the Evicted Tenants Commission, which was not in existence or even contemplated by the original Vote, and which is responsible for the deficit; and whether such a course of

  427
  procedure is not a grave breach of Constitutional practice, in withdrawing as it does a contentious Vote from the control of the House of Commons.
  MR. SEXTON: I rise to a point of Order. I beg to ask whether the question put by the hon. Member opposite does not involve a question of interpretation and other questions which must be decided by the Chairman of Ways and Means?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is clearly not a question for me to decide. It is a question for the Chairman of Committees, from whose decision there is no appeal.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I wish to state' in reply to the speech of the hon. Member, that the Metropolitan Water Supply Commission is a new Commission, which has been appointed since the Estimates were passed.

  HOME RULE AND GUARANTEED LAND STOCK.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as Clauses 14 (3) (d) and (17) of the Government of Ireland Bill repeal the provisions of "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891," which direct payment to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account of a share of the Probate, Excise, and Customs Duties of the United Kingdom, and which hypothecate other grants to Ireland, such share of duties and such grants will still be paid to the Guarantee Fund, under Section 5 of that Act; and if not so paid, having regard to the provisions of Section 9 of "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891," what will be the approximate amount of Guaranteed Land Stock available for issue under the contemplated new arrangements?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not sure that the statements set forth in the first paragraph are strictly correct, but it is possible one of the clauses will have to be re-drafted. At the same time, I may say there is no intention on the part of the framers of the Government of Ireland Bill to interfere or disturb the amount of Land Stock available for issue.

  OFFICERS AS DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC COMPANIES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the rule as to the tenure of Directorships of Trading Companies by officers on the Active List; and whether such officers are required to inform the War Office of the fact that they undertake these extra duties?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): By the Queen's Regulations an officer on full pay is forbidden to join the Directorate of any public industrial or other company without permission from the Commander-in-Chief. Each case as it arises is decided on its merits.

  INVENTIONS BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether licences to manufacture cordite under the patent assigned to the War Office have been granted to any, and, if any, what private firms; whether this patent was assigned to the War Office as being the invention of a Government official; and whether Government officials who take out and assign patents for warlike inventions under such circumstances are permitted to make profit by the use of such patents in foreign countries?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A licence to manufacture cordite has been granted to Messrs-Pigou, Wilkes, and Co. The patent in this case was assigned to the War Office as being the invention of a Government official. Government officials are not debarred from making a profit by the use of such patents in foreign countries. The object of the War Office in obtaining the assignment of a patent is to secure the power to manufacture untrammelled by the claims of the patentee. To prevent an inventor from patenting his invention abroad would not benefit the War Department, which has no desire to gain a profit. It would only result in preventing an inventor from obtaining a legitimate advantage.
  MR. HANBURY: Do I understand that Government officials are entitled in Government time to patent inventions, and then to make money abroad?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: They do not patent them in Government time, although perhaps the experience gained while serving the Government is of assistance to them. I do not see it would be of any advantage to this country to prevent them having the right to sell the invention abroad.

  TRIAL BY JURY IN BENGAL.
  MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Justice Prinsep, a Puisne Judge of the High Court, Calcutta, has been appointed to the Presidentship of the Commission which is to inquire into the hurried withdrawal of the rights of trial by jury in eight districts of Bengal by Sir Charles Elliott and his Legislative Council; and whether Justice Prinsep has expressed any opinion hostile to trial by jury in India?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Mr. Justice Prinsep has been appointed to act as President of the Commission to which the hon. Member refers. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, Mr.Justice Prinsep has expressed no opinion hostile to trial by jury in India.
  MR.MACNEILL (Donegal,S.): Is it not a fact that Justice Prinsep, who is now in this country, is advertised to read a Paper on "Trial by Jury in Bengal" before the East India Association and free discussion is invited? Is that consistent with impartiality?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I am not aware of that fact, but until we see or hear the paper we cannot say what views Justice Prinsep holds on the matter.

  LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE WORKS.
  MR. M'GILLIGAN (Fermanagh, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary to Treasury whether he can state to what extent the cost of the Lough Erne drainage works exceeded the estimate, and what explanation can be offered as to this excess, and whether he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House the particulars of the full cost, amounting to £210,000; whether, in view of the fact
  430
  that the excess expenditure has been imposed as a tax upon the people of the district, the Treasury will institute a sworn inquiry respecting this heavy excess; whether he can state how many of the holdings which are liable for the payment of this tax have had judicial rents fixed, and how many are non-judicial holdings; and whether, taking into account all the facts of the case, the Treasury can see its way to grant some relief or abatement of the heavy charge enforced? I desire, further, to ask why no detailed account of the expenditure incurred has been published for the information of those concerned, as prescribed by the Statute?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Full information with reference to the excess over the estimated expenditure has already been given in Parliamentary Paper No. 414 of 1891. With regard to the particulars of the full cost, I should explain that the Board of Works is in no way bound or required to keep or publish any detailed accounts of expenditure, but it will be seen from pages 9 and 10 of the Parliamentary Paper referred to with what elaboration the Accounts are required to be presented and examined before instalments of a loan are advanced. Under the 17th section of the Act 26 & 27 Vict., c. 88, it is the Local Drainage Board that is bound to carry out the provisions of the Commissioners Clauses Act 1847 with regard, inter alia, to the accounts to be kept by them. Neither the Treasury nor the Board of Works can interfere, but I am informed that, as a matter of fact, the accounts have been published by the Local Drainage Board. The Treasury do not consider that any useful end would be served by laying the detailed accounts on the Table or by a sworn inquiry, but I must point out that the excess expenditure is not correctly described as having been imposed as a tax upon the people of the district. Of the 1,448 holdings mentioned in my answer of the 26th instant, judicial rents had been fixed in the case of 703. The Treasury does not see its way to take action in the direction of giving relief as desired by the hon. Member.

  KILLALOE SLATES.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN (Tipperary, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for

  431
  War whether, having regard to the fact that the slates from the Killaloe Quarries have been approved of and largely made use of by the Board of Works for their buildings in Ireland, and with a view to the encouragement and support of Irish industries, he will take into consideration the claim of the Killaloe Slate Quarries Company to have their slates used for the contemplated improvement works at the Curragh Camp, provided that these slates are found to be of as good a quality as any others, and not higher in price?
  MR. FIELD: At the same time, I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention of Government to use Killaloe slates in the reconstruction of the Curragh Camp?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So far as possible, for building work in Ireland Irish materials are used; but it is found that Welsh slates are lighter and more durable than Killaloe slates, and therefore cheaper in the end. Consequently the contracts for work at the Curragh, so far as entered into, have included Bangor slates. If, however, Killaloe slates can be supplied of equal quality with the Bangor slates, and not higher in price, there will be no objection to use them in any further contracts.

  MR. JUSTICE MATHEW'S SALARY.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Mr. Justice Mathew will draw a salary as Judge of the High Court in England during the period of his absence from duty outside the jurisdiction of that Court; whether such absence occurred while that Court was sitting, and whether it was due to any temporary incapacity, by reason of health or other usual reason, for the particular duties in respect of which such salary is charged upon the Consolidated Fund; if not, by whom was such leave of absence granted; and on what authority can salary be drawn for the period of absence?
  MR. MACNEILL: I respectfully submit, Sir, that this question is not in Order. Have you not repeatedly ruled that there is but one method by which the House of Commons can impugn the conduct of a Judge?
  MR. SPEAKER: The question is in Order. I can see no imputation in it.
  MR. DODD: Is there not a direct, straightforward and constitutional method of challenging the conduct of Mr. Justice Mathew?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The salary of a Judge is a permanent annual salary, not dependent on or measured by the actual time of his sittings; and there is no authority for stopping the salary, so long as a Judge retains his office. There is no authority over a Judge to grant leave of absence, or otherwise; his conduct is subject only to the power of removal by the Crown on an Address of both Houses of Parliament. I may add that Judges have been frequently requested to sit on important Commissions; and have done so with advantage to the Public Service, and without question of the propriety of their doing so.
  MR. HANBURY: Have the Judges sat upon the Commissions arising out of their jurisdiction?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Royal Commissions on which Judges have sat are not within their jurisdiction.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): Have the Commissions been of a Party political character?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE LONDON AND GENERAL BANK.
  MR. A. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that although the London and General Bank stopped payment in September last, and that there are plenty of assets, no dividend has yet been declared; and whether he will take steps to secure that no delay is caused to the settlement of the case by the proceedings of the Official Receiver?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): No unnecessary delay has taken place in the winding-up of the London and General Bank. The statement of the Company's affairs, which is required by Statute to be furnished by the Directors and officers of the Company, was filed with the Official Receiver on 16th November last; a summary of the statement with a full Report by the Official Receiver upon the position and affairs of the Company, which were in a complicated condition, was thereafter

  433
  issued to the creditors and contributories, and the statutory meetings were held on 25th January. Notice of intended dividend was gazetted during the present month. Further dividends will depend upon the produce of calls, and upon the results of the winding-up of other Companies on which the London and General Bank has large claims.

  TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a list of the various Temporary Commissions which are included in the Supplementary Estimate under the heading "Commissions not specifically provided for," the original Estimate for which was £8,000, but for which an additional sum of £2,700 is included in the Supplementary Estimate?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Commissions chargeable to sub-head S of the Temporary Commissions Vote, 1892–93, number 27. I hold in my hand a list of them in the order in which they appear in the Treasury Books, and in which they will be set forth in the Appropriation Account of the Vote, and I shall be prepared to show it to my right hon. Friend if he desires to see it.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: May I take it the Evicted Tenants Commission is one of the 27?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes.
  MR. CARSON: How much of the sum of £8,000 has been paid away in the expenses of the Evicted Tenants Commission?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The estimated cost of the Evicted Tenants Commission is £2,170.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is it all paid?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No, Sir.

  HYDE PARK CORNER.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Kerry, W.): I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if it would be possible to lay down a riding track from Hyde Park Corner to the Marble Arch, inside the present railings; and, if so, whether he would have an estimate made of the probable cost of making it?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It has always been the custom to lay down sand along the side of the road from
  434
  Hyde Park Corner to the Marble Arch, during the summer, for the benefit of riders. The making of an additional road, as suggested by the hon. Baronet, would involve an expenditure of £10,000, and the cutting down of many ornamental trees.

  IRISH RURAL POSTMEN.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if Irish rural postmen will be allowed free medical attendance, as is allowed to other postmen?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Rural postmen, in common with other servants of the Post Office who come within the prescribed limit of salary (£150 a year), can obtain advice and medicine on application at the surgery of the medical officer in those towns where the Department has a medical officer, but they are not entitled to attendance at their own homes if they reside more than three miles from the Post Office. Rural postmen in Ireland are treated in exactly the same way as rural postmen in England and Scotland.

  IRISH TENANT PURCHASERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state upon what ground income duty is required from a tenant purchaser in Ireland in respect of the amount of principal monies repaid in the purchase instalments; and whether his attention has been directed in this connection to Section 40 of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 34?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Such portions of the purchase instalments as represent principal monies are, in fact, repayments of borrowed capital. There is no authority in the Act referred to by the hon. Member, or in any other Act relating to Income Tax, for the allowance— by deduction or otherwise — of the duty on repayments of borrowed capital.

  THE EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) COMMISSION.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what manner, if at all, the expenses of the Commission on Irish Evicted Tenants will be brought forward for the consideration of the House?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: There is no Constitutional necessity for obtaining the special sanction of Parliament to expenditure upon a particular Commission chargeable to the Vote for Temporary Commissions, Sub-head S, "Commissions not specifically provided for." All such expenditure is duly set out in the Appropriation Account under the heads of the several Commissions or Committees. As a typical instance, it may be mentioned that in 1888–89 the expenses of the Special Commission, 1888, to the amount of £1,958, were treated in this manner; and as no Supplementary Estimate was then required on the Vote as a whole, Parliament had no opportunity of discussing this very important and controversial Commission on the Estimates for the year in which it originated.
  MR. BARTLEY: Then I will ask whether the expenditure under the Parnell Commission was not incurred under a special Act of Parliament; and whether I am to understand that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to allow Parliament to have any voice in the consideration of the expenses of this Special Commission?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: In reply to the first question, I may say that, though the appointment of the Parnell Commission was authorised by Act of Parliament, yet the expenses were equally obliged to be voted in this House. I do not know that the Government has considered the question, or can give any opinion upon it. It will be for the Chairman of Committees, when the Supplementary Votes come before the House, to decide whether any discussion can be taken on the matter or not.
  SIR J. GORST: I will ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when the Vote is brought on, the Government will take any objection to the cost of the Commission being discussed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): The right hon. Gentleman has not given me any notice of that question, and I have not had it under my consideration in any way. I must ask him for time.
  SIR J. GORST: I will put a question down for to-morrow.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE(later on) said: So far as the Government are concerned, they will take no objection to the discussion of the cost of the Commissiou on the Estimates.

  THE SCOTCH BOARD OF SUPERVISION.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, having regard to the prevalence of small-pox in Scotland and the possible visitation of cholera, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to arrange for the management of the sanitary affairs of Scotland by a responsible Representative Body composed of persons possessing technical knowledge?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The question of the re-organisation of the Board of Supervision, which is the Health Office of Scotland, is seriously occupying the attention of Government.
  MR. WEIR: Is not the Board composed of persons without technical knowledge?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The constitution of the Board is well known. I repeat, it is occupying the attention of the Scotch Office.

  RAILWAY RATES IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the basis of all railway rates (more especially those on livestock) in Ireland is much higher than the recognised standard of calculation in Great Britain; whether it is intended that in the promised revision the Irish Railway Companies will level down their charges so as to equalise them with English and Scotch rates; and whether the Board of Trade will take measures to remedy the disparity between mileage tariffs on imports and on native products?
  MR. MUNDELLA: If by the basis of all railway rates the hon. Member means the statutory powers granted to the companies I do not think that, so far as regards merchandise, those are higher than the powers granted, for example, to the Great Western Branch lines, and to the lines south of the Thames. As regards live stock the powers are higher, but the clauses conferring those powers were agreed to by the Irish traders when the Bill was before Parliament. I have no power to insist that Irish rates shall be precisely equal to English or Scotch

  437
  rates: the difference in the size of the Irish trucks is, for instance, a matter which introduces variety of charge. As regards the last portion of the hon. Member's question, I can only refer him to the provisions of Section 27 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, in which it is provided that—
  "No Railway Company shall make, nor shall the Court, or the Commissioners, sanction, any difference in the tolls, rates, or charges made for, or any difference in the treatment of, home and foreign merchandise, in respect of the same or similar services."
  MR. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Cattle Traders' Association only agreed to these terms because they were obliged to. Is there any Court of Appeal to which they can go?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am not aware of that. They went, I believe, before the Joint Committee and agreed to the arrangement.
  MR. FIELD: Because they could not help themselves.

  ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  MR. EVERETThad the following question on the Paper:—
  "To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order to enable Members, and especially inexperienced Members, more easily to follow the business of the House each day, he will take steps to have the statement of that business with which Members are furnished day by day placed upon the Paper in the order in which that business will be taken?"
  The hon. Member said, I have received a letter from the Prime Minister, in which it is pointed out that the subject of the question is rather a matter for the decision of the Clerk at the Table. May I humbly submit to Sir Reginald Palgrave that it would be greatly for the convenience of the new Members if the business were shown in its proper order at the top of the "Orders of the Day."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I may say I took the opportunity of representing to my hon. Friend that I was quite certain that if, without occupying the time of the House by any question or discussion as to the arrangement of the Paper, he would communicate with the authorities, every attention would be paid to any representation he might make. I took that course, inasmuch as, if I had
  438
  answered the question, it might have looked like a disposition on the part of the Government to take into their own hands matters that really belong to the authorities of the House.

  THE PARISH AND DISTRICT COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Parish and District Councils Bill will be introduced?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Although I am not prepared now to name a day, I may say I shall certainly seek an opportunity of introducing this Bill before Easter.

  IRISH OFFICIALS AND HOME RULE.
  MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Irish officials appointed under an Act of Parliament which states that their appointment was until they die or resign, or are removed for misconduct or incapacity, but whose salaries are not charged on the Consolidated Fund, are liable under Section 28, Sub-section 2a, of "The Government of Ireland Bill" to be retired from office if so required by the Irish Government?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of any such cases as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers; but if the hon. Gentleman can point out any cases in which officials have a statutory right, I have no doubt that every care will be taken to prevent their rights or claims receiving any detriment by the Government of Ireland Bill.

  OIL FOR HER MAJESTY'S NAVY.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can explain why several hundred tons of costly foreign oils are annually used on Her Majesty's ships for the general lubrication of machinery in preference to British made compound oil used for like purposes by the great steamship lines of the United Kingdom, who thereby not only give employment to Home industry, but also effect an economy of some 40 per cent. in expenditure?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): The only

  439
  oils considered suitable for lubricating the machinery of Her Majesty's ships are mineral oils, distilled from American petroleum, and olive oil, neither of which are British products. Compound oils are largely used in practice; but the compounding is done after the pure oils are purchased, and thus an economy is secured. The contract for the supply of mineral oil for the Navy for 1893–94 has been placed with the Dee Oil Company, a British firm. Olive oil is imported direct.

  VOLUNTEER ESTABLISHMENT.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any check is placed upon Volunteer Corps in recruiting up to their authorised establishment, and if within such number the equipment and greatcoat allowance is invariably granted?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Every Volunteer Corps can recruit up to its establishment, and the annual equipment allowance of 1s. and greatcoat allowance of 2s. is made for all efficients for the year within that establishment, except in cases where Corps have received a special payment for the supply of greatcoats. In such instances the greatcoat allowance is temporarily suspended for varying periods.

  RIVER POACHING IN IRELAND.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONT (Antrim, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a man named. Bryan Dogherty was convicted at the Ballyshannon Petty Sessions in July last of poaching in the Bundrowes River, and in consequence of being an old offender was fined £9 and costs in each of two cases against him, this conviction being subsequently upheld on appeal to the Quarter Sessions held at Donegal in October last; whether Dogherty, having subsequently petitioned the Lord Lieutenant, got the fines reduced to £5; was this Petition submitted to the local resident Magistrate for his opinion or sanction previous to the reduction being made; and have the warrants for the reduced fines been executed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Dogherty was convicted at Ballyshannon Petty Sessions in June and July of last year, and the facts are substantially stated by the hon. and gallant Member. The penalties were
  440
  reduced on the recommendation of the Magistrates in Petty Sessions, whose opinion was obtained in the usual course, and the warrants have been executed and the reduced fines paid.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ABROAD.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can lay upon the Table of the House any Memorandum showing the state of the law in other countries as to employers' liability in relation to shipping interests; and, if not, whether he will acquire this information for the above purpose, so far as concerns the United States, France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I regret to say I am unable at the present moment to furnish the hon. Member with the information he asks for, but I am endeavouring to obtain it as soon as possible. I am in communication with the Foreign Office on the subject.

  SUBVENTIONED CRUISERS.
  MR. W. G. C. BENTINCK; I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty has been called to recent celebrations in New York, at which the President of the United States was present, on the occasion of the change of flag of the steamship City of New York, which for some years was subsidised for use as a cruiser by Her Majesty's Government; and whether the Admiralty will take steps to prevent in future any liner built in the United Kingdom, which has once received a subsidy from the Admiralty for use as a cruiser, from changing her flag to that of any other nation?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Board of Admiralty are aware of the circumstances attending the transfer to the American flag of two Inman steamships, the City of Paris and the City of New York, which received naval subventions for two years from the late Government, amounting to close on £27,000. The third year's subvention was forfeited. Under the existing contracts one year's subvention would be

  441
  thus forfeited in any similar case; but there is nothing to prevent the sale or transfer to a foreign Government or flag of any of the mercantile cruisers. Her Majesty's Government have the power to purchase any subventioned cruiser during the period of the contract. The steps which the Admiralty propose to take on this subject for the future will be better explained on the Navy Estimates than in answer to a question.
  MR.GOURLEY: Were there any guns or fittings on these vessels?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No guns or armament fittings; but some other fittings, which cannot be removed.

  IRISH ELECTORAL STATISTICS.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause a Return to be prepared showing the rateable value of, and the number of, electors in each of the constituencies in the first Schedule of the Bill for the amendment of the government of Ireland; and whether he will arrange, if possible, that it shall be in the hands of hon. Members before the Second Reading of the Bill is entered upon?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already promised to lay on the Table before the Second Reading of the Bill a Return giving most of the particulars the right hon. Baronet desires. I do not think there will be any difficulty in adding the others he has mentioned. I will certainly do my best.

  SWAZILAND.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the report from Cape Town was correct, which appeared that morning in the papers, to the effect that—
  "The message of the Imperial Government, communicated to the Queen Regent of Swaziland on the 20th instant by Colonel Martin, the British Commissioner, announces to the Swazis that the projected meeting between Sir Henry Loch and President Kruger will probably decide the future of Swaziland."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,):
  442
  It is not a fact that the Imperial Government have communicated any message to the Queen Regent of Swaziland. As I informed the right hon. Gentleman on Thursday, Colonel Martin was to have an interview with the Queen Regent on his return from leave. Sir H. Loch took the opportunity of informing the Queen Regent, through Colonel Martin, of the intended meeting between himself and the President of the South African Republic, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware. The communication in question was a personal one from Sir H. Loch to the Queen Regent, and was not in pursuance of any instructions from Her Majesty's Government.

  IRISH BANK STOCK.
  MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary if he will grant the following as an Unopposed Return: — Stocks and Shares, &c. (Ireland),—Returns showing the price of Stock of the Bank of Ireland, Northern Bank, Ulster Bank, and other leading Banks in Ireland, on the 1st day of February and on the 1st day of March respectively; the price of the Shares of the principal Irish Railways, and other securities, at the same dates; and, the number and names of the Purchasers of the various Stocks between the dates specified, showing those who are supporters of the Government of Ireland Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No, Sir; I cannot consent to grant that Return.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the information in reply to a question?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I must see the question before I express any opinion.

  GUIANA AND VENEZUELA
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have information regarding recent maltreatment of British subjects in the disputed territory of Guiana; and, if so, whether any action has been taken; and whether any negotiations have taken place with a view to a settlement of the boundary and tariff questions now in dispute between the West India Colonies and Venezuela?
  SIR E. GREY: Representations have been received by Her Majesty's Government as to the ill-treatment of one British subject and the murder of another at El Callao, and the acting British Consul at Caracas has placed correspondence on the subject in the hands of the German Representative who is in charge of British interests in Venezuela, and who will be requested to apply for investigation of the facts, punishment of the guilty persons, and compensation to the sufferers. No recent cases of ill-treatment of British subjects on the British side of the line have been reported. With regard to the latter part of the question, no negotiations have taken place recently. The Venezuela Government are aware of the terms on which we are willing to renew diplomatic relations, and also of our readiness to resume the discussion of those conditions with any properly accredited Representative whom the Venezuelan Government may send to this country for the purpose.

  THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUSTRALIA.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has been come to regarding the proposed importation and settlement of Indian natives in tropical or sub-tropical Australia, with a view to the development of its agricultural and mineral resources?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The question of the importation of Indian natives into the Australian Colonies is one for the Colonial Governments to deal with. As far as the Secretary of State is aware no definite conclusion has been come to on the subject, but South Australia has passed two Acts to enable such importation into its Northern territory, and a brief reference to the subject will be found in Parliamentary Paper, C. 6490.

  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: May I ask when a day will be definitely fixed for the introduction of the Supplementary Estimates, and whether they will be taken in the order in which they appear?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Estimates will be proceeded with this evening, if time permits.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.): I wish to ask when the Army Estimates will be taken?
  MR. JOHNSTON: I rise to a point of order, Sir. I beg to draw your attention to the fact that when the noble Lord rose there were cries of "Pigott" from the Benches behind me (the National Benches.)
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope that no unparliamentary expression of that sort will be used. It did not reach my ears. If such expressions are used and reach me I will take notice of them.
  MR. JOHNSTON: If the cries are repeated I will call your attention to the fact, Sir.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Army and Navy Estimates have not yet been circulated; but the Navy Estimates are ready for circulation, and the Army Estimates are in a forward state. Probably to-morrow I shall be in a position to state that either the Army or Navy Estimates will be the first Order on Monday next.
  MR. GOURLEY: Will the Navy Estimates be accompanied by the usual explanatory Memorandum?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I laid the Navy Estimates on the Table last week. Copies are in the Vote Office this afternoon. When circulated, the Estimates will be accompanied by the usual statement.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: When will the statement be in our hands?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The statement will be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning.
  MR. HANBURY: When may we look for the Army Estimates?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hope they will be circulated on Wednesday morning.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the correspondence between the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the National Education Board be circulated before Wednesday?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have done my best to get it circulated. It is in the hands of the printers.

  NEW WRIT.
  For Great Grimsby, v. Henri Josse, esquire, Manor of Northstead.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  James Francis Hogan, esquire, for County of Tipperary (Mid Tipperary Division); Harry Lawson Webster Lawson, esquire, for County of Gloucester (East or Cirencester Division); John Heywood Johnstone, esquire, for County of Sussex (North Western or Horsham Division): George Whiteley, esquire, for Borough of Stockport.
MOTIONS.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (MORNING SITTINGS.)

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I rise to move—
    "That, on and after Friday next, until Easter the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Two o' clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the Morning Sittings on those days: Provided always, that if the Government of Ireland Bill be appointed for any of such days the House do meet at Three o'clock, and the proceedings on that Bill do have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion."
    There is a notice of Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), with respect to which we have determined to take a course which may do away with the necessity for discussion on my Motion. I know not what the opinion of other Members may be; but I confess it to have been long my opinion that no portion of the time of the House is more unsatisfactorily consumed than that portion which is spent, occasionally to the extent of an hour or two, in debating what we shall debate. On the principle of the economy of time it would be well to be free from all such discussions. When the question was first put to me, whether we could consent to postpone beyond to-morrow our Motion with respect to taking the time of the House on Tuesdays and Fridays, my answer was that it would be possible for us to make exception. Our duty is to consider what is the best bestowal of the time of the House that we can devise. Looking at the facts, and having received a good deal of information and light since last Friday as to the desire of hon. Members to speak on the question of bimetallism, I perceive
    446
    that it would not be fair to confine those hon. Members to a 9 o'clock Sitting. I do not mean that the hon. Members who desire to speak form a very large section of the House; but their number is considerable with reference to the hours available for the Debate, and therefore I do not think it wise to commence the operation of the change for which we ask until after to-morrow. I am glad to be in a position to do what may be convenient for the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division, but, at the same time, I do not wish to take any credit for acceding to his wish and adopting the words of his Amendment. He will readily understand my position when I say that I find the number of hon. Members who are fairly entitled to ask for an opportunity of laying their views on this question of bimetallism before the House to be such that we should not be justified in resisting the right hon. Gentleman's demand. Therefore, I propose to adopt the terms of his Amendment, and to make the change come into operation until Easter, "on and after Friday next." I propose, also, to exempt from the operation of the change any afternoon for which the Second Reading of the Irish Government Bill may be set down, because it would not be satisfactory to the House that the Debate on the Second Reading of that Bill should be prosecuted at Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays. I feel it to be absolutely my duty to ask the House to give precedence to the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill on any day on which it may be put down. I think it will be felt that the custom of the House has been, in the case of Bills of great importance, to grant such precedence; but in the case of a measure of such great, such overwhelming importance I might almost say, as this, I think it is quite clear—and I believe it will be agreeable to the general sense of the House—that precedence should be given. I am afraid I cannot make any concession with regard to the Amendment of which notice has been given, which precedes that of the right hon. Member for Sleaford, as it strikes at the root of the demand which I am about to make. I ought to say that there is a good deal of Government Business to be got through before Easter, which it is necessary for the advantage and well-being of the country, and, perhaps, in

    447
    some degree, for the honour of the House as an Assembly of men of business, that we should despatch. For this reason we feel it absolutely incumbent upon us to make the request we now submit. The House is pretty well aware of the measures with regard to which we have stages to take; but, of course, among them a very prominent place is occupied by the numerous Supplementary Estimates that are already in the hands of Members, and by the Army and Navy Estimates, on which the initial Debates must be taken. There is, we think, ample justification for the course we are taking, and which it will probably be necessary to repeat in connection with the Second Reading and following stages of the Government of Ireland Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, on and after Friday next, until Easter the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Two o'clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the Morning Sittings on those days: Provided always, that if the Government of Ireland Bill be appointed for any of such days the House do meet at Three o'clock, and the proceedings on that Bill do have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    MR. SETON-KARR (St. Helen's)rose to move as an Amendment to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and add—
    "it is both unnecessary and inexpedient that at this early period of the Session the Government should take any portion of the time of Private Members for Government Business."
    He said he intended to record his vote against the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman had taken the wind out of the sails of the bimetallists, but that had not affected the principle on which his (Mr. Seton-Karr's) opposition was based; and in regard to the infringement of the rights of private Members, it amounted to the same thing whether the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) was accepted or not. The Government had practically monopolised the whole of the time of the House — with the exception of four Sittings—from the commencement of the Session. They now proposed under the terms of the Motion after Friday next to take the whole time of the House up to Easter with the exception of one Evening
    448
    Sitting. He was at a loss to understand for what reason or on what principle the right hon. Gentleman proposed to inflict what he could only describe as a wanton and unnecessary outrage on the rights of private Members. He would recall the circumstances of the case. The time appeared to have arrived when the rights of private Members required to be asserted in the House. During a portion of the time of the last Parliament the rights of private Members were allowed to fall into abeyance. Perhaps it was because the late Government had such a large majority. But if that were so, and if for that reason the two Front Benches entered into a coalition to deprive private Members of their rights, all he could say was that that condition of things did not exist now. Her Majesdy's Government had not got so large a majority as at one time they anticipated; and whether that was the direct reason or not, he ventured to think that now, being the commencement of a new Parliament, was the time for private Members to combine together to lay down some principle for the regulation of the time of the House under which their rights would be respected. The Session was barely four weeks old, and they were being rushed headlong through the Business of the House. The Debate on the Address had occupied 10 days, six of which occurred in one week to suit the convenience of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In 1887, 1888, 1889, and 1890, during the time of the late Government, the average length of the Debate on the Address was 12 nights, and on two of those occasions the Debate was only terminated by means of the Closure —of course he did not take account of the Autumn Session of 1890 or the two Sessions of 1892, when the energies of the Opposition, instead of being concentrated in the House, were spread throughout the country. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt thought that 10 nights was a reasonable amount of time to spend on the Address; but in 1887 they did not think so, for in that year the Debate occupied 16 nights, and was only terminated by the application of the Closure. He referred to this particularly, because the circumstances of that day were in many respects similar to those of the present time. The Government of the day were about to introduce a Bill of the first importance,

    449
    which was strongly opposed by the Opposition led by the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister. The present Government were introducing a measure of the first magnitude, which was bitterly opposed by hon. gentlemen sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House. It was war to the knife between them. And yet if they turned back to the records of this parallel Session, they would find that the Debate on the Address occupied 16 nights. He should like to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which that Debate was concluded. This was what was reported in Hansard in regard to February 17th, 1887—the 16th night of the Debate—
    "Mr. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)rose, when
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is my opinion that this subject has been adequately discussed—that it is the evident sense of the House that this subject has been fully and fairly debated. It is my duty accordingly to inform the House of that opinion."
    Upon that the Leader of the House rose to move the Closure, and it was only after he had done that twice, and the House had divided four times, that the Debate terminated. Now, if anything of that kind had happened during the present Parliament, he would have been able to understand that there was some justification for it. But nothing of the sort had occurred. The House had agreed without a murmur to everything the Prime Minister had proposed. Not only had they sat for six nights in the second week of the Session, but they had allowed the whole of the following week, except Wednesday, to be devoted to the introduction of the Home Rule Bill, and then, instead of dividing on the First Reading, they had allowed it to pass without a Division. It seemed to him they had given up everything they could give up to the right hon. Gentleman, and now, having made these demands on their patience, the climax was reached when private Members were asked after Friday next to give up practically the whole of their days to the Government. He ventured to think that the Government were displaying a despotic, tyrannical temper in dealing with the rights of private Members. Only the other night the President of the Board of Trade made a most brutal attempt—
    450
    [cries of "Oh!"]—he only used the word in a Parliamentary sense—to pass the Railway Hours Bill. It was a quarter to 12 o'clock when the right hon. Gentleman rose to move the Second Reading of the Bill, and he absolutely went so far as to move the Closure before 12 o'clock, for which he received from Mr. Speaker a well-merited rebuke.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid that if he had transgressed the Rules of Order he apologised.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: Mr. Speaker, I' ask you if you did not say that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was justified in the course he took?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to make reference to my action.
    MR. SETON-KARRregretted that in his ignorance he had transgressed the Rules of the House, but his point was not affected by this incident. His point was that an attempt had been made by the President of the Board of Trade to pass the Railway Hours Bill without discussion.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: With the consent of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid the President of the Board of Trade had moved the Closure, but Mr. Speaker had declined to put the Question. The tyrannical procedure of the Government seemed to him to arise from their having put down the Home Rule Bill for such a very early day, leaving only a short time for the discussion of several most important questions. This Bill was being made an engine of tyranny to trample on the rights of private Members. They had heard of the despotism of the ancient Assyrian King, but Nebuchadnezzar and his image of gold were quite thrown into the shade by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Did they expect hon. Members to bow down and worship the Home Rule Bill? What was the meaning of this conduct on the part of the Government? Everybody knew that they had to deal with an innocent and guileless Opposition, but they were trying to take an unfair advantage of that Opposition. Innocence and guilelessness might be very admirable qualities, but they might be carried too far, and the Opposition would be carrying them too

    451
    far if they submitted to this restriction of the rights of private Members. It had always been the rule that private Members' rights should not be interfered with except for urgent reasons such as arrear of Public Business or lateness of the Session, but neither of those reasons could be urged at the present moment. Members were sent to the House for other reasons besides giving support to Parties. In many cases they were pledged to the people who sent them to Parliament to bring forward social and other questions of great importance for discussion. Matters of that kind might be of small importance to a powerful Government, but they were of importance to individual constituencies. There was a case in point—bimetallism—in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had given way. He had made a concession to the principle he (Mr. Seton-Karr) was advocating. Other questions might arise between now and the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had disarmed one set of opponents by the concession he had made, but why were other Members who were interested in subjects which their constituents had charged them to bring forward to be left out in the cold? It seemed to him very much as though the Government had been making a Concession to the Front Opposition Bench. He stood there as a private Member, and he asked other private Members on both sides of the House to support his opposition to the Motion. He asked them to do so in their own interest. A point made against private Members was, that they were sometimes counted out, but that, he submitted, had absolutely nothing to do with the question. The time of private Members was their own, and they were entitled to make what use of it they chose. They all knew it was the luck of the Ballot which gave precedence to particular Motions. It might be an important or burning question which obtained a place, or one which interested very few Members; but whether the House counted itself out or not was a question for private Members alone to decide or to concern themselves about. Many people, indeed, thought that the House of Commons was better occupied in counting itself out than in doing any-
    452
    thing else. He had been referring to some authorities on this question, and one of the most interesting he found to be the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The hon. Gentleman was always a jealous guardian of rights of private Members. When a Motion of this kind was brought forward by the late Government the House was not large enough to contain the hon. Member's indignation, and the English language hardly had words strong enough to enable him to give expression to his feelings. On April 18th, 1888, a Motion was brought forward by the late-lamented Leader of the House, to give precedence over Notices of Motion to the Local Government Bill, which was then at the Second Reading stage. The hon. Member for Northampton rose in his place and opposed the Motion, and amongst other things he said—
    "The ordinary usage was, that private Members' days were only taken for the Second Reading of opposed Bills which involved the fate of the Government, and that was not the case at present."
    This was an argument brought forward by the hon. Member against infringement of the rights of the hon. Members. The Employers' Liability Bill, which was down for discussion on Second Reading, and would be taken probably at a Morning Sitting, was a Bill as to the principle of which everybody was agreed. It could not be said, therefore, that the fate of the Government was involved in that. The Welsh Suspensory Bill might be put down for Second Reading, but that measure was only a theoretical propostion. It was an open secret that the introduction of that Bill had served a very useful purpose, and that it would not be proceeded with; at any rate, it could not be called a Bill involving the fate of the Government. He submitted, therefore, on the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Northampton, that the Motion was absolutely unnecessary at the present time. There were other authorities on the point. The right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the House had himself given some very authoritative statements on the subject of the invasion of private Members' rights. On the night to which he had already alluded— namely, April 13th, in the Session of 1888, the right hon. Gentleman, dealing with the Motion before the House, said—

    453
    "The right hon. Gentleman"—that was the then Leader of the House, Mr. W. H. Smith—"appeared to assume that there was no way of interfering with the rights of private Members, except the appropriation of entire Sittings. There was another mode of abridging very greatly the time that private Members had at their disposal—namely, by means of Morning Sittings."
    He (Mr. Seton-Karr) quoted these words of the right hon. Gentleman to show that, according to his own statement, the present Motion was one which would abridge the rights of private Members. And it must not be forgotten that the Motion of Mr. W. H. Smith was brought forward on the 13th April. The House could calculate for itself how much later that was than the period at which they had now arrived. The precedent of the discussion of the Rules of Procedure in 1887 might be referred to, and he would say at once that he admitted that the Rules were made a special case. The time of private Members was taken for two or three days early in the Session in order to facilitate the passing of the Rules, but it was admitted on all hands— even by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) himself—that there was good and sufficient reason for it. What happened on that occasion did not interfere with the present argument. The right hon. Gentleman had gone on to say—
    "However, be did not wish to discuss that matter further than to say that he thought that the arrangement of the Business of the House with regard to its division between the Government and private Members was a matter which had reached a point—after the experience of last year and the initial experience of this—which made it very necessary that it should in a very short time be made the subject of general consideration."
    From that day to this the right hon. Gentleman had done nothing to bring about the "general consideration" of which he had spoken. He had admitted that the subject was one which required consideration, and on the 13th April, 1888, he had gone so far as to say that the Government of the day, in taking the course they were proposing, were invading the rights of private Members. If that was the case then, how much more was it the case now—six weeks earlier in the year? He (Mr. Seton-Karr) had endeavoured to explain some of the grounds on which he was opposed to the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman told
    454
    the House that he would give them Evening Sittings. Well, he (Mr. Seton-Karr) ventured respectfully to assert that Evening Sittings were a delusion and a sham. The right hon. Gentleman had given them a guarantee the other night that he would make a House on Tuesday evenings, and both make and keep a House on Friday evenings; but though he (Mr. Seton-Karr) did not impugn the sincerity of the Government, he would not invest a farthing on the strength of the guarantee. There had always been an implied contract that the Government should make a House at a 9 o'clock Sitting. They now entered into an express contract that they would make a House on Tuesdays, and make and keep one on Fridays. But what redress would private Members have if they did not carry out this guarantee? The Government might summon their colleagues to attend at 9 o'clock; but the question was whether they would remain in the House. It was quite possible that a House would be made by the Government at 9 o'clock, and cheerfully counted out at a quarter past 9. He submitted that a private Member, who was thrust into an Evening Sitting on the chance of being counted out soon after 9 o'clock, was not being treated fairly and properly. It was the duty of the Government to show that they had the most urgent reasons before they compelled private Members to submit to such treatment. He appealed to private Members on both sides of the House to support his opposition to the Motion. The other day, when the Prime Minister asked for two private nights in the third week of the Session, some of the Dockyard Representatives on the opposition side of the House made a forcible protest, and asked for better opportunities for bringing forward their questions. He confessed he was surprised at the innocence of those hon. Members, who ought to have known better. Did they think that private Members, by making appeals to Cabinet Ministers, could get any satisfaction? If private Members wanted to retain their rights, they must fight for their own hand. It took a very short experience of the House of Commons to teach Members that Cabinet Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers—for they were both tarred with the same brush — were,

    455
    politically speaking, absolutely without conscience, scruple, or remorse. Some time ago, on three occasions, he had an opportunity of bringing forward a subject on which he was interested. Thrice he was counted out, and on the third occasion he was requested by a Cabinet Minister to withdraw his proposal. He was told that he would get a better opportunity later on, and that it would be much better for his subject if he dropped it for a short time. He most innocently and ignorantly deferred to this suggestion, but had never had another opportunity of bringing it forward. He mentioned this experience for the benefit of other private Members. He remembered that on the occasion of the Evening Sitting at which he might have brought forward his Motion had he not withdrawn it, when the House met the Government Bench was conspicuous by its emptiness; but a House was made by Radical Members who had got wind of the situation. These Members had spent a considerable sum of money in 6d. and other telegrams in getting a large body of supporters together, and in five minutes they passed more pernicious and dangerous legislation than they had been able to do for five years previously, or would be able to do during any succeeding five years. This incident showed the evil of having these Evening Sittings. He appealed for the support of Members opposite as well as of Members on his own side of the House. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had always opposed the two Front Benches on these questions, and he asked him to do the same now. The hon. Member used, when he was in opposition, to taunt the Conservatives with being a flock of sheep who were only fit to bleat and have their throats cut. He asked the hon. Member, and those Members who were sitting behind him, if they wished to call their political souls their own, to oppose the Government on this occasion. He had placed an Amendment on the Paper, but had been informed on the high authority of the Speaker that it was practically out of Order. He should like to ask if he might move the Amendment with the addition of the words "prior to the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill." If he were in Order he would move his Amendment as it stood.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment as it stands is out of Order, for reasons I have communicated to the hon. Gentleman. The Government propose to take the time of hon. Members at this early period of the Session, and the hon. Gentleman says in his proposed Amendment it is inexpedient to take the time of hon. Members at this early period of the Session. That is only a mere expanded negative in another form, and the hon. Gentleman knows that a mere negative cannot be moved as an Amendment. The hon. Gentleman may, however, move to reject the Motion in its final shape.
    MR. SETON-KARR: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and make a final appeal to private Members to prevent the right hon. Gentleman destroying their rights and making nonsense of the Rules of the House.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had always been a strenuous supporter of the rights of private Members. The hon. Member who had just sat down had expressed a hope that he would remain the same now as he was in the last Parliament. Principle sat enthroned always on the Radical side below the Gangway; but it must be remembered that when he opposed the Motions of the late Mr. Smith, it was because that gentleman was always desirous of taking entire days from private Members. He (Mr. Labouchere) had always supported proposals for taking Morning Sittings, because he thought that they in no sort of way interfered with the rights of private Members. Under the present Rules private Members had 24½ hours a week, including the hour taken four times a week in asking questions, while the Government had only 15 hours. This was obviously entirely wrong. The Government ought certainly to have more time than private Members, and it could not be said that if they left a fair amount of time to private Members each week they ultimately invaded the time of private Members. He himself should be glad if the Prime Minister proposed as a Standing Order that throughout the whole Session Morning Sittings should take place on Tuesdays and Fridays, and the Government should have the Morning Sittings on those days. He had regretted to learn that the Prime Minister was going to allow a day Sitting to be taken up with a discussion on bimetallism.

    457
    Surely three hours was enough for a Debate on that question. It was said that at the present moment lunatic asylums were populated with those who fell victims to bimetallism. For his own part, he should just as soon think of devoting a day to a discussion on abstract love as to a Debate on bimetallism. The right hon. Gentleman had thrown out a suggestion that he would adopt the same course in Committee on the Home Rule Bill as on the Second Reading, and take the whole of private Members' days.
    MR. W. E GLADSTONE: I did not say I would ask for the whole time of ordinary Sittings, although I said I might ask for precedence.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he objected to the whole of a private Members' day being taken for the discussion of Government Bills, even as an exception, because it happened that Members on the Ministerial side of the House had important Motions down on two evenings which might be appropriated for the discussion of the Home Rule Bill—one relating to Railway rates and the other to payment of Members. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would grant Evening Sittings on those two days. It had been said that Evening Sittings were objectionable, because the House might be counted out. He himself had never been able to understand why the Government should make a House on Tuesdays or Fridays. If a Motion was an important one, surely the Member who made it could find 40 Members to support him. Whilst, if it were unimportant, he did not see why gentlemen should be dragged down in order to make a House for some private Member, when they knew it would be counted out half an hour afterwards. He hoped the Government would take Morning Sittings for the Second Reading Debate on the Home Rule Bill. They would gain nothing, in his opinion, by appropriating a whole day, rather than a Morning Sitting. The House might, perhaps, lose one or two speeches, which would be made in a somewhat thin House, when most Members were at dinner, but one could bear the loss of them, and he did not think the Government would gain a single day by the course they now proposed to adopt.
    MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, he had always endeavoured to support the rights of private, or, as he thought they ought to be called, "unofficial" Members. He thought this was an occasion on which they should support one another in maintaining their distinct rights. Private, or unofficial Members, were an important part of that House; they were the majority in it, and they should hang together in supporting their rights. His hon. Friend had said they were not there as pawns merely to vote as they were told, but they were sent there to represent the various social and other questions in which their constituents were interested and without which, after all, this great nation could not advance. It was quite true the late Government did on one or two occasions take certain time from unofficial or private Members, but they had special reasons for doing so. The present Government, however, were doing it in an altogether different manner, and it was obvious their intention was practically to silence private Members. Reference had been made to the Debate which took place on the 21st April, 1888, on the proposal by the late Government to take Friday evening in each week, for the special purpose of hastening the passage of the Local Government Bill. He would point out that that Motion was moved at the end of April, 1888, whereas the present Motion was being moved before they had reached the end of February, so that there was an enormous difference between the two cases. In the Debate on this question of private Members' time, which took place in April, 1888, the present Prime Minister, referring to the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for South St. Pancras, said that the hon. Member was absolutely and entirely wrong in stating it had been the practice of Liberal Governments to take private Members' nights for the Second Reading of important Bills. His experience (the right hon. Gentleman added) was that when a Liberal Government was in Office nothing was so rare as the interference with private Members' nights for continuous Debates. And yet before this Parliament had been going on for a whole month the right hon. Gentleman insisted on taking practically the whole time of the House. Let him remind hon. Members what had taken place already this

    459
    Session. The Address had been voted in a most remarkably short time, and then they were made to sit on Saturday in order that the Member for Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther) might bring on his Motion relating to pauper aliens—this being the only opportunity that was given for the discussion of this most important subject. The Address was voted on the Saturday, and then the Government took the whole of the Tuesday and Friday following for the introduction of the Home Rule Bill. Hon. Members below the Gangway, who used to be so fond of denouncing the late Government for the slightest interference with the time of private Members, now sat dumb, and were willing to allow the whole time of the House to be taken, whilst even the Member for Northampton acknowledged that he was going to follow the Party Whip. What was the excuse the Government gave for their proposal? It was that their Business was very important, but there never was a Government yet that did not announce to the House that their Business was important. If the Government had proposed to vote Supply there might be some possible reason for this Motion, but they did not want the time for that purpose. [Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Members below the Gangway thought he was going to be howled down they were mistaken. The fact was that the Government and the Irish Members were afraid of going into Supply; they no doubt desired to take a Vote on Account and to relegate Supply to some period about the end of August. The Government said they were particularly anxious to press forward their Home Rule Bill. They knew perfectly well that Bill would be defeated, and that it would lead to an appeal to the country, and if there was one thing the Liberal Party wished to avoid more than another it was an appeal to the country. This sacrificing of the time of private Members was not done with the intention of pressing on the various measures which the Government had in charge, for could any sane man suppose that this Parliament was going to get through the Home Rule Bill, the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, a Scotch Disestablishment Bill, Local Option, One Man One Vote, the Payment of Members, and a Registration Bill? It was absolutely impossible, and the reason why private Members rights had
    460
    been taken away was not to carry on the Business of the nation, but to keep the present Government in power. On Thursday night the Prime Minister was somewhat annoyed at the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) speaking so long as he did. The noble Lord made a most remarkable speech. [Cries of "Question!"] It was very much to the question, and the Prime Minister objected that there was not time for him to answer it. The right hon. Gentleman consumed a great part of the half-hour in which he had to speak in explaining he had not time to meet the arguments of the noble Lord. He did not wonder at it, because he was not able to meet them. But why did not the right hon. Gentleman agree to adjourn the Debate on Welsh Disestablishment? and then he would have had time to answer the arguments. Again, seven hours was surely too short a time to allow of the discussion for such an important subject as Welsh Disestablishment. It seemed to him private Members ought to make a great stand in defence of their rights. [Cries of "Divide!"] They were not going to be howled down. He thought it was clear that during the past month the Opposition had been a great deal too mild, and it had been shown that the more they gave way the more they should be trodden down. He warned the Prime Minister that private Members, if they were to be treated this way, would resist in every possible manner; they would not allow this sort of thing to go on, but would insist on doing those duties which they had been sent to the House to perform.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I want to make a little explanation which, owing to a misapprehension, I omitted to make in my opening statement. An Amendment has been given notice of by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to confine the Morning Sittings to the principal Business connected with Supply and the introduction of Bills. I said that I wished for a more elastic arrangement. My motive was simply and solely this: to get forward and bring to a conclusion the Debate on the Employers' Liability Bill. I did not feel certain that it would be possible to do this in an Evening Sitting. But I am perfectly willing to give a pledge not to introduce any other stage beyond

    461
    the introduction of Bills, except as regards the Employers' Liability Bill, and I think it is felt that that is a great measure in which we ought to join hands.
    MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)said, the impression prevailed among many hon. Members that in this matter the Government were asking too much. The suggestion that had been made by the hon. Member for Northampton, that the Government should be content with the Morning Sittings, was one which, he thought, would meet the necessities of the case so far as the Government interests were concerned, and, at the same time, would not wholly and entirely extinguish private Members. Let him remind the right hon. Gentleman that the very first Motion which he extinguished by his present proposal was one dealing with a most urgent and most important question—namely, the question of railway rates. That was a subject which affected Ireland as much as England, if not more. It was a question which affected every trader throughout the country; and unless they could get the question discussed on Tuesday, the 14th March, it was perfectly hopeless to have any discussion on the subject during the present Session.
    MR. MACARTNEY(interposing) said, he desired to move an Amendment which would come before the Amendment which he presumed the hon. Gentleman was going to move. He understood the hon. Gentleman was going to move to exclude Tuesday, the 14th March, but he (Mr. Macartney) intended to move to exclude Tuesday, the 7th March.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, the Amendment he should move was to omit the proviso altogether, and that would cover the hon. Member's case. He wished to make this appeal to the Government. He said they were in the presence of a legislative fiasco the like of which was not known in the memory of man. They had had the traders of this country and the Railway Companies spending thousands of pounds and engaging in continuous litigation for three years; and he was sure if the traders of this country expected no good from this legislation, at all events they expected no evil. But the result had proved that this legislation which was supposed to be for the benefit of the traders had proved to be solely a protection for the most exorbitant charges
    462
    on the part of the Railway Companies, and he had letters from all parts of the country showing that business was being disturbed, and that merchants were sending telegrams abroad stopping orders because the rates were completely opposed to the calculations on which their business transactions were based. They might be told that the Board of Trade were attending to this matter. He should have more confidence in the Board of Trade if he had ever seen that the President of the Board of Trade understood the nature of the crisis which has arisen. But he had watched that right hon. Gentleman in 1888 and since and he had never seen or heard anything from him that would convince him that the right hon. Gentleman understood the nature of the question; therefore, he for one was not disposed to leave this question under the sole protection of the President of the Board of Trade. On the contrary, he thought it was most urgent that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its views to the Board of Trade; and those gentlemen who represented large trading interests would incur a great responsibility towards the traders of this country if they did not insist that some opportunity should be given during the present Session for the consideration of this question. That was not the only question on which Members on that side of the House were interested. They had also a Motion for the payment of Members; and if the Government would say they were prepared to introduce a measure providing for the payment of Members, it would be unnecessary to proceed with that Motion. Private Members on that side of the House, while-prepared to give ample time to the Government, would insist on having some time left to themselves. He ventured to say, if the House would adopt his Amendment to omit the proviso, they would be doing justice both to the Government and private Members. He begged to move that the proviso be omitted.
    MR. HANBURYseconded the Amendment to omit the proviso, which, he said would get rid of the worst feature of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. He did not know that it was a very great hardship to private Members when there were Evening Sittings at which they had two or three hours for ventilating their grievances, but it was

    463
    undoubtedly hard when the whole time of private Members was taken away. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would meet them on this point. Those who were interested in the question of railway rates had ballotted day after day in order to get time to deal with this pressing subject, and after considerable difficulty they got Tuesday, the 14th March. That, however, happened to be the very first day which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to seize for his Home Rule Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had already given way on the subject of bimetallism, and did he not think this large question which affected the whole of the traders of this country and the Railway Companies was much more important than the question of bimetallism? Bimetallism was a subject on which there was a great diversity of opinion; but on the subject of railway rates, and the way in which past legislation in that House had been dealt with, there was hardly a dissentient voice in the House. He fully concurred with the last speaker in supposing the President of the Board of Trade was wholly mistaken in the way he was going to deal with this question.
    MR. SPEAKER(interposing): The action of the President of the Board of Trade is not relevant to this Motion.
    MR. HANBURYcould only say he protested against legislation which did injury and harm to the traders of this country.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the words "those days" to the end of the Question. — (Mr. Hunter.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, ever since he had had the honour of a seat in that House he had always opposed those Motions for taking the time of private Members, and he had never done so with more confidence than on the present occasion. He thought the House would see he was bound to offer a strenuous opposition to the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Member would look at the Resolution in favour of which the Government had made an exception, they would see that the operative part of it was whether a Conference as to the monetary
    464
    system, which was to meet in May, should meet somewhat sooner. Now, seeing that some members of that Conference were coming from the United States and Russia, it was practically impossible for the Conference to meet earlier, and yet that was the subject which the Government made an exception in favour of. Now, on the 21st of March he had, after ballotting for some years, been fortunate enough to get the first place for his Motion for the earlier closing of shops. A Royal Commission and two Committees of that House had considered this question, and what did they say? They told them that there were thousands of men and women at the present moment working for 80 and 90 hours a week. That was a state of things which affected the health of these unfortunate shop assistants. It was not part of the Newcastle Programme, like the long hours of railway servants—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Baronet is now speaking on a subject quite foreign to the Motion.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he only referred to the hours of railway servants as a parenthesis, and he presumed he was in order in pointing out the importance of his Resolution, which affected the health of thousands of persons, as a reason why it should not come under the operation of the Motion moved by the Prime Minister. The most intense interest was taken in the Resolution by the shop assistants and small shopkeepers throughout the country. They were anxious to obtain shorter hours. They could not obtain these shorter hours except by legislation, and now that, after having ballotted for a place for the Resolution for Sessions, they had been fortunate in securing a first place, the Government was about to take it away from them. Other important Resolutions would also be affected by the Motion. On the 7th March a Resolution in reference to arbitration was on the Paper, Petitions in support of which had been received from 57 out of 62 Trades Councils in the country, and on the 10th March there was a Resolution which had an important relation to the subject before the House, calling attention to—
    "The great and growing difficulty in the way of legislation by private Members of the House under the present Rules of Procedure."

    465
    He would not allude to the question of railway rates, because that had been well dealt with by previous speakers. The House would, therefore, see that on every 'private Members' night affected by the Motion there was a question of great and pressing importance to be brought under the notice of the House; but with reference to the particular Resolution of which he had charge, he would not be doing his duty to the shopkeepers and assistants of the country if he did not make his most respectful, and at the same time most earnest, protest against the proposal of the Government to take away from them the night they had at last secured for the consideration of this great and growing evil.
    MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)said, the tone of the Leader of the House in moving the Motion had been most conciliatory; but he had always observed that when a Leader of the House desired to do something dangerous to the rights of Members or to infringe the ancient customs of the House, he adopted a most conciliatory tone. He admitted that some of the arguments of the Prime Minister were plausible in the extreme, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was justified at that time of the Session in asking private Members to sacrifice the days they had been fortunate enough to secure in the Ballot. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Lubbock) had expressed surprise at the Prime Minister excepting the Resolution on bimetallism from his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had received a good deal of light and information on that subject recently. Perhaps that was owing to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, like other Members of the House, had received a circular containing Archbishop Walsh's views on bimetallism. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there were a number of Nationalist Members desirous of expounding the views of Archbishop Walsh on bimetallism; and therefore knowing the influence which that Prelate had on the deliberations of the Government, he did not share the hon. Baronet's surprise that the Prime Minister should have excluded bimetallism from the operation of the Motion. But if the Prime Minister had conciliated the bimetallists, he had not
    466
    gone far enough—for the right hon. Gentleman had not conciliated him. He had got a Motion on the Paper which affected the agricultural interests at large of the whole Kingdom, and which hon. Members on both sides of the House favoured. He would be precluded by the Prime Minister's Motion from calling attention to this matter which demanded instant attention, and he had, therefore, every right to complain. But he proposed to show by precedents which had occurred in recent years that private Members had never been asked to give up their days at so early a period in the Session. In 1891, when the Government moved a similar Motion, they had only three Government days before Easter; in 1892 they had only eight Government days before Easter and only four days before the 31st March, the last day on which they could introduce the Appropriation Bill. This year there were nine Government days available. He was also prepared to show that the Financial Business of the Government was in a very much better position than the Financial Business of the late Government had been when they made their demand last year for the time of private Members. Last year there were 26 Votes to be taken; this year there were only 21 Votes, and they were not nearly so contentious as the Votes of last year, for the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the most contentious Vote this Session had been so arranged that hon. Members would not be able to raise a discussion on it at all. But the right hon. Gentleman proposed to devote some of the days he would obtain under the Motion not to Supply but to the Government of Ireland Bill. If Supply were urgent it stood to reason that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be able to put down the Irish Government Bill on Tuesdays and Fridays, and if, on the other hand, Supply was not urgent, there was not one single argument for the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman had asked the House to adopt. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in a Debate on a similar Motion which took place in 1890, laid it down that a demand of this kind was unprecedented unless the Business of the Government was in an unsatisfactory condition, and the Prime Minister was unable to show that the position of the Government in the

    467
    matter of Business was not better than the position of the last Government on the occasions when they had demanded the time of private Members. He further opposed this Motion on the ground that the policy of the present Government was based on principles which had never obtained in any Government before. The Prime Minister had told them in his speech on the Welsh Suspensory Bill that neither he nor the Government ever looked to the merits of a Bill, or whether it was just or fair or prudent but that they looked merely to the votes that measure would catch. The right hon. Gentleman had made the singular confession that if the Welsh Members were to change their minds on the question of the Disestablishment of the Church, he was quite prepared to change his mind with them. The other Bill which the right hon. Gentleman desired to promote —the Government of Ireland Bill—was not understood by the Liberal Party. [Cries of "Order!"] He would not go outside the proper limits of the discussion, and, in conclusion, he would say that he opposed the Motion not only on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take away a day he had secured for the discussion of a proposal of great importance and affecting large interests in the Kingdom, but also because the right hon. Gentleman was not justified by the state of Public Business and the condition of the legislative proposals of the Government to ask for so large a concession of the rights of private Members.
    DR. CLARKsaid, he hoped the Prime Minister would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter). During the last Parliament, when the hon. Member for Northampton and himself moved Amendments to Motions similar to that before the House, they had been supported by a large number of hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench, and strongly opposed by hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) on the other side of the House. But he and his hon. Friend had not changed their opinion with their seats like hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the Government persisted in taking the whole of the time of the House private Members would be compelled to raise the questions in which
    468
    they were interested on Supply; and if the Government did what the late Government had done—put down Supply at the end of the Session, when there was no time for discussion—the opportunity of the Debate on the Address at the opening of next Session would be seized by private Members to bring forward what the right hon. Gentleman looked upon as Votes of Censure on the Government as the only means of getting their grievances attended to. A pledge had been given by the last Government that the Report of Supply or any other Financial Business should not be taken after 1 o'clock on days on which the Morning Sittings were used by the Government. He wished to know whether that pledge would be adhered to by the present Government?
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that will be admitted by hon. Members in all parts of the House, and that is, that the invasion of the rights of unofficial Members has been steadily progressing on the part of the various Governments of the day. I appeal to the Prime Minister to turn his back upon the vicious precedents of recent years, and I invite him to go back to those sounder Parliamentary precedents when he first led the House of Commons. It was my good fortune to enter the House at the time that the right hon. Gentleman succeeded Lord Palmerston as Leader of the House, and I think I may with some confidence appeal to him to be guided more by precedents of those days than by precedents of a more recent origin. It has been said that unofficial Members have availed themselves of opportunities which should be placed entirely at the disposal of the Government, and as an instance reference was made to the Debate on the Address. Well, I have often remarked that where attempts are made to unduly curtail the rights and privileges and opportunities of unofficial Members in one direction, their views find a vent in another direction. The Government do not require to be told that sitting on the safety-valve is not a safe method of advancing their rate of speed. The old practice of the House was that every Member—be his position what it might—had an inalienable right of pressing grievances before Supply; but some years ago that privilege was unduly,

    469
    and, in my opinion, very unwisely, curtailed, and step by step inroads have been made on the rights of unofficial Members. Unofficial Members have their duties to discharge towards their constituents and towards their own consciences just as much as Governments have; and if they are debarred from calling attention to grievances in a constitutional manner prior to Supply, they are perfectly justified in availing themselves of their remaining opportunities for raising discussions. Why, I ask, is it the interest of the Government that they should procure the whole time of the House? Is it because Governments of these days are more ambitious and are not content to advance at the same steady rate of speed as satisfied their predecessors. In the times of which I spoke, when the right hon. Gentleman first led the House, Governments did not seek to compass the Disestablishment of Churches and the disintegration of Empires with the rapidity of greased lightning. If they introduced momentous measures they did so with adequate explanation, and subject to proper discussion; and they allowed Parliament the full opportunity to deliberate upon them; they introduced such measures in limited numbers, and they did not attempt to force them at racing speed through the House of Commons. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of healthier precedents. I was glad to see that the knowledge of Parliamentary practice and Constitutional Law, which the right hon. Gentleman possesses to so unique an extent, enabled him to extricate his colleagues just now from a very serious blunder. Some astute colleague—I do not believe it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer— appears to have thought he could have enabled the Government to hoodwink the House by preparing an Estimate in such a manner that an important item of expenditure, in respect to which public attention has been very largely aroused, could be smuggled through without discussion. The right hon. Gentleman, however, came to the rescue of his indiscreet colleague and put him right before Parliament and the country. I hope he will act in a similar fashion now —that he will make a timely concession to the general feeling of the House, and
    470
    will avoid the necessity of a Division on the Amendment before us. The House of Commons has been of recent years very jealous of the privileges of unofficial Members. It does not allow the Government of the day to take unchallenged those privileges which are enjoyed by Members at large. I can well recollect when, on occasions like this, the dividing line was not the floor, but the Gangway; and although, through circumstances over which I have no control, I have been driven to take refuge up here, and by the exercise of the right I possess to take a seat above the Gangway, my sympathies are largely with those below. I hope the Government will see that this action is taken far too early in the Session. The right hon. Gentleman can find no precedent for his Motion beyond the discredited and vicious precedents of the immediate past, and even these precedents furnish him no example of what he now proposes to do. I hope, therefore, he will postpone his Motion for some weeks, and then bring it forward in a form less calculated to arouse the suspicions and the hostility of Members generally of this House.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, I will only say a few words on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says I have brought the Motion forward too early in the Session. I have brought it forward, Sir, under circumstances of very peculiar pressure, and four weeks after the opening of the Session. I supported a substantially similar Motion made by the late Government, unaccompanied by the guarantees we propose of giving Members Tuesday and Friday evenings—within three weeks of the opening of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the general feeling of the House is with him upon this matter. It may be conceded that a majority of the speeches are with the right hon. Gentleman, but I have known occasions, which were doubtless known also to the right hon. Gentleman, when hon. Gentlemen who are favourable to the proposals of the Government think that they perceive in some parts of the House a disposition to prolong the Debate, and who, under these circumstances, thought it well to refrain from speaking. Much depends upon the way in which gentlemen look upon these questions. I have heard it stated that the

    471
    10 days occupied on the Address were to be regarded as having been devoted to Government Business. But with certain exceptions the Address has become the property of private Members, who take advantage of it — I will not say unwarrantably—to raise questions in which they feel great interest, and in respect to which they feel they might not be able to secure an independent night for discussion. According to my reckoning, nine out of the ten nights occupied on the Address were nights of private Members, and if that be so, 13 out of the 20 days the House has sat this Session have been given to private Members and seven to the Government. That is my mode of calculating the matter. But, however that may be, what I wish to impress upon the House is that we have upon us very heavy responsibilities. Day after day endeavours are made—and I make no complaint and pass no censure—to increase those responsibilities. The Member for Aberdeen, while taking exception to our proposal for taking some of the time of private Members, has also proposed an addition to those responsibilities, which, he will admit, will require time—that is, he proposes that the Government should undertake a Bill in the present Session for the payment of Members of Parliament. I can assure the House, and I can assure those who are opposed to the Motion as well as those who are in favour of it, that it is nothing but an imperative sense of public duty, public advantage, and public necessity which, after a careful examination of the time at our disposal, and of the obligations we have undertaken—and that we are bound to redeem—has compelled me to place this proposition before the House.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman has referred to what took place last year, and he has stated that he supported a similar Motion when it was brought forward by the present Leader of the Opposition. That is quite true. It was not a precisely similar Motion, but a Motion fairly analogous to this. On that occasion the Leader of the House stated that my right hon. Friend had raised a very flimsy structure in his speech for so wide a proposition. The argument of my right hon. Friend covered the whole ground, but the right hon. Gentleman called upon him never-
    472
    theless to submit a stronger argument. My right hon. Friend had submitted a distinctly strong argument to the House. That argument was, that we were absolutely obliged to deal with the finance that still remained over, and that financial considerations made it almost compulsory to give that time to the Government. I have waited to see whether there would be any indication from the Treasury Bench that it was in order to get through finance that these demands were now made upon the House, and that the rights of private Members were to be suspended, but no stress whatever has been laid upon finance, and I am surprised to see that it is almost avowedly admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that it is for the purpose of legislation and not for the purposes of finance that this demand is made. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: We will take both in time.] Yes; but the other day, when the right hon. Gentleman gave his notice, no allusion was made to finance. Again, in the question which was raised by the Member for Northamptonshire—I do not know whether it was a "put up" question or not—no allusion was made to finance at all; but the right hon. Gentleman has proposed this Motion in the interests of legislation. How are we to regard this Motion? I regard it distinctly as a Motion to enable Her Majesty's Government to pass the Second Reading of the Bill for the worse government of Ireland, and it is assumed by the right hon. Gentleman so distinctly that it will be taken before Easter that he puts in this proviso—which is now objected to by some hon. Members on his own side—in order to make sure that the Second Reading of the Bill shall be passed before Easter. The right hon. Gentleman said there were things which must necessarily be done before Easter. I ask, is it necessary to pass the Second Reading of this Bill before Easter, and, if so, why? I can imagine reasons why, in the view of the Government, it should be very desirable that the Second Reading should be passed before Easter, but we on this side do not recognise that necessity at all. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman calculates that the Debate on the Second Reading would take some eight days at least, and the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to curtail discussion on so great a subject.

    473
    Here, then, are eight days to spare before Easter—eight days which the right hon. Gentleman thinks should be devoted to this particular measure; but a considerable portion of time will be required, I think, for the finance of the year. It has been pointed out how very much Financial Business remains to be performed; and the right hon. Gentleman had taken the game course that we took last year, and said that finance alone must occupy the time before Easter, he would have made it difficult for us to resist the Motion. But that is clearly not the idea of the Government, and the whole energy which the right hon. Gentleman put in the eloquent last sentence of his speech shows us that he thinks it his bounden duty if he can to get the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill. We do not feel ourselves under an obligation to render the service to the Government of enabling them to pass the Second Reading of the Bill before Easter, and, therefore, we shall feel it our duty to vote for the Amendment before the House, and afterwards to say "no" to the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)was bound, as an agricultural Member, to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and he was bound also to protest against the action of the Government. They knew perfectly well that at the Evening Sitting last week the House was counted out at 8 o'clock; and although the Government had promised to keep a House in future for the Evening Sittings on Tuesday and Friday, they all knew that on these occasions the House would be counted out after the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the particular Resolutions to be brought forward. On Tuesday, the 7th March, a proposal of the greatest possible interest to the agricultural population — namely, pleuropneumonia—was to have been brought forward by the Member for Antrim, but that would now be cut out. He himself had also a notice of Motion with reference to the agricultural depression, which would share the same fate. He looked upon the action of the Government as an intention to deprecate in every possible way the claims put forward on behalf of the agricultural interest.
    MR. A. C. MORTONcould not very well agree with the Opposition on this occasion, and especially with
    474
    the opposition of the Member for North Islington, because he remembered in the late Parliament, when efforts were made to get attention paid to the wants and requirements of private Members, they rarely or rather never had the assistance and support of hon. Gentlemen. Something had been said about Supply. He was very anxious to discuss Supply, and he should in future be more anxious to discuss it than ever he had been in the past, because he had now with him a majority pledged as much to economy as he was himself, whose efforts, he hoped, would lead to practical good. He admitted the truth of what had been said by the Leader of the House as to the imperative needs of the Government and the Liberal Party at the present time, and, therefore, he was willing to make sacrifices he would not have been willing to make under other circumstances. He considered that of the four weeks of the present Session three had been occupied by the Opposition in long discussions on the introduction of Bills, without having these Bills in their hands or being properly acquainted with their contents. For his part, he should have wished that the Government had met a fortnight earlier, and he would now suggest that at the Morning Sittings between now and Easter they should take Supply and go on regularly with it. He hoped ample opportunity would be given for discussing the question of railway rates and charges, which was purely a Radical question, and which last year received very little support from Members opposite, who now affected such an interest in the subject. There was a second question, also a Radical question, which he hoped they should have time adequately to discuss, and that was the one relating to arbitration. No one could accuse him of unduly taking up the time of the House this Session, for out of kindness to the Government he withdrew his Amendment to the Address relating to the appointment of Justices in the country, and which, by-the-bye, was the most important Amendment on the Address. He should like to ask the Government if they intended to proceed with their Justices Qualification Bill which stood on the Order Paper? He was sorry private Members' time should have to be interfered with at all; but he admitted this was an important Session, and he regretted that instead of

    475
    having that real assistance which they might expect from hon. Gentlemen opposite, now they were in opposition there seemed to he an inclination on their part to waste time. He trusted the Government would give way and agree to the first Amendment, and also that they would take Supply in good time so as to afford ample opportunities for discussion.
    MR. STOREYsaid, he was one of those who in former Parliaments—no matter which Government was in power—had always stood up for the rights of private Members. But there was this difference between the present and former Parliaments: In former Parliaments private Members on both sides of the House combined to press the question on the Government of the day; but in the last Parliament, with one or two rare exceptions, whenever they pressed on the Conservative Party the rights of private Members, hon. Members opposite, who were now so anxious about these rights, showed them a face of flint. When hon. Members opposite asked him now, as a Radical, to support them, he intended to look at it exactly from the Radical standpoint, and to ask himself what did they, as Radicals, lose by accepting the Government proposal? As far as he understood, they lost two things: First of all, the Member for Swansea did not get on with his Motion regarding railway rates. But how did they stand with regard to railway rates? The Board of Trade at the present time were pressing that matter with great severity on the Railway Companies, and the President of the Board of Trade had given a public undertaking that if he could not manage quietly to get something done he would take public means in that House; therefore, he dismissed that. The other right which they lost was the discussion of the Motion for the payment of Members. What they, as Radicals, wanted the the Government to do on that question was to make up their minds quickly. They had been told the Government required this extra time in order to pass the Home Rule Bill. What he wanted to see passed was the Home Rule Bill, therefore he should prefer to treat this as an exceptional year, and give the Government the time they needed. It was not every year they proposed to remodel their Constitution. That was the great enter-
    476
    prise to which the Government had summoned them, and he did not intend to be drawn by hon. Members opposite into any vote which would have the appearance of defeating the Government that had this great matter in charge; therefore, he intended, no matter what he might be called, to support the Government.
    MR.KENYONwished to know whether, in the event of this. Motion passing the House, the First Lord of the Treasury would consent to abandon the date for the premature "Massacre of the Innocents," so far as related to the following Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech:—The Bill for shortening the duration of Parliaments, the Bill for equalising the franchise, the Bill for creating Parish Councils, and the Welsh Suspensory Bill? If not, would the latter Bill be made the first Order of the Day upon the first available opportunity?
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 276; Noes 245.—(Division List, No. 13.)
    Main Question proposed.
    Mr. BUCHANANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question, "That the Main Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put accordingly.
    The House divided:—Ayes 270; Noes 228.—(Division List, No. 14.)
    Resolved, That, on and after Friday next, until Easter the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Two o'clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the Morning Sittings on those days: Provided always, that if the Government of Ireland Bill be appointed for any of such days the House do meet at Three o'clock, and the proceedings on that Bill do have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion (Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL CONTROL) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT,),in asking for leave to bring in a Bill to establish Local Control over the Traffic in Liquor, said: Sir, it is said, and I think truly said, that the questions which most interest both sides of the

    477
    House are social questions, and it is my duty to-night to bring under the consideration of the House a social question which I think everyone will admit is of the very first magnitude and of the greatest urgency—I mean the question of temperance reform. It is not necessary that I should occupy the time of the House in enlarging upon the importance of such a question, or the greatness of the evils with which the measure has to deal, or of the primary claim which it consequently has upon the attention of the House. If there is any matter to which, by the voice of the nation, this Parliament is pledged above all others I think it is that of dealing with the question of temperance. In many questions which are brought before the House it is considered necessary to make a demonstration of the evils that you require to remedy. That demonstration in this case is altogether superfluous. We are, unfortunately, too well acquainted with the nature of that evil, of its extent, and of the necessity for the application of a remedy. This is no new question. It is one which has exercised the mind of the country, and which, I think I may say, has affected the conscience of the people for at least a generation. I speak in the presence of men who have given a lifetime to their labours on this question, and who, I trust, before long are about to witness the consummation of the hopes which they have so long entertained. I see behind me my hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland (Sir W. Lawson), who, through good report and through evil report, has sustained the heat and burden of the day upon this great question, and we who come as later labourers into the field —but not so late as you suppose, as I shall be able to show presently—we may congratulate him upon the prospect of reaching the goal which he has so long? desired. Now, it has been said truly that the House of Commons never presents itself to greater advantage than when it is dealing with questions which are not of the character of Party questions. The question of temperance, I hope and believe I may truly say, whatever it may have been in past times, is not to-day a Party question. I believe that there sit upon that side of the House men, whatever their particular views upon the subject may be, who are as convinced and as earnest temperance reformers as
    478
    those who sit upon this side of the House, and we may hope they will join with us in the common desire to arrive at some satisfactory solution of a question that has been too long delayed. We are anxious—we declare ourselves anxious every day—for the poverty of great masses of the people of this country, but who is there in this House or out of this House who does not know what is the mainspring and the source of that poverty? Who does not know that it is in drink that is to be found the causa causans of that misery? We desire to see the wages of the working classes increased and improved, but what is the object of increasing and improving those wages if the margin that you have is to be dissipated in drink? The reduction of the hours of labour is one of the questions of the day; but are we to take no care of what is to be the employment of that leisure which we add to the life of the working classes? Crime, though it is largely diminished, happily, in this country, is still a great blot upon our social system, and he who knows anything of the matter knows this: that of all the sources and causes of crime, the most fertile is to be found in drink? An hon. Member opposite challenged me, I thought, with an ironical cheer, as to the date of my conversion upon this subject. That question was once asked me in the House of Commons, and my answer—it was a true and a sincere answer—was that it was from the date when in the responsibilities of the Home Department I had cognisance of those causes of crime which led many a man, aye, and many a woman, to the loss of liberty and life, and brought them even to a shameful death. Those are thoughts and reflections which are not easily effaced from the mind or conscience. Now if these things are so—and I think there is no man on either side of the House who denies that—we who are the representatives of the people, who are responsible for the well-being of the people, have to ask ourselves whether we have done anything in the past, or whether we intend to do something in the future, to remedy those evils, to stay this plague which is amongst us. What do we see in our midst? Go to the flaring gin-shop with the flaunting misery you will find there, and consider the men and women who

    479
    make the congregations in these places, and ask yourselves whether Parliament has done what it ought to do to put a stop to such scenes as you behold. Go to the country villages, go among those pleasant spots of which there are so many in this fortunate land, and what will you see there? At one end of the village you will see the church and the chapel, at the other end you will see the savings bank, and between the two you will see three or four, or it may be half a dozen, public-houses, which upset the services of the church, and which absorb the savings of the people. Is that a state of things which we can contemplate; is that not a state of things that we ought to do something to put an end to? Aye, this is all the doing of the laws which you have made, because this is a traffic which exists by a creation of the law; it is a regular monopoly of the law, and we have to congratulate ourselves upon the monopoly that we have created, and that we profess to regulate. It is not the people who license those houses, it is not the people who maintain them where they are. They cannot do away with them if they choose. They are planted there by an authority which is outside and independent of the community whose welfare is so deeply affected by them. No, Sir, I venture to affirm that no man can say that Parliament has hitherto done what it ought to do in such a matter as this. I do firmly believe that, by the will and by the mandate of the people of to-day, this Parliament is called upon to achieve that beneficent work. The action of legislation in such matters is naturally, perhaps pardonably, slow. In order to deal with powerful interests and inveterate custom, you must have the gathered momentum of popular opinion which shall compel legislation which the country demands. We have all had, I think, for many a long year an uneasy feeling that something ought to be done, which has not been done, but there has been a great deal of hesitation and a great deal of uncertainty as to what ought to be done. I believe the time has come when there is a conviction that Parliament ought to make up its mind, and will make up its mind, what is to be done. The Government are not unaware that in navigating this sea they are navigating an ocean that is covered with many wrecks. The question is not
    480
    whether anything is to be done. I do not think that question will be asked. But the question which will emphatically be asked is, what is to be done? The existing state of things is the result of what is known as the licensing system, and it is natural enough that in the earliest attempts at dealing with this matter efforts were principally directed to dealing with the licensing system by Licensing Bills. That was the nature of the attempt 20 years ago made by Mr. Bruce when he was Home Secretary. I desire, in the first instance, in order to clear the ground, to inform the House that the Bill I ask leave to introduce is not a Licensing Bill at all. It does not profess to deal with the licensing question. The licensing is one which requires to be dealt with, and which will have to be dealt with. It never can be, in my opinion, a satisfactory system that licensing should depend on persons who have no popular mandate whatever in the matter, find therefore no doubt Licensing Boards will hereafter have to be created, and will probably have to devise a. Licensing Committee. I desire to say nothing in disparagement of the licensing magistrates. I believe that, especially in late years, according to their lights and according to their power, they have discharged their duty honestly in these matters, and I cast no reflections on them. But they are not a popular body; they have not the force of popular opinion; and the consequence of that has been that they wanted the courage and the firmness requisite in dealing with matters of this description. I wish, first of all, to state that the Bill I have to lay before the House is not a Licensing Bill. This is important, because if the question is raised whether the Bill is for the reduction of the number of licences, I say it is not. That can only be done by a Licensing Board. These are very important questions, and proper to be raised, but questions which do not belong to the Bill I have to lay before the House. In my opinion, no mere Licensing Bill will ever go to the root of this question. You have to go deeper than that; if you are to do any good you must cut to the quick in this matter. You have to deal with a great national evil. On what principle are you going to deal with this great national evil? If you are to strike an effective

    481
    blow at a great national evil you must appeal to the conscience and the voice of the people. You must appeal to that great democratic principle which evokes the vital energy of the popular voice and of the popular conscience. You cannot trust interests so vast as this; you cannot cope with evils so deeply rooted by leaving them to the discretion of any selected class or of any delegated body. If you hope to form habits of moral obligation you must make your appeal direct to the conscience of the people themselves. If the people are to be reformed they must be the authors of their own reformation. These were the principles upon which the Government desired to found their measures of reform. This measure is not a measure of any novelty or any complexity. To describe it in a single sentence, it is a Bill to establish the control of the liquor traffic by the popular vote operating through the direct veto of the people. After many phases of opinion, and many variations in the former legislation, this, I think, is the leading and fundamental principle which has commended itself to the great body of the temperance party. I know this is not the opinion which has been always very universally held. I am aware that there are many, or were many, and may be many now, who think that instead of referring this question directly to the people's veto you had better delegate it to some of your Representative Bodies. I speak of that opinion with all the more respect because it is one, in former years, I strongly held myself. The first speech that I made in this House is just 10 years ago, on the Motion of local option of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland (Sir W. Lawson), and I argued in that direction; but I may be permitted just to read a sentence of the conclusion of that speech. I was speaking not merely for myself, but for the Government, of which I was a Member. I said—
    "I am speaking distinctly on behalf of the Government as a whole, as well as expressing my own personal opinions. We shall vote for giving this power, because of the persons who are interested in it; that is to say, to the inhabitants of the localities, reserving, of course, the right to determine how that opinion is to be ascertained."
    MR. GOSCHEN: The date?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: You will find that on April 27th, 1883, page 1315, in Hansard. I expressed upon that occasion a preference—there is no reason to conceal it—for the delegation of those powers at that time to the Municipal Councils and the County Councils, making this declaration on the part of the Government in respect of local option. I made that declaration in all its breadth, reserving an opinion as to the manner in which the voice of the nation should be taken. Well, Sir, I will say very frankly why I, and many others, have changed their opinions upon that subject. This course is one the Government cannot recommend, because from the elections and developments of the Councils we do not think it would be a convenient or possible thing to impose upon these Bodies the duties of dealing with the liquor question. We believe it would interfere very much with the character of their election and occupy their time very much in matters with which they would probably rather be without. You have not imposed upon them the duty of dealing with education, and you have not given them charge of the Poor Laws. I have the honour of speaking in the presence, I am sure, of many Members on both sides of the House who have had a great experience in this question of Local Bodies and Municipal Councils and of County Councils, and I should be extremely surprised to find that there was any member of those Councils who would get up and say that he desired that the dealing with the liquor question should be imposed on those Bodies. This is frankly the reason why we abandon that idea. Their jurisdiction is happily concerned with matters which, I believe, are of a more neutral character, and it would impart and introduce into those Councils matters of a contentious character with which they would be much rather without. I think I may set aside all proposals of that character, and I would, in reference to this subject, say that if you come to deal with the licensing question in the future, with which this Bill does not deal, in my opinion you must have a separate representative Licensing Board, distinct altogether from County Councils and Municipal Councils, for the reason I have stated. This is a view in which I rather gather is one in which both sides

    483
    of the House are inclined to concur. The general proposal I have to submit to the House is that the question whether any house for the retail sale of intoxicating liquor on or off the premises within a limited area should be determined by the direct vote of the ratepayers taken at stated intervals. That is a sufficiently accurate description of the main project and plan of the Bill.
    An hon. MEMBER: What about grocers' licences?
    SIR W. V. HARCOURT: That includes grocers' licences. Hon. Gentlemen will understand what I mean when I say that all Justices' licences are distinguished from Excise licences. As a rule, Justices' licences mean retail licences, and Excise licences mean wholesale licences of brewers, wine merchants, and so forth. Justices' licences are what I mean when I speak of licences in the Bill. I have said that this is no Party question, and I think I am entitled to say so. One of the most careful and elaborate attempts which of late years has been made to settle this question was that made by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) in 1890. He stated, in asking leave to introduce that Bill, that he was in communication with the liquor trade, Sir W. Lawson, the Temperance Associations, and particularly with the Church of England Temperance Association. He introduced that Bill—a more ambitious Bill than that of which I have charge—as a Licensing Bill, and also a Direct Veto Bill. What he said on the subject of the direct veto part of the Bill is so pertinent to what I have to lay before the House that I will ask leave to read an extract from his speech. The noble Lord said—
    "The main principle of the Bill is popular control over the issue of licences."
    That is the principle accepted—I think I may say, which has been accepted by both sides of the House. I will go on to quote another observation of the noble Lord, a most pertinent remark, and well expressed, as everything that comes from the noble Lord is. He said—
    "It is alleged that you cannot make people sober by Act of Parliament. You cannot, it is true; but I tell you what you can do, you can give the people by Act of Parliament the power to make themselves sober."
    Well, Sir, a more excellent answer to a more shallow fallacy was never given
    484
    even by the noble Lord. Now, what was the description he gave of his method? Having described the earlier part of the Bill, he said this—
    "But I go even further in applying the principle of popular control. I have provided that, in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, there should be brought into operation that which is called the direct veto—that is to say, that, if in a certain parish "
    —I ask the House to observe that the area taken was the parish—" two-thirds" —you will observe there also the proportion is taken at two-thirds—
    "of the ratepayers on the municipal register voted for the prohibition of the granting of licences, the vote should operate against the granting of all retail licences. There is a good deal to be said in favour of the equity of such a proposal. On the face of it, it is not unfair that where you find a large and preponderating majority in a restricted area who desire to live under conditions which, in their belief, conduce to order and morality—it is hard on such a majority that a comparatively small minority should be able to prevent them having their way. And what makes it especially hard in this case is that the power which you refuse to entrust, or which you may possibly refuse to entrust, to so large and preponderating a majority is a power which, under the law of the land, is actually enjoyed by the owners of property. An owner of many thousands of acres, or of a large portion of a town, may, and frequently does, no matter how much the persons on that property may object, prohibit the establishment of a single house for the sale of intoxicating liquor. Therefore, you allow to the owner of property a power which may be exercised in the most tyrannical manner, which I believe in certain cases has been exercised tyrannically, and which may be exercised tyrannically, and which may be exercised against the wishes of the majority of the people. I think there is a great deal to be said for allowing a preponderating majority of the inhabitants to prohibit the establishment of houses for the retail sale of drink."
    I think it is impossible to put forth more clearly and more accurately the principles on which the direct veto is founded. Well, in the last Parliament the sower went forth to sow, and his seed fell on stony ground. It never put forth either a germ or brought forth a seed, but still I hope that that seed is not altogether lost, and that in the present Parliament we may have the advantage of the countenance and support of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington. I observe also that on the back of that Bill there was the name of a gentleman who is no longer a Member of this House, but who sat with the noble Lord, and who for many years rendered yeoman's service to the

    485
    temperance question—I mean Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson. And there was also, I am glad to say, the names of the hon. Member for South Kensington, and the hon. Member for South Belfast. I am adverting to this Bill in order to maintain my proposition that this is not a Party question, because in the Bill to which I have referred, and in the argument I have quoted, I find an exact analogue and counterpart of the Bill I am going to ask the House to accept. I am perfectly aware, and I ought fairly to state, that the noble Lord accompanied the Bill and his proposal with a strong declaration on the subject of compensation. I shall, of course, have a word to say on the subject presently. But the noble Lord did not in that Bill insist on that, because he introduced a Bill on the direct veto without any scheme or any clause dealing with compensation at all.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: He was a private Member.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; I know the Bill was the Bill of a private Member, but there are methods by which a private Member can express his ideas on such a subject. I have no doubt the noble Lord will at a future stage of this discussion be able to explain to us what his views on compensation are. Having said this much, I will just, briefly I hope, point out the particulars of the Bill to the House. It is a short Bill, and a simple Bill, and I think I shall do best by reading the first clause of the Bill, which practically contains the main substance of the measure. It says—
    "One-tenth of the electors living in the areas hereinafter mentioned"
    I will say a word on the area directly—
    "may address a requisition in writing to the authorities hereinafter mentioned"
    I will explain that directly—
    "requiring the authority to cause a poll of the electors to he taken on the question whether total closing shall be adopted within the area— that is to say, whether a grant or renewal of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor within the area shall be permitted—thereupon a poll shall be taken in accordance with the requisition in the manner directed by this Act."
    Then—
    "If a majority of two-thirds of the persons voting on the above resolve the question in the affirmative, then while the resolution is in force no licence shall- except as by this Act provided —be granted or renewed for the sale of intoxicating liquor within the area."
    Then—
    486
    "When a poll has been taken in any area on the above question a further poll on the same question shall not be taken before the expiration of three years from the date when the resolution came into force, or if the question is resolved in the negative from the date of the poll."
    That really contains the main substance of the Bill.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Who are the electors?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The electors will be the municipal electors, the people who elect the Municipal Councils in the boroughs and the County Councils in the counties. That includes, of course, the women, who are deeply interested in this matter. There are one or two points in this part of the Bill on which I ought to say a word. First of all, as to the two-thirds. The Government adopted that, because from the temperance party itself it has a great authority for that proportion. I have drawn it, I may say, from the original Permissive Bill of the hon. Member for Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), for that included a two-thirds majority; to come down to later times, the Welsh Bill and the Direct Veto Bill of 1890 had also a two-thirds majority, the Irish Bill of 1890 had a two-thirds majority, the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington had a two-thirds majority, and the Manchester Bill also had a two-thirds majority, and another Bill, the Westminster Bill, had a two thirds majority. Therefore the Government have adopted as the majority for total prohibition a majority of two-thirds. As to the authority to take the poll, I do not think that that is very material, but it will be the Council in the Borough and the Urban Sanitary District Authority, and for the parish the Overseers of the parish. Their office however, will only be ministerial—they will have to take the poll. The voters, as I have already said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, will be the municipal voters. The area which we propose to take is the parish. From the first time I ever spoke upon this subject in this House I said that the question was very much a question of area. Now, the smaller the area in my opinion the better because the more accurately you get the real opinion of the community. If you have a very large area, you may have one part of the area entirely objecting to your proposals, and over-

    487
    powering by the voting power all the other portions of the area. No doubt the areas will be very irregular, because parishes are very irregular; some are very large and some very small, but we cannot help that. I do not think it would have been a wise thing to have proposed to construct a new area. First of all you would have had great delay, and in the second place we have areas enough, perhaps too many, in the country already. In the boroughs, if it is a small borough we take the whole borough; if it is a large borough we take the wards as the unit.
    MR. JAMES STUART: What is the unit for London?
    SIR W. HARCOURT:
    "In the County of London any district of a Sanitary Authority within the meaning of Section 99 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, or if any such district being outside the City of London, is divided into wards or consists of several parishes, then any such ward or parish."
    That is the technical way in which it has been described. It has been very carefully considered in the Local Government Board Office.
    SIR MARK STEWART: Does the Bill apply to Scotland?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; it does apply to Scotland, and not to Ireland.
    Several hon. MEMBERS: Why not?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, there is another Bill before the House. We think that this is a 'matter which the Irish ought to determine for themselves. The definition of licences will be found at the end of the first clause. It is very short. In this section the expression "licence" has the same meaning as in the Licensing Act of 1872, which really means the Justices' licence as distinguished from the brewers' and wine licences. The vote will be by ballot, and there are strong provisions against corrupt practices and illegal expenditure. We are very anxious that there should not be expensive elections. We have prohibited absolutely as illegal any expenses except the actual expenses of taking the ballot, so that agents' committees and anything of that kind will be illegal expenditure. I come now to a point upon which I expect probably we shall be exposed to some criticism— namely, the point of the exemptions from the operation of the Bill. I wish
    488
    at once to say that this is a Bill which is not conceived in any spirit of narrow fanaticism. We do not desire, or intend, or pretend, to put down the use and consumption of liquor by persons in their own houses, or, if they have no houses of their own, in the places where they reside or where they take their meals. I believe if we were to attempt anything of that kind we should be met with a violent resistance, and probably a violent reaction in this country, and nothing could be more injurious to the. cause of temperance. This Bill is directed against the bar of the gin-palace and the taproom of the public-house and the beer-shop. It is not intended to prevent the consumption of liquor by such people as desire or require it, whether travelling on the railway or whether they are in hotels and inns for public accommodation, or at eating houses where people who have no homes of their own take their ordinary meals. The section referring to the exemptions is as follows:—
    "Nothing in this Act shall prevent the grant or renewal of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises intended to be used in good faith exclusively for all or any of the following purposes:—(a) For refreshment rooms on a. railway for persons arriving at or departing by railway; (b) for an inn or hotel for the accommodation of travellers or persons lodging therein; (c) for an eating-house for persons taking meals on the premises."
    Then in the same section this statement is made—
    "There shall be attached to every such licence such conditions as the licensing authority think necessary or proper for preventing the use of the premises for any other purpose than that specified in the licence, and if any person commits or permits any breach of these conditions he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50, and if he is the licensee, to the forfeiture of his licence."
    These restrictions are not directed to the ordinary habits of people in the places, where they reside or the places where they take their meals. They are directed against what I may describe as "tippling." Now I come to the question of compensation. I have mentioned that the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), for reasons which he then stated, did not attempt any scheme of compensation. I have no desire to revive the controversies of bygone days. My predecessor and I have broken many a lance over this question of compensation

    489
    in former days; but remembering what took place in the discussions of those times and on the Local Government Bill of 1888, the House will be prepared for the declaration it is my duty to make, that the Government do not admit the claim for pecuniary compensation for the extinction of licences, in their nature annually terminable, and we make no proposal for compensation of that character. So long ago as 1871, in the early days of this controversy, Mr. Bruce, when he introduced his Licensing Bill, made this statement, which I think cannot be controverted—
    "This House has never recognised any vested interest in this species of property, or any right to compensation, yet it had frequently interfered with the trade."
    That is a proposition which cannot be denied. What interference has the House made with the trade? It has closed public-houses in Scotland, in Ireland, and in Wales on Sunday. It has taken away one-seventh of the trade, and in many cases the most profitable part of the trade, and yet the question of compensation has never been admitted nor dreamed of.
    MR. BONSOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote the figures upon which he bases that statement that one-seventh of the trade has been taken away?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, I take one day out of seven, and that is one-seventh.
    MR. BONSOR: What about the revenue? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us that the revenue has fallen off to the extent of one-seventh in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales, where the public-houses have been closed on Sundays?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I should be very glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the more days we struck off the more the revenue increased. That would be a very satisfactory settlement of the question. But the Magistrates have got the power to extinguish licences. They have exercised that power always, and always without compensation, in former times much more rarely than in recent times. But of late years, since the law has been made clear—it always was the law—especially since the case of "Sharp Wakefield," the Justices have acted with much more decision and boldness upon
    490
    their powers than they did before. I have moved in successive years for a Return of licences that have been refused simply on the ground that there were too many houses, although there was no misconduct on the part of the holders. The last Return was for the years 1890–91. In these two years they refused to renew 61 fully-licensed victuallers' houses, 11 beer-houses, and 31 other licences, and in not one of these cases was any compensation given. Hon. Members may know better the value of those houses than I do, but be the value little or great, be the number many or few, the Magistrates, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, have terminated those licences without any compensation. I, therefore, maintain that upon no legal or Parliamentary ground can a claim be set up for pecuniary compensation. But, considering the limited application of the principle up to this time, we consider that the trade, and especially the publican himself, is entitled to fair notice of the alteration in the practice and the introduction of a new authority in this matter, and we are of opinion that a reasonable time should be given to them to accommodate their practice and their position to the changed condition of things. I have heard sometimes of what is called a "time compensation." I do not know whether that is the accurate phrase, but the House will understand what the meaning of it is. In this Bill we propose to give to all those engaged in the trade a notice, which is to be a three years' notice, that the condition of things is changed, and that they will be subject at the expiration of that three years to the operation proposed in this Bill. We find this view has commended itself to many of the important Temperance Associations, and it has been introduced to them as a modification of the direct veto. I should explain, in connection with this, that during that period we do not interfere with the authority of the Licensing Magistrates. Their authority will remain as it was before. They will renew the licences if they think fit, and refuse if they choose, just as they do at present. I should like to explain to the House exactly how this will operate as regards the direct popular veto. The vote may be taken at once, or it may be postponed. You may take it this year, or next year, or the year

    491
    after. If you take it at once on the passing of the Bill, it will not operate upon that area in respect of which it is taken until the expiration of the third year. If you take it a year after, then there will be two years' notice. If you take it in third year, there will be one year's notice. Therefore, there will always be one year, because we are of opinion that a man ought not to be turned out of house and home without moderate and adequate notice. That is the principle upon which we have proceeded, because we provide that after three years there will always be one year's grace. It will be objected that this Bill does not deal with the principle of reduction of the number of licences. I find it is impossible to do that unless we introduce Licensing Boards, and a whole system of licensing reform. That may, and I hope will, come hereafter, at no long distance of time, but it will be impossible to introduce it now. The same observation applies to the limitation of new licences. We cannot deal with that, because you may have a new part of a town—a new area where the population may desire to have new licences, and a desire to extinguish the old licences. But, then, you must have a body like a Licensing Board of Magistrates to exercise a discretion in that matter. The resolution can be rescinded precisely upon the same conditions and in the same manner as originally passed. It can only be altered at an interval of three years. We have done that in order that the communities may not be constantly vexed every year by elections upon this highly controversial subject. At the close of the three years it may be proposed to rescind, if the districts have agreed to prohibition, or, where they have rejected prohibition, then it may be proposed a second time.
    MR. CAINE: Rescinded by the same majority—two-thirds?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes, by the same majority. There is only one other topic to which it is necessary that I should refer, but it is one which has created a good deal of difference in the minds of the temperance party itself. It is the question of Sunday closing. That is a matter upon which the heart of the temperance party is strongly set, some from temperance motives, some mainly from religious motives. The
    492
    Government are extremely anxious in every practicable manner to give effect to that demand—a demand with which they entirely sympathise. I am quite aware that many temperance reformers think that there is only one course to take in that matter, and that is to pass a universal compulsory Sunday Closing Bill for England, as is the case in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. I am bound to say I do not, and the Government do not, concur in that. After careful consideration, they are of opinion that this is not the best, or even the most practical method of dealing with the question. No greater mistake can be made in any legislation, and, above all, in legislation which touches the habits, sentiments, and customs of the people than to overrun the sentiments of the people themselves. If you do that you will produce a dangerous reaction, which will probably do more harm to the temperance cause than anything else. The advance of Sunday closing has been a piecemeal advance. You began with Scotland, where it was accepted almost without a murmur years ago. The next step was Ireland, and the last step was Wales. I have myself in this House assisted in carrying to the Second Reading Bills for Sunday Closing in Cornwall and other districts of the country. Therefore, the principle on which you have acted has been to apply Sunday closing to those who are prepared and willing to accept it. You have never attempted to press Sunday closing by a universal law upon populations who might not be ready to accept it, and who, on the contrary, might be disposed to reject it. The Government at least have come to the conclusion that in this part of the United Kingdom there is not at present a condition of things which would justify or warrant universal compulsory Sunday closing, without regard to the sentiments of the particular locality. There are parts of the Kingdom where it could safely be done—places like Cornwall and other districts in the country. I have expressed the opinion equally strongly, in Office and out of Office, that such legislation could not safely be applied to London, and that if you attempted it it would be utterly unwise, unsafe, impolitic, and unjust. There are other places of which the same thing can be said, and to enforce on the inhabitants of such places restric-

    493
    tions which are repugnant to the majority would, in my opinion, be a most foolish and unwise policy. It would inevitably excite a spirit of resentment, and the reaction would be most injurious to the cause of temperance. We have come, therefore, to the conclusion that Sunday closing, like the more general veto, should be subject in each locality to the direct vote of the community which it affects. But as this restriction is more limited than total prohibition, we are of opinion it ought not to be subject to the same limitation. We are of opinion that it should be determined by a simple majority, and that it should not be postponed in its operation, but take immediate effect. It will be applicable to the same areas, and the time of its operation will be the same as in the case of total prohibition. Under these provisions Sunday closing will be accomplished at once by the majority of any parish that desires to have it. I should suppose that Cornwall, and other parts of the country which are of the same mind, would have it at once. In our opinion, this part of the Bill is the one that will have the widest and most immediate operation, and it is therefore one to which we attach great value. There are large parts of the country where Sunday closing will become law by the well-ascertained will of the majority of the people, and will be accepted by the minority with acquiescence, and I think contentment, as it has been in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales; and when its beneficial effects are perceived it will extend its example to other quarters. If, as the most ardent advocates of Sunday closing believe, every part of the country is prepared to accept Sunday closing, this Bill will do all they desire. But, take the other hypothesis— supposing there are places where there is a majority against it—are you going by force to impose on that majority a state of things they do not desire? In my opinion, that would be a most unwise and unsafe thing to do. At least, that is not a proposal that the Government can recommend to this House. They wish that legislation on Sunday closing, like all other legislation, should rest on the ascertained will of the majority of the people who are affected by it. If that is true of all legislation, especially is it true of legislation of this kind. Now, Sir, I know the difference of opinion
    494
    that exists on this subject, but I would humbly venture to commend these considerations to the thoughtful reflection of the temperance party. I entreat them not, by grasping at a shadow, to lose the substance which is offered to them in this Bill. I sincerely believe that the provisions of this Bill will secure Sunday closing over a great part of the Kingdom; indeed, in every parish where it can be safely applied. The responsibility will be great of those who reject such a proposal as this. At least, the Government, who have the same object in view, cannot take on themselves that responsibility of declining to lay before the House of Commons a measure which the Government believe will accomplish that object. I have generally voted for all Bills which proposed Sunday closing. I do not think I have voted against a Sunday Closing Bill on the principle I have often heard my hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland advance, that he would vote for any Bill that tended in that direction; but I have always, as in the case of the Cornish Bills and the Local Government Bill, regarded this question on the ground of local opinion, and I have not departed from that. I will ask gentlemen of the temperance party who may be disposed to reject this scheme to reflect the Parliamentary history of this question. In the year 1885 Lord Salisbury made a celebrated declaration in the direction of local option, and especially with regard to Sunday closing, in his speech at Newport. In 1888 there was a clause in the Local Government Bill of the late Government which would have given local option in the case of Sunday closing, and, mind you, there no question of compensation came in. Well, I made an effort, which right hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember, to keep that clause in the Bill. The Government do not wish to revive ancient controversy, and I only wish to state the declaration which I then made to show that the proposals I am now making are identical. I said—
    "In his view the proper principle was that each locality should judge for itself in this matter, for he believed the greatest mischief that they could do in a case of the kind was to attempt by Parliamentary enactment to impose reforms of this character upon communities which were not prepared for them, and did not wish them to be imposed. That mistake had been made a few years ago in connection with the Bill of Lord Grosvenor, and was not likely to be repeated. He had for many years con-

    495
    tended for the principle of local option in this matter as against universal compulsion, because it gave the power of applying this reform to places which required it, and saved them from the danger of imposing it on places where it was not desired. He wished to define exactly what he meant by the term local option. He meant the right of each section of the community to determine this Sunday closing question or any other question according to its own wishes or the wishes of the public. As he had stated on a former occasion, the matter was mainly a question of areas, and he believed the smaller the areas which enjoyed local option the better, because the feeling of the people with whom they were dealing would be more certainly represented. He would willingly have accepted a smaller area than the county, because he conceived that one part of the county might wish this rule to be enforced, while other parts of the same county might have a different opinion, and he should have been very glad if local option could have been given to parishes."
    The position we now take is identical with what we did in 1888. The Motion to keep Sunday closing in the Government Bill of 1888 failed to a great degree because it did not receive the support of gentlemen who were strongly in favour of universal compulsory Sunday closing. They said that was the only course to take. They beat local option by compulsory Sunday closing, and they said "let us wait until we get a Sunday-closing Bill." Later on a Sunday-closing Bill came on, and then the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) moved an Amendment to the Bill in favour of local option, as against Sunday closing, and he prevailed. The consequence was that the local option Sunday closing was beaten by universal Sunday closing, and then universal Sunday closing was beaten by local option, and that is exactly what may happen again. I voted for local option on the first occasion. I voted against the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, because it defeated the Bill, not because I disapproved of the principle. I said in the course of the Debate that I should vote for the Bill, but if the Amendment were carried I should vote for that too. I have mentioned that, because I think it a salutary warning to the temperance party in this House. I fear, Sir, I have detained the House too long, but I was unwilling to leave any part of this great subject without such explanation as I could offer. I have endeavoured—I hope I have succeeded—in avoiding an exaggerated tone, or any provocative argument.
    496
    I am not unaware of the great difficulties by which this question is surrounded and the opposition with which it is threatened. It will be encountered by a determined and well-organised resistance. That I am well aware of. That hon. Gentlemen opposite will take care of. I can only hope that the great body of the temperance reformers in this House, and outside of this House, without distinction of Party and without distinction of sections, will also make common cause, and that they will not allow extreme opinions or particularist views to distract their counsels so as to ensure defeat. I trust that they will sink, in this great matter, minor differences and combine with one heart and mind to carry into law a safe and a practical remedy for the direst evils with which the life-blood of the nation can be drained.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish Local Control over the Traffic in Liquor."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. H. COSMO BONSORsaid, he rose on this occasion after the remarkable speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, after the extraordinary proposals which he had put forward, to speak on behalf of the trade to which he believed every hon. Gentleman in that House knew he had the honour to belong. He had been connected with the brewing trade for the last 25 years, and he wished at once to correct a misconception as to the position of the trade in that particular branch which he represented. It had never been the policy of the London trade to own public-house property. They were deeply interested in the pecuniary welfare of their customers, and on this occasion he spoke for the licence-holder rather than for the owner of licensed property. He might say at once that he rejoiced they were at last face to face with the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. It had been, for a considerable period, the habit of that House to deal with this question by means of private Members' Bills, abstract Resolutions, and other propositions on which hon. Gentlemen had voted, knowing perfectly well that their votes would have no effect in the country. As far as he could understand the proposals of the

    497
    right hon. Gentleman, they constituted, an absolutely new departure in the system of licensing in this country. The right hon. Gentleman admitted, in his speech, that he did not propose to amend the law, that he did not intend to set up a new Licensing Authority in place of the present, or in any way to alter the existing control by that House over licensed property, but that he wished to set up a new machinery alike over that House and over the present Licensing Authority for the purpose of controlling the liquor traffic. The right hon. Gentleman wished, as he understood it, to set up an absolute plébiscite over the Houses of Parliament, the Licensing Authority, and over all those bodies which had had control from time to time, of public-house property. If the right hon. Gentleman had intended to bring in a Bill to deal with the question of intemperance—if he believed that to drink was attributable all the evils which he dwelt upon—he would have brought in a Bill to stop the manufacture of alcohol in this country and the importation of foreign liquors, and thus struck at the root of the whole matter. But the right hon. Gentleman struck at only one branch of the trade in liquor. He only attacked the licensed house, the publicans, the grocers, and other places which were controlled and regulated by the State. The houses which got their licences from the Excise were not included in this measure. The right hon. Gentleman merely included what he called "Justices' licences," which, in common English, were the houses of the poor. And in dealing with this question the right hon. Gentleman had made no attempt whatever to deal with clubs. Whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking on the subject of Sunday closing in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, he said that one-seventh of the trade of the publican had been cut off without any compensation, and he (Mr. Bonsor) interrupted him with a question; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the reason why he interrupted him. He did it for the purpose of eliciting whether the Returns paid into the Exchequer on liquors had fallen off in the same proportion as the houses that had been closed, because it was a fact that so soon as licensed houses were closed illicit means of supplying drink sprung up. If they
    498
    were going to deal with the licensing question at all, it was absolutely necessary that they should deal with a certain class of clubs; and he ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake in omitting them from his Bill. There were clubs at present in existence in the East of London—in fact, all over the Metropolis—which were absolutely uncontrolled by the State. They were called by various names. He would give an account of one in the East of London, which he believed was patronised by hon. Members of that House who sat for East London constituencies, and represented Radical opinions, probably everyone of whom would vote for the Second Reading of this Bill for the closing of licensed houses. The club to which he referred was conducted without any regulation at all as to hours, and his informant, a practical man, who visited it on a Sunday morning at 11 o'clock, when public-houses were closed, found there about 400 people, men, women, and children, and in three of the rooms gambling of various descriptions was going on, and in all the rooms drink was being consumed; and it was absolutely impossible to get even a biscuit, or any sort of solid refreshment. During the hour and a half his friend was in the club he was perfectly certain that two hogsheads of beer were drawn and consumed, besides an enormous quantity of spirits; and, besides this, a large quantity of spirits was carried out of the club to be consumed outside. If further legislation was going to be put on licensed houses—the houses regulated by the State—he was perfectly certain that this Bill would do more harm than good. He anticipated that if this Bill became law the gentlemen who were the members of these various clubs would be the first that would be called upon to vote for prohibition. They would not be under the law, they would not be closed themselves, but they would come out to prevent the competition of well-regulated and properly licensed traders. In listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he felt that he had undertaken a difficult task. He wondered to himself whether the right hon. Gentleman really thought that this Bill was going to be an operative Bill, or whether he really thought it would ever pass into law, or whether it was only another

    499
    of those fulfilments of election pledges of which they had heard a great deal. He thought they had a right to demand of Her Majesty's Government two things. In the first place, they had a right to ask that after the Bill was introduced sufficient time would be given for the country and for the trade thoroughly to consider its provisions. In the second place, they had a right to ask—to demand—that if the Bill was introduced, affecting as it did enormous interests, it should be pressed, and that the decision of Parliament should be taken absolutely upon it. He thought the hon. Member for Bradford two or three years ago made a calculation as to what the capital was which was invested in licensed property. If his recollection served him right, the hon. Member named a sum of something like £200,000,000.
    MR. CAINE (Bradford, E.)said he did not do anything of the kind. He estimated the amount as the sum that would be required to purchase under the Bill introduced by the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member.
    MR. COSMO BONSORthought that was very much the same thing. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a value as to licensed houses of something like £5,000 apiece.
    MR. CAINEsaid he merely called attention to what the value would be if the proposal of the late Government had been made law. He himself valued them at nothing.
    MR. COSMO BONSORsaid he would not argue the question. The hon. Member would agree with him that large sums of money had been invested in this trade. The hon. Member said he valued them at nothing. He presumed the hon. Member meant that they had made a bad investment.
    MR. CAINE: Yes.
    MR. COSMO BONSOR: They had made a bad investment. Well, he would ask the House under what conditions they had made that investment? In the first place, they had made it under the existing law; in the second place, under established custom; and, in the third, place, on the statements of public men. As to what the right hon. Gentleman said about "Sharp v. Wakefield," they who were interested in licences were content to remain under the existing law. They
    500
    had never contended that there was not full discretion on the part of the Justices; but they had contended that the Justices were bound to state their judicial reasons for refusing the renewal or transfer of licences. "Sharp v. Wakefield" did not change the law; it only informed a great number of gentlemen who did not know the law what the law was. But within a year of the decision of "Sharp v. Wakefield," the Lord Chief Justice of England made some remarks upon the subject in a Judgment he delivered. He would remind the House that Sharp's house was situated on the moors of Westmoreland, that it had been absolutely closed for four months before the decision of the Justices was arrived at, and that every member of the trade who was consulted expressed a wish that the appeal should not be fought, because they considered the Justices' decision correct. Lord Chief Justice Coleridge said in May, 1890, after the decision in "Sharp v. Wakefield"—
    "But I take the liberty to add this—that, even on a question of fact, they (the Justices) must bring to the determination of it a clear judicial mind, and if that determination of fact is made under such circumstances that this Court can see that other matters than the pure matters before them have entered into their decision, then it is not a judicial decision, it is not an exercise of jurisdiction, and, toties quoties, this Court will interfere to compel justice to be done,"
    or, in other words, that the licence should be renewed. Coming to the question of universal and established custom, he would remind the House that in every relation between the State and the trade the absolute right of renewal had been accepted and established. ["No."] An hon. Member said "No," but he would put it to him in this way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made his annual Budget reckoned as an absolute certainty that the licences would be renewed, and estimated his income on that certainty. A licensed house was valued not by bricks and mortar, but as a going concern with its licence, and it was so valued for the purposes of Succession or Probate Duty. To give an example of this. A licensed victualler having given £18,000 for a public-house died within a year, and the Somerset House authorities immediately accepted the £18,000 as the value upon which the

    501
    State should tax it for Succession and Probate Duties. That particular house "without a licence was not worth £5,000. But this House had always recognised the existence and permanence of licences. In all the Acts it had passed it had always been considered that the permanence of a licence was established. He would mention another fact to show what the general opinion was out of doors. It was frequently the case that when new licences were applied for, the magistrates were consulted and shown the plans of the house. Was it to be conceived that any man in his senses would be so foolish as to submit the plan of a licensed house to the magistrate if he thought he was only to get one year's tenure of the licence? But these licences were recognised by every man of business, as was shown by the large amount of money lent on mortgage of licensed property outside the brewing and distilling industry. Even some of the great Insurance Companies had lent money on the premises, and on the faith of what they believed to be an established custom. Then there were the statements of public men. The Prime Minister had on several occasions spoken as to the permanence of licences and the vested interests of licence-holders. Speaking at Dalkeith, in November, 1879, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "But I must add, I think, if it be necessary, if Parliament should think it wise to introduce any radical change in the working of the liquor law in such a way as to break down the vain expectations of persons who have grown up— whether rightly or wrongly, it is not their fault —it is our fault—under the shadow of those laws, their fair claim to compensation ought, if they can make good their case, to be considered, as all such claims have been considered, by the wisdom and liberality of a British Parliament."
    Again, speaking in this House on 5th March, 1880, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "As to compensation, the licensed victuallers ought to be dealt with exactly on the same principle as every other class in regard to which a vested interest has been permitted to grow up. When Parliament enacted Negro Emancipation it was preceded by a preliminary Resolution, in which the principle of compensation was recognised. My hon. Friend says that we must wait till a claim for compensation is made. Parliament does not act on that principle. Where the facts presented the possibility of such a claim, the recognition of the possibility has, I think, taken place in the original proceedings of Parliament."
    Again, on the 18th June, 1880, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    502
    "I should have been better pleased with the matter of the Resolution if my hon. Friend had included in it some reference to the principle that we are not to deny to publicans, as a class, perfectly equal treatment, because we think that their trade is at so many points in contact with, and even sometimes productive of, great public mischief. Considering the legislative title they have acquired, and the recognition of their position in the proceedings of this House for a long series of years, they ought not to be placed at a disadvantage on account of the particular impression we may entertain—in many cases but too justly—in relation to the mischiefs connected with the present licensing system and the consumption of strong liquors."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on December 30th, 1872, at Oxford, spoke as follows:—
    "There seems to be day by day a growing disposition more and more to invoke the interference of Government in relations of social life. I believe this to be a most dangerous tendency, and one to which it is necessary to offer an early and determined resistance. …. I am against the whole system of petty molestation and irritating dictation, whether by a class or by a majority. I am against forbidding a man to have a glass of beer if he wants a glass of beer. I am against public-house restriction and park regulations."
    Again, at Oxford, on December 22nd, 1874, he said—
    "To extend a covert toleration to rash speculation and questionable schemes, in order to procure a precarious support, is not the way to recover confidence, but further to destroy it. We have going amongst us a doctrine of development promulgated by multifarious infallibilities. There is our old friend, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, the Pontiff of total abstinence, who, however much we may differ from him, it is impossible not to respect for his sincerity, and to admire for his humour, for in spite of his scruples he is always brimful of spirits. Well, he excommunicates all of us who are heretics because we do not embrace his immaculate dogma. For my part, I endure his anathemas with resignation. He is particularly wrath with me; he calls me a Protestant'—and so I am, and it is for this reason that I stick to the principle of private judgment, even in the matter of beer. … I cannot help thinking it is very hard on the Liberal Party to be held responsible before the country for all this farrago of crotchets. You cannot jumble up this mass of crude cries and present it to a rational nation and call it a policy, without revolting its commonsense and creating a reaction."
    It was such matter as was contained in remarks of that sort that had induced men to buy public-house property in London and elsewhere, and the men who gave utterance to such observations were absolutely responsible for having induced men to enter into the business without giving them proper

    503
    warning of what was ultimately to take place. The Government were now going to throw these men over with a mere pittance of legislation. The Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary for Ireland had during the past few months been telling the country that the Government proposed to give exactly the same power to the people as the landowner at present held. That was a new article of faith for the Radical Party to hold up the landowner as a beneficent ruler. But the proposal was not at all analogous. He would ask hon. Members opposite whether they knew of a case where a landowner had turned out a publican without compensating him. There was not a single instance where a landowner had turned out a single publican unless he had been in possession of the house himself, or else the holder of the licence himself. There was no analogy between the principle the landowner exercised as a right over his property and the proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed that evening. The Government had proposed something in the form of compensation. It had been proposed that three years' notice should be given to the publican. He wondered when he heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer making that proposal whether he really and truly was speaking what he considered to be just. He thought when he mentioned three years he was thinking of the three years' goodwill, which was, at any rate, the common amount paid for the various businesses in the country. But though three years' goodwill was attached to the absolute value of a going concern as an ordinary term in the sale of businesses, three years in this particular trade was absolutely a fraud, an impossibility, and an impracticability in the shape of compensation. If they were going to give the man three years' notice his business would at once be taken away from him, and at the end of two years' his creditors would come upon him, and the publican would have great difficulty in getting that credit which was absolutely necessary for conducting any business whatever, while there would be a general scramble for those interests in the property for which he held the licence. There were also the ground rents. Leases and sub-leases over and over again giving one man a slightly increased rent over
    504
    the other, and how were those various interests to be settled? The three years system was an illusory argument, and he would say it was absolutely of no importance whatever to the trade for whom he had the honour of speaking. He feared that he had detained the House at some length, but in conclusion he would venture to remind the House that the trade to which he belonged had never been obstructionists to any State reform. In his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to the Bill which Mr. Bruce introduced in 1871. That Bill quite startled the trade. But how was it met? Amendments were not put down to throw the Bill out. The trade met frequently and proposed Amendments to the Bill, which were submitted to the Government, and he had always insisted that if those Amendments had been favourably received by the Government of that day, and had been accepted as an alternative, there would have been made a final settlement of this question, and they would not that night have been discussing it. With regard to reforms, the trade had always adopted one line— namely, to do its utmost to promote reform so long as it was just and final. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that there was no finality in the Bill. He spoke of further measures for electing Licensing Boards, and further measures of licensing reform. There was no finality about the measure, and he was bound to say, having heard it, that he thought it only right to say he believed that there was no alternative and no Amendments that were possible, and that the trade would have to meet it as it had never met licensing measures before—namely, by a direct negative. The trade never invited the contest, and never wished to bring the question before Parliament in its present form. The Government had, however, thrown down the challenge, and the trade accepted it, and looked forward with confidence to the result, because they believed that their interests and their property were safeguarded by justice, and that the proposals of the Government were harsh, impractical, and dishonest.
    SIR W. LAWSONsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had thrown down the gage of battle challenge which he cheerfully took up. Though he did not agree with

    505
    the gist of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, yet there was one sentence with which he cordially agreed. The hon. Gentleman said he rejoiced that they were now at length face to face with a Government measure on the question. They had looked for it for a long time, and that time had now come; and he thought that in bringing in the Bill the Government were only doing what the Prime Minister had promised they would do—namely, to carry out in power the measures they had approved of in Opposition. He thanked the Government for bringing in the Bill, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the admirable speech that he had made in introducing it. They had not often heard such a speech from the Treasury Bench, and he thought many Members never thought they would live to hear such a speech. He rejoiced that they had lived to hear it. The hon. Member (Mr. Cosmo Bonsor) had talked of teetotalism, and he 'thought the hon. Member had alluded to the Bill as one in favour of total abstinence. But it was not a Teetotal Bill. How many teetotalers were there in the Government? He wished there were many more than there were. But the Government had not brought in the Bill as a Teetotal Bill to gratify teetotalers; they had brought it in in the interests of the citizens of the country. They had seen the House crowded when the Prime Minister brought in the Home Rule Bill, but there were quite as many people interested in this Bill as in the Home Rule Bill.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): A great many more.
    SIR W. LAWSONsaid, an hon. Friend near him said "A great many more." But he was a moderate man. This question had been longer before the country than even that of Home Rule. The Prime Minister at Chester last June said that the question had been in hand long enough, but the right hon. Gentleman had not gone quite far enough, for he ought to have said that it had been in hand too long. What was it they demanded? Simply that the liquor shops should not be forced into districts and neighbourhoods where the people did not want them—that and nothing more. The Magistrates had the local veto now, and they exercised it for their own benefit. ["No, no! "] Hon. Gentlemen
    506
    opposite said, "No, no!" but he would ask them to get up and give an instance in which a Magistrate had ever voted for a licence to a house next door to where he lived himself. No more "No, no's" after that. All that they asked for was that the working man, whose home, whose comfort, and whose family were as dear to him as to the home and family of any Magistrate, should be allowed the same power as any Magistrate. That was the whole thing. Why had this demand arisen, and why was there so strong a case for it? Because everybody who looked at the question knew that all the good people who spent their lives, time, and money in endeavouring to lift the working classes, found that the one great obstacle to them was the licensed drink shop. Many hon. Members remembered Mr. Dowse, afterwards a Judge, who was no gloomy fanatic, but one of the most genial and cleverest men ever seen in that House, and who in Ireland said the measure of the degradation of any district was in exact proportion to the amount of alcohol which was consumed in it. General Booth—[Opposition laughter]—he knew some one would laugh; hon. Gentlemen always laughed at anybody who tried to do good. Although they might not agree with his methods, General Booth was a man who knew the habits and manners of the people of this country. Two years ago General Booth wrote a book, in which he said that nine-tenths of the misery, crime, and squalor which he spent his time in trying to remove was caused by drink. He could do nothing with these people until he carried them away to "colonies" where there were no drink shops. He therefore took the men away from the drink, but this Bill took the drink away from the men, or, rather, it proposed to let the men take it away themselves. The House must agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not premature in bringing in the Bill. Since 1880 three times a Resolution had been passed in that House declaring each time by an increased majority that the people of this country ought to have the right of protecting themselves from the incursions of the liquor trade wherever they wished to do so, and in 1883 Parliament declared that the demand was urgent. He was glad that at last they had a Govern-

    507
    ment which recognised the urgency, and he hoped they had a Parliament that would support the Government.
    MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, E.): Except as regards Ireland.
    SIR W. LAWSON: I am speaking about the Bill.
    MR. JOHNSTON: So am I.
    SIR W. LAWSONsaid, he would try to abstain from a fault that was too common in that House, that of making a Second or Third Reading speech on a First Reading, but he would say as to the three years' limit that he was for doing the thing promptly. But he did not think they need trouble about that, as the hon. Member (Mr. Cosmo Bonsor) said, as he understood, that the trade did not care about the limit—he wanted to be put out of his misery at once. If that was the view that the trade took, he was quite sure that Parliament would not keep the hon. Member in his misery any longer. Then as to the exemptions. In Committee they could have a friendly discussion about those. But he rejoiced heartily that there was no compensation in the Bill. He thought the hon. Member opposite who talked so much about it was rather mistaken if he thought he could carry the people of this country with him on a proposal of that sort. One Government tried it twice, and it did not live long enough to try it thrice, and he did not think any Government would be so foolish as to get into such a hornet's nest again. He regretted, with the hon. Member for East Belfast, that Ireland was not included in the Bill; but that would give another grievance to the Irish Members to redress. In a First Reading Debate they had only to discuss the principle of a Bill. The principle of this Bill was that the people of every locality ought to have the power to protect themselves against the drink-shops if they thought it right to do so. Surely both Parties might agree on a measure of such a character. He could not understand how any Liberal could possibly object to it, for it was simply an extension of local self-government, and local self-government was the great question of the day. They had Education Boards, Bath-House Boards, and Burial Boards. The people might teach themselves, they might wash themselves, and they might bury themselves;
    508
    but when it came to making themselves drunk that was to be left in the hands of the Magistrates. And Conservatives might support the Bill, for surely there was nothing more worthy to conserve than the order and comfort and morality of the people. He regretted very much that total Sunday closing had not been secured by this Bill, and that England was not to be placed in the same position as Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. But it should be remembered that Ireland got it because a large number of Irish Members had been in favour of it; and that Scotland and Wales got it for the same reason; but he was afraid if the English Members of the House were polled, a majority would be found against this reform. He had always supported Sunday closing. But he would stop the sale of drink on every day, because he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who had declared that the sale of drink was "devilish and destructive," and to carry it on on a week-day was pretty nearly as bad as carrying it on on Sunday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer trusted the people and gave them power by a bare majority to carry Sunday closing. He could not believe that any advocate of total Sunday closing, because he could not get a whole loaf now, would do anything to injure the Bill. He had no doubt an attempt would be made to belittle the Bill by saying that the people would not use the power it gave them because they were too much sodden with drink. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] He was glad to hear that, because the late Dr. Guthrie said that if Parliament would leave the matter of the sale of drink to the people themselves they would by an all but unanimous vote shut up every drink shop in their neighbourhood. More than a generation had passed since these words were uttered, but still, they found that the upper classes, for the sake of benefit, had been forcing these drink shops on the lower classes. [ Opposition cries of "No!"] Who licensed these places? Had the working men anything to do with it? He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had limited this measure to a veto Bill, and had not made it a Licensing Bill. If he had touched licensing he would have got into a most terrible mess, for the name of licensing reformers was

    509
    legion. He believed that he was the only man in the country who had not got a licensing scheme. Some said licensing should be entrusted to Magistrates; others said it should be in the hands of County Councils; others favoured Boards ad hoc; and a new school, which was known as the Scandinavian school, had recently sprung up, and he was looking forward with interest to the Debate in the other House upon this particular scheme. But to all these people he said—"However excellent, and ingenious, and elaborate your plan, don't try the experiment in those places where the people wish to be without drink-shops." He was glad, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had let all these things alone. As to prohibition, they knew it had succeeded everywhere where it had been tried. [Cries of "Oh!"] No one denied it; it had never been contradicted. [Renewed cries of "Oh! "] Ah, yes, he knew that hon. Members opposite would deny it; but he challenged hon. Members to mention a district in which prohibition had been properly carried out in which it had not been a great and brilliant success. [Cries of "Where! "] In Canada and America —everywhere it had been tried; but they need not go abroad for instances. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not know their own case. Had they ever read the Report of the Convocation of the Diocese of Canterbury? Surely they ought to know that as good Churchmen. It was stated in that Report that there were hundreds of parishes in England in which there were no public-houses, and in which in consequence the order and sobriety of the people was all that could be desired. He had only got to say that, in his humble opinion, this was the greatest measure that had been introduced into Parliament since the attack upon slavery. He thanked the Government from his heart for their honest, straightforward attempt to deal with this evil; and he was sure that in a short time there would be out of doors such a volume of support for it as would succeed in carrying it, as a great, good, just, and beneficent measure, to a triumphant and successful issue.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid that, in his opinion, the most significant passage in the speech of the hon. Baronet was that in which he said that in England
    510
    Sunday closing should not be applied to the whole country, because the whole country was not in favour of it.
    SIR W. LAWSON: I said that the number of Members returned for England in favour of it would not be in a majority.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid he thanked the hon. Baronet for the correction. The hon. Baronet had, no doubt, put the matter more correctly, and had told them that universal Sunday closing was not advisable at that moment, because in that House there was not a majority of English Members in favour of it.
    SIR W. LAWSON: I did not intend to say that it was unadvisable. I merely brought forward one or two facts to show how difficult it would be for the Government to do so.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he would not quarrel with the hon. Baronet about the word, and would substitute inexpedient for unjustifiable, if that would suit him better. At any rate, what he did say was, that there was a majority of English Members against Sunday closing. He would ask, was there a majority of English Members in favour of the direct veto? Not only was there not such a majority, but he believed that the majority of English opinion was against any scheme of the kind, and that this opinion was distributed in favour of those other schemes which the hon. Baronet only referred to to flout and treat with contempt. They had, however, in the proposals which the Government had made the last, and if not the gravest, the most flagrant outcome of that legislative system which was so justly and vigorously condemned by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington as a system of legislative log-rolling by which the voice of England was not to be heard in the House, and by which the voice of English Members was to be ignored upon all questions affecting England brought before the House. English Members took as deep an interest in English affairs as Irish Members and Scotch Members did in their own affairs; but the English voice was to be swamped upon this matter by Scotch and Irish Members, although the Bill did not apply to either

    511
    of those countries. They were told that they must accept Home Rule, which profoundly affected the Constitution and that House, because a majority of Irish Members were in favour of it. Then they were told that they must accept Welsh Disestablishment because a majority of Welsh Members were in favour of it. Now they were asked to accept a scheme profoundly altering the social conditions of the country, and although English Members viewed the scheme with suspicion for one cause or another, doubted it as a remedy, and looked upon it as unjust to a certain class of the population, they were to be swamped by votes from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. The political organ—he believed that that was the correct expression—disbelieved entirely in the nostrum as a cure for the evil from which the country undoubtedly suffered. He held it to be the duty of the Government not to bring forward measures which simply expressed the sum of organised votes in the country, but measures only which they believed rested upon the convictions of the majority of the inhabitants; and he was convinced that this measure, crude, unjust, tyrannical, and inexpedient, as it was, would not commend itself to the judgment of the majority of Englishmen. The measure was tyrannical to minorities. They had heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose eloquent language in reference to the drink question he cordially endorsed, that a local veto was to be applied in limited areas by a majority of two-thirds of those who voted. That was a tyrannical exercise of power by the majority in any district. It was a measure which did not always command the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the assent of his Colleagues on the Treasury Bench, because it differed entirely from the scheme brought forward by the noble Lord, the Member for Paddington. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a long quotation from a speech by the noble Lord, and left it to be inferred that his measure practically embodied the same principles.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: That is so. If the hon. Member will look at the Bill he will find the local veto clauses and the noble Lord's are almost identical.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, they might be almost identical, but he thought the clauses in the present Bill would be found to differ from those of the Member for Paddington. The noble Lord provided that two-thirds of the electors on the municipal register were to vote. It made all the difference in the world whether the majority was to be two-thirds of the ratepayers or two-thirds of those who might happen to go to the poll at a season of the year when everybody might be away, or under a sudden and exceptional agitation. When he drew that distinction, he drew a distinction which had engaged the mind and received the assent of some of the present advisers of Her Majesty. Two years ago, when the Local Veto Bill for Wales was introduced, the present occupants of the Treasury Bench accepted what they called the "bare principle" of that meaure. But how did they deal with the question of the proportion of the population which was to be allowed to tyrannise over the minority? The present Chief Secretary for Ireland said that—
    "It would not be at all fruitful or safe to force prohibition with less than the support of two-thirds or three-fourths of the total number of persons entitled to vote."
    Now, why were English Members in that House, against their judgment, to be asked to accept a measure which, by implication, one of the Cabinet Ministers denounced as barren and dangerous to the community? It certainly must have been the opinion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that a vote of this character with a less popular assent than two-thirds or three-fourths of the whole of the inhabitants of the locality would be useless in the direction of temperance reform and dangerous to the liberty of the Queen's subjects. That was the proposal they were now asked to accept. He would pass from the tyranny this measure would involve on minorities to the injustice towards a section of the community who had carried on a difficult trade in a manner which had won some eulogy even from those who now brought forward this measure. If this Bill was unjust towards the licence-holders of this country, they might depend upon it they

    513
    should not now see the efforts of temperance reformers crowned with success; for if there was any cause which it was easy to plead on any platform, it was the cause of justice. It was sufficient that an orator, no matter how mean his abilities, should be able to point to one man, or woman, or child who was personally known to his audience, and to show that he or she had been hardly treated in order to secure the whole sympathy of those whom he addressed. It was a commonplace to those who reviewed history that strong Governments had fallen because one man had been killed or because another had been robbed of his livelihood. Those were incidents which appealed to the popular imagination, and yet they were bringing in a Bill which might involve, and which must involve in some cases, the greatest hardship and the greatest injustice upon men who had, according to their lights, been endeavouring to serve the community in what the majority of people in this country believed to be a perfectly lawful profession. He thought another very grave objection to the Bill was that it did not provide any system of compensation. It was idle to talk of this time limit as in the nature of compensation, and any reference to Mr. Bruce's Bill of 1871 seemed to him to obscure the issue altogether. A time limit applied to such a measure as Lord Aberdare's, or to any measure which authorised a Local Body to state that at some period the number of public-houses must be reduced within certain limits was compensation, because it allowed the trade to compensate itself. It practically said here are 10 houses, and so many houses must be closed within five years, and it left these 10 men to come together and come to some arrangement under which the five best qualified to carry on the business should continue to do so, and the five less qualified should be compensated by the survivors. But when they contemplated the sweeping extinction of the trade within areas, such a possibility of compensation did not come in at all. The Bill said that there might be five licence-holders, three of whom might be men of substance, who had always observed the law and endeavoured to do their duty, and that these three were to lose everything they had in the world and share the same fate as the
    514
    other men, who might be men of no substance, who had neglected their duties and endeavoured to evade the law. They maintained that that position was an inherent injustice, and no English Government would be able to support and defend it in the face of the English people. Then he came to his third objection to the Bill, and that was that it was inexpedient in the interests of temperance reform itself. When he spoke of justice, it might be that there were some so wedded to this particular fad that they were ready to forget justice; when he spoke of tyranny, it might be that they would even forget liberty to support their crochet; but when he came to speak of the interests of temperance reform, perhaps they might bear with him and listen to him for a moment. Now, it was undoubtedly true, as had been said by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, that there were a number of schemes before the public. That showed that the question of temperance reform engaged the minds and time of a great number of Englishmen, who were willing and anxious to benefit their countrymen in this matter. But what would be done if this Local Veto Bill were passed? Why, they would threaten the plank of every other movement for temperance reform—the true path of reform which the majority of English Members and Englishmen desired to see followed, by aiming at the reduction in the number of public-houses, and at the amelioration and elevation of the character and condition of those houses. He could understand the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson) talking about liquor shops and drawing comparisons between England and Africa because he believed that all liquor was bad, but no one who did not hold that view was justified in supporting the Bill, for the true path of reform lay in the direction of abolishing the smaller and more disreputable public-houses, and of building up the other houses, and making them places of reputable resort, where the working classes might enjoy that social recreation which they who sat in that House could have without resorting to the public-house. If that be the true path of reform, then he said that no measure more ill-advised than the one now recommended to the House could possibly have commended itself to Her Majesty's Government, It

    515
    would paralyse every effort to that improvement on the part of the publican; it would discourage every effort of reform on the part of true reformers, and he asked the House why they were now to take this measure, not in deference to English opinion, not from any consideration of the merits of the case, but solely because it had been forced upon the Government by the exigencies of their political situation which constrained them to secure every organised vote in the country in order to add yet another contingent to the motley forces by which they hoped to pass a constitutional revolution, repugnant to every patriotic Englishman?
    MR. CAINE (Bradford, E.)said, it was not his intention to follow the previous speaker through a speech which would have been more appropriate on the Second Reading of the Bill than on this inaugural stage. As far as he was able to judge without having a copy of the Bill before him, it was a measure for which the Temperance Party throughout the country ought to be distinctly grateful to the Government. He admitted it was not all that many of them desired, but that it was a large, a valuable, and important instalment of those various temperance reforms for which many of them had been agitating so long could not be denied, and he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the sympathetic speech with which he had introduced the Bill, and for the services which he had rendered both in and out of the House to a question which he hoped was approaching a somewhat final settlement. He would like to say what the attitude of the more advanced section of temperance reformers was likely to be on the Bill. With regard to the first portion, that of the direct veto, they accepted that most gladly, and for his part he was glad that the Government had resisted the temptation to introduce into it a somewhat crude concession of a large and elaborate scheme of licence reform. That some such scheme would inevitably follow the one now before the House was certain; but all that this Bill proposed to do was to give the people themselves the right to prevent any
    516
    Licensing Authority, however it might be constituted, having the power to thrust upon an unwilling community liquor-shops which they believe to be to their detriment; and so the Temperance. Party throughout the country would gladly welcome this honest proposal to deal with such an important aspect of temperance reform. The hon. Member for Dover had said that this Bill had been brought forward in response to the exigencies of Party. If the hon. Member had watched the process of returning the present House of Commons closely, he would have known there was no more burning question before the country— with the exception of the Irish Question —nor one which so agitated public, opinion or awakened the interests of all sections of electors. This measure had been brought forward in response to the demands of the country. So far as the first portion of the Bill was concerned the Government, he thought, need not expect opposition from the Temperance Party, and any Amendments which might be moved in Committee would be friendly Amendments, brought forward with the object of making the Bill a little stronger. The details of the Bill that would require close scrutiny were those respecting hotels, eating-houses, &c, because experience had shown that these exceptions were very apt to be abused, and the free lunch system existing in some States of America, where the laws had been severe with regard to public-houses, had shown how easy it was to evade the law where exceptions were made. That some such exceptions should be made they were quite prepared to admit. The question, perhaps more than anything else which would raise discussion would be the question of compensation. The deliberate proposal of the late Government to confer upon the liquor trade a freehold interest in a licence granted for 12 months, and compensation for disturbance—24 ½ years' purchase being given for the difference in the annual value, with or without the licence—had had such an effect on public opinion that that freehold proposal had entirely disappeared, and no Government would venture on anything more than three years' law. If hon. Gentlemen opposite raised the question of compensation, they would raise a

    517
    turmoil which would convince them that the country had no intention of paying money compensation for the loss of a 12 months' licence. He trusted the Government would not proceed, in the least degree, in the direction of a money or other compensation. There was no doubt whatever that the proposals of the Government with regard to Sunday closing were those which would create the most stir in the ranks of the temperance reformers throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that the heart of the Temperance Party was very strongly set upon universal Sunday closing. Not only was the heart of the Temperance Party set on this, but other forces of the country were agitating for Sunday closing just as strongly. That great Body, the Wesleyan Methodists, had made this question almost part and parcel of their religion, and they were insisting upon this with a vigour and persistency that would certainly make itself heard in this House during the Committee stage of the Bill. This Sunday closing question had already become an important labour question. Strong evidence was given before the Labour Commission of the employment of persons on a Sunday in these licensed establishments, and an effort would be made—apart altogether from the temperance reformers or the Religious Bodies—to secure for the overworked servants of publicans a day of rest after the long hours they were employed during the week. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke words of sense and truth when he said there was no greater danger than that of over-running the sentiment of the people. He entirely agreed with that; there could be no greater folly than to legislate in advance of public opinion on this or any other subject. This question of Sunday closing came to the front very closely at the last General Election, and many pledges had been given by hon. Members on the subject. The House of Commons had been returned by household suffrage and was not yet 12 months old, so that surely the vote of that House on this question might be accepted as final and satisfactory evidence of the state of public opinion on the question. He trusted the Government would not put obstacles in the way of a friendly Division
    518
    being taken on this important question of Sunday closing; and if they would accept the decision of the House, whatever it might be, he, for his part, would frankly accept the decision if it was against him, and fall into line and accept what the Government might propose. He should vote gladly for the First Reading of the Bill; he should vote for the Second Reading; he should endeavour to amend the Bill in Committee; and if he failed to improve it then, he would take the best he could get.
    MR. TRITTONwho claimed the indulgence which the House always extended to a Member who addressed it for the first time, said his position was a somewhat unique one. He believed he was the only Conservative Member for the Metropolis who was altogether repudiated by the Licensed Victuallers' Association; and, on the other side, he presumed he was the only teetotal Member of that House who was entirely repudiated by the extreme Gladstonian, Separatist teetotal faction. In neither case was the advice given by the leaders of these two Parties carried out by their followers. The licensed victuallers repudiated him; but when the publicans throughout the constituency he had the honour to represent came to look into the statement of his opponent and himself, they found themselves in the position of being between a certain unmentionable personage and the deep blue sea, and they preferred the moderation of the cerulean ocean to the plundering proclivities of the unmentionable personage. In the constituency he represented there were a great many sensible constituents; and, in spite of the repudiation of the two Bodies he had mentioned, they did him the honour to return him (Mr. Tritton) to that House by the substantial majority of 1,563. He had taken the greatest possible interest in temperance reform for many years; and he feared there were temperance reformers on the other side of the House who would celebrate the passage of that Bill, if carried, not in a way that they teetotalers liked. What had made the Government bring in this strong measure? It had been already stated by the Mem-

    519
    ber for Dover that this Bill had been brought in for similar reasons that other Bills were brought in, and he entirely believed him. He believed, as the Member for Paddington said the other night, it was the old story of "Votes! votes! votes!" There was a book he had recently come across which he was sure would be eagerly bought and read by every hon. Member of that House. It was called Wisdom, Grave and Gay; being Selected Speeches of Sir Wilfrid Lawson on Social Reform. He would ask the indulgence of the House while He read a passage from this wonderful work. The hon. Baronet, on the 11th October, 1887, made a speech on the attitude of political leaders—
    "Then look." he said, at the rival political leaders. Is it not grand to hear Mr. Morley get up and say, 'We cannot have any temperance legislation because of you wicked Unionists'? And then Mr. Chamberlain saying. 'I am pining for temperance legislation, but I cannot get forward because of you abominable Home Rulers.' And Lord Salisbury, when we come to him and ask him to receive a deputation to discuss the matter, says he cannot attend to us, he has so many engagements. Well, perhaps his engagements will be less by-and-bye."
    [Laughter.] He (Mr. Tritton) should like to tell hon. Members that "laughter," "loud cheers," "hear, hear," and other expressions of approval were largely dotted throughout this marvellous book. The hon. Baronet then went on, in the speech in question, to say—
    "And then we have the Leader of the Opposition himself. Well, he gives dark sayings, and intimates that if we will only back him up on the Irish Question, we shall see what we shall see when he comes back to power."
    This Bill was framed on the lines of the United Kingdom Alliance, the object of which, according to Sir W. Lawson, was "to sweep away the liquor traffic in the whole of the United Kingdom." Now, he should like to know what hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House connected with the trade thought of the allies of the Government. He should like to know how the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. S. Whitbread), or for the Luton Division of Bedford, or other gentlemen opposite engaged in the brewing trade, liked the alliance of the Government with the United Kingdom Alliance. For his own part, he had never been an admirer of the Alliance,
    520
    and he very much questioned if the: Alliance admired him. He believed the hon. Member for Cumberland (Sir W. Lawson) and the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Caine) had so got their ideas warped on this direct veto scheme that they would rather see a habitual' drunkard walk up the floor of that House, with besotted face and staggering gait, if he promised to vote for direct veto than see a man like himself, who had for years been working in the temperance cause, but would not vote for direct veto because he did not like it. Mr. John Bright, in a speech he delivered in 1864, said—
    "It will be seen that my hon. Friend proposes a Bill which affects some scores of thousands of persons and some millions of property, the measure which he proposes being entirely different, I think, from anything which has ever been proposed or sanctioned by the House with regard to any other description of property or any other interest. What is meant by the representative system is not that you should have the vote of thousands of persons taken upon a particular question of legislation, but that you should have men selected from those thousands having the confidence of the majority of the thousands, and that they should meet and should discuss questions for legislation, and should decide what measures should be enacted; and, therefore, in this particular question I should object altogether to disposing of the interest of a great many men, and of a great many families, and of a great amount of property. I should object altogether to allow such a matter to be decided by the vote of two-thirds of the ratepayers of any parish or town. As a Member of this House, representing a very large constituency, and having my sympathies entirely with those who are endeavouring to promote temperance amongst the people, and, after much consideration on this subject, I have never yet seen my way at all to give a vote which would tend to pass a measure such as that now proposed to the House."
    As to Sunday closing by a bare majority, he said that he was in favour of Sunday closing, both in the interests of the publican and his hard worked servants, and also in the interests of the temperance question. He did not see why men and women should be made to work seven days in the week. But he believed that the Government was taking a retrograde step on the question of Sunday closing. It would be better to bring in a measure of Imperial Sunday closing. He should like to see some facilities afforded by granting two hours on Sunday, one in the middle of the day and one in the evening, in order that working

    521
    men, who had no cellars of their own, should obtain something to drink for their dinners or suppers. He thought public-houses should be opened for one hour in the middle of the day and one hour in the evening. It was highly desirable that some experiment should be made on a smaller scale than that proposed in the Bill, and he would suggest that direct veto should be tried by the Party opposite at their great rendezvous, the National Liberal Club; and when the next great gathering of the Party took place there to do homage to the Cabinet, let it be understood that no intoxicants were to be had, except a small bottle of brandy kept at hand lest any of the ladies should faint, as they did on a previous occasion. If they were going to shut up public-houses on Sundays they would be making one law for the rich and another for the poor, and that was a species of legislation which he, as an earnest teetotaler, would have nothing to do with. Then he came to the question of compensation. He had yet to learn that teetotalers were to lay aside common principles of justice when they came to deal with a question like this, or to abrogate that time-honoured maxim, "Do unto others as ye would they should do unto you." He was glad to find amongst the latest recruits on the compensation question the hon. Member for Northampton; for he presumed that when they read the weekly periodical which came out under the hon. Member's auspices, and saw the great "I" running all through it—so different from the "We" of other newspapers—they were justified in believing that the words expressed the splendid thoughts that had been worked out in the marvellous workshop of that gigantic intellect which was the happy possession of the hon. Member for Northampton. The hon. Member wrote—
    "I confess that I have some sympathy with the publican in his trade, who in many cases is a very respectable man, pursuing a calling in the profits of which the State has long been his partner. I do not think, therefore, in his case it would be wrong to temper justice with mercy. He might be secured his lease five years; and if at any time during those five years he were prohibited by the votes of his neighbours from continuing his trade, he might receive compensation for the unexpired portion of the five years."
    522
    He had strong objections to this Bill, and he was extremely sorry to have to separate himself in any way from some teetotalers in the House for whom he had strong respect and regard. He had never belonged to what was called the Temperance Party, and he did not know why they should arrogate to themselves such a title. There were many earnest abstainers throughout the country who viewed with apprehension this Direct Veto Scheme. This Bill seemed to him to be, after all, more or less a miserable Bill. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer two questions: First, whether he expected that his Revenue would be very seriously diminished by this Bill during the next few years if he remained in Office; and, secondly, whether, as a thorough-going man of the world, blessed with more than ordinary common-sense, he really in his inmost heart believed the Bill was going to do such a vast amount of good? He believed himself that it would be more or less of a dead letter, and that it would be very mischievous in its tendency. He was very sorry to hear the author of the Bill say the areas were going to be parishes; he had hoped the areas were going to be electoral districts. It was a sad thing to think the question was to be fought out in the parishes, for it would divide them into two hostile camps, and would be decidedly detrimental to the interests of true religion. He believed, also, that this was a misconceived Bill altogether. It was not conceived on the principles of justice, but on the principles of confiscation and tyranny, and he believed there was no greater tyrant on the earth than the modern Radical. He wanted to see a Licensing Bill brought in to reduce the number of public-houses in accordance with the number of the population. That, he believed, would do some good, which was more than the Government Bill would do, and because he believed it would be virtually a dead letter if it ever passed he had spoken so strongly against it. He might, perhaps, be drummed out of the Temperance Party for making this speech, but he should continue, by personal example as well as by precept, to try to check the stream of in-

    523
    temperance, and to lessen the sin and the sorrow, the pain and the poverty, the degradation and disease and death brought about so largely by overindulgence in strong drink.
    MR. THOMAS SNAPEsaid, the country would receive the proposal of the Government with satisfaction, but he believed that satisfaction would be greater still if the country was not confronted with the Sunday closing proposals of the Bill. There had been no request that that portion of the subject should be dealt with by local option. Petitions and Memorials to Parliament asked that it should be dealt with by Imperial enactment. A resolution was adopted by the Temperance Party which met in London last week which declared that there had been no demand for Sunday closing by local option, and that to put the week-day sale and Sunday closing on that basis would be to weaken both issues. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), in 1888, accepted a Sunday Closing Bill as a measure worthy of his support. He did not then urge any reasons against Imperial legislation. Surely that which he claimed to be practicable in 1888 was not impracticable now. They had passed Sunday Closing Bills for Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. A few large towns in Ireland were exempted, but experience was showing that these towns were desirous of being included. If they passed an English Bill, leaving out London, it would not be long until London would desire to be included in the operation of the scheme. Needless expense would be entailed by the Sunday Closing Clauses on those desirous of applying the measure. There would also be interminable agitation and continuous appeals every three years to the communities. If he rightly apprehended the Bill, there would be a separate appeal as to the week-day sale, and another appeal with reference to the Sunday sale. There would be a continual series of appeals, and the communities would be in a perpetual state of unrest. Moreover, if those appeals were taken together, the probability was that the voters would be so con-
    524
    fused when recording their opinion on the matter that they would not know whether they were voting for the direct veto in its application to week days or in its application to Sunday. The difficulty would be extreme, and the publicans, believing their trade in danger, would exercise all the influence they possessed—which was by no means small, as the country had learned only recently—to thwart a correct expression of opinion on the part of the people. There was also the difficulty which had been encountered in Wales and which would be encountered in a greater degree in this country if this system of local option were established. In regard to the Welsh Act for Sunday closing the Royal Commission which had investigated it in their Report had pointed out that in one town there was a street with five public-houses on one side of it and three on the other; and because one side happened to be in Wales and the other in England, one set of public-houses were closed on Sunday and the other set opened. "Such anomalies as this are rare," said the Report, "but while they do exist it cannot be denied that the existing law is capable of improvement." But under the present Bill the anomalies would not be rare—they would exist in many parishes throughout the country. In the large city in which he resided the application of this measure would be involved in great difficulty. There were a large number of wards in the city, and the probability was that one ward would adopt local option whilst an adjoining one would not. The result would be that on one side of the street the public-houses would be shut, whilst on the other side they remained open. So long as they had found Imperial legislation to work well in Scotland and Ireland, he trusted that the Government would accede to the views of their supporters, the majority of whom were in favour of an Imperial enactment as regarded that part of the Bill which referred to Sunday closing.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said, he intended to support the Second Reading, therefore he was not going to attempt to "talk out" the present stage. He wished to state to the House that

    525
    his difficulties as to the Bill were not connected with what it did, but what it left undone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the object of the Bill was to establish popular control over the liquor traffic by the direct veto. In his (Mr. T. W. Russell's) opinion it did nothing of the kind. The Bill simply gave any locality the option of leaving things as they were now, or prohibiting the liquor traffic altogether. That was not giving localities the control of the liquor traffic, because if there was no liquor traffic to control how could there be local control? They had all been making confessions to-night. Well, he himself had been a temperance advocate for 30 years, and his deliberate opinion was that the Bill gave an option that would be availed of in hardly any part of England, while it withheld an option —namely, that of restriction—which would have been extensively used all over England. That, he maintained, was a serious blot in the Bill. The hon. Baronet the Member, for Cumberland (Sir W. Lawson) asked where prohibition had ever been known to fail. He had asked that question long enough himself, but he had just returned from Canada, where he had made very careful inquiries into the working of an Act exactly similar to this in the Province of Ontario. The Scott Act, passed in 1878 by the Dominion Legislature, gave the same power and no more—the right to prohibit or leave things alone. It was put into operation in 80 counties, and there was not at this moment, after a three years' trial, a square inch in the Province under the Act. Because he believed prohibition would not be extensively applied, and where applied it would be in places where it was least needed, he did not want a similar measure to the Scott Act in this country. He wanted something in addition to that. He wanted a local control of the liquor traffic. The right hon. Gentleman maintained that the Bill gave that, but he (Mr. T. W. Russell) maintained it did not. The next point he wished to deal with was as to Sunday closing. He wished to point this out seriously to the right hon. Gentleman, because he had had some experience of Sunday closing in
    526
    Ireland with exemptions. He thought it was an hon. Member opposite who said that in regard to Sunday closing the Bill was a retrograde measure. He agreed with that. He believed that there was not an hon. Member on the Ministerial side of the House who was pledged to Sunday closing who was at the same time pledged to Sunday closing by direct veto. It was a 100 to 1 that if any hon. Member had offered that it would have been scouted by the Temperance Party of England. The right hon. Gentleman proposed by a simple majority in every parish in England to stop the traffic in intoxicating liquor in this country during the whole of Sunday, and he took the area of the parish. He approved the area of the parish for prohibition or restriction on week-days, but not on Sundays. People were idle on Sundays; and if they found the public-houses closed in one parish on the Sundays would walk to another, and, having plenty of time on their hands, would stay to drink, and come back to their own parish drunk. Week-day prohibition was another thing. On week-days the men were not idle, and they could not afford the time to walk from their own parish into another parish. He agreed to the area in regard to prohibition on week-days, but held that, so far as Sunday was concerned, they would probably make things worse than they were now. That, therefore, was a serious objection to the Bill. He asked the attention of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland to this. He (Mr. T. W. Russell) remembered his crusade—and it was 28 years ago since the hon. Baronet first rose in the House to move the Second Reading of the Permissive Bill. He was thankful for the conversion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he remembered when the right hon. Gentleman described this as "grandmotherly legislation." The right hon. Gentleman had had no term too strong to hurl at those who had been engaged in the work of temperance reform. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman's conversion, but there were things in the Bill which would require careful note. For example, take the question of the exemption of railway refreshment rooms. Did hon. Members know what took place at railway stations now during prohibited hours? Did they know that people took 1d. and 2d. tickets and crowded into

    527
    those stations in thousands who were not going to travel at all? This was his experience in Dublin. Take the question of eating-houses. Were they going to have a definition of eating-houses in the Bill? If not, how were they to guard against licensed victuallers taking houses that were nominally eating-houses, but really drinking-houses? A complaint had been made that Ireland had been left out of the Bill. He was sorry it had been left out because he agreed that this right to prohibit ought to be the complement of every other measure; but now they had got it in place of everything else, and that was his objection to it. He was with the right hon. Gentleman in pro posing to give the veto to the locality, but that ought to be the complement of every other Bill on the subject that was introduced into that House. There was no other Veto Bill before the House that did not give the option to prohibit, and the option to restrict, and the option to stop the granting of new licences. Why had the right hon. Gentleman given the one and refused both the others? He was sure that the trade need not be very much alarmed, because it was not going to perish just yet. Those who had been 30 or 40 years engaged in the advancement of temperance principles, and were looking for some fruit as the result of their work, were not satisfied with the mere assertion of a democratic principle of the right to prohibit, and they would be greatly disappointed with the measure. There was, he owned, good reason for not applying the Bill to Ireland. Why should it be applied to Ireland? He admired the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman who, after giving Irish patriotism a measure, in which he practically said that the revenue of Ireland should depend on the consumption of whisky by the inhabitants, did not propose to give those inhabitants the power to prohibit the sale of whisky. A pretty mess he would have made of the matter if he had given that power! He (Mr. T. W. Russell) would support the First and Second Reading of the Bill, not be cause he approved of all its details, but because it conceded a principle for which he had long contended, though that principle was not extended in the way he and other temperance reformers desired.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I simply rise to say that so far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no desire on the part of the hon. Members sitting on these Benches to extend the discussion on this Bill, so as to prevent its introduction to-night. There is a great desire on our part to see the clauses of a Bill, which, as we conceive, so deeply affect both the trade and the population. However, our attitude will greatly depend on the production of the Bill. Although the discussion has been extremely short, looking at the great importance of the Bill, it has been a very interesting one. I think I shall express the general feeling of the House when I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Tritton) on his exceedingly able speech, for as an advocate of temperance he has given us a speech which is extremely witty and flowing with humour. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he hoped the Bill would not be debated in any Party spirit. I am sure he may rest satisfied that, although the measure will be sharply criticised, it will not be criticised from a Party point of view. If Parties are divided on the Bill, it is perfectly clear that the Temperance Party will not be entirely unanimous with regard to its provisions. I will now simply say that for our part we have now no desire to prolong discussion on the Bill.
    MR. M'LAGANbegged to thank Her Majesty's Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for introducing the Bill, which he could assure them would be received with satisfaction throughout the whole of the country. He thought, however, that it required amendment, and he should be ready to state his objections, and propose Amendments in Committee.
    COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)said, he did not pretend to speak for any Irish Members except himself. He could not say that he spoke for his constituents; for though they sometimes gave him instructions in the matter, he could not say that they had on the present occasion. He might be told that his position was weak as water, and so it was; but the

    529
    House might just as well listen to such a man as himself as to cock-sure men like the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumber land, the Member for South Tyrone, and the Member for Bradford—gentlemen who professed to know all about the matter, and who argued as if alcohol was an invention of the devil. The Bill, it was said, did not affect Ireland. Well, it was a three years' notice to quit to publicans in England, and, that being so, they might regard it as a four years' notice to quit to publicans in Ireland. This, or a similar Bill, applied to Ireland would ruin 300 or 400 respectable men in his constituency. His private opinion was that they would make very little difference in the consumption of alcohol unless they could change the latitude of these islands. They were told by the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland that crime and misery existed wherever alcohol was drunk, but he (Colonel Nolan) had seen it stated by an eminent statistician that murders were less frequent in those countries where the largest proportion of alcohol was consumed. And as hon. Members were aware, murder was far more rife in southern countries where little alcohol was drunk than it was in northern countries like Sweden and Russia, where alcohol was largely consumed. The trade generally was satisfied with the magistracy, and did not wish to be put under a new régime. He held that to place publicans now holding licences at the mercy of the whims of a majority of the community, who might deprive them of their living, would be as unjustifiable as to confiscate the Stock of the Bank of England. He had spoken to a great many people on the subject of this Bill, and he was sure a large number of his constituents would be very much annoyed with him if he did not vote against it. With regard to the closing of public-houses on Sunday, whatever might be its advantages, it meant offering a great inducement to people to sell liquor illicitly, and keeping a large number of the constabulary engaged in the endeavour to prevent the illegal traffic.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secre-
    530
    tary Asquith, Sir George Trevelyan, Sir John Hibbert, and Mr. Burt.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 233.]

MOTION.

  POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 105.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 24th February.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On the Motion of Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 1, leave out Clause 1. Clause 2, page 1, lines 11 and 12, leave out "and shall be read as one with the Police Act, 1890."
  New Clause:—("Pay to include fire duty pay.")—(Mr. Samuel Hoare.)
  Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND) (DISTRIBUTION GRANT).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)moved—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her to withhold Her assent to a Minute of the Scotch Education Department, dated the 31stdayof January 1893, providing for the Distribution of the Sum available for Secondary Education under Section 2 (1) (b) of 'The Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892.'"
    He said that the origin of the Minute, which was a very important one, was the assignment by Parliament of the sum of £60,000 for the purposes of secondary education in Scotland. It was well-known, at all events, to the Scotch Members, that secondary education had been for some time in a languishing condition. While the elementary schools had received almost unlimited assistance from the bounty of Parliament, their very prosperity had rather tended to cast a shade upon secondary education, because so high a premium had been placed by the liberality of the grants upon the cultivation of the three R's and the other more elementary

    531
    subjects. The old parish schoolmaster of Scotland had passed away, and the burgh schools, stinted in means, had been gradually decaying and perishing, while even the Universities had somewhat encroached in another direction on the secondary education of Scotland. Consequently, the Scotch Members had been exceedingly glad to assign a portion of the equivalent grant to the purpose of secondary education. But the Minute, in his opinion, proceeded upon entirely mistaken lines; and if it were not withdrawn, or very greatly altered, it would produce a very evil prospect for secondary education in Scotland. He would proceed at once to point out what he considered the radical vice of this proposal. It seemed to him to violate the principle of Local Government. If there was one subject more than another which? could be safely and properly entrusted to Local Bodies is was that of education. A very important contribution was made to Local Government by the Conservative Party in the last Parliament, and he appealed to them, as well as to the Members of his own Party, to give effect to the principle of Local Government on the present occasion. The extremely centralised system under which elementary education was now administered was of very recent growth, and was limited by the local institutions of School Boards. The time was well within living memory when grants by the Privy Council were a very small experiment in the way of education in Scotland. He did not say an insignificant experiment, because it was significant of a great expansion. It was only by what he might call an accident that, the Privy Council grants having been gradually enlarged, the Privy Council obtained the power of the purse. Although School Boards had since been established all over Scotland, the Privy Council, having the power of the purse in their hands, had been able, through the Scotch Education Department, to exercise a very powerful—he might almost say a despotic —influence upon education. In Wales the system of Local Government had been fully adopted, the intermediate education funds being administered by County Committees. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Sir G. Trevelyan) to put to himself the question whether, supposing a proposal were made for the re-organisation of the
    532
    secondary education of England, he believed for a moment that a bureaucratic and centralised system of administration would be tolerated in this country? If such a thing were proposed, he hoped the language of his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Acland) would be Parliamentary, as it always was, but he was sure it would be emphatic. When the majority of the Scottish Members sat on the Opposition side of the House, they fought very hard for the recognition of the principle of Local Government; but the question turned upon one point in a long Bill, and it was not surprising that they did not meet with complete success. They did, how-ever, meet with some measure of success. The proposal, then laid on the Table, was withdrawn, and a strong Committee was appointed. It consisted of five gentlemen, all of whom had some special acquaintance with the subject of education. It did not report on the subject of the administration of the grant, and he very much regretted the fact; and their reason for not reporting was that that subject would involve wider consideration and possibly further legislation. The Committee, as the House would remember, was appointed to consider the proper mode of distributing the money, with especial reference to the system of Welsh secondary education; and by refraining from making proposals for its administration, they, in effect, prejudged the matter to a large extent in the wrong direction. By Act of Parliament the distribution of the money was to be settled by a Minute of the Education Department, to be approved by Parliament; and as the Committee made no suggestion as to the ultimate form of distribution, they left the framers of the Minutes entirely uncontrolled. Still, the control of Parliament remained, and he hoped the House that night would bring the scheme into entire harmony with proper principles. The Committee reported in favour of two things: One, the establishment of local Committees of Inquiry, and the other dealt with the detailed application of the money. With the first proposals he found no fault. But as to the details, he would at once say he thought they were open to two main objections: the first was the proposed reduction of the fee in the secondary schools to an average of £3 a

    533
    year, in return for which a grant of £3 per annum was to be given. To those who were familiar with Codes and capitation grants, and who were strongly imbued with the traditions of the Education Department, that might not seem a startling proposal, but to many of his friends in that House and out of it the demand that the fees in secondary schools should be reduced to £3 was most fantastic. The circumstances of these schools varied infinitely; these which charged the higher fees were often the most in need of assistance; and while he sympathised with the main object of the Minute, the giving of due encouragement to the poor, and those who could not afford higher education to enter the secondary schools, he felt that the result might be to degrade and pauperise some of the burgh schools, which would be a most unfortunate thing. That, no doubt, was not the intention of the Minute, but it was a possible result, and in some cases there was very serious risk of it. The schools varied materially in the amount of fee charged. Some had considerable endowments and were able to charge a lower fee; in others the lowness of the fee was due to the fact that the quality of the education imparted was lower. A number of schools would suffer severely if this Minute were enforced. The High School at Edinburgh had nowadays to stand a very severe competition from the hospital schools, some of which had almost unlimited endowments. These hospital schools were able to charge a lower fee than the Edinburgh High School and in that way had attracted to themselves a large number of pupils. The High School fee probably doubled that at the hospital schools, yet under this Minute the fees at both were to be brought down to £3; and while the hospital school would gain by the change, the High School would suffer considerable financial loss. There was no equity in that. It was a case of "unto those that hath shall be given." Further, he contended that the system of capitation grants was not applicable to the organisation of secondary education. It savoured too much of the cast-iron and bureaucratic system, and he would be sorry if the shadow of the late Lord Sherbrooke were to stalk up and blight the Scotch educational standard. If
    534
    Codes and capitation grants were introduced into the Scotch system of higher education they would bitterly regret it. The right principle to be introduced was clearly that of Local Government, and the circumstances were such that the adoption of that principle would be particularly fruitful and was particularly desirable. There were special reasons why County and Burgh Bodies should have the administration of this money. The sum available was £57,000. Not very long ago a sum of £48,000 was placed at the disposal of the Local Authorities, which they were at liberty to apply to technical education. They had so applied it to a considerable extent, but their efforts had been much hampered by the fact that they had no existing machinery for using it, and no means of adding to the money available for the purpose. Here was an opportunity to give them greater liberty of action, because technical education need no longer be divorced from secondary education as at present; the two grants could be added together. This would be specially advantageous in some parts of the country where the secondary education most required partook largely of the character of technical education, and it would be well, therefore, for the money to be administered by the same people. That was not all. A further sum of £100,000 was placed at the disposal of the authorities by the same Act, with liberty to apply it to any object of public utility. It was complained that in many cases the present grant of £60,000 for secondary education, if it were distributed rateably, like the rest of the Equivalent Grant, would not go far enough, and that was the reason assigned for distributing it in the manner prescribed in the Minute. But if they wanted to increase the amount why not secure its increase by handing it over to Local Bodies which have funds they can augment it with? It might be suggested that some districts were so poor that nothing would be practicable in the shape of secondary education out of the grant. Well, his reply was that those districts should wait till more money was available, in preference to existing schools being ruined by a false application of the money in the meantime. It was said that this pro-

    535
    posal was a temporary one. It certainly was intended by the Committee that it should not be of a permanent character, for they said—
    "We also desire to state our opinion that it must be a matter of experience whether the system of capitation grants proves to be the most suitable way of assisting secondary education."
    But there was nothing in the Minute to indicate that; in the meantime, the schools would get the grant, their financial systems would be totally subverted, and how would it be possible to restore them to their former condition? These were the grounds, stated far too briefly owing to the lateness of the hour, on which he felt compelled to appeal to the House to disapprove the Minute. He was sure that the Secretary for Scotland would not refuse to admit that the principle of Local Government which he had invoked was the right principle, that Parliament had acknowledged its importance, and that it was a principle especially cherished by the Liberal Party. If he was inclined to meet them in any degree, it must be by action, and not merely by reassuring words, because if once they adopted so purely and highly centralised a system, they would find it very difficult to alter it hereafter. He could not help remembering the exceptional history of the Minute; it was framed at a period of transition when one Parliament and one Government were giving way to a new Parliament and a fresh Ministry, and, therefore, the matter could not have had the attention which it deserved. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would not desire to be relieved of any share of the responsibility, but it was to be hoped that further consideration had induced him to modify his views. This was not a subject on which they might expect a wave of popular opinion; it was one on which the country expected a lead from those who were qualified to give it, and one on which there was room for a constructive policy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in the direction which he had endeavoured to point out.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her to withhold Her Assent to a Minute of the Scotch Education
    536
    Department dated the 31st day of January 1893, providing for the Distribution of the Sum available for Secondary Education under Section 2 (1) (b) of 'The Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892.'"— (Mr. Donald Crawford.')
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I think at this time of the night the House would prefer that I should at once state the conclusions at which the Government have arrived on this matter. The Act of last Session allotted a sum of £60,000 (less £3,000 for administrative purposes) for secondary education in Scotland. The proposal to allot the money was debated at great length, the Debate being in proportion to the interest felt in the subject rather than to the actual amount granted. Hon. Members on all sides were agreed that there were three objects in view: to improve existing secondary schools, to draw large numbers of children to those schools, and to establish such schools in country districts where there was no secondary education. The difficulty was that the money was limited, there being only £57,000, and there was no machinery to work with. In consequence of that, a Committee was appointed, and it reported last August. Some of the Members of the Committee, at any rate, enjoyed the confidence of all parties in Scotland. There was Lord Elgin, Sir John Cuthbertson, the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, the present Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education in England, and Mr. Craik of the Scotch Education Department. These gentlemen made a series of recommendations, which I need not now read, and they attached to their Report the following paragraph:—
    "We wish to point out that in this Report we do not enter into any question of administration which would involve wider consideration, and in all probability further legislation. We also desire to state our opinion that it must be a matter of experience whether a system of capitation grants proves to be the most suitable way of assisting secondary education in the future. While recommending the use of this method as the rule for the time being under the special circumstances of the case, we reserve our judgment as to the future application of this form of distribution as part of a permanent system."

    537
    At the beginning of the present Session their recommendations were minutely embodied in the Minute laid upon the table. One most important part of that Minute was the establishment of Advising Local Authorities. School Boards and County Councils were equally represented on these Committees, it being felt that as the money was the ratepayers' money, and as the question was an educational one, they ought to equally share the representation. The Committee have been received with great satisfaction by all Scotchmen; Scotland has taken great interest in the matter. Great energy was shown, and communities eagerly joined in electing the Committees. I know that some of the communities have not had a fair share of the money, and I think that Govan has been badly treated. It was a stretch of power on the part of the Scotch Department to call these Committees together before Parliament had sanctioned them; but the Government took the risk, and I hope the House will condone its action. But do not postpone for another two months the sanction of popular representative machinery all over Scotland. When the present Minute is passed I will inquire into the case of Govan. I should be very glad to meet its claims, for I think they are admissible; and if there are any other communities of Scotland with a like title to consideration, they also shall have my careful attention. But there are serious objections to this Minute, which come from other quarters. Some hon. Members object to the details of the distribution as made by the Central Authority, and others object to the Central Authority distributing the fund at all. What is asked is that a very much larger sum than the £200 laid down in the Minute should be given to secondary schools, and that the fee should not be limited to £3, but that schools which charge a very much higher fee should be allowed to share. I must ask hon. Gentlemen to consider what this means. Dr. Marshall, a Director of the Edinburgh High School, has been quoted. He recommended that the grant should be given to schools where fees of £8 were charged; that no grant should be given where a fee of £3 was charged. That is to say, that none of this money
    538
    should go to the poorer schools or to poorer children. Dr. Marshall admitted in his evidence that there was room for 100 free pupils in the Edinburgh High School. He admitted that, under the Minute, the school would receive £600 for these children; but he objected to receive free pupils, because he said that, in a town like Edinburgh, 100 free pupils introduced would probably have reduced the scholars by a similar number, because an idea would have got abroad that the school was getting more and more socially ineligible. Now, is that a use that we ought to put this small and precious sum to? The schools of Edinburgh, if we yielded to these representations, would get £500, and about £600, I suppose, in relief of fees; but the Edinburgh High School now gets £900 from the Common Fund and £900 from the rate, which is £6 for every child. If we were to give a further relief to the extent of £1,100 a year among them, and if the same was done in every school throughout Scotland, what would remain of the £57,000 for the outlying rural schools? Parliament allotted £57,000 to secondary education. I have read every word of these Debates, and, probably hon. Members remember what were the hopes of Parliament. The hopes of Parliament were that 10,000 fresh children should be attracted to the secondary schools, and that 5,000 children over the length and breadth of the land should have access to higher education of which they are at present destitute. And do not let hon. Members think that the advocates of those children are dumb at this moment. I hold in my hand a telegram from the Educational Institute of Scotland stating that they— that is to say, the elementary teachers of Scotland—are strongly opposed to any alteration of the Higher Education Minute, which would reduce the grant intended for the upper departments of ordinary schools. Now, if you consume the whole of this grant as under the requisition you would do, there would be nothing left whatever for these 15,000 children, who at present have not the opportunity of secondary education, and for whose benefit this £57,000 was especially given. And, in my opinion, we should lose a very great opportunity of giving all these 15,000 children—of a very different class

    539
    from the children of rich parents—an education which would not be unworthy of the old Scotch education adapted to modern needs and illuminated by modern light. Now, I have been arguing strongly against an alteration of the capitation grant as it at present exists in the Minutes, and I ask hon. Members to follow me very closely here. I come to another objection, that of those who object to a capitation grant at all—those who object to the distribution of the fund by Central Authority by means of a capitation grant extending over Scotland as a whole. I conceive what these hon. Members would prefer would be that this money should be allotted on the principle which we all know so well, I suppose—combination between valuation and population of each separate district, 80 that each separate district should have its share, and should dispose of it by local management. I have very great sympathy with this proposal, and I am not going to argue against this proposal— a proposal, as I say, with which I have the very strongest sympathy. What I must say is this: that if you are to have a capitation grant extending only to Scotland, this capitation grant cannot, in my opinion, be seriously modified, and the result of relaxing this capitation grant would be that the fund would undoubtedly become bankrupt. This is the scheme which has been laid before the County Committees and on the basis of which they are asked to name the schools among which the money should be distributed. Now, in adopting this scheme, we take en bloc all the recommendations of the Committee, because the Committee, so admirably composed as it was, was the only adviser which we then had. But we have now other advisers to consult; we have now the County Committees and the Burgh Committees; and I am bound to say that I have been very much impressed by the argument of the hon. Member, and I have also been much impressed by the most excellent resolution which is proposed from the first of these County Committees as reported — namely, the Committee of the County of Aberdeen— in which they say that, in order to secure an equable grant for secondary education in Scotland, and the maintenance of the due relations between the different parts
    540
    of the country, and in particular between urban and rural areas, it should be distributed and made available in a similar manner to the residue grant on a basis of the rateable value, and under the direction of the Scotch Education Department. This Committee resolved to memorialise the Secretary for Scotland in favour of apportioning the grant in this way. I think that, before we finally settle the secondary education of Scotland, it would be well to know what those who are able and qualified to speak for Scotland think. I purpose, and that at once and without delay, to send a circular to all the County Committees and the Burgh Committees, requesting them at the earliest possible opportunity to consider and report on a system under which each county should have its share of the grant allotted to it; under which a scheme of secondary education shall be drawn out with a free hand by the County or Burgh Committee, and submitted to the central department for approval; and I would indicate that that approval would not be withheld on one condition—that is to say, if the scheme should be based on the policy of giving secondary education to the greatest possible number of children, that is compatible with thorough educational efficiency. Such a circular would, I conceive, be in strict obedience to that paragraph of the Committee's Report to which I made reference early in my speech—the paragraph in which they report that they reserve their judgment. The School Boards and the Local Committees will themselves have the two systems to consider side by side from the point of view of what is best for their own locality, and what is best for Scotland as a whole. When we have their replies, I will communicate the general result to Parliament, and, if necessary, I will lay a Supplementary Minute on the Table. Whatever is done shall be done with the full knowledge of Parliament. Parliament shall be consulted; Parliament shall have an opportunity of pronouncing, and I trust that what will finally be arranged will be done with the concurrence of Parliament. But this Minute, constituting as it does the very Committees which I propose to consult— this Minute which, if it is suspended at this time, will suspend the

    541
    whole operation of this system throughout Scotland, I ask the House at the eleventh hour not to disallow. I am dealing quite frankly with the House. The final system of secondary education in Scotland shall not be arranged without the House having an opportunity of passing a judgment on it by debate and by vote; and I earnestly trust that, having made this explanation and given these pledges, the Debate may not be further prolonged.
    MR. J. P. SMITHsaid, he was exceedingly glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman his adherence to the Minute, and that the Minute would at present go on, because he thought that anything else would throw them into very great confusion in the meantime. He was also glad of the assurance given in regard to the important Parish of Govan; but he must say, with regard to the general lines the right hon. Gentleman had laid down, that he disagreed entirely with what he had said. His hon. Friend the Member for East Lanarkshire called upon him to go in for a constructive policy; but it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman's words contained a distinctly destructive policy as to the best schools in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman's idea of secondary education seemed to be simply quantity and not quality. What they wanted was to keep up, and not to injure, the old historic schools of Scotland, while, at the same time, doing what they could towards giving chances of secondary education to others in different parts of Scotland. What they regarded as the true principle of democratic equality in regard to secondary education was that every capable boy should have a chance of getting the best education, and not that education should he shoved into the mouths of the greatest number of children. They believed that this system under the present Minute would do very great harm to the best schools which already existed in Scotland. He spoke of the burgh schools, in which the fees were considerably larger than the others. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if he imagined that the amount of those fees varied according to
    542
    the social eligibility of the schools; it did nothing of the kind. The fees varied as to the poverty of the schools; but well-endowed schools had no need to charge high fees. The poorly-endowed schools could not possibly reduce their fees to the level of £3 while they kept up their present standard of education, and it was those schools which, in a great many parts of Scotland, were doing very excellent work that would suffer under the scheme of the Minute. Nobody desired that anything like the whole of the money granted should go to these schools. The right hon. Gentleman drew an admirable picture from Dr. Marshall's evidence of what happened. In regard to the High School in Edinburgh, he objected to free pupils; but Dr. Marshall certainly did not agree with many other schools in that respect. In the High School in Glasgow there were 53 pupils sitting on the benches along with the other scholars, receiving education free. Nobody was any the wiser, and the old system worked well. Another thing which was stated in regard to Dr. Marshall's evidence was that he actually suggested there should be a minimum, as well as a maximum, fee as a condition of receiving the grant. He did not know whether he knew that that was the actual condition prevailing in the country that was held up for their admiration, and on which the secondary schools worked in Wales. It seemed to him that any attempt to force down the fees must necessarily have the effect of imposing a standard which parents would take to be the right one. Schools would not be able in any way to get higher fees, and the result would be that they would be obliged to give a very much inferior article if they lowered their fees. It was absurd to suppose that a large share of the grant would be used up for the purposes of these schools. Their number was comparatively small. He had put down an Amendment which stood on the Paper making one or two suggestions, one suggestion being that the maximum grant to be given to these schools should be raised from £200, as proposed in the Minute, to £500, as was advocated by many people. The estimate which the Committee made of the charge given by this lump grant was that it would be

    543
    given to 20 burgh schools at a general average of £150, making only £3,000 out of the £57,000 given. Supposing they doubled that, supposing they made it from £200 to £500, and took an average of £300, that would only make £6,000, and a very small amount of money given that way would just make the difference to these schools. Of course, there were a great many schools that this scheme fitted completely; the schools, for example, in his own constituency were very well fitted indeed. They were the fee-paying schools, which at present were receiving money under the Parliamentary grant, but were struggling with the 9d. limit which had been imposed on them in the last few years by a pure accident. He grudged very much—comfortable though it would make them—that the charge of these schools should be transferred from the broad back of the general Parliamentary grant and put upon this charge of £60,000, but those were the schools which most benefited by the scheme as it stood. The policy followed in Wales was the contrary policy of cutting down; there the fees had been encouraged. This point which he had raised was the main point upon which he regarded this Minute, and the one upon which he would press the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the subject.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid that, if the House complied with the request of the right hon. Gentleman, to defer pressing for the withdrawal of this Minute, some other Minute could be brought forward so that they would still have control over this Minute, and be able to again, if necessary, press for its withdrawal.
    SIR G. TREVELYANsaid that certainly nothing would be done to settle the system of secondary education in Scotland without a Minute of some sort, which the House could decide upon.
    MR. R. T. REIDasked the House to permit him to point out what the effect of the Minute would be upon one school in his own constituency, in regard to which the feeling was absolutely unanimous. The position was this: that if this Minute was applied, and if they
    544
    assumed that the maximum grant be given, and if they marshalled all the children in such a way that they might each of them receive the highest capitation grant, they would get £13 per annum more than they received at the present time. On the other side, in order to comply with the requirements of the Department, the school would have to expend at the minimum £450 extra, and at the maximum £820 extra, and it did not end there. In addition to spending an annual outlay of between £2,000 and £3,000 in order to comply with the requirements, and, further than that in order to make the anomaly complete, this school, which was the secondary school not only for the Burgh of Dumfries, but also for the County of Dumfries and the Stewardry of Kirkcudbright, would have to incur this capital outlay not at the expense of these two counties, but at the expense of the Burgh of Dumfries. How could they stand that without protest? His right hon. Friend would be the very last man to sanction an injustice of that kind. If this annual sum was spent by the school that he had mentioned they would not even then be entitled to the sums of money which his right hon. Friend's Minute promised, because the Minute said the funds were to be paid only so far as available. It was quite absurd to suppose that they could assent to anything of the kind. Nobody desired that outlying country schools should be in any way starved or ill-used. His right hon. Friend had given no practical encouragement whatever to the complete and temperate argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire in favour of having local control. The system proposed was not a good system, and the proper method was to, as in Wales, allot to the localities their sum of money and allow them to spend it.
    SIR G. TREVELYANsaid that not a penny of the sum should he paid until another Minute had been issued.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid that, so far as he was concerned, if the money was not paid in the meantime, and the Minute was laid on the Table, he would be content. The right hon. Gentleman had not, however, given any practical promise that he would adopt the scheme of his hon. Friend.
    SIR M. J. STEWARTsaid, he wished to supplement the remarks of his hon. Friend who had just sat down in regard to this very important matter. It was practically life and death to secondary education in his particular part of Scotland. They were really interested in attaining better education. The endowments of their high schools were very small, and the obligations were very great. Almost every school differed, because their endowments differed, and they would be utterly ruined if something was not done to raise this very low fee of £3. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to take every school into consideration in order that he might perfect the scheme. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, and trusted he would make every effort to bring this scheme more in unison with the actual requirements of the day.
    MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)thought it would be a pity if the right hon. Gentleman were to leave the House without a clear expression of opinion from the Scotch Members on two points. The whole mischief which had been complained of arose from the fact that some gentleman sitting in Whitehall was undertaking to manage the whole educational affairs in Scotland. That was a thing they should not submit to. They should have no interference from Whitehall from anybody, and it was absolutely necessary that the Local Authorities should have complete control over this work. Again, he could not imagine any principle more absurd and bad than this principle of capitation based upon a reduction of fees. They did not want a reduction of fees. Those who could pay the fees ought to pay them; and if provision were made for the poor children, it should be made by bursaries to the poor children, and not by a reduction of fees to those who could afford them.
    SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLEwished to know whether the Minute was withdrawn or not? The County and Burgh Committees were making inquiries, and he thought it would have been decent to have waited for their Report before discarding the Minute. He thought it
    546
    would be important that these Committees should continue in existence to be the local advisers of the Department in future. He trusted he was right in supposing that the Minute had not been withdrawn.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Minute is not withdrawn.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Is that paragraph in line A in the Minute to stand and to be a hard and fast line?
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: What I said was that not one penny of public money should be granted till another Minute had been laid before Parliament.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, as he understood the matter, his right hon. Friend did not withdraw this Minute. He understood, however, that not a penny of the public money dealt with by this Minute should be expended under it, but that a new Minute should be framed in the Scotch Office and laid before the House, a sufficient opportunity being given for discussing it. On that understanding it seemed to him that his right hon. Friend had made a reasonable concession to Scotch opinion on the subject, and one with which they might all be satisfied.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORDthought the right hon. Gentleman had met the Motion in a very candid manner, and the concession, if he rightly understood it, was very nearly all they could expect. He therefore very gladly accepted the concession, and asked for leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  NON-PAYMENT OF RATES (SCOTLAND)

    MOTION FOR A RETURN.
    Moved for,
    "Return of the number of Rated Inhabitants in each Burgh and County in Scotland whose names were omitted from the Parliamentary, Municipal, or County Rolls in consequence of Non-payment of Parochial, Municipal, or County Rates in the years 1891 and 1892." — (Mr, Renshaw.)
    Motion agreed to.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have written a letter saying that this Return was opposed.
    MR. SPEAKER: When I put the Question the right hon. Gentleman did not oppose it, and there was no opposition to the Return, which was agreed to.

  REGIMENTAL DEBTS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.—(No. 116.)
  Considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  COINAGE (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 221.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (METROPOLITAN LESSEES).
  Copy ordered, "of the Circular issued by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to their Metropolitan lessees, with reference to the transfer of the reversionary interest in the property to the lessees." —(Lord Randolph Churchill.')

  SANITARY DISTRICTS (ACCOMMODATION FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASES).
  Return ordered, "showing the area and population according to the last Census of every Urban and Rural Sanitary District in England and Wales, and also showing, as regards every such District and every Port Sanitary District in England and Wales, whether the Sanitary Authority had on or before the 31st day of December 1892, made special provision for any accommodation of the nature of an Isolation Hospital (other than in connection with Workhouses) for cases of Infectious Disease arising in their District, and, if so, giving the following further particulars:—

  1. Whether the accommodation has been provided (a) by the Sanitary Authority independently; (b) by the Sanitary Authority in combination with other authorities as a Joint Hospital Board; (c) by the Sanitary Authority in combination with other authorities under section 131
  548
  of "The Public Health Act, 1875"; or whether the Sanitary Authority have made any agreement or arrangement for the admission of patients into hospitals belonging to other Local Authorities or to private Bodies.

  2. Where the accommodation has been provided by the Sanitary Authority independently or in combination with other Authorities; (a) description and area of site, where situated; (b) whether the Hospital has been erected on plans approved by the Local Government Board; or whether it was a Workhouse Hospital transferred to the Sanitary Authority with the Board's sanction.

  3. The date since which the accommodation has been available;

  4. The number of beds available;

  5. Whether there is separate accommodation (a) for the Sexes; (b) for different diseases in separate pavilions, and, if so, for how many diseases; (c) and special accommodation for Small Pox Patients;

  6. The number of cases treated in the Hospital during each of the five years, 1888 to 1892, inclusive, distinguishing Small Pox, Scarlet Fever, Typhus, Enteric Fever, Diphtheria, and other Diseases;

  7. The rate of charge, if any, made for maintenance of patients;

  8. The amounts received from patients in each of the five years 1888 to 1892 inclusive;

  9. The cost of (a) site; (b) hospital buildings;

  10. Whether such cost has been met (a) out of moneys raised by means of loans; or (b) out of current rates, or otherwise than by means of loans;

  11. The cost of maintenance of Hospital for each of the five years 1888 to 1892, inclusive;

  12. Ambulance, nature of;

  13. Disinfecting apparatus, nature of;

  14. The arrangements for Medical Attendance." — (Mr. Johnson-Ferguson.)

  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Two o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
SAT FIRST.
Lord Northbourne, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]—(No. 6.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I have had a conversation with my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and I think it will be more convenient to leave out the sub-section of Clause 1 relating to venue, leaving the venue to be settled by the ordinary operation of the law, as in every other case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I think there is no absolute necessity for this sub-section of the clause, in as much as there is sufficient power under the provisions of the Judicature Act for satisfactorily dealing with the case.
  Amendment made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of the Amendment to be received To-morrow.

SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 8.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as this Bill has been already through the Standing Committee, I beg to move that the Standing Committee be negatived.
  Motion agreed to.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 9.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is one of the ordinary Bills
  406
  for the revision of the Statute Law. It does not call for special remark, and I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, during the last Session of Parliament a Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed to consider the subject of Statute Law Revision, and they made a Report in which they recommended that in future years a Joint Committee of both Houses should always be appointed for the purpose of dealing with these Statute Law Revision Bills, as that was likely to be the best means of securing a thorough examination of them, and the certainty that before being passed they would be put into proper shape.
  Moved to resolve,
  "That it is desirable that all Statute Law Revision Bills of the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That a message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and desire their concurrence.

ARMY RATIONS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF STRAFFORDasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether the system advocated between the years 1888 and 1890 by Colonel C.J. Burnett, A.A.G, and Brigade Surgeon Lieutenant-Colonel Notter, of messing in the Army, had been tried at Aldershot and other military centres; whether such changes had been approved of by the various Military Authorities and the rank and file of the Army; and whether any official Report on the subject had been or could be presented to Parliament for the information of the public? He said, he need scarcely remind the Under Secretary of State for War and their Lordships who took an interest in Army matters that during the last few years among the grievances in the interior economy of the Army the amount of rations enjoyed by the private soldier had been the subject of discussion in the

  407
  Press and elsewhere. It had been stated that the llb. of bread per day and the 1¾lb. of meat, coupled with the 3d. per day stoppage for groceries and other items, was not sufficient to give the private soldier a good dinner, much less to provide him with something for his supper and for breakfast the following morning. About three years ago two very efficient officers—Colonel Burnett (at present Assistant Adjutant General at Aldershot) and Brigade Surgeon Lieutenant-Colonel Notter—had been led to the conclusion that the fault rested not so much with the quantity of rations provided as with the way in which they were cooked; and, after making due inquiry and many experiments, they found that the amount of rations was ample, providing the cooking was good, and they had established three excellent kitchens at Aldershot Camp. With the assistance of Major Ferguson and Sergeant-Major Thompson (the Sergeant Cook) they had elaborated a system by which the three great essentials of good cooking, whether in private houses or in barracks—punctuality, efficiency, and economy—had been obtained. He believed the Under Secretary of State would be able to tell their Lordships that the private soldier now enjoyed sufficient for breakfast, a good dinner, and enough for his supper; and he therefore asked whether the noble Lord was in a position to give the House and the public any information on the subject; and whether the statements in the Press were correct, that this new system had been tried with advantage at Aldershot and other military centres?
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I must thank my noble Friend for having at my request postponed his question from last Friday to suit my personal convenience. I will, first of all, reply categorically to the three questions which are embodied in the notice of my noble Friend. A system of experimental messing, growing out of Colonel Burnett's proposals, has been taught at the School of Cookery at Aldershot during the last two years. It is in operation among the troops there, and is being extended throughout the troops at home, as far as it is found applicable at different stations. The changes have been approved by the authorities and by the soldiers. No special Report has been
  408
  presented to Parliament, nor does there appear at this stage any necessity to do so. Though it does not appear necessary to present a Report to Parliament, I might, perhaps, with your permission, and without entering into unnecessary detail, give a brief sketch of the changes that have taken place. It will interest my noble Friend, who, I am glad, has put his notice on the Paper, and perhaps your Lordships, who are generally interested in the welfare of the private soldier, and I hope also it may create some interest outside. It may be within the recollection of some that before the days of Lord Cardwell at the War Office the pay of the private soldier was 1s. 3d. a day; of this he paid 4½d. for rations supplied by the Government. He therefore had 10½d. to spend, but of this 10½d. there were stoppages to the amount of 3½d. for messing and washing, so that he really had 7d. a day. When Lord Card-well was Secretary of State in 1873 he gave a free ration of ¾1b. of meat and 1lb. of bread, but reduced the pay to 1s., and of this 3d. was stopped for messing—i.e., for groceries, &c, so that the soldier under this plan had 9d. instead of 7d. per diem. Many years later, about 1888 or 1889, the question of soldiers' food again excited attention, it being the opinion of some that the ration of ¾1b. of meat for dinner was insufficient. Mr. Stanhope authorised a Committee, composed of military men, one or two of whom were in the House of Commons, to consider the whole subject. The result of the deliberations of that Committee was the opinion that if proper attention was paid to economy the actual supply of bread and meat, supplemented by the articles procured by stoppages, was sufficient. The case merely resolves into this — it is a question of housekeeping — whether there is to be good housekeeping for the soldier, or, as in former days, no housekeeping at all. Two simple domestic kitchen utensils — namely, the stock-pot and the dripping-pan, were then introduced into the military kitchen, which had hitherto been conspicuous by their absence. Under the energetic influence of Sir E. Wood, and the keen intelligence and spirit of one of his Assistant Adjutant Generals, Colonel Burnett, the School of Cookery at Aldershot exhibited signs of a new vigour and of real competency for

  409
  the work for which it was first instituted. The School of Cookery now has a sergeant-major as senior non-commissioned officer and instructor, and he has three non-commissioned officers as assistants. There are educated at the school per annum 81 non-commissioned officers of the Regular Army, and 37 of the permanent staff of the Militia. The length of the course is four months for the Regulars and three months for the Militia; and, further, after the men return to their respective regiments they undergo an additional probation of three mouths before they receive their certificates as master cooks. The Director General of the Army Medical Department is so impressed with the value of the system that he has applied to send an officer and non-commissioned officer of the Army Medical Department as an experiment to see whether any improvement can be made in the food for hospital patients, and, as far as my opinion can be worth anything, I venture to think a hospital cookery class might be established with very great advantage. And now for the cooking itself. After a series of experiments Sir E. Wood drew up a Memorandum for the guidance of commanding officers of battalion corps and companies, and all whom it might concern. The object set forth in the Memorandum is economy in the messing of the soldier, and, by economy, to vary and increase his scale of diet, and improvement in the cooking of the rations. By the aid of the stock-pot the bones, which have been hitherto thrown away, are boiled for a period not exceeding three days, care being taken to label each net of bones on the day they are put in, and with the addition of peas, lentils, &c, procurable at a small cost, excellent soup is obtainable. Then, my Lords, all skimmings are removed from meats, stews, dishes which go by the name of "sea-pies," and curries, those trimmings are turned into dripping, and to that really excellent and rich gravies are added which make the food more palatable. When the whole of the stock is not required for soup and gravies, which under proper management it never is, it is used in place of water for stews, curries, &c, thereby greatly increasing the nutritious quality of the food, and, in addition, giving it a flavour which would have been wanting under the old methods.
  410
  The bones, after they have fully performed their work in the stock-pot, are sold at 2s. per cwt., and the money credited to the company. Formerly the bones were thrown away without ever being subjected to the stock-pot. Soup can be served with the dinners, or free in the evening, from the recreation-room, or some other battalion institution. The process now in practice of boning the meat has had the effect of better cooking and greater economy. But while the bones perform a considerable part in the cooking for the soldiers the dripping also takes an important place. I am, sorry, my Lords, to have to enter into these details, but economy is really the essence of the question. This dripping, which was formerly thrown away, is now economised with the greatest advantage. The dripping-pan, of course, provides the fatty element necessary for good pies and puddings and other cooking purposes, and while the removal of this fatty matter tends to economy it also renders the food more sightly and palatable. I mentioned just now that bones formerly thrown away are now, after being used, sold at 2s. per cwt., which would no doubt come to a considerable sum per battalion. The value of the dripping at 4d. per 11b. in a battalion of 800 men may be estimated at £160 per annum, while if you calculate for the whole Home Army it is estimated that the saving on the dripping alone would be £20,000. Now, I wish to add that this money so saved is not, as the term goes, sweated out of the soldier, but goes back to him in improved and more varied diet, and thereby makes his life more comfortable. The treatment of the bread ration, which was formerly not entirely satisfactory, has also been attended to. This really appears to have been more a matter of issue than anything else. Formerly issued overnight, the bread became dry and hard; now I understand that the regulation is that it should be issued twice a day, early in the morning and just before dinner, so that the men do not have hard bread for their tea. Another advantage of this plan is that it saves the soldier's pocket, for he used often to buy bread for tea as the rations had become uneatable. The soldier now saves the money he formerly spent for that purpose: it is carefully

  411
  saved for him for his breakfast. What money is now saved is laid out in what are called extras. In addition to the Government rations of bread and meat the soldier is put under a stoppage for messing or groceries. That, of course, has nothing to do with the Government; it is a matter of regimental arrangement. At one time, I believe, they amounted to 5d. a day, never less than 3d. Now, by Sir E. Wood's Memorandum, 3d. is the recognised sum. Under the head of groceries in that Memorandum came 37 different articles, such as bacon, tea, coffee, eggs, vegetables, herbs, oatmeal, and a variety of things which I need not repeat to your Lordships. These should be sold to the soldier from the canteen at cost price. As consumption proceeds, the debits or credits are entered up daily in the soldier's grocery books by the colour-sergeant, and signed by the officer commanding the Company. At the risk of detaining your Lordships I should just like to compare the daily bill of fare of the soldier in former days with that provided under the suggestions in Sir E. Wood's Memorandum. In most cases for breakfast there used to be only bread and a bowl of tea; what was by courtesy called dinner consisted of meat and potatoes, the appetising variety being that one day it was a case of baked meat and roast potatoes, the next day roast meat and baked potatoes. The meal at tea time was about as tempting as the breakfast. The circumstances now are, indeed, greatly changed. In going through the School of Cookery I have had the opportunity of seeing the method pursued with the rations from the commencement until they are finally served out to the men. Here is a diet sheet giving the meals of the West Yorkshire Regiment, 1st Battalion, now stationed at Aldershot, and I will just read from it the diet of one or two of the Companies. A Company: Breakfast—tea, bread, porridge; dinner—brown currie stew, potatoes, and rice date pudding; tea—tea, brawn, bread. The diet of the "C" Company is:—Breakfast—tea, bread, cheese; dinner—brown stew and potatoes, plain raisin pudding; tea—tea, dripping, bread. Another is:—Breakfast—tea, bread and butter or dripping; dinner—Irish stew, potatoes, and pudding; tea—tea, brawn and bread. That shows a considerable variety in the bill
  412
  of fare for one day, Saturday, and of course the various items are interchangeable day by day. I have had the pleasure of going over this School of Cookery. It was most interesting. I can testify to the excellence of some of the provisions, for I tasted some. The soup I considered excellent, and the cooking generally favourably impressed me. I saw all the various processes, from the time the meat was taken from the cooking apparatus until it was served out in the barrack-room; and to show that Saturday's meal was nothing out of the common, I may state that I quote from a regimental return which was made out in the orderly-room for the previous week and posted up in the cook-house. I visited more than one regimental kitchen. I understand that the new system gives great satisfaction to the men. A noble and gallant Lord who sits in this House (Lord Beaumont) commands a distinguished regiment, the 20th Hussars, now at Aldershot. Perhaps, if he is in his place, he may feel inclined to give us the results of his experience; but I may say when I showed him my noble Friend's question the other day he spoke highly of the system, and said it was in operation in his regiment. I see other noble and gallant Lords present, and I think it would be of advantage if they would favour us with their views upon the subject. Sir Evelyn Wood is so impressed with the success of the system that he contemplates starting a class for soldiers' wives, with the view of improving the house-keeping arrangements of the married soldiers, and enabling them to make as much out of the ration money as they can. The fame and success of the School of Cookery is not limited to the Army. In May, 1892, the Committee of the Universal School of Cookery and Food Association asked for the assistance of the staff of the School of Cookery at their Exhibition in Baker Street. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief sanctioned the proposal. The men gained two silver medals, the bronze medal, and five diplomas. Last winter Baroness Burdett-Coutts, who is interested in the matter, asked Sir Evelyn Wood if those connected with our school might lecture and demonstrate to the pupils at the Westminster Technical Institute. Sir E. Wood agreed, and as their services

  413
  have been again asked for it is only fair to suppose that their efforts were successful. In camp, when the men are under canvas, an extra allowance is given of a quarter of a pound of meat to provide a meat breakfast, and on active service an extra half pound and a quarter of a pound of bread. Of course, it it easy for a critic to say that this is all very fine on paper; but I beg to assure your Lordships that not only is it capable of being carried out, but it is being carried out in many places in the way I have demon-started, and commanding officers, I am told, are anxious to carry it out. It may be said that this can be done at Aldershot but nowhere else. But the system was in operation at Mullingar in the battalion under Colonel Burnett's command, and it succeeded there. It was said it might be done in a place like Mullingar, where provisions are cheap, but could never be done at Aldershot. It has been done at Aldershot, and I hope it will be found practicable to use the system wherever local facilities are studied and will permit. No doubt circumstances will be found to differ in different localities; but it appears to be mainly a question of supervision, and, of course, where supervision is not exercised, or in fact wherever duty is not properly performed, nothing will succeed. There is no doubt that a vast improvement has been effected in the messing of the private soldier: money is being saved to him, and no extra expense caused to the State. Had it been thought advisable to add to the present three-quarters another quarter of a pound of meat an increased cost of about £230,000 per annum would have been incurred. I venture to think that the improved state of things will stimulate recruiting for the Army, and I believe that opinion to be held by many officers in high positions. As your Lordships are aware, that distinguished officer, Sir E. Wood, commands at Aldershot, and it is under his authority, and owing to his energy and constant thought for the welfare of the soldiers under his command, that first the experiments, and then the system, have been carried out. But I may add that to Colonel Burnett, his Assistant Adjutant General, high praise is due for the way in which the scheme in detail has been carried out, and for the enthusiastic spirit, combined with tact and perseverance, by which he has over-
  414
  come difficulties as they presented themselves. I venture to submit that to both these distinguished officers, the chief and subordinate, gratitude is due from the private soldier and the authorities.

  CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law respecting the transfer and exercise of church patronage, and the avoidance of benefices—Was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 24.)

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 25.)
  House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.