Sitting of 9 May 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GAINSBOROUGH GAS BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  CROWHURST, SIDLEY, AND BEXHILL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read at second time.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
  CLERGY MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  EASTERN TELEGRAPH COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  EDINBURGH AND LEITH CORPORATIONS GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  SAINT MATTHEW, BETHNAL GREEN. BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  UPPER ASSAM TEA COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  WATERFORD CITY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  BROMPTON, CHATHAM, GILLINGHAM, AND ROCHESTER WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  LLANELLY AND PONTARDULAIS RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (ACTON SEWAGE) BILL.:
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.

  CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL
  On the Order for the Second Reading of the Crystal Palace Company Bill,
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think, Sir, that there is a Notice of opposition to this Bill, and in any case I object to its being read a second time to-day. I think it is agreed that the Second Reading should be taken on Thursday.
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Thursday.

  DROGHEDA GAS BILL.
  Petition for additional Provision; referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  COMMONS REGULATION (WOLSTANTON MARSH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read third time, and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  CARMARTHEN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MORLEY CORPORATION (GAS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MUMBLES RAILWAY AND PIER BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  ALIENS BILL.
  In favour: From Glasgow and Stirling; to lie upon the Table.
  BOILERS' INSPECTION AND REGISTRATION BILL.
  Against: From Stroud; to lie upon the Table.
  CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Against: From Dunfermline; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  Against: From Wandsworth; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Kidderminster, Plumstead, Glasgow, Gateshead, Wilmslow, and Stirling; to lie upon the Table.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY.
  For inquiry into management: From Hackney; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour: From Ancrum, Leith (2), Aberdeen (2), Fauldhouse, Locharbriggs, Portobello, Alyth (2), Paisley, Edinburgh (2), Peebles, Glasgow (2), Kirkwall, Dunfermline, Kirkcolm, Portpatrick, Carluke, and Ballochjargon; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Against: From Stirling and Cathcart; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS BILL.
  In favour: From Mile End Old Town; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  In favour: From Kensington, Halifax, Midwives' Institute, Obstetrical Society of London, Liverpool, South London (2), and Southwark; to lie upon the Table.
  For inquiry into his case: From Salgi Parshad; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Against: From Cathcart; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  For alteration: From Cathcart; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Forres; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Middlesbrough and Great Yarmouth (2); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Dornoch, Peebles, Glasgow, Paisley, Dunfermline, and Portpatrick; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Muddiford, North Ormesby (3), Folkestone (2), Preston, Middlesbrough (7), Glasgow, Clapton, Seaton, Liverpool, Parkgate, Plumstead, Briton Ferry (2), East Plumstead, Great Houghton, West Ham (2), Ledbury, Mordiford, Seaford, Hemel Hempstead, Bristol, Stockport, Haslingden, Clifton, Glasgow, Crook, Silksworth, Manchester, and Wallsend; to lie upon the Table.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Against: From Stroud; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Statement showing (1) the Expenditure from the Grant for Public Education in England and Wales in the year 1897 upon Annual Grants to Elementary Schools; (2) the number of Elementary Schools on the Annual Grant List on the 31st August, 1897; (3) Detailed Statistics of Inspected Schools, 1896–7, Public Elementary Day Schools, Evening Continuation Schools, and Certified Efficient Schools, etc.; (4) Tables of Educational Statistics; and (5) Number of School Boards under various Heads of Population [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of further Regulations relating to the Army Reserve [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Copy presented, of Return for the month of December, 1897 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 228 (Bermuda Annual Report for 1897) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  SUB-POST OFFICES ON LICENSED PREMISES.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the number of sub-Post Offices in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are situated in premises licensed for the sale of spirits, wine, or beer, specifying the numbers of such as are licensed for the consumption of liquors on the premises, and those licensed for consumption off the premises?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The number of sub-Post Offices the United Kingdom which are situated in premises licensed for the sale of spirits, wine, or beer, is approximately as follows:—England, 33 on-licences, 604 off-licences; Wales, 5, 15; Scotland, 23, 71; Ireland, 244, 26; total on-licences, 305: total off-licences, 716.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state from what townships in the congested districts of the Highlands of Scotland applications for seed potatoes and seed oats have been received by the Congested Districts Board?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that those who have applied do not in all cases state the township in which they reside, and accurate information cannot be given in the form asked for.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING OFF THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that there have been numerous cases of illegal trawling during the last few years in Broad Bay and off the coast of the Island of Lewis, and that the Admiralty have informed the Scottish Office that the coastguard are instructed to report any breach of the Fishery Board bye-laws which may come under their notice, will he say how many such reports have been made by the coastguard stationed in the island since 1892?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Board that the only coastguard on the Island of Lewis is stationed at Stornoway. No report of illegal trawling off that place has been received since 1892 from the coastguard there.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right honourable Gentleman approach the Admiralty with a view to getting some coastguard stationed nearer?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I think the honourable Member should make application for that in regular form. Obviously, I could not answer without consideration.

  WARRANT OFFICERS IN THE ARMY.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the position of Warrant Officers of the Army as regards their terms of service, status, pay, allowances, and clothing; and whether he will consider the expediency of placing this important class on a footing more approxi-
  668
  mating to that enjoyed by non-commissioned officers of similar rank in the Royal Navy?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The conditions of the service of Warrant Officers in the Navy and Army are so dissimilar that it is impracticable to make a comparison between them. Some conditions in the Navy are better than those in the Army, and some are worse; but, on the whole, allowing for prospects of promotion, it is considered that the Army Warrant Officer is not worse off than his naval colleague.

  MILK IMPORTS.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if his attention has been called to the recent Report of Mr. Consul Gurney on the Trade and Agriculture of Cherbourg and district, and particularly to the paragraphs which refer to the large and increasing export of fresh milk to this country, and to the statement that such milk is prepared for export by the admixture of some unknown antiseptic, and that a certificate from a medical authority to the effect that the antiseptic was in itself innocuous would certainly be welcome and reassuring; and if he will take steps to obtain such a certificate, and also a guarantee (as suggested by Mr. Consul Gurney) that no milk imported into this country has ever come from dairies where any of the inmates of the farm are suffering from infectious disease, and generally to insure that imported fresh milk is subject to the same sanitary safeguards and restrictions as milk produced in this country?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): I am aware of the Report referred to and the statement it contains. I entirely agree with my honourable Friend in what I understand to be the object of his Question, namely, that every precaution should be taken that milk imported into this country should be innocuous to public health. I have already taken steps for the chemical

  669
  and bacteriological analysis of the milk imported from abroad; but with regard to the other guarantees that my honourable Friend desires, namely, that the milk imported from France has not come from dairies where any of the inmates of the farm are suffering from infectious disease, and is subject to the same sanitary safeguards and restrictions as milk produced in this country, that is a matter which at present is beyond my control. My honourable Friend, however, is mistaken as to the large and increasing character of the trade from Cherbourg. The figures for the present year are as follows: January, 20,500 gallons; February, 28,500 gallons; March, 14,000 gallons; April, 528 gallons (value £12).

  FLOGGING A SOLDIER AT MARITZBURG.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if a private soldier in the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, stationed at Maritzburg, has been sentenced to 15 lashes and a term of imprisonment for shop-breaking; and if it is the case that a colonial magistrate has power to inflict corporal punishment on one of Her Majesty's soldiers?
  MR. BRODRICK: No report has been received of the occurrence referred to in the Question. A soldier who commits a criminal offence—not of a military character—is, like any civilian, amenable to the criminal law of the country where he is stationed.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Arising out of that answer may I ask whether, considering that flogging is abolished in the Army, my right honourable Friend does not consider it is time that an alteration in the law was effected?
  MR. BRODRICK: This Question assumes that a soldier is subject to some penalty to which a civilian is not. What my honourable and gallant Friend should do is to address a question to my right honourable Friend the Secretary for the Colonies asking him to mitigate the Draconian law of the colony. We
  670
  have no power to establish the principle that a soldier convicted of an offence by the civil power should suffer less than a civilian would for the same offence.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to give notice that I will put a Question to the Secretary for the Colonies on the subject.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Are we to understand that a soldier when he goes to the Colonies forfeits his rights established by statute?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! We are getting into the regions of argument.

  LEGAL EXPENSES OF SCOTCH DEPARTMENTS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, having regard to the fact that a sum of £2,067 17s. 9d. was expended last year for service of Law Agent in Scotland for the Woods and Forests and other Departments, will he state how much of that sum was expended for the Woods and Forests Department, and how much for each of the other Departments?
  MR. HANBURY: The sum of £2,067 17s. 9d. expended in the year ended the 31st March, 1897, for the services of Law Agents in Scotland, included £660 5s. 6d. on behalf of the Office of Woods and Forests. The other Departments for which payments were made were: the War Office, Office of Works, Treasury, Board of Trade, Scottish Prisons, Science and Art Department, Accountant of Court, Edinburgh, Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, Scottish Education Office, Secretary for Scotland and the Lyon Office. I will furnish the honourable Member with a statement of the amounts paid for these Departments respectively.

  RENTALS IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of persons in the Island of Lewis who pay an annual rental not in excess of £4?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am unable to state the present number of such persons, but the approximate number can be found by the honourable Member in the Poor Rates (Scotland) Return Parliamentary Paper, No. 453, Session 1891.

  SWINE FEVER IN NORTH YORKSHIRE.
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, on account of the serious loss and inconvenience caused to farmers and others by the Markets and Fairs (Swine Fever) Order in the North Riding of Yorkshire and elsewhere, he can withdraw or modify such Order?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): I have had under consideration the various representations which have been made to me on the subject of the Order to which my honourable Friend refers, and have arrived at the conclusion that the time has come when it might with advantage be withdrawn, certain necessary restrictions on movement being imposed in districts in which swine fever unfortunately still exists. Orders to this effect have been prepared, and will be issued in the course of the next few days.

  CAVALRY TRANSFERS.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he could state to the House how many men have been transferred since 1st January from the Cavalry regiment in which they were serving to another regiment, and how many men so transferred have been transferred out of their own corps to other corps?
  MR. BRODRICK: Twenty-five Cavalry men have been transferred from one regiment to another in the same corps, and 49 from the Corps of Dragoons to that of Lancers. All volunteered for the transfer.

  DISEASE AMONG THE TROOPS IN THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a statement from the Straits Settlements Association showing that in the five years ending 1896 the ratio of venereal disease among the troops in the Tanglin district of Singapore was 434.17 per 1,000, as against 144.81 per 1,000 in the five years ending 1888, before the repeal of the contagious diseases ordinance, and containing statements by Brigade Surgeon Lieutenant Colonel H. H. Stokes, that of the sickness in his command 50 per cent. is of venereal origin, and by Captain Bruce, of H.M.S. Orion, which left Singapore in 1890, that more than half of the ship's company had been in hospital with venereal disease during the year; and what measures he proposes to take to prevent the continuance of a system under which such widespread disease involving such serious impairment of our military strength in the Straits Settlements is rendered possible?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I stated, in reply to similar Questions asked on the 28th April, that I was in correspondence with the Governor of the Straits Settlements on this subject, and that, when completed, the correspondence would be laid before the House.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: Can the right honourable Gentleman give the House any idea when we may have the correspondence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No, I cannot.

  ARMY BOOTS.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the ankle boot at present in use in the Army is the pattern upon which both H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught, after the New Forest Manœuvres of 1895, and Lord Ralph Kerr, after the Curragh Manœuvres of 1895, made such

  673
  adverse reports; whether the War Office is aware that the boots used in home service wear out very rapidly; and whether fresh inquiries would be made as to the suitability, both at home as well as abroad, of the present boot to the requirements of the Army?
  MR. BRODRICK: There are two patterns of ankle boots; one is a hand-sewn whole-soled boot supplied to troops abroad. It has been in use many years, and has hitherto been favourably reported upon, both for ordinary and for campaign wear. This is the boot supplied to the troops in Egypt. The other is a machine-sewn boot, with a clump sole, hobnails, toe and heel plates. It is worn exclusively at home. This is the boot which has been complained of in the reports alluded to. Owing to the clump, and the weight of metal, it is no doubt uncomfortable for prolonged marching, and several boots are under trial with the object of finding a satisfactory substitute.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: May I ask when a decision is likely to be come to? I understand that the boots have been on trial for a very considerable period.
  MR. BRODRICK: That I cannot say, but I can assure my honourable and gallant Friend there is every desire to get boots more approved of.

  FEES FOR STATUTORY INFORMATION.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared, in order to promote soundness of trade in the mercantile community, to reduce the charges now made in England and Wales for the extraction of statutory information relating to deeds of arrangement, bills of sale, and county court judgments, which now cost, respectively, 2s. 6d., 1s., and 6d. for each single case, to the rate charged in Scotland of 1s. 6d. for each search, which enables the applicant to extract as he may desire at a sitting, and which thereby reduces to a merely nominal sum the cost per case of obtaining this absolutely essential information to the trading community?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I cannot think the suggestion of my honourable Friend would do much to promote the soundness of trade. With regard to the county court fees, which are the only fees of those mentioned for which the Treasury is directly responsible, the whole amount received only just covers the necessary office expenses, and I do not see my way to lower them. For the other fees the Lord Chancellor is primarily responsible, and it is to him that requests for their reduction should be addressed.

  LABOUR IMMIGRATION INTO ASSAM.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can now lay upon the Table of the House the Triennial Report on Labour Immigration into Assam, which should have appeared at the end of the year 1895, or thereabouts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Report about which the honourable Member inquires was sent home for my information in March, 1897, but it is not usual or desirable to publish such documents until they have been considered and reviewed by the Government of India, by whose comments they should be accompanied. In this case I have ascertained that the Government of India are awaiting the opinions of the local government whose consideration of the subject, owing to the recent famine, has been much delayed.
  MR. SCHWANN: Will the noble Lord use what pressure he can to get the Return? It is very late now and if it is delayed much longer it will be perfectly useless.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Yes, but my honourable Friend must remember that it raises a good many difficult questions.

  ARMY MOBILISATION.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to his statement that all

  675
  questions of mobilisation are kept secret by Continental Powers, whether he is aware that in the "Armed Strength of the German Empire," and in that of Russia, officially published by the War Office, there appear plans of mobilisation, compiled from published orders for those armies, showing, almost day by day, the work each army carries out until mobilisation is complete; and whether he can see his way to publishing a plan of mobilisation for our Army Corps, showing day by day the work to be done, as a guide and instruction for those who may be suddenly called upon to perform duties they have had no opportunity of practising in time of peace?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am informed that the books to which my honourable and gallant Friend refers are obsolete. They were not compiled from published orders, as the regulations for mobilisation in the countries named are confidential. Instructions for guidance on mobilisation will be available for all officers concerned, but it is not necessary or desirable that all the details should be published.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that by the Regulations for Mobilisation, 1894, the Commander of the Second Army Corps with his staff is to mobilise at Colchester; his Fourth Division in Ireland, with one unit at Edinburgh, one at Warley; his Fifth Division in Ireland, with one unit at Warley, one at Colchester; his Sixth Division in England, with one unit in Glasgow; his Corps troops in England, with two units in Ireland; and whether he can see his way to simplify this scheme of mobilisation so that this Army Corps may wholly mobilise either in Great Britain or in Ireland?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Mobilisation Regulations of 1894 have been replaced by a new edition, which will be issued very shortly. In this edition it has been possible to simplify in some particulars the previous scheme of mobilisation; and, as has been already stated, every effort has been made to secure the mobilisation of the Army Corps from contiguous districts. With the present location of barracks, it is not, however, possible to mobilise a complete Army Corps in one district.

  CARLOW DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the corrected figures he gave to the House on the 3rd instant of the servants and attendants who have left the Carlow District Lunatic Asylum since 1894 to the present date includes the five attendants who left that institution on the 30th April; and, if not, would he explain why these attendants were not included; and whether he will consider the desirability of devising some means of guarding against imperfect information being furnished to him, and through him to the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The return from which I quoted on Tuesday last was brought down to the 26th April, and could not, consequently, have included the cases of attendants who left the asylum on the 30th April.

  DISTRESS IN COUNTY KERRY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a letter published in the Freeman's Journal of the 3rd instant, addressed to the Lord Mayor of Dublin, by the Rev. John G. Fahy, Rector of Dromod, county Kerry, in which the reverend gentleman states that it is impossible to exaggerate the distress, notably in Portmagee and Ballinskelligs, and that the people are stricken with fever and have little or no food in their houses; and whether steps will be taken to give immediate relief in those and other distressed districts in Kerry?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have read the newspaper report to which reference is made in the Question. The Rev. Mr. Fahy's letter, which was dated the 18th of April, and published on the 20th, was at once referred to the Local Government Board Inspector, Colonel Kirkwood, for inquiry and report. The Inspector visited the district, and reported on the 28th April that there were no cases of

  677
  fever in Ballinskelligs, all those who had been affected being convalescent, and that the only two cases in Portmagee were in hospital. Colonel Kirkwood spent several days going through the district with the Relieving Officer, and states that while this part of Caherciveen is always poor and congested, there is nothing in the nature of widespread distress this year. He called on the Rev. Mr. Fahy, and obtained from him a list of 22 families stated to be destitute. The Relieving Officer (whom both the Inspector and the Rev. Mr. Fahy report to be a reliable man) has since visited each of the persons, and reports that nine of the cases did not require relief, that five were already in receipt of assistance from the rates, and that in the remaining eight cases he considered it advisable to afford provisional relief. There is no undue strain on the resources of the Poor Law in this Union as yet.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the right honourable Gentleman answer the second paragraph?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no reason to believe exceptional measures are necessary.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right honourable Gentleman not aware that the two Unions which comprise this distressed districts are in debt and cannot afford relief?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member must give notice of any further Questions.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that hundreds of families in these districts are being fed by the Relief Committee?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If there is any destitution not provided for by the Relief Committee it should be provided for by the guardians.

  POTATO SPRAYING MACHINES.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what the Irish Government and the boards of
  678
  guardians are doing to see that the people of Ireland are properly provided in good time with potato spraying machines and the materials necessary to be used to check the potato disease; and what advantage will be taken by the Government to avail themselves of the generous offers of the principal Irish railway companies to convey Strawsonite and spraying machines free of charge on their various lines?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government have authorised loans to boards of guardians in Ireland for the supply of spraying machines for the use of occupiers of holdings valued at and under £15, and the guardians may either sell these machines for cash or let them out on hire to occupiers. An arrangement has also been entered into whereby spraying mixture may be supplied to small farmers through boards of guardians by means of loans repayable in two yearly instalments, or by cash purchase, with 20 per cent. abatement. It will be possible for an occupier to purchase one of these machines for cash at about a pound, and where a number of occupiers agree to hire a machine the hiring rates will be nominal. The guardians of some 30 unions have, so far, decided to supply the machines, and many more will doubtless do the same later on. The generous offers of the Irish railway companies will, of course, be taken advantage of by the guardians, and will result in a proportionate decrease in the cost of the machines to small farmers.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will there be any means of guaranteeing the quality of the spraying mixture?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, as far as the Government are concerned, precautions will be taken to secure the supply of suitable mixture.

  DISTRESS IN SLIGO COUNTY.
  MR. THOMAS CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the

  679
  resolutions adopted by the Dispensary Committee of Aclare, county Sligo, affirming that large numbers of the migrating labourers are in such a condition of destitution that they are unable to pay for tickets to take them to England; and whether, in view of the importance of enabling them to reach the districts where they usually engage in harvesting operations, he will make such arrangements with the Irish and English railway companies as will enable these men to travel to England?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to the resolutions referred to in the first paragraph. There is only one Irish railway company associated with the migration of harvest men to England—namely, the Midland Great Western. Special through rates arranged between this company and the London and North Western Railway Company and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company were made this year as usual, beginning so far back as the 4th February. The rates are very reasonable, and represent a reduction of from 33 to 40 per cent. on ordinary fares. I understand from the Midland Great Western Company that, as a matter of fact, the number of harvest men this year is an increase upon last year for the same period over the whole railway system. Under the circumstances it would not appear that any action is called for on the part of the Government, but if any general difficulty is shown to exist of the kind indicated in the Question the railway company might, perhaps, find it to their interest to reduce the fares still further in order to meet it.

  ADMIRALTY OFFICE STATIONERY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Departmental Committee which was appointed last year to consider the question of stationery used in the Admiralty Offices have made their Report; and has any economy resulted therefrom; if so, to what extent?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. G. E. MACARTNEY,): It is expected that the Committee will make their Report shortly. I am not, therefore, able to make any statement at present.
  MR. WEIR: Can the honourable Gentleman give us any idea when he will be able to? This Question was first put 12 months ago.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I cannot.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the number of withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ending 31st December, 1897, and the amount so withdrawn?
  MR. HANBURY: The number of withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank during the year ended 31st December, 1897, was 4,630,425, and the amount so withdrawn was £28,700,320.

  ILLEGAL TROUT KILLING IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR JOHN KINLOCH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the increasing use of netting and other illegal methods of killing trout in the streams of Scotland, especially in those which are unpreserved and free to the public, to the destruction of the sport of legitimate anglers; and whether the law could be made more stringent in order to meet this evil?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The attention of Her Majesty's Government has not been specially called to any increase in netting or other illegal methods of fishing for trout, except in the cases of Lochs Stenness and Harray, in the Orkneys. It is considered that the Freshwater Acts of 1845 and 1860 are, if enforced, sufficient to prevent the practices complained of.

  INNISHOWEN LAND CASES.
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the course the Land Commission propose to take as to the cases from the northern part of Innishowen, set down for hearing at Buncrana; whether he is aware that many of the tenants will have to walk 30 miles to have their cases heard if the place of hearing is Buncrana; and whether, under all the circumstances, the court will be held at Carndonagh?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioners are in communication with the Chairman of the Sub-Commission before whom the cases referred to are listed for hearing, and he will endeavour to fix a date on which the hearing can be taken up at a place more convenient to the parties interested than Buncrana.

  CARNDONAGH RAILWAY.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the agreement with the Lough Swilly Company relating to the Carndonagh Railway provides for the advance of money for the purchase of land and other purposes immediately on the grant of the Order in Council; and if he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland as to whether, under the circumstances which have arisen, such an advance could now be made?
  MR. HANBURY: Article 6 of the agreement empowers the Treasury, on the Order in Council being obtained, to make advances to the company, up to the limit of £40,000, to meet the expenses incurred in the earlier stages of the undertaking. But the agreement also contemplates that these expenses shall be included in the contract for which tenders are to be obtained by public competition. Until a satisfactory tender has been obtained the Treasury do not feel justified in incurring any expenditure, for purchase of land or otherwise, which can possibly be avoided. The Treasury are the sole judges of the construction and effect of the agreement, and I see no occasion to consult the Law Officers.

  FREE POSTAGE TO THE CLERK TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. J. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, on what date the promise that Members of the House of Commons may write on official business to the Clerk of the House of Commons without payment of postage will be carried into effect?
  MR. HANBURY: Steps are being taken to add the Clerk of the House of Commons to the list of officials entitled to receive letters on the public service free of postage. Formal Treasury sanction has to be given, and a notice issued to all post offices in the United Kingdom, but there is no reason why the arrangement should not come into force by to-morrow week, Tuesday being the day on which the Post Office weekly circular is issued.

  OFFICIAL "GAZETTES."
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Official Gazette belongs to the Government or to a private firm?
  MR. HANBURY: There are three Official Gazettes—the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes—all being Government publications, but they are published under different systems. The London Gazette, to which the honourable Member probably refers, is published by a private firm under a contract obtained by open competition in 1889. They edit the Gazette, print it at their own cost, and sell it for their own profit at prices fixed by the contract. For this privilege they pay the Government £1,250 a year, and the Government receives also the sums paid for advertisements. The Edinburgh and Dublin Gazettes are printed and sold by the Government.
  MR. LEWIS: For how long is the contract?
  MR HANBURY: I am not quite sure.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education what is the number of Church of England schools, and what are the numbers of any other classes of Voluntary schools, included in the 25 schools from whom the grant under the Voluntary Schools Act has been withheld on the ground that they have unreasonably refused to join an association; and by what tests the Department has determined the question whether the refusals to join associations are or are not unreasonable?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): Nineteen of these schools were described as Church of England schools. The other six appear to have been undenominational. The test applied in each case was a consideration of the validity of the objection to join an association which was put forward by the managers of the school.

  RHODESIAN MEDALS.
  MR. HUTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information with regard to the issue of medals by the Chartered Company to the officers and soldiers employed in Rhodesia between 24th March and 31st December, 1896; and whether he can state when such medals will be distributed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The issue of these medals in accordance with Army Order No. 96, of July, 1897, will take place as soon as the rolls are complete. There has been unfortunately delay and difficulty in preparing the full rolls in South Africa of the local forces engaged.

  ANTRIM JURORS.
  MR. O'NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if under the Local Government Bill jurors residing in the
  684
  county of Antrim outside the borough of Belfast will be required to attend to business only connected with the county, and not as heretofore to attend to business connected with the county and borough of Belfast jointly?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under Clause 45 of the Bill, the administrative county will be the county for all purposes, including jurors; therefore jurors residing in Antrim, outside Belfast, will not be required to attend to business connected with Belfast. This provision is subject to the transitory provision in Clause 76, that the jurors will not be affected by any change of boundaries until the jurors lists revised in 1899 come into operation.

  LORD GOSFORD v. THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  COLONEL MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what were the costs incurred by the Irish Land Commission in the case of the Queen at the prosecution of Lord Gosford v. the Irish Land Commission in the Queen's Bench Division and the Court of Appeal: whether these expenses were incurred through the Land Commission having refused to state a case for the Court of Appeal or for leave to appeal; is he aware that the judges were of opinion that the questions at issue were questions of law which arose in the case, and were questions which should have been submitted for the opinion and decision of the Court of Appeal; and whether directions can be given to the Land Commission to enable parties to have matters of law decided by the Court of Appeal without having to resort to the legal remedies vested in the Common Law Division of the High Court of Justice?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The costs of the Land Commission in the Queen's Bench Division and Court of Appeal amounted to £463. These costs were incurred in upholding a procedure, the legality of which was challenged, that had existed for a number of years and which the Court of Appeal unanimously

  685
  decided to be correct. The Land Commission, in the exercise of their judicial discretion, declined to state a case for the Court of Appeal upon certain questions submitted to them. As regards the third and fourth paragraphs, I must remind my honourable Friend that it is not the province of the Executive to express any opinion on questions of law or to give directions of the kind suggested.

  BRITISH LIGHT DUES.
  MR. M. DAVITT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what is the amount per ship which American and other foreign vessels have to pay in light dues, and otherwise, for entering British ports, or for the use of harbours in British waters; and whether he can state to what extent these charges exceed the proposed tonnage dues on European ships which the American Congress has been considering as a means for raising a war revenue?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The amount of light dues paid by foreign ships depends not only on their tonnage, but also upon the lighthouses they pass; and it is therefore impossible to state the amount payable per ship, but during the year 1894 9,327 foreign vessels with a tonnage of 4,591,518 paid £105,314, showing an average of about £11.8 per vessel or 5d. per ton for the year. There are no Government charges for entering British ports or for the use of British harbours. Without more definite information it is impossible to compare the charges for light dues in this country with those to which the honourable Member refers, but they are considerably less than the charge recently proposed in the Bill before the American Congress.

  ANDERSONSTOWN POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any arrangements have yet
  686
  been made to provide for an early collection of letters at Andersonstown, now within the borough of Belfast, so that letters the same morning of collection may be in time for first delivery in that city; and, if nothing has yet been done, what is the cause of delay?
  MR. HANBURY: Arrangements have not been made to provide an early collection of letters at Andersonstown, as inquiry shows that the expense would not be warranted. In February last great improvements were introduced both in the collections and deliveries at Andersonstown, although, according to the strict rules which regulate these services, they were hardly justified by the extent of the business.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. E. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what, besides agricultural land, is meant by "hereditament entered as land in the valuation list within the meaning of the Valuation Acts" in Sub-section 4, Clause 34, of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Hereditaments entered as land in the Valuation List within the meaning of the Valuation Acts would include woods, gardens, and pleasure grounds. The term would also include some parts of railways and canals, but it is not intended that any agricultural grant should be paid in respect of these. There is an Amendment in my name on the Paper excluding the latter.

  EXPENDITURE ON BARRACKS.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total expenditure on the provision of barrack accommodation during the last five years in Scotland, England, and Ireland respectively?
  MR. BRODRICK: The total expenditure on the provision of barrack accommodation, excluding maintenance, during the five years from 1892 to 1897, is as follows:—England, £2,295,165; Scotland, £34,990; and Ireland, £581,326.

  COUNCIL OF INDIA.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India how many vacancies have occurred in the Council of India since the enactment of 52 and 53 Vic, cap. 65; how many of those occurring have been filled up; and what is the present number of members of the Council?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: One vacancy in the Council of India existed at the time of the enactment of 52 and 53 Vic, cap. 65, and 10 vacancies have occurred since; of those 11 vacancies the Secretary of State has recorded his intention to abstain from filling three. The present number of members of the Council is 11, and there is one vacancy, which will shortly be filled.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT EXAMINERS.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, as it was admitted by his predecessor that the duties of examiners in the Education Department are merely administrative in the same sense as are the usual functions of Civil servants, any reason exists why these posts should not in future be filled in the ordinary way by examination and promotion from the ordinary clerical staff?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I cannot find that my predecessor ever made the admission alleged. I must refer the honourable Member to the answers to similar questions given by my predecessor on February 9th, 1893, and by me on May 11th, 1897, to which I have nothing to add.

  RESOLUTIONS FOR COMMITTEES OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Resolutions to be discussed this day in Committee of Ways and Means have not been printed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The same course has been adopted as on previous occasions. The Rules of the House do not require notice to be given. The only important Resolution is that relating to the tea duty, which has been printed.
  MR. LEWIS: Will the right honourable Gentleman, for the convenience of the House, have the other Resolutions printed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have no objection personally, but I am afraid it would not be in accordance with practice.

  PENSIONS FOR THE ORDNANCE FACTORY WORKMEN.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he would favourably consider the propriety of establishing a pension scheme for employees in the Ordnance Factories on the same lines as those laid down by the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, and founded partly on deductions from wages; and whether he would consider if moneys now available for gratuities to those employees might be better used for such a pension scheme?
  MR. BRODRICK: It has before been stated to the House that it is not considered necessary or desirable to add to the number of established workmen employed in the Ordnance Factories; and even if the value of the gratuity to which some of the workmen become entitled were taken into account, it is believed that the deduction from wages which would have to be made in order to provide a pension is more than the great majority of the men concerned would be prepared to submit to.

  DR. JENNINGS, J.P.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Dr. Jennings, J.P., Skibbereen, who was charged last week in the Petty Sessions Court, Skibbereen, with assaulting and wounding his servant Mary Collins; whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to the conduct of Dr. Jennings in this case, and in other breaches of the peace by this gentleman; and whether the Lord Chancellor intends to remove him from the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. FLYNN: Before the right honourable Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask whether it is not the fact whether the charge brought by Mary Collins was not dismissed by the magistrates, in Petty Sessions assembled, and whether a summons by the police against the same defendant was not also dismissed at the same sessions?
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Was there not collusion between this man and the police officers?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I have been furnished with a report of the proceedings on the hearing of the charge referred to in the first paragraph. The complainant, on being called, stated that the defendant had not assaulted her, and the case was thereupon dismissed by the magistrates on the merits. Under the circumstances, there is nothing in this case calling for action on the part of the Lord Chancellor. In August of last year the honourable Member drew attention to certain proceedings on the part of Dr. Jennings, who, it was alleged, had obstructed the issue of a summons against himself on a charge of assault, which charge was subsequently withdrawn. No grounds whatever have been shown for superseding him in the Commission of the Peace.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Did not Mary Collins tell the police that the doctor had assaulted her, and is it not notorious in the district that she refused to give
  690
  evidence because she had been squared by the doctor?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  [No Reply.]

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SCHEMES.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the terms of the proposal put forward by the Beard of Management of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Miners' Permanent Fund for a scheme of compensation in substitution of that contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act; is he aware that the additional amount which it is proposed that the employers should in future contribute, on condition that the workmen contract themselves out of the new Act, is less than 1d. per ton, and is little, if at all, in excess of the figure estimated by the Government during the time the Bill was under discussion by the House, when regard is had to the more than ordinarily dangerous nature of mining in South Wales and Monmouthshire; and whether, seeing that the Chairman of the Permanent Fund did by letter when the Bill was before the House express the opinion that the Act would impose a liability of 3d. per ton on the output of coal in South Wales, will the Government draw the attention of the Registrar of Friendly Societies to this latter circumstance before he sanctions any scheme for South Wales in substitution of the Act?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): I have not seen the terms of the proposed scheme, but I am glad to learn from various sources that the terms on which coalowners are able to insure themselves against the risks under the Act confirm the accuracy of the estimate, which I put before the House last year, of the liability which the Act would impose on the coal industry. The Registrar of Friendly Societies, in approving or disapproving schemes under

  691
  the Act, occupies an independent position, and I do not think it would be desirable that I should attempt to influence his judgment.

  CHELSEA PETITION.
  MR. GILES: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether in consequence of the decision in the Chelsea Petition he will introduce a Bill to make illegal the supplying of food and drink during an election to electors, whether professed supporters or opponents?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I cannot undertake to introduce a Bill, as in my opinion the existing law is sufficient to make illegal the practice referred to in the Question of my honourable and learned Friend. I have some difficulty in reconciling the decision in the Chelsea case with previous decisions. It must have proceeded upon some special view of the facts proved.

  POWERS AND THE PACIFIC.
  MR. BILLSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is in existence any agreement or understanding between Great Britain and France, Germany, or any other Power, binding the parties to it not to acquire further islands or territory in the Pacific? May I add that I am sure the whole House joins with me in congratulating the right honourable Gentleman on his recovery from his recent illness.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): I have to inform the honourable Gentleman, whom I thank for his kind remarks, that there is in existence no such general agreement or understanding, although special arrangements have from time to time been concluded with regard to particular islands in the Pacific.

TOURMALINE.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a Mr. Henry M. Grey, one of the prisoners of the Tourmaline, has made a statement that the said prisoners, who are British subjects, had been kept prisoners for three months without trial, chained together by the neck, shackled with camel shackles, robbed, spat upon, and jeeringly invited to call upon the British Government to come and help them; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the truth of this statement with a view to demand reparation for such treatment?
MR. CURZON: We have received the statement by Mr. Grey. As soon as Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier learnt that the prisoners had been captured he communicated with the Grand Vizier as to their welfare, and requested that they should be subjected to no harsh treatment. On reports reaching Tangier in February last that the prisoners were; ill-treated, Sir Arthur Nicolson brought the matter to the notice of the Grand Vizier, who assured him that orders had been sent to treat them with kindness, and further stated that letters had been sent to Kaid Gilooly to take great cars of the captives, and to supply them with all the provisions they required, and with bed-clothes, tents, and good mules for their journey. At the request of Sir A. Nicolson, fresh orders were sent to that effect. After the statement made by one; of the prisoners in the Consular Court on the 30th ultimo with regard to the ill-treatment they had suffered, Sir A. Nicolson addressed a strong remonstrance to the Moorish Government. He states that he believes the Moorish Government were anxious that the prisoners should be well treated, but that in the early stages of their imprisonment the officer in charge behaved with great harshness until he received strict orders to treat them well. Their treatment then improved and they reached Tangier in good health. Sir A. Nicolson proposes to demand the punishment of this official, and Her Majesty's Government will support the demand.

TOURMALINE.

  AMERICAN TONNAGE DUES.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what European Powers besides Great Britain have made representations to the Government of the United States with reference to the tonnage dues which were proposed in the American Congress as a means of raising revenue for war purposes; what instructions were given by Her Majesty's Government to the British Ambassador in connection with these representations; and whether the representations in question were made by European Powers individually or collectively; and, if collectively, whether he can state which Power took the initiative in the matter?
  MR. CURZON: An unofficial request was addressed on the 28th ultimo to the State Department by Her Majesty's Ambassador as Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps, on behalf of the Representatives of France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy, that a hearing might be given before a Committee of the House to the agents of the steamship companies and shipowners, in order to enable them to state their case against the proposed increase in the tonnage dues. No instructions had at that time been sent to Sir Julian Pauncefote, but his Excellency was instructed on the 29th ultimo to represent to the Secretary of State the great hardship to British shipping and commercial interests which would be involved by the passing of the measure. No official representation was made jointly to the United States Government on the subject, but separate representations were made by the representatives of Germany, France, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

  EGYPT.
  The following Question appeared on the Paper—
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any increase of crime and violence in Egypt since the date of Lord Cromer's last Report.
  On its being called,
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid: This Question has been so emasculated at the Table without any communication with me that it is futile now to put it.

  PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will agree to the appointment of a Committee to inquire whether any change can be made in the method of procedure regarding private Members' Bills?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The subject to which the honourable Gentleman refers is one of immense range, and it might be said to include an examination into the cause and effects of the growing tendency to leave legislation of a far-reaching character more and more in the hands of the Government of the day. Such an investigation would go far beyond a mere examination of the working of a particular Standing Order, and, indeed, would go to the very root of our legislative system. Without pronouncing a final judgment on the subject, I do not think we could with advantage embark on such a vast enterprise at the present moment.

  ABSENTEE MEMBERS.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the Act of the sixth Henry VIII., chapter 16, enacting that no Member of Parliament shall absent himself from attendance therein except he have licence of the Speaker and the Commons and the same licence be entered on record in the book of the Clerk of the Parliament appointed for the Commons House, he purposes to take any steps to cause the law to be observed, or to repeal the Act?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to my honourable Friend I have to say I understand he has omitted one important phrase in the Act of Henry VIII., which is as follows—
  "That those Members who absent themselves from Parliament without licence of the Speaker of the House, shall be entered in the book of the Clerk of the Parliament kept for that purpose, and deprived of their wages."
  The statute is evidently directed against those gentlemen who took the pay of their constituents and did not do the work their constituents thought they ought to do. It is evident that as our constituents no longer pay honourable Gentlemen, therefore that particular statute has lost its cogency. But on the general Question, I may say I think a general practice has grown up in the House with regard to the absence of Members which is convenient, well understood, and which leads to no abuse.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether, as stated in 68 and 69 of the Rules laid on the Table by you, Mr. Speaker, every Member of the House is bound to attend the service of the House unless the House has given him leave of absence on account of illness, urgent business, or other sufficient cause, and whether such leave must not, by Rule 70, be asked for by Motion, after notice, giving leave of absence to the Member and stating the cause and period of his absence?
  MR. SPEAKER: It will be generally recognised by the House that the Rule which states that every Member is bound to attend the service of the House unless the House has given him leave of absence is a correct general statement of the duties of a Member, but in practice it is very considerably modified.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the First Lord of the Treasury aware that the Senior whip of the Government told us he gave the honourable Member for Rotherhithe leave to go to China?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.

  LOCAL TAXATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended that the Royal Commission on Rating shall inquire into the incidence of local taxation in Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The present intention of the Commission is, I understand, to make such an inquiry. No date has yet been fixed for it.

  SCOTCH ESTIMATES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will arranger that the Votes for the Fishery Board for Scotland and the Local Government Board for Scotland shall not be taken until the respective Reports are in the hands of Members; and can he state when these Reports, which are said to be in the hands of the printers, are likely to be issued?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am informed that the Report of the Local Government Board will be issued shortly, and that Part I. of the Fishery Board's Report will be laid in the course of the week.
  MR. WEIR: Will the Reports be in the hands of honourable Members before the Vote is taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have every reason to believe they will.
  MR. WEIR: I want the right honourable Gentleman to arrange that they shall be.

  POSTMASTERS AT FISH-CURING STATIONS.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directcd to certain cases in which postmasters at curing stations are alleged

  697
  to be themselves interested in the curing trade, and to have made prior use for their own advantage of telegrams addressed to other curers before these telegrams were delivered to the addressees; and what steps he will take to prevent the recurrence of these grievances during the ensuing fishing season?
  MR. HANBURY: It is understood that the Question of the honourable Member refers to the sub-postmasters of Balta Sound and Castle Bay. A recent sub-postmaster of Balta Sound was engaged in the curing trade. But it is not known that the present sub-postmaster has any share in curing business. The sub-postmaster of Castle Bay is alleged to be an agent of a fish-curing firm at Leith. But there is no official knowledge on the point. The attention of the Postmaster General has not been directed to any cases in which the sub-postmasters of these offices have made prior use for their own advantage of telegrams addressed to other curers, and he has no reason to believe that any illegitimate use would be made by them of information which they might obtain in the course of their official duties.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD H. CECIL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have sent him private notice—namely, whether, in view of the desire of several Members to raise the question of the propriety of restoring their commissions to the officers who were concerned with Dr. Jameson in the Raid, he will put down the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for War on an early day?
SIR C. DILKE: The general discussion on the Foreign Office Vote having been postponed in consequence of the illness of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—whom I congratulate on his return—I beg to ask the First Lord
698
when, consistently with his promise to the Irish Members, he can take the Foreign Office Vote?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The right honourable Gentleman may, of course, if he likes, put a Question down, but I think it is a convenient practice not to settle unnecessarily long beforehand on what day particular Votes should be taken. Now it seems quite clear, in face of the pledges given to honourable Members from Ireland, that neither the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for War nor the Foreign Office Vote, upon which the right honourable Baronet desires to raise certain general questions of interest, can possibly be taken before Whitsuntide. Under these circumstances I think there would be no good object gained in forecasting these matters until the holidays come near.
SIR C. DILKE: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware from the ordinary sources of information that a desire to discuss the Foreign Office Vote is felt on his own side of the House by a large number of Members? Would he like to receive an intimation to that effect from Members who wish to discuss it, and will he, in his reply, have regard to the statements made by the Government in postponing the discussion?
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Before he replies, may I ask, does not the right honourable Gentleman think it would be a considerable relief to the House to be freed from Irish questions which come on every night of the week, and put down either the Foreign Office Vote or the Colonial Office Vote before Whitsuntide?
MR. J. DILLON: Will the honourable Member vote for a Home Rule Bill?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There is clearly one serious obstacle to the course suggested by my honourable Friend, and that is that I have made a promise to the Irish Members with regard to Supply. With regard to the question of the right honourable Baronet, I am, of course, ready, indeed

699
anxious, to receive, either in a written or in any other form, the indications from bodies of Members in this House of their wishes as to the order in which Supply should be taken. I confess I have not received, either from the ordinary sources of information or in any, other way, information that there is a widespread anxiety on the part of Gentlemen on this side of the House to further discuss foreign affairs.
MR. S. SMITH: Will the right honourable Gentleman say when the report stage of the Benefices Bill is likely to come on?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Not until after Whitsuntide.
DR. FARQUHARSON: It is intended to take the Vaccination Bill to-night? If not, is there any prospect of it being taken before Whitsuntide?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We are pledged to go on with the Irish Bill, and till that is finished I do not think much is to be gained by making a forecast of the business to be taken when that desirable end is attained.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  RISING IN SIERRA LEONE.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    CAPTAIN BETHELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Colonies whether he has any information to communicate to the House, beyond that contained in the newspapers, with regard to the revolt on the West Coast of Africa, and whether the statements in the papers are substantially correct?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No, Sir. I think the information which is contained in the papers is undoubtedly exaggerated. There has evidently been something like a panic among the traders on the coast, and I think they have over-estimated the danger in which they, personally, are placed. But the insurrection has been a serious one. There have been a good
    700
    many murders, especially of missionaries, reported in the papers, but it is believed by the Governor and the military and naval authorities that Freetown is in no danger whatever.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg, Sir, to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to "a definite matter of urgent public importance"—namely, the alarming state of things in the Hinterland of Sierra Leone, arising out of the levying of the hut tax on the dwellings of the native population.
    Leave having been given,
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Davitt.)
    MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: I should not have moved the Adjournment of the House if an opportunity had presented itself on Friday last of discussing this very serious matter upon the Vote of the Colonial Office, but I am in the recollection of the House when I say that there was a general understanding on Friday evening that the area of discussion should be confined to subjects relating to the affairs of Rhodesia. I trust, therefore, that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies will not think I am acting in any way discourteously or unfairly towards him in giving him an opportunity at the earliest moment of making some statement to the House and to the country with reference to the alarming condition of things in this Colony. The House must be aware that a feeling of great alarm prevails in this country with reference to the occurrences at Sierra Leone. The alarm is not confined to England, for I am sorry to learn from the public Press that, according to the reports, some American missionaries have been killed, and a number of white people are in a state of serious apprehension for their lives, while there is also a fear that some French subjects are in a similar state. In addition to this, the mercantile circles of Manchester and Liverpool are very much alarmed in consequence of the injury

    701
    that has been done, and the greater injury which they fear may be done to their interests as a result of the policy pursued by the Government in levying this obnoxious tax upon the houses of these unfortunate people. The House will probably bear with me if I give some facts that have already been made public in connection with this trouble. I find that Mr. Charles Marcus, a Liverpool merchant, who has been connected with this part of Africa in business matters for over 20 years, has given his opinions with reference to the cause of this trouble. Quite recently he was interviewed in Liverpool, and this is what he says—
    "Of course you know all the disturbance Las arisen out of the hut tax, and every trader in the Colony strongly deprecated the Government putting it in force. I was in touch, not not only with Bey Burie, who is leader of the disturbances, but with other chiefs, before the Governor came from England last time. About thirty chiefs visited Freetown, and they came to my premises. They waited about five months, till Sir F. Cardew arrived; they also wrote to the Colonial Office, stating their grievances, but they never got any answer."
    This, of course, is an ex parte statement, and, doubtless, the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary will have something to say in reply. I give the name of my authority, who is probably as far removed from myself in political opinions as the right honourable Gentleman himself, and I give Mr. Marcus's statements for what they are worth. He also relates in this interview that when these chiefs had obtained an audience with the Governor, they protested against the injustice of the tax, representing themselves as poor people, saying their houses were probably not worth more than four or five times the amount of the tax levied upon them, and one of the chiefs pointed out that, although this heavy tax was to be levied upon their poor dwellings, there were valuable houses inhabited by Englishmen in Sierra Leone, worth £1,000 or £2,000, upon which not a single penny of tax was being levied. In addition to all this, the manner in which the tax was collected was very offensive to the native population. I believie the collecting force employed by the Governor was made up of emancipated slaves, and these tax collectors were in the habit of often
    702
    offering insults to their previous masters—a proceeding calculated to make those masters not too contented with the rule established over them. In addition to this, I find that a lady, well-known in this country for her intimate knowledge of West African affairs, and who is, I believe, a strong political supporter of the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, has expressed her opinion with reference to this hut tax. I mean Miss Kingsley. That lady has recently expressed the following scathing condemnation of this tax—
    "West Africa is a sort of place where they don't care a row of pins for intentions, but judge by facts. The facts of that hut tax are ugly ones, even if contemplated with calmness. You have (1) a colony whose prosperity is dependent on its Hinterland territory, destroying it by an attempt to raise revenue—further revenue, over and above what it already yields from excessive Custom dues—by means that are, to the minds of the people you want to get the money from, both oppressive and unjust; (2) by driving them to war, and killing them also—a thing it is perfectly justifiable to do with blacks or whites, provided it is necessary for some noble purpose—you are destroying all future prosperity in the colony. For in all West African Colonies, rich as they are in timber, oil, rubber, minerals, etc., your most valuable asset is the native, for without him you cannot work those other things."
    In addition to these reasons against this tax, there is the additional one that some 600 or 700 white people have their lives imperilled by this criminal stupidity on the part of the Governor. Miss Kingsley took a purely natural view of this hut tax, but I want the House to consider it also from its ludicrous side. This tax brings in about £20,000 or £25,000—a sum surely too small and insignificant for which to plunge a country into rebellion. But that is not all, because the collection of it will now mean the cost of the war to be waged against these unfortunate people for their resistance. I believe that cost will amount to a very much larger sum—before this trouble is ended—than the sum expected to be raised by means of the tax. To sum up the situation: first, the tax was to be imposed upon the miserable inhabitants—people who were to receive the blessings of English rule and civilisation; secondly, there was the enormous cost of collection; and thirdly, war

    703
    was to be waged against the people, and their huts destroyed. A more criminal policy could not be carried out, if, instead of Sir Frederick Cardew, a Governor had been selected from Colney Hatch. A similar tax was imposed in the early his tory of the Colony, and aroused very strong feeling amongst the natives; but, for the credit of this country, an Irishman was sent out as Governor—the late Sir John Pope Hennessey. The first step he took was the right and proper one of withdrawing the tax. The result was the instant cessation of the hostility of the people, who, in recognition of this action, observe the anniversary of the abolition of the tax as a day of rejoicing, and it is called, in the annals of the Colony, "Sir John Pope Hennessy's Day." Sir, the very officials who are now provoking this war by renewing the hut tax have heretofore taken part in these celebrations. I venture to hope that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies will take some steps to try and have this trouble settled without having these unfortunate people mowed down by Maxim guns. We learned last Friday night that the Colonial Secretary had deputed Sir Marshall Clarke to a most responsible post in Rhodesia. The right honourable Gentleman deserves great credit for such an appointment. It was made so as to ensure the fullest protection to the Matabele people against wanton oppression, and no better man could have been selected than the man who had the pacifying of Zululand, and earned the gratitude of the natives for his justice and humanity. If Sir Marshall Clarke were sent out on a temporary special mission to Sierre Leone to pacify these people, he would succeed in doing it in the shortest time possible, and would save a great deal of unnecessary bloodshed. I hope, therefore, the right honourable Gentleman will take some steps to avert the scenes with which we are now only too familiar in these petty wars and expeditions on the West Coast of Africa. A few weeks ago the right honourable Gentleman admitted to me that all this trouble, if not immediately caused by, was, at least, precipitated by the imposition of this tax, and surely if the trouble arose out of the policy of this Governor this great Empire ought to be equal to the test of showing
    704
    enough moral courage to admit that the policy is wrong, and that the right thing is to withdraw the tax, and in that way to pacify these people, and stop the bloodshed which otherwise is sure to follow.
    MR. JOHN DILLONformally seconded the motion.
    MR. SPEAKERput the Question.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not complain of any act of discourtesy on the part of the honourable Member for East Mayo, who was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to raise this Debate, although it only reached me after I came into the House, so that I have not been able to obtain all the papers I should liked to have had with me. At the same time I may have something to say that will be of interest to the House. At the outset, let me make a protest against anything in the nature of a hasty judgment on these transactions, and, above all, on any individual who may have been connected with them. I do not complain of anything that fell from the honourable Member for East Mayo, except one or two allusions to the Governor, which, I think, in his absence, and in our incomplete knowledge, are certainly unfair. Sir Frederick Cardew is a distinguished servant of the Crown, and he has a high reputation. He was appointed by my predecessor, and hitherto he has been successful in his administration of the Colony. Now that these unfortunate events have occurred, it would be most unfair to assume that they are necessarily due to any fault of his, and, above all, to any want of appreciation of his responsibilities to the native population. I think the best thing I can do is to make a very brief statement as to how this question has arrived at its present position. In 1894 Sir Frederick Cardew, who has been a most active and zealous Governor, made a tour through the greater part of the Colony, and went into many districts which had never before been visited by a white man, and he found the country in a very distressing condition. It had been devastated by the Chief Samory, and by

    705
    slave-raiding expeditions, and also by slave-raiding quarrels among the chiefs themselves. There was nothing in the nature of trade going on, and nothing in the nature of peaceful industry. The Hinterland was really little better than a desert, and the chiefs earned their subsistence practically by selling and receiving slaves. After Sir Frederick Cardew had made this trip and formed his conclusions, he wrote a very full and interesting dispatch to Lord Ripon, in which he stated the results of his experience and made suggestions for the future administration of the Hinterland. He expressed himself in the first instance as strongly of opinion that everything should be done, if possible, with the assent and goodwill of the chiefs, and the law administered, as far as possible, in accordance with native customs and through the chiefs. He further proposed a very elaborate system—perhaps I should say a carefully devised system, because it is really very simple—by which everything except the most serious, and the practice of certain barbarous native customs, should be administered through the chiefs. He also proposed an increase of the frontier police to keep down any raids from outside, and also to prevent any slave dealing in the Hinterland. That, he estimated, would involve an additional cost of something like £7,000 per annum, and in order to raise that money, which could not be afforded by the Colony, he proposed a licence tax upon the spirit dealers and a hut tax. Lord Ripon replied in his dispatch, agreeing generally with the proposals Sir Frederick Cardew had made, which seemed to him to be sound and judicious; but he said, of course, that, as at that time we had a boundary being settled with France, nothing could be done, and it would have to be postponed to a later period. After I came into office, the boundary question having been settled, the matter was again taken up and carefully discussed for a considerable period between the Colonial Government and the Colonial Office. We saw, as everyone did, the possibility of trouble, and we urged upon the Government that, if this experiment were to be tried, he should ascertain that he would have the support and goodwill of the chiefs in carrying out the change. As a
    706
    matter of fact, there was a great gathering of chiefs at Sierra Leone. Matters were explained to them, and Sir Frederick Cardew was under the impression that no serious opposition would be raised either to the system of administration or to the taxation upon which it was to be based. Of course, all taxation is objectionable to all men, and I do not—
    MR. DAVITT: May I ask if it is not the fact that at this interview the chiefs intimated that they would not pay the tax?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No; certainly not, according to my information; quite the reverse. I should add also, in connection with this matter, that the honourable Member speaks of a communication sent to the Colonial Office which was not answered. That is not correct. Every communication coming to the Colonial Office has been answered, and the particular communication to which, I imagine, the honourable Member refers was a document which I shall have pleasure in showing him, and which, I think, may amuse him. It is very able in a sense, but it is also rather ludicrous in form. It was evidently drawn up for the chiefs, not by the chiefs themselves, but by a half educated, or partly educated, native. This document made the most extraordinary statements as to the supposed intentions of the Government, and the character of the new administration which it was proposed to put in force. The chief objection was to what was said to be the intention of the Government—namely, to put the chiefs themselves under magistrates, who would have the power to order them to be flogged, in the presence of their wives and families and slaves, for the most trumpery offences. I give that as an instance of the extraordinary misapprehension which existed as to what would take place. I need not tell honourable Members that nothing of the kind appears in the Administrative Order Book, and that no power of that sort was given to anybody. These misapprehendsions were most carefully explained to the chiefs, and Sir Frederick Cardew was given

    707
    to understand that no serious objection would be taken to the enforcement of the new administration. A good deal has been said about this tax, as if it were an unreasonable tax, and the honourable Member for East Mayo has referred to the value of the huts. I do not think the value of the huts has anything to do with it. This is the only tax that could have been imposed upon the Hinterland; it is imposed in substitution for all other taxes, and it was the only form of direct taxation which has been found suited to native races. Supposing it had been levied, as originally proposed, at 5s. per hut, and assuming that a family consists of five persons, it means one shilling per head of the population. Surely that is not an excessive tax upon a negro population living in an extremely rich Hinterland, in which, as I am informed, a single bushel of the native products would have been sufficient to pay the tax? That does not appear, on the face of it, to be an excessive or exaggerated amount of taxation. The Governor, however, as the result, I believe, of communications with the chiefs, agreed to make a considerable reduction. He agreed, for instance, not to impose it upon pure natives, and he also agreed to reduce the amount from 10s., as originally intended, to 5s,; and made other changes in the method of collection which he thought would remove any objection that might be taken. I heard the honourable Member for East Mayo read a letter from a Mr. Marcus. I do not know whether he attributed to that gentleman the statement that the tax had been collected with excessive brutality by the tax collectors. Well, I really do not know what authority Mr. Marcus—who could hardly have been present—has for such a statement, but it is not confirmed by information in my possession. The tax was collected under a district commissioner, who was specially appointed for the purpose, and with, I believe, the assistance of the frontier police, a well-organised and disciplined force, and, without absolute proof, I am not inclined to believe the statement of extraordinary misbehaviour on the part of the force so employed. I said that the tax did not appear to be an excessive one, and I should add that neither does it appear, à priori, to be a
    708
    tax to which natives have a serious objection, because a similar tax has been imposed and collected in Zululand, Cape Colony, on the Gambia, which is inhabited by a similar race, and, stronger than all, in the adjoining French Colony of French Guinea, where the tax is much higher than that proposed for Sierra Leone, and amounts to about ten francs per hut. Although I am not at all desirous of prejudging the ultimate decision—my own mind is absolutely open in regard to the wisdom of the tax—yet I say that à priori, there was nothing to make either Sir Frederick Cardew or the Colonial Office aware that a tax of this kind would necessarily raise a rebellion. The rebellion arose through the resistance of a chief named Bey Burai, a gentleman with whom the Colonists have had trouble on a previous occasion. On two occasions, at least, Bey Burai has been ordered to be arrested, but the arrest has never been effected, and perhaps he began to think that he was independent of any Colonial control. At all events, he bears a very bad character, not only with the Colonial Government, but with the missionaries, of which we have evidence that I can produce if desired. In fact, I think he has been a slaver, and a rather turbulent person. The insurrection which took place in this district lasted for some time, but practically it appears to have been subdued. The latest telegram is to the effect that there is no more fighting, and that active operations were at an end, although armed natives are still ranging in the districts and Bey Burai is still at large. Then, just as we were congratulating ourselves upon the close of the whole of this unfortunate business, a new disturbance broke out in another district to the east of that I have mentioned, and that is the place where most of these murders have taken place. As to the cause of the outbreak I know nothing more than I have already told the House. Whether it was directly due to the collection of the hut tax I do not know, but I am inclined to think that it was not, for I believe the tax was collected before the trouble broke out. I am inclined to think that it was an outbreak partly in sympathy with that which had occurred in other parts of the Hinterland, and that it was the spread of the discontent and general rising in the Hinterland of the black population

    709
    against the white. I have said that the opposition to the hut tax was not unanimous, but I am afraid—I am sorry to say it, but I am so informed, and there appears to be some evidence in support of the information—that the chiefs, after their return, were actually incited to resist the collection of the tax. That is to say, after they had gone back from the interview with Sir Frederick Cardew incitements were offered to them in the local Press, and also by certain traders on the coast, to resist the collection of the tax. I do not mean to say that those who incited the chiefs contemplated anything in the nature of the resistance which has actually taken place, but undoubtedly, if my information is correct, they gave extremely unwise advice, which has led to the trouble that has since occurred. I will read a private letter which I have received, and which refers to information from two well-known authorities on the subject. The Rev. W. J. Humphrey is a missionary, who, I am sorry to say, has since been murdered by natives. The following is an extract from the letter to which I have referred—
    "The Rev. W. J. Humphrey, now in the hands of rebels, sent the enclosed letter just before he started on the journey on which he was taken prisoner. Mr. Humphrey has been on the coast since 1890, and knows the natives well; his letter shows that the revolt against the tax commenced with the traders themselves. The Bishop of Sierra Leone has been on the coast since 1891, and he always describes Bey Burai, the rebel leader, as a 'drunken slaver'. In a letter I had from the Bishop a fortnight ago he stated that Bey Burai was fighting because he knew that the English taking charge of his country would put an end to his slave dealing. Until recently, the Temmi country and the Hinterland of Sierra Leone have not been controlled by European officials, and slave dealing and cannibalism have prevailed in many parts. Except during the time of the present Governor, many parts of the territory were quite unexplored, and the natives had hardly seen a white man."
    This is testimony which induces me to remind the House that there may be two sides to the matter, and which ought to preclude a hasty judgment on the matter. That is the less necessary, as it is certain that, owing to climatic conditions, the rainy season coming on almost immediately, all operations, whether of an offensive or defensive character, will have to stop for four months. During that time we shall have ample opportunity
    710
    of making full inquiry, and of resolving upon what is to be our ultimate policy in regard to this matter. Having made that explanation, I shall only add that it is my intention to take advantage of the opportunity to send out a special Commissioner to inquire on the spot into the whole circumstances; and, having made this statement, I hope the House will agree to leave the matter in my hands.
    MR. SYDNEY C. BUXTON: I think the honourable Member for East Mayo was fully justified in raising this question, and the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies must have been glad to have had the opportunity of explaining his position in regard to this matter. I understood the right honourable Gentleman to say that the cessation of military operations will allow some months for full inquiries into the cause of the rebellion, and, if it were found that the rising was due to the hut tax, he would consider whether the tax should be continued. It was very probable that the original cause of the revolt was the action taken by Sir Frederick Cardew in the direction of interference with domestic slavery, rather than to the proposals with regard to the hut tax. If it is shown that this revolt was caused by an attempt to impose new regulations, with the object of putting down slavery, we shall do all we can to strengthen the Colonial Office in dealing with that question; but so far as; it is shown that it was due to the hut tax, we shall have to press for its abolition. It has been shown that these tribes are in a state of poverty, and these changes are evidently proposed because it is considered necessary to do something for them. But it seems to me a rather queer way of assisting a starving tribe to impose a hut tax. The right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies has shown in his speech that it is his desire and intention to bring the military operations to an end, and that he is going to send out a special Commissioner to inquire into the matter, and if he finds that this revolt was due to the imposition of the hut tax he is prepared at once to abolish it.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No; I did not say that.
    MR. S. BUXTON: I understood the right honourable Gentleman to say that he keeps an open mind as to the future policy regarding the tax, pending the result of an inquiry by a special and impartial Commissioner. In these circumstances the honourable Member for East Mayo will probably not think it necessary to press the matter further. I think, however, that the honourable Member has done a public service, both to the cause of these natives and to the position of the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, by raising the question.
    SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: This is a subject of great importance, and one to which honourable Gentlemen opposite were quite justified in calling attention. I am not sure, however, that the view taken by the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary of the opinion of the native races towards the hut tax was quite correct. I believe, from what I have heard, that the feeling among native races in South Africa, at all events, is very strong against such a tax; in fact, it was the strongest feeling that animated a race in whose fate I have taken some interest, the people of Swaziland, against the unjust conditions of the Convention of 1894. It is quite evident that in this matter there has been some serious mistake or miscalculation on the part of the Colonial authorities. I quite admit that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies was justified in defending the Governor, as all Governors should be defended until it has been proved that they have done something very wrong. And I feel sure that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Tower Hamlets was justified in attributing a good deal of the disturbance to the feeling of resentment that always takes place amongst slave-driving chiefs when they find their occupation interfered with. At the same time, some of the facts stated by the honourable Member for East Mayo are of a very serious character, especially the fact—if it is a fact—that 30 chiefs waited for five months in Sierra Leone to see the Governor, in order to protest against the imposition of the tax. I am
    712
    glad to hear the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary decline to commit himself to the proposition, which the late representative of the Colonial Office tried to bind him to, that the hut tax should be at once abolished. While I believe that the imposition of the hut tax was a mistake, I am not sure that a very rapid and premature abolition of it would not be a greater mistake. The assumption of the honourable Member for Tower Hamlets, that all military operations are to cease, also seems to me to be a very dangerous one. There is a very grave revolt at Sierra Leone, and very serious events have happened. Missionaries and other British subjects have been murdered, and the murderers and ringleaders in the rebellion must be punished before peace can be effectively restored.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I understood the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies to say that climatic conditions would of necessity stay operations, and would give three or four months for inquiry; but, of course, I assumed that the inquiry would include the murders and their cause.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The right honourable Gentleman has made an important addition to his remarks. It would have been inferred from what he had said that he expected the Government immediately to repeal the tax, and allow the rebels, especially the leaders, to go free. I am glad to know that the honourable Member's meaning was misunderstood. It is evident that the Colonial Office are fully aware of the serious character of the position, and steps have been taken, I believe, to send a sufficient force for the purposes of protection. Of course, proper measures must be taken to punish the ringleaders.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think, Sir, my honourable Friend has a right to be satisfied with the answer of the Colonial Secretary, who has said all that could reasonably be asked for in dealing with this question. On behalf of my honourable Friend I will ask leave to withdraw the Motion, and also to express the hope that in sending out a special Commis-

    713
    sioner the right honourable Gentleman will make as good a choice as he did when he selected Sir Marshall Clarke.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: There is one thing I should have said in view of the statements in the papers. We have sent for the protection of Freetown the first-class cruiser Blake, which will be able to land 350 men if necessary. We have also ordered to Sierra Leone two companies of the West Indian Regiment now at Lagos. We have not sent, and have no intention of sending, out any white troops.
    MR. T. LOUGH: Mr. Speaker, before the Motion is withdrawn I think the right honourable Gentleman should give us fuller information. This is a very important matter. While a great many of us are anxious to give the right honourable Gentleman every support in dealing with one section of the Colonies—the self-governing Colonies—and have great admiration for what he has done for them, with regard to the Crown Colonies, one or two experiments which the right honourable Gentleman has sanctioned—particularly the hut tax—have created a great deal of alarm. The right honourable Gentleman stated that the Colonial Office did not desire to pass a veto on the proposal of the Governor. It seems, then, that the proposal is of quite a recent character. Taxes of this kind—the window tax and the house tax—have been instituted in Great Britain and Ireland. They all belonged to the past, and most of us thought they had disappeared for ever. The Colonial Office should have refused to sanction this tax from the beginning, and if they had, the after effects—the unhappy circumstances which the right honourable Gentleman admits are taking place—would have been avoided. I think the House should not allow the opportunity of drawing attention to this matter to pass away so quickly. If attention is paid to the right honourable Gentleman's statement, it will be seen it is not as satisfactory as it might be. My honourable Friend who speaks on Colonial affairs from the Front Opposition Bench
    714
    said he understood that the tax was to be withdrawn, but he was immediately corrected by the right honourable Gentleman, who said he made no promise of that kind. I think we are entitled to more information than we have yet received from the Treasury Bench with regard to this most unhappy matter. My honourable Friend made another mistake, if I may say so, with great respect. He said he understood that the military operations were to be suspended for three or four months, during which the Colonial Office would make up its mind as to what was to be done. The right honourable Gentleman corrected that. He has stated that troops are to be ordered up to the district for safety and that a cruiser has been ordered to Freetown to protect the inhabitants. That means that if there is the slightest explosion of temper the natives will be mercilessly shot down for resisting an imposition on which the mind of the Colonial Office is not clear, but on which the mind of this country is made up. We have not had that full assurance from the right honourable Gentleman which my honourable Friend evidently expected, and which, I think, the House also expected. This is a matter of the greatest gravity. We are touching a fiscal question, and it is on these questions that this House has made the worst mistakes. It has lost some of our most valuable Colonies by endeavouring to impose taxes not suitable to them. On this particular question there is abundant evidence to show that the attempt to impose the tax was most injudicious, and that it should be withdrawn as quickly as possible. I think the right honourable Gentleman might reply to the statement of the honourable Member who moved the adjournment. He said that the hut tax had been tried before, and proved so unsatisfactory that it was removed by a former Governor. It was not sanctioned by Lord Ripon in 1894, and it seems a very serious matter which should secure mere attention from the House than it has yet received. I will only say that I hope that the interval promised for consideration will really be given up to consideration, and that warlike operations of any kind will not be undertaken against the natives until a definite opinion is arrived at.
    MR. DAVITT: With the permission of the House I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion by leave withdrawn.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  WAYS AND MEANS.

    BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
    (In the Committee.)

  SUEZ CANAL SHARES.
  Resolved—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the application, in like manner as the New Sinking Fund is applied, of any sums which may have been, or may be, paid into the Exchequer in respect of Suez Canal Shares drawn for repayment."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  ASSESSMENT OF PREMISES USED FOR TRADE.
  Resolved—
  "That where a deduction has been made from the assessment of premises used for trade under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1894, the amount which may be authorised to be deducted, as being the annual value of such premises, in estimating the amount of profits or gains chargeable to income tax under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1853, shall be such reduced amount."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  TEA.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Duty of Customs now payable on Tea shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid on and after the first day of August, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, Until the first day of August, One thousand
  716
  eight hundred and ninety-nine, on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say):—Tea . . the pound . . Four Pence."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I should like to raise the question as to whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is acting wisely and rightly in taking sixpence off the tobacco duty, instead of lowering the amount of the tea duty. To that I object. I think the reduction ought to be made in another quarter, and I ask the consideration of the Committee for the question whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have reduced the tea duty instead of the tobacco duty. I shall be in order, I take it, in discussing the amount of the tea duty, and in comparing the respective merits of the policies of reducing the tobacco duty and reducing the tea duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech dealing with the surplus, to the best of my recollection, gave no sufficient reason at all for making the choice he then made between tobacco and tea. The reason he gave for refusing to reduce the tea duty was that it had often been reduced, whereas the tobacco duty had not been reduced for a long time. That is not a sufficient, reason. He also referred to the large amount of employment given in this country by the tobacco trade, but, so far as that is a reason, it applies equally to a reduction of the tea duty. Speaking more particularly with respect to tea, I need not make the obvious observation that, for a great portion of the community, tea had ceased to be a luxury, whereas tobacco must still be regarded as such. But there is one point not discussed by the House, and that is that, while between tea and tobacco there may be a balance of considerations in other respects, there is absolutely no comparison in one of the most important points, and that is the relations the subjects bear to the industries not of the United Kingdom, but of the Empire. Supposing that the reduction of the tobacco tax goes to the consumer, as the reduction of the tea tax would go to the consumer, and supposing each trade gave employment in this country to the

  717
  same degree; there is this marked difference, that, whereas, as I understand, tobacco is not cultivated to any extern within the borders of the British Empire, the tea consumed in the United Kingdom is becoming more and more a product of the British Empire. The figures on this point are really of a remarkable character. They have been supplied to me by an authority on the subject, and are well worth the consideration of the Committee. Starting in 1865, when the tea duty was first reduced to 6d. in the pound, I find that of the 100 millions of pounds of tea consumed in the United Kingdom in that year not more than three per cent. came from British territory, the rest being China tea. The figures are, 3,000,000 from the British Empire, 95,000,000 from China. As year by year went on, and in the reduction of the tea duty the proportion changed gradually in favour of British-grown tea, that process received a remarkable acceleration in the next stage in the history of the tea duty—namely, in 1891, when it was reduced to 4d. in the pound. Tear by year China tea, under the lower duty, was being shoved out of the market by tea grown in the British Empire, particularly in India and Ceylon, until in 1897, the last year for which I have any figures, we have this most remarkable and, I think, satisfactory conclusion, that, while the consumption of tea in the United Kingdom has more than doubled since 1865, the proportion between the quantity of tea grown within the British Empire, and in the rest of the world, has changed in a still more remarkable degree. Out of 232 millions of pounds consumed in the United Kingdom in 1897, 211 millions were produced within the British Empire and only 21 millions in China. China, which was sending us 95 millions in 1865, only sent us 21 millions in 1897, and the British Colonies, producing tea which only sent us three millions in 1865, sent us 211 millions in 1897. I do not say that is the result of the reduction of the tea duty—no doubt that had something to do with it—but I believe the lower duty had a most important bearing on the cultivation of tea in British India and Ceylon. There is a most important point to be made from the figures I have quoted, and I ask the attention of honour-
  718
  able Members to it who devote themselves more particularly to fostering the industries of the British Empire as distinguished from the United Kingdom, some of whom secure opportunities not always legitimate for favouring the industries of the British Empire at the expense of free trade principles, and the interests of the consumer in this country.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: What does the honourable Gentleman mean by "legitimate"?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: That is a matter of opinion. I do not agree that to show greater preference for Colonial products under all circumstances over other products is a legitimate means of fostering the industries of the Colonies. We have now a choice to make by which we can give a perfectly legitimate preference to one of our Colonial industries over the other parts of the world. The benefit of any reduction in the duty must, of course, in some degree, go to the producer as well as to the consumer, and any reduction in the tea duty would consequently benefit not only the growers, but all employed in the cultivation of tea. If, in making the choice, you reduce the duty on tea, the benefit will fall on the producer who produces tea within the British Empire. I have given the proportion between British-grown tea and foreign-grown tea, and that alone ought to be sufficient to justify the reduction of the tea duty. If that duty is reduced, so much of the reduction as goes to the grower will be a benefit to our fellow subjects in other parts of the Empire, whereas, if we adhere to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the duty on tobacco, we will be benefiting very few in the British Empire, as far as persons engaged in the production of tobacco are concerned. I have already given you the figures of the amount of British-grown tea consumed in the United Kingdom. Take India and Ceylon by themselves, and the interest of these great dependencies in this subject may be stated from another point of view, I learn from the authority whom I have already quoted that at the end of 1896 the acreage under tea cultivation

  719
  had reached the enormous total of 433,000 acres in India, and 320,000 acres in Ceylon. I am also told that in India and Ceylon alone the number of coolies—our own fellow subjects—employed in the cultivation of tea reaches the enormous figure of 900,000. All these natives who have given up their lives to this industry in our own dependencies would benefit by a reduction of the tea duty, whereas no corresponding benefit would be conferred on any large number of British subjects by the reduction of the tobacco tax. I think this is a point which ought to be borne in mind. I have spoken of the enormous advance within the last generation of the tea industry of the British Empire, particularly in India and Ceylon, but I gather from evidence derived from other sources that that industry is extremely susceptible to small variations in the profits. The right honourable Baronet the Member for Wolverhampton is at present Chairman of a Commission which is about to sit, and I imagine some very remarkable evidence will be submitted to it by commercial authorities in India with reference to increasing the value of the rupee by a re-adjustment. I allude to that to show that the tea industry in Ceylon more particularly is extremely susceptible to small variations of profit, and I venture to think that if relief were granted by a reduction of 1½d. or 2d. in the pound it would be a very great advantage to such a susceptible industry. The case for the reduction of the tea duty must, I think, be held to be proved by the evidence I have obtained. There is one other observation I should like to make. We have been dealing with the Far East very recently, and the policy of the "open door;" but, whether it is to be established or not, I think that the interests involved in the opening up of the Chinese Empire, one way or the other, are too strong to be resisted, and we may look forward in future, I imagine, to increased and strenuous opposition on the part of the Chinese tea industry as against the same industry in India and Ceylon. We would, therefore, be helping the enormous tea industry of India and Ceylon, under circumstances which it may become difficult for them to sustain in the future, by now reducing
  720
  the tea duty. What amount of reduction ought to be made I do not venture to say, but I think 1d. or 1½d. in the pound would easily be within the means of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know what surplus he has at his disposal, but I think a reduction of 1½d. in the pound should not be beyond his means. At the present moment the reduction of 1d. in the pound involves a loss to the revenue of £1,000,000 sterling a year, apart from the rebatement resulting from increased consumption. Supposing we give this reduction of 1d. or 1½d. we can make certain that the benefit of that reduction goes to the consumer. Can we make certain of that with reference to the reduction of the duty on tobacco? I am speaking in the presence of great financial authorities, and, after all, as it is a theoretic principle that all taxation is to be paid by the consumer, it may be urged that any remission of taxation must also benefit the consumer. But the difficulty about tobacco is that it is sold in such small quantities. The honourable Baronet the Member for Bristol is not here on this occasion, but he could tell us how that is. I imagine he sells every day a very large quantity, not in ounces, but in "screws," costing a penny or less. An enormous weight of tobacco must leave his works daily in the form of "screws." It is difficult to see how a reduction of 6d. in the £ is going to benefit the very small consumer. A reduction of 1d. or 1½d. in the pound in tea would, so far as these superficial difficulties are concerned, be much more likely to reach the consumer, or, at all events, to reach him sooner than the proposed reduction on tobacco. That, however, is a question for financial and economic experts; but, however it may be decided, we have another consideration which cannot be ignored in making the choice we are about to make. Who are the persons who are going to be benefited by the proposed reduction of the tobacco duty? They are a comparatively small, though substantially large, portion of the community as compared with the number of persons concerned in the consumption of tea. I have no figures to go on, and I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer has none.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. E. HICKS BEACH,): No.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Nobody can tell except from his own experience. Everybody knows that, as a rule, women do not smoke.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Some do.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Some women may smoke, but the personal experience of Members will enable them to decide the question for themselves. My experience is less fortunate than that of honourable Members who are prepared to say that women do smoke. Children do not smoke.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Some smoke.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Again my experience is less fortunate there than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Many men do not smoke, but most men, women, and children use tea. As far as the relief is concerned, you certainly spread the benefit over a larger area if you give preference to tea instead of tobacco. There is still another development which I do not think I ought to leave out before I sit down, and it—many honourable Members are not, perhaps, so well qualified by experience to speak on this matter—is this: that in such constituencies as I have the honour to represent a vast proportion of the population almost live on tea. It may be a good or a bad thing for them, but tea and bread, and not much of anything else, are the three meals which, I was going to say, 30 per cent. of my constituents have to sustain themselves on. In most manufacturing communities, where there are many women employed, as there are in the constituencies like those I represent, and where they have acquired the taste for tea, you will find that a large number of these people who live by hard work on small wages have tea and bread for breakfast, tea and bread for dinner, and tea and bread for supper. These are the people you ought to have regard to rather than the smokers, although the smokers may be the husbands of some of the
  722
  women I have mentioned. These are the poor people you ought to have regard to on this occasion rather than to the other. You ought to have regard to it from the point of view as regards the comparative worth of the two industries to the British. Empire, and as regards the facility it affords of transferring the boon to the consumer instead of to the middlemen, and as regards the class that is to be benefited in respect to its numbers. Having regard to all these things, I do venture to submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in deciding in this case in favour of tobacco and disregarding a reduction in the duty on tea he has made a mistake, and it is an unfortunate mistake. But it is not too late to rectify it, and I hope this House will place it on record that the duty on tea should be relieved instead of tobacco. I shall have much pleasure, therefore, in supporting this Motion.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I do not dispute the conclusions arrived at by honourable Members, but I think that a much more deep and important consideration underlies the question as to whether the reduction should take place on tobacco or tea, and that is, Sir, that we must remember that it is most important that every section of the community should at least contribute in some way to the great Imperial taxation of the country, and it would be a very evil thing if taxation were so arranged that a large section of the community would practically pay nothing. Now, Sir, it is a fact that we have reduced our subjects of taxation almost to a minimum. We are told that the spirit of temperance and total abstinence is growing very largely. Well, Sir, that is a subject in which everybody is glad to hear of progress, and we should all like to see the number of total abstainers enormously increased; but when we come to consider it from a fiscal point of view, if the duty on tea is practically abolished—which I take it to be the aim and object of the honourable Gentleman who has just spoken—we shall get this state of things, that practically speaking all those who are total abstainers will pay nothing at all towards Imperial taxation, or very little indeed. Now, Sir, I think that would be a very serious state of

  723
  affairs. Let us look at it in another way. Take the case of a man earning a pound a week—a total abstainer—who consumes say half a pound of tea per week. What does that man pay to the Imperial taxation? Why, he pays the sum of twopence per week to the revenue, that is to say, a tax of fourpence per pound. Now I do not think anybody can say that that is an unreasonable payment for a citizen of this great Empire who has all the advantages and securities that belong to this country. I am sure it would be a very bad system if the fiscal arrangements of the country were so made that anybody or any class of persons could do away altogether by their own method of living with subscribing to the Imperial revenue. That is the reason why I think that it would be a very great mistake to do away with the tax on tea. I know it would be a very popular thing, for it is easy enough on the platform to get popularity by advocating the reduction of any duty. But, at the same time, I agree with reducing the amount of the tax on tobacco, because I think many people really forget that with the very poor tobacco is almost a necessity of life. They might be able to do better with their money, but still the fact remains that amongst the very poor the use of tobacco is, after all, their only luxury, if not a necessity, and I therefore think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was certainly right in selecting this article for the subject of relief from taxation rather than tea. Although I am sure that everybody is glad to see a reduction of taxation, I think from a national and Imperial and social point of view it will be an evil if the subjects of taxation are so arranged that any large section of the community do not pay towards the Imperial revenue. We used to hear it as a Liberal doctrine that taxation and representation should go together, and I think there is a danger in enormously reducing the taxation of any individual who pays very little in proportion to his earnings, and it is an evil in every sense if the reduction is so made that any class is absolutely free from a certain payment to the Imperial taxation.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should like to say a word or two now, although I do not think this is a fit time to discuss this subject.
  724
  If we do not have a resolution of this kind we cannot re-enact the tea duties. When we come to the Second Reading of the Bill, that will be the proper time to discuss the whole financial bearing of one particular part. I confess that the Chancellor of the Exchequer treated us very generously. He offered us the other night the choice between tea and tobacco, and he seemed prepared at that time to take it by the voices of the majority, and I think waited for the answer from the House as to which we would prefer. I do not know whether he will be of the same mind when it comes to the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill. I confess my predilections are, in favour of tea, and not from any of the personal considerations to which the right honourable Gentleman alluded the other night. I am not altogether so impartial as he is on those subjects, and I confess my contributions to the Exchequer under the head of tobacco are much higher than those under the head of tea. But the consideration by which we ought to be governed, I think, is whether we have a power of giving the consumer some relief. There are two questions. First of all it should be given if possible to the largest class of consumer, and, secondly, that you should have the greatest certainty of the reduction getting through to the consumer. I have not the smallest doubt that there are a far larger number of people who consume tea than there are who consume tobacco. My personal experience does not entirely agree with that of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Dundee that ladies do not smoke; certainly that is contrary to my own personal observation. But at the same time if you take family by family, unquestionably the number of parsons who partake of "the cup that cheers but not inebriates" is far larger than of persons who smoke. I have taken some pains to inquire as to the alterations in the tea duty and the tobacco duty, and I am informed, on what I certainly regard as very reliable authority on the subject of tea, that the whole of the reduction in the duty on tea has gone to the consumer. I cannot speak with the same positiveness on the subject of tobacco, but I think it is much more doubtful, and really it depends, I think, not so much upon the quantity as upon

  725
  the quality as to how far it will go to the consumer. However, I hope before we come to the Second Reading of the Bill I shall have more information on that subject. There is another consideration to which I attach also considerable value, and that is this, that tea has now become a British product almost exclusively. I was going to say four-fifths, but I believe it would be nearly true to say nine-tenths, of the tea consumed in this country is grown in India and Ceylon, and the quantity of Chinese tea is really almost an insignificant fraction. I think that is a consideration for the Treasury, as India has suffered very severely in the course of the last two years, and if the growth of tea in India would in that way be encouraged that is an additional argument. The question probably cannot be disposed of to-night on this Resolution; but I think it is a matter that requires a good deal of consideration, and we should have more light on the respective merits of tea and tobacco. As to the amount of income disposable, the sum of money that would be equivalent to the reduction of 6d. upon tobacco I am disposed to believe would be exactly the sum which would reduce the tea duty by one-half, from 4d. to 2d. That is my experience in the past. Now, when the present First Lord of the Admiralty took 2d. off the duty on tea, reducing it from 6d. to 4d., he estimated that the loss would be 1½millions, but the loss was not a million in the first year, nor has it been a million since. I have not got the figures here, but speaking from memory, I think that the recovery has been such that the loss now only amounts, I think, to £500,000. That was the result of the reduction when it was made upon the last occasion. If that be so, I do not see that there is greater reason to anticipate a larger loss from the reduction from 4d. to 2d., than there was in the case of a reduction from 6d. to 4d., but the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows this subject better than I do. When the reduction was made in 1891 the estimate of the loss was £1,500,000, but the actual loss was £1,017,000 in the first year. You never had a loss of more than £1,000,000 afterwards, and the tea duty has recouped itself so that the present loss is only half a million. That is a
  726
  great consideration, and if the same law operates now as then, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to give to tobacco would be almost exactly equivalent to a reduction of the tea duty by one-half, and on the whole I should prefer that reduction for the reasons I have stated, that it would benefit a larger number of the people, and also be a benefit to the Indian producer.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: When we get to the Second Reading of the Bill, we shall then have a chance of discussing the whole finance of the year, and we shall have other questions to discuss which have been raised by my honourable and learned Friend. I am bound to say that I think he would not have been in order if he had asked whether the Government had any money to give away for the purpose of a reduction in taxation. That is a question which we shall certainly have to discuss with the right honourable Gentleman on the Second Reading of the Bill. On this occasion we shall not be in order in discussing the question whether they have got the money to give at all, or whether they should make proposals for a reduction. For that is a matter upon which I shall take a different view from that which has been generally expressed; but I cannot discuss it on this occasion. It was understood the other night, when we passed the tobacco duty, which took away all actual interest in the matter, that we might refer to it to-day. That will, no doubt, be convenient. As the matter has been raised, perhaps, Mr. Lowther, you will allow, me to refer briefly to what has been said, in order to show that there are two sides to this question. The honourable Members who have spoken in favour of the reduction of the duty on tea have assumed that they are speaking from a democratic point of view. Now, the most anti-democratic tax which this country labours under is the tobacco tax. [Cheers.] I am glad to hear those cheers from Members acquainted with both these trades. The tobacco duty is one which varies from 1,700 per cent. down to 2½ per cent. ad valorem. This I pointed out in opposing the increase in the tobacco

  727
  duty proposed by the late Sir Stafford Northcote. Now, the duty on the tea consumed in this country varies only from 10 or 12 to 1. I have had a good deal of experience of the tea consumed in workhouses, and I can say that the tea consumed there is about double the price of the cheapest tea consumed, and is about 8d. per pound. Now, that tea has to compete with the 4s. per pound tea, which is to a small extent consumed by the very rich, so that the discrepancy is not very great between that which is consumed by the rich, who have a fancied taste, and that consumed by the poor. But in the case of the tobacco duty the difference between what the poor pay and what the rich pay is something enormous and overwhelming, and if this question is to be treated on democratic lines, I can assure the House that the more they look into this matter the more they will be convinced that the most anti-democratic tax is that on tobacco. Reference has been made to encouraging trade with India, but allow me to point out that the cheapest kinds of tobacco grown in India are excluded from this country altogether, because it does not pay to bring them over here. The House will, therefore, see what an overwhelming interest this is. I remember when the tobacco duties were increased the opposition of some Radicals in this House, and I recollect that on one occasion a Member representing a northern town, in addressing the House, pointed out that the dearest cigars smoked by honourable Members of this House paid only 2½ per cent. duty, as compared with 500 per cent. on an average, or 1,700 per cent. paid in extreme cases by the poorer classes. I put in these words of caution in consequence of what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about an understanding, and I also put in this argument that the relieving of the tea duty cannot be argued on democratic principles against that of tobacco.
  MR. LOUGH: I desire to illustrate with a few figures the argument which my right honourable Friend has just used. The average amount of tobacco duty paid per head of the population in Great Britain is 5s. 7d., and the average
  728
  amount of tea duty is only 1s. 10d. If, therefore, 5½ persons are allowed to the family, each family pays 30s. a year in tobacco duty, and only 10s. in tea duty. I am therefore unable to follow the argument of the honourable and learned Member for Dundee, who urged that a greater relief would be given by taking off the tea duty than by adopting the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen. The point that there are fewer smokers than drinkers of tea has nothing in it, for children and women who drink tea are, in many oases, not money-earners, and the tobacco is consumed and paid for by the member of the family who earns the money, or, at any rate, carries the purse. Therefore it may be said that the less he has to pay for his tobacco the more there will be left with which to buy tea. The proportion of duty levied on tobacco is out of all proportion to that levied on tea. Ordinary leaf tobacco imported into this country, costs only 7d. a pound, yet on this a duty is levied of 3s. 2d.; probably one of the heaviest burdens imposed in any country in the world on such an article. My criticism on the Budget, then, is not that the Chancellor has not chosen tea, but that he has not taken more off tobacco. I fear that the Treasury were too clever in the matter, and that most of what appears to be gained by the reduction in duty will be lost to the public by the less degree of moisture, which can now be introduced. I ask the Chancellor even now to consider whether the reduction may not be made 8d. a pound instead of 6d., so that a halfpenny might be taken off every half-ounce. By this means the concession will reach a much larger section of the public, especially the very poor. There is another ground upon which I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have gone a little farther. He assumed that he would have £150,000 less to give away, because of the smaller produce of the death duties, but since that time three millionaires have died.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order!
  MR. LOUGH: I see that I must not proceed with this argument, and it is difficult to know what you may go into.

  729
  As I am in favour of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my only criticism is that he has not gone farther, I will simply leave it there.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 6, to leave out the words 'Four Pence,' and insert the words 'Two Pence' instead thereof."—(Mr. J. A. Pease.)
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I feel very strongly upon this question. A similar Amendment was moved last year, so that we shall be consistent in raising this question again when the Bill comes forward for the Second Reading, when I hope honourable Gentlemen will adopt a similar attitude to that which they took up before.
  THE CHANCELLOR ÔF THE EXCHEQUER: The advocates of tobacco on the one side and of tea on the other have left a balance considerably in favour of tobacco; therefore I will not trouble the Committee with any addition to what I said in my Budget speech as to the reasons that induced me—I think with the assent of the majority of my hearers—to prefer tobacco to tea. I was rather surprised to hear one argument urged this evening in favour of tea—namely, that tea is so very largely grown in India and Ceylon as compared with tobacco. No doubt that is the case, but to my mind we should endeavour to settle our system of taxation here rather with regard to the necessities and advantages of those who have to bear that taxation than to the necessities and advantages of anybody else, and I am specially surprised at the position of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth in this matter. His view, I understand, is this—that we should adapt our taxation, as far as we reasonably can, for the benefit of our Colonies, but that we should not allow them to adapt their taxation at all for our benefit. That appears to me an extremely contradictory policy, which I hope will be explained at the proper time. But my only object in rising now is to make an appeal to the honourable Member who has just moved this Amendment. The circumstances are quite different from those of last year. I can quite understand that
  730
  he and other honourable Members, who considered my estimates of revenue last year were too low, should have been anxious to reduce the indirect taxation which I then proposed. But now, Sir, circumstances are different. The honourable Member made no allegation similar to that which he made last year about the revenue, and he does not disapprove of the reduction of the taxation on tobacco, but he would rather reduce the taxation on tea. The result, however, of accepting his Amendment would be that taxation would be reduced on both articles, and if that were done proper provision for our fiscal needs would not be made. But, after what has been said, I have no doubt that this subject will be discussed at the proper time on the Second Reading of the Budget Bill, and, therefore, I hope that the honourable Member will not press his proposal now.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: The reduction in the tobacco duty may have been justified by an increase of the tobacco revenue, which will really make up for any deficiency in the Exchequer, on account of the reduction which is going to be given to the consumers of tobacco. As this is a matter which can be arranged subsequently, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Question proposed—
  "That the words 'Four Pence' stand part of the Question."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. G. BOWLES: I am anxious to speak at this moment very briefly, as is my wont. I am desirous of supporting the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what he has done for tobacco as against tea, inasmuch as that is the only part of his Budget for which I have an unqualified approval. Tea! Why, tea is the beverage of neurotic women. In the earlier and batter days of this Empire tea was an unknown beverage for breakfast. Beef was taken then; and it was not till a number of ambitious merchants had discovered China, and introduced tea, that our preference for that article

  731
  began. It of course, enables many people, when their nerves are unstrung, and their capacity to fight in the business of life are not what they should be, to go through a certain amount of work which they would not otherwise be able to do; but see what a different position tobacco occupies. It is the stimulus of the strong man. "Divine and sublime tobacco, that from East and West, cheers the Tar's labours and the Turkman's rest." I was prepared to find that so manly a financier as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no hesitation in admitting tobacco to a reduction of duty as against tea. We all admire the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his manly qualities. There is nothing neurotic or feminine about him. He is neither a bimetallist in finance, nor bisexualism in politics. The right honorable Gentleman has told us that he holds a most impartial position in this matter because he does not smoke, but smoking is not the only use to which tobacco is put. There are those who do not smoke, but who chew. I am making no suggestion, but I can assure the right honorable Gentleman, if he does not know it, that in some of the hardest trials to which a seaman is put he finds a quid of tobacco in his cheek of the greatest possible use and comfort to him; and I think that all those who have undergone trials and privation will say unhesitatingly that if the choice were put to them of losing their tea or their tobacco, they would give up the tea most cheerfully. I only regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way to make the reduction on tobacco even greater than it is, because I believe that nothing would have been so calculated to be an encouragement to the manly, independent, useful taxpayer as that reduction. As for tea, the only effect of reducing the duty on tea is to encourage a few old ladies and a few nervous young or middle-aged men. It was for this reason that I was anxious to express my approbation of this portion of the Budget, as there are other portions of it on which I trust the Committee will allow me to make a few remarks not quite so favorable. If the choice of the right honorable Gentleman was between tea and tobacco, I do not in the least condole with those who, wanting the
  732
  duty off tea, have upon this occasion been badly defeated.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved—
  "That the duty of Customs now payable on tea shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland; that is to say:—Tea . . the pound . . Fourpence."
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

  CUSTOMS OFFICES (SOUTHAMPTON) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  MR. J. HERBERT LEWIS: Perhaps we may have some explanation as to the circumstances under which this Bill has been re-committed.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The peculiar circumstances of this Bill are that the Government wish to acquire certain lands in Southampton for the purpose of erecting certain Customs offices there. The railway company is anxious to sell, and the Government is anxious to buy, but the railway company have no power to-sell without the authority of Parliament. The price is agreed to, and the requisite money for the purchase of the site has been voted in Committee of Supply. I gave a full explanation of this Bill at one of its earlier stages, and also when the money was voted in the Estimates. Shortly, the object of the Bill is to acquire a site, which the vendors are ready to sell, and which the Government are ready to buy.
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  "The Commissioners may purchase and acquire for the purposes of this Act all or any of the lands delineated on the deposited plans and described in the deposited books of reference."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  "(1) For the purpose of the purchase and acquisition of land under this Act, the Lands Clauses Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be incorporated with this Act, with the following exceptions and modifications:—(a) The provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land and access to the special Act and Section one hundred and thirty-three of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (relating to land tax and poor rate) shall not be incorporated with this Act: (b) In the construction of this Act and of the incorporated Acts this Act shall be deemed to be the 'special Act,' and the Commissioners shall be deemed to be the 'promoters of the undertaking': (c) The bond required by Section eighty-five of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall be under the common seal of the Commissioners, and shall be sufficient without the addition of the sureties mentioned in that section: (d) All claims for compensation made upon the Commissioners under this Act, or any Act incorporated herewith, shall, if the person claiming has no greater interest in the land in respect of which compensation is claimed than as tenant from year to year, or as a leaseholder for any term of which not more than eighteen months remain unexpired at the time at which the claim is made, be determined in manner provided by Section one hundred and twenty-one of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. (2.) The powers of the Commissioners for the compulsory purchase of land under this Act shall cease after the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  "(1) Any land tax assessed on the first day of January, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, on any part of the land acquired by the Commissioners under this Act, shall, as from the date of acquisition, be deemed to have been redeemed at the price, and in accordance with the conditions provided by the Finance Act, 1896, and the Land Tax Acts therein defined, and after the date of acquisition no sum shall be assessed or charged in respect of land tax on any part of the land so acquired. (2)The Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall grant a certificate of exoneration from assessment to land tax of the lands so acquired, and that certificate shall be registered by the officer appointed for the registry of contracts for the redemption of land tax."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
  "(1) All rights of way, rights of laying down or of continuing any pipes, sewers, or drains on through, or under any of the land acquired by the Commissioners under this Act, and all other rights and easements in or
  734
  relating to that land, shall be extinguished, and all the soil of those ways, and the property in the pipes, sewers, and drains, shall vest in the Commissioners. (2) Any persons may recover from the Commissioners such compensation (if any) as they may be entitled to under any of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts for any rights or property of which they may be deprived in pursuance of this section, and the amount of that compensation shall be determined in manner provided by the Lands Clauses Acts as modified for the purpose of their incorporation with this Act. (3) Nothing in this section shall affect any sewers or drains vested in the Corporation of Southampton."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
  "The Commissioners and their surveyors, officers, and workmen may at all reasonable time in the daytime, on giving twenty-four hours' notice in writing, enter on any of the land which the Commissioners are authorized to acquire under this Act for the purpose of surveying or valuing the land."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  "The Commissioners may erect all such buildings, execute all such works, and do all such other things as may in their opinion be necessary or proper for the purpose of providing Customs and other offices connected therewith upon the land acquired by them under this Act, and appropriating any such land for any of those purposes."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."
  "(1) Where, in the removal or pulling down of any buildings, or in raising or lowering the ground of any street or way for the purpose of this Act, it is necessary to raise, sink, or otherwise alter the position relatively to the surface of the ground of any pipe, wire, or other apparatus laid down or used by any gas, water, or electricity company, or connected with any house or building for the supply of gas, water, or electricity:—(a) one month's notice shall be given to the company previously to the commencement of any such work; and (b) the work shall be executed to the reasonable satisfaction of the engineer of the company, or, in case of difference, of an engineer to be selected by the Board of Trade; and (c) every such work shall be so executed as to cause as little inconvenience as circumstances will admit to the company; and (d) the Commissioners shall make compensation to the company for all loss or damage if any, which may be occasioned by the execution of any of the works authorized by this Act. (2) For the purposes of this section the expression 'gas, water, or electricity company' includes any person or body of persons supplying gas, water, or electricity."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill."
  "(1) All expenses incurred by the Commissioners under this Act shall be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament. (2) The provisions of the Commissioners of Works Act, 1852, and any Act amending that Act, shall apply in the case of the acquisition of land by the Commissioners under this Act, in like manner, as in the case of a purchase under that Act, and any notice, summons, writ, or other document required to be given, issued, or signed, by or on behalf of the Commissioners, may be given, issued, or signed by the secretary or assistant secretary of the Commissioners, and need not be under their common seal."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill."
  "If any person willfully obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Commissioners in the lawful exercise of the powers vested in them under this Act, he shall for each offence be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill."
  "If the Commissioners should at any time hereafter desire to abandon the lands shown on the deposited plans, and described in the deposited books of reference, they shall in the first instance offer the same for sale to the London and South Western Railway Company hereinafter called the South Western Company; and the following provisions shall thereupon apply:—(a) If the South-Western Company are desirous of purchasing such lands, then within six weeks after such offer of sale they shall signify in writing their desire in that behalf to the Commissioners. (b) If they decline such offer, or if for six weeks they neglect to signify their desire to purchase such lands, the right of purchase conferred by this Act shall cease, and a declaration in writing be made before a justice of the peace by the secretary to the Commissioners, stating that such offer was made, and was refused, or not accepted for six weeks from the time of making the same, shall be in all courts sufficient evidence of the facts therein stated. (c) If the South Western Company be desirous of purchasing the lands, and the South Western Company and the Commissioners do not agree as to the price thereof, then such price shall be ascertained by arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, or any statutory re-enactment or modification thereof. (d) Upon any such sale the South Western Company shall not require any proof of the title of the Commissioners to the said lands."
  Question put and agreed to—
  "That Clause 11 stand part of the Bill."
  "This Act may be cited as the Customs Offices (Southampton) Act, 1898."
  MR. LEWIS: Upon these clauses there is one thing I should wish to ask. There has grown u in the House a practice recently of legislating by reference These clauses contain a number of references incorporating certain sections of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. The question I wish to ask in regard to these clauses is one which is applicable to a great many Bills. Would it not be possible in order that the House may know, when it is dealing with a Bill of this kind, exactly what it is doing to have the Section of the Bills referred to placed as an appendix to the Bill? That, I think, would facilitate progress very considerably, and would enable us to know, when we are passing these sections, what it is we are committing ourselves to.
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That this be the preamble of the Bill."
  "Whereas it is expedient to make provision for Customs and other offices connected therewith at Southampton, and to empower the Commissioners of Works (in this Act called the Commissioners) to acquire for that purpose certain lands situated in the county borough of Southampton: And whereas those lands cannot be acquired without the authority of Parliament: And whereas plans of the lands by this Act authorized to be acquired, and also books of reference containing the names of the owners and lessees, or reputed owners and lessees, and of the occupiers of those lands have been deposited with the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Southampton (which plans and books of reference are in this Act respectively referred to as the deposited plans and books of reference): Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:"
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I will report the Bill to the House.
  House resumed; Bill reported.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: As this is a purely Departmental Bill, I would ask that its Third Reading be taken now.
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That this Bill be read a Third time."
  Bill passed.

  CUSTOMS AND OTHER OFFICES (BARRY DOCK) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill"
  "The Commissioners may purchase and acquire for the purposes of this Act all or any of the lands delineated on the deposited plans, and described in the deposited books of reference."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill"
  "(1) For the purpose of the purchase and acquisition of land under this Act the Lands Clauses Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be incorporated with this Act, with the following exceptions and modifications:—(a) The provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land and access to the special Act and Section one hundred and thirty-three of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (relating to land tax and poor rate) shall not be incorporated with this Act: (b) In the construction of this Act and of the incorporated Acts, this Act shall be deemed to be the 'special Act,' and the Commissioners shall be deemed to be the 'promoters of the undertaking': (c) The bond required by Section eighty-five of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall be under the common seal of the Commissioners, and shall be sufficient without the addition of the sureties mentioned in that section: (d) All claims for compensation made upon the Commissioners under this Act, or any Act incorporated herewith, shall, if the person claiming has no greater interest in the land in respect of which compensation is claimed than as a tenant from year to year or as a leaseholder for any term of which not more than eighteen months remain unexpired at the time at which the claim is made, be determined in manner provided by Section one hundred and twenty-one of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. (2) The powers of the Commissioners for the compulsory purchase of land under this Act shall cease after the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  "(1) Any land tax assessed on the first day of January, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, on any part of the land acquired by the Commissioners under this Act shall, as from the date of acquisition, be deemed to have been redeemed at the price and in accordance with the conditions provided by the Finance Act, 1896, and the Land Tax Acts therein defined, and after the date of acquisition no sum shall be assessed or charged in respect of land tax on the part of the land so acquired. (2) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall grant a certificate of exoneration from assessment to land tax of the lands so acquired, and that certificate shall be registered by the officer appointed for the registry of contracts for the redemption of land tax."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
  "(1) All rights of way, rights of laying down or of continuing any pipes, sewers, or drains, on, through, or under any of the land acquired by the Commissioners under this Act, and all other rights and easements in or relating to that land, shall be extinguished, and all the soil of those ways, and the property in the pipes, sewers, and drains, shall vest in the Commissioners. (2) Any person may recover from the Commissioners such compensation (if any) as they may be entitled to under any of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts for any rights or property of which they may be deprived, in pursuance of this section, and the amount of that compensation shall be determined in manner provided by the Lands Clauses Acts, as modified for the purpose of their incorporation with this Act. (3) Nothing in this section shall affect any sewers or drains vested in the Urban District Council of Cadoxton-juxta-Barry."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
  "The Commissioners and their surveyors, officers, and workmen may at all reasonable time in the daytime, on giving twenty-four hours' notice in writing, enter on any of the land which the Commissioners are authorized to acquire under this Act for the purpose of surveying or valuing the land."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  "The Commissioners may erect all such buildings, execute all such works, and do all such other things, as may in their opinion be necessary or proper for the purpose of providing Customs, Mercantile Marine, or other public offices upon the land acquired by them under this Act, and appropriating any such land for any of those purposes."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill"
  "(1) Where, in the removal or pulling down of any buildings, or in raising or lowering the ground of any street or way for the purpose of this Act, it is necessary to raise, sink, or otherwise alter the position relatively to the surface of the ground of any pipe, wire, or other apparatus, laid down or used by any gas, water, or electricity company, or connected with any house or building for the supply of gas, water, or electricity:—(a) One month's notice shall be given to the company previously to the commencement of any such work; and (b) the work shall be executed to the reasonable satisfaction of the engineer of the company, or, in case of difference, of an engineer to be selected by the Board of Trade; and (c) every such work shall be so executed as to cause as little inconvenience as circumstances will admit to the company; and (d) the Commissioners shall make compensation to the company for all loss or damage, if any, which may be occasioned by the execution of any of the works authorized by this Act. (2) For the purposes of this section the expression 'gas, water, or electricity company' includes any person or body of persons supplying gas, water, or electricity."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill."
  "(1) All expenses incurred by the Commissioners under this Act, so far as they are not incurred for the purpose of providing Mercantile Marine offices, shall be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament, and so far as they are incurred for the purpose of providing Mercantile Marine offices, shall be defrayed in the same manner as expenses connected with Mercantile Marine offices are for the time being defrayed. (2) The provisions of the Commissioners of Works Act, 1852, and any Act amending that Act, shall apply in the case of the acquisition of land by the Commissioners under this Act, in like manner, as in the case of a purchase under that Act, and any notice, summons, writ, or other document required to be given, issued, or signed by or on behalf of the Commissioners may be given, issued, or signed by the secretary or assistant secretary of the Commissioners, and need not be under their seal."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill."
  "If any person willfully obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Commissioners in the lawful exercise of the powers vested in them under this Act, he shall for each offence be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill."
  "This Act may be cited as the Customs and other Offices (Barry Dock) Act, 1898."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That this is the preamble—
  "Whereas it is expedient to make provision for Customs, Mercantile Marine, or other public offices near Barry Dock, and to empower the Commissioners of Works, in this Act called the Commissioners) to acquire for that purpose certain lands situated in the parish of Cadoxton-juxta-Barry, in the county of Glamorgan: And whereas those lands cannot be acquired without the authority of Parliament: And whereas plans of the lands by this Act authorized to be acquired, and also books of reference containing the names of the owners and lessees, or reputed owners and lessees, and of the occupiers of those lands, have been deposited with the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Glamorgan (which plans and book of reference are in this Act respectively referred to as the deposited plans and books of reference): Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: "
  House resumed.
  Bill reported.
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That this Bill be read a third time."
  Bill passed.

  SHERIFFS-DEPUTE TENURE OF OFFICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. CALDWELL: When this matter was last before the House I raised a question with regard to a clause introducing an entirely new method in the law with regard to the removal of sheriffs, and I felt that in a matter of that kind there ought to be some provision made with regard to giving the sheriff some allowance in respect to the operation of that clause. Since then the Government have been able to satisfy the Treasury, and

  741
  the resolution with regard to that allowance has passed through Committee, and there is a clause giving effect to that recommendation. I merely make this explanation in order to say that I do not any longer oppose this clause of the Bill.
  DR. CLARK: Under the clause, as it now stands (I do not want to mention any particular cases, would age become an inability? I know of one case in which age certainly is an inability.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am quite satisfied as to that.
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  "Upon a report prepared at the instance of the Secretary for Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk for the time being, declaring that a sheriff depute in Scotland is, by reason of inability or misbehavior, unfit for his office, it shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland to issue an order for his removal from office, provided always that such order shall lie before both Houses of Parliament for a period of four consecutive weeks while Parliament is sitting, and if either House of Parliament within that period resolve that such order ought not to take effect, the same shall be of no effect, but otherwise shall come into operation at the expiration of the said month."
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That the following new clause stand part of the Bill."
  "This Act shall not apply to sheriffs substitute."
  Question put—
  "That the following new clause stand part of the Bill."
  "If a sheriff is removed under the preceding section before he has completed ten years service on the ground that he is, by reason of inability, unfit for his office, it shall be lawful for the Treasury to grant him an annuity of such amount as they shall consider just in all the circumstances, but in no case exceeding three-tenths of the salary payable to such sheriff, and any such annuity shall be charged upon and payable out of the same fund and in the same manner as annuities to sheriffs are paid and charged under the first section of the Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges Act, 1854."
  DR. CLARK: I am not strongly opposed to this going on the Consolidated fund but would it not be better, if you are disposing of a judge, as you are practically doing, that the question of salary should come before this House? If the Bill passes in this form, then the House of Commons will not be able to express an opinion; whereas if it comes on the Estimates, along with the other superannuations, then it might be considered and discussed. I think it would be better that the matter should come before the House, and perhaps the Lord Advocate will explain the reason why it is placed on the Consolidated fund.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The reason is a very simple one; this Bill puts these sheriffs' annuities on exactly the same basis as other sheriffs' annuities are, and it would be a very exceptional thing to do to put them on a different footing.
  DR. CLARK: This Order will lie upon the Table of both Houses, and probably it will not become law without there being further discussion. Under the Act of 1853, the pension is to be gained by service, and that Act is automatic in its operation; but the Treasury has conceded the principle contained in this new clause, for which they deserve our thanks. During the last Parliament we had three sheriffs who were members of the Board of Provision, and who drew £150 a year for looking into the office once or twice every fortnight. When the Board of Provision became the Local Government Board these three men were pensioned off for life at half of their salary. One of them had served two years and the other three years. So that three of our sheriffs having served at the utmost three years, get a pension for life at the rate of half their salary. These pensions will not go on the Estimates. I will not, however, press the matter beyond saying that I think that pensions of this kind for exceptional service—not earned by time, but granted under special circumstances—should come before the House.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAYmoved the following Amendment—
  "Line 4, after the word 'amount,' add the words 'for such period.'"
  MR. CALDWELL: This Amendment enables the Treasury, in the case of a sheriff being removed for inability, to grant the pension for life, or to restrict it to any number of years they may think proper.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The question is that—
  "In line 4, after the word 'amount,' the words 'for such period'"
  be added.
  Question put, and agreed to, that the words proposed stand part of the clause.
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That the clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
  Moved—
  "That the word 'depute' be omitted from the title of the Bill."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I will report this Bill, as amended, to the House.
  House resumed.

  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR C. DILKE: This Bill is one which I think ought not to pass without some few words being said with regard to it. It extends and increases the powers of universities and colleges, which are quasi public bodies, and if it were intended in any way to encourage these bodies to part with their land, and to substitute personal property for it, there would be very strong objection to it. In times past Bills of this kind were always most hotly opposed, first by Mr. Mill, and afterwards by Mr. Fawcett, who fought every Bill of this description
  744
  which was brought before the House with the most unswerving determination; and, in fact, I may say that he prevented many Bills of this kind from passing during the time he was a Member of this House. The matter was very fully discussed upon two occasions in connection with the proposed sale of the Greenwich Hospital Estates, and it was also discussed in connection with a Bill which I brought into this House. The argument used was that the country ought not to allow any quasi public body, over which it possesses any statutory power, to part with that property—in fact, that it is the duty of the State to prevent these bodies from parting with property where they already possess it, although we were not prepared to go so far as to say that the State ought to buy at the price it would have to pay if it came into possession by purchase. I do not propose to speak at any length on the subject, but if others divide the House I shall certainly vote with them. I believe, however, that it is not intended to carry out actively the policy of further parting with estates, and that being so, I shall not trouble the House.
  MR. KEARLEY: May I ask the right honorable Gentleman one question? I see it is laid down that the University will not part with the property without obtaining the assent of the Board of Agriculture. It is proposed, also, in this Bill, that it shall be no longer necessary that the University surveyor shall give a report on the property before the assent of the Board of Agriculture is given. That, I think, is the case in clause 5. Under present circumstances, when the Board of Agriculture gives its assent it makes rather a heavy levy on the purchaser in the way of a fee, and I want to know on what grounds the Board of Agriculture feels itself entitled to demand a heavy fee for giving its assent? I have had experience of purchasing some of this class of property recently, and in order to get the assent of the Board of Agriculture, I was surprised to find that the Board of Agriculture insisted on a fee of 25 guineas, in addition to making the purchaser pay the whole of the ordinary

  745
  expenses, and I do not see myself why we are not entitled to know whether this is a legal claim on the part of the Board of Agriculture, or whether it is simply a claim for services rendered. I have paid my fee, and, so far as I am concerned, there is an end of it; but I certainly think that people who have dealings with this property should know why it is that the Board of Agriculture charge a fee, because it is understood that the assent is practically formal.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITH: I believe that this Bill will be welcomed by all who have to do with Universities. I am rather surprised at the objection which the right honorable Baronet opposite has taken to this Measure, because the position of the question differs so absolutely and entirely from what it was in the time of Mr. John Stuart Mill. At that time agricultural land was regarded by everybody as a desirable investment. It was bought as an investment with perfect confidence, and with an unshakable belief that it would go on rising in value; but things have changed very much in the last 25 years, and now agricultural land is not at all a suitable investment for colleges, as it was at that time, and the number of suitable investments have increased so much that people are not anxious to continue investing in land. The investor wants to put his eggs into several baskets, and not have them all in the basket of land, and I think it is very important that the Universities should be able to participate in this more extended field of investment now open to them.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONI think there is but a small number of Members of this House who are personally interested in the subject-matter of this Bill. I should like to say, with all respect to the great names mentioned by my right honorable Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, that my experience of college estates is now of 30 years' duration, and I have never ceased, in all that time, wondering why the college with which I was connected should have so much capital locked up in land. Although colleges are most benevolent
  746
  landlords, they are not capable of taking that personal charge which is met with in the case of ordinary landlords. I see nothing at all democratic in the objection of my right honorable Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. I take it that the Bill is really a facilitating Measure. It does not create new powers; it only makes easier the exercise of powers which already exist. I should like to ask the right honorable Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the universities and corporations concerned have been consulted, whether they approve of what the Bill proposes to do, and whether the Bill has been brought in with their knowledge?
  MR. J. A. PEASE: Mr. Speaker, there is just one point I should like to put to the right honorable Gentleman. I am sure no one believes that the right honorable Gentleman would consent to any change of investment, unless it were a suitable change, but it is the duty of honorable Members of this House to protect public interests. I quite approve, if any Government Department is to be held responsible, that the Board of Agriculture should be that Department. But I understand that, under the procedure of this House, it would not be competent to raise any question with regard to the consent given by the Board of Agriculture to any change of investment. Therefore, we should not have the opportunity from time to time of criticizing any consent given by the Board of Agriculture which was opposed to the public interest. The question I should like to ask the right honorable Gentleman is: can he arrange to put a nominal Vote on the Paper so that any points which might arise may be raised in Supply? This would give the House power to place, if necessary, a check on the Board of Agriculture.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words, 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Lewis.)
  MR. LEWIS: The point which has been raised by the right honorable Baronet the Member for the Forest

  747
  of Dean is a most important one, and I hope the House will receive some assurance from the Board of Agriculture upon it. It is clear that the object of the Bill is to enable the colleges to part with a considerable amount of real property. An honorable Member who spoke from the other side of the House said circumstances had very much altered since Mr. Mill and Mr. Fawcett objected to this clause being carried. Their objection did not refer in the least degree to the character of the security, but to the character of the property. The view they took was that land held by public bodies, or quasi-public bodies, was to some extent under the control of Parliament, and that it was desirable that Parliament should retain the power of imposing conditions in the public interest—conditions, for instance, with regard to the provision of allotments, with regard to laying out the estate, and so forth. Thirty-eight years have elapsed since any Act of this character was passed. There was an Act in 1880, as my right honorable Friend reminds me, but that was merely an amending Act, and certainly did not go so far as the Bill which is now before the House. We are in this position at the present moment: we are absolutely giving away power without retaining any guarantee, or any assurance, for the future, except, of course, the assurance that the powers will be exercised by the Board of Agriculture. I would remind the House that these powers will not be exercised under the superintendence or control of Parliament. Therefore, Parliament is now parting with powers which have in the past been exercised with a great deal of advantage, and which might in the future be exercised with still greater advantage in the interests of the public at large. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. STRACHEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the Motion of the honorable Member for the Flint Boroughs, but on a different ground. I take exception to Clause 3 of the Bill, which, so far as I understand it, gives power to the universities to do repairs out of capital, instead of doing them in
  748
  the usual way, out of income. It seems to me that that is a very dangerous precedent to set. Honorable Members will see in the third schedule of this Act a long list of improvements to which capital money arising under the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890 may be applied. This seems to me to be putting a premium on the principle of spending capital on repairs, instead of doing them out of income, as ought to be the case, and it is very objectionable from the point of view of public policy.
  SIR B. W. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I view this Measure with a certain amount of apprehension, because I do not like the idea of large tracts of land, such as those owned by the colleges, being allowed to get into private hands. We have had difficulties on very many occasions in connection with land of this kind with regard to the provision of allotments for the benefit of the poorer classes in the agricultural districts, and when the land has been owned by public authorities we have been able to make even colleges more amenable to public criticism than would have been the case if the land were owned by private individuals. In the interests of the general community, we should not, in my opinion, facilitate the passing of land from quasi-public ownership into private ownership. Colleges are not likely, in the present state of the market, to sell many of their estates. I do not, therefore, anticipate that the passing of the Bill will have any serious results; but it contains a principle which is, I think, hostile to the use of public lands for public purposes. On that ground we ought to oppose the Second Reading.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): Mr. Speaker, I confess I have listened with astonishment to the criticism on the principle of the Bill which has come from honorable Members on the opposite Benches. I was under the impression that Members of that Party always viewed with satisfaction any facilities which might be given for the diffusion of land among owners. My honorable Friend the Member for the Partick Divi-

  749
  sion of Lanarkshire has said all that is necessary in defense of the principle of this Bill. I desire to express my thanks to him for the care and consideration he has given to this subject. The honorable Member for Dundee asked whether the educational bodies concerned had been consulted. Yes; copies of this Bill, as soon as I had drafted it, were sent to the bodies affected by it, and, with the exception of small matters of detail, I think I may say that its provisions have their approval in every case. The honorable Gentleman the Member for the Tyneside Division of Northumberland complains that it will be impossible for Parliament to control the Board of Agriculture. I am not quite clear what he means. The powers of the Board of Agriculture will be the same as they now exercise under the various Acts of Parliament which clothe them with authority in these matters. Assent will, of course, be given by the head of the Department, as is given by the heads of every other Department. The action of the head of the Department could be criticized in the usual way by moving a reduction of his salary.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: Will the right honorable Gentleman excuse me? On more than one occasion, when it has been proposed to criticize the action of the head of a Department who may have given his assent to proceedings similar to that under the proposal we are now discussing, the Chairman of Committees has ruled that a proposal to reduce the Minister's salary was out of order, on the ground that there was no Vote on the Paper relating to the matter under Debate.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: In the Vote there is the salary of the head of the Land Division and of his staff, before whom this work generally comes. I fail to see what difficulty there could be in raising the question. In reference to the point raised by the honorable Member for Devonport, I have only to say that the charges made are for our official expenses. The honorable Member for Somerset has raised an objection in respect to Clause 3. It is believed that the powers contained in that clause are
  750
  already possessed by colleges. There is, however, some doubt in the matter. This clause is intended to clear the way, and to enable colleges who are bound to hold property to put it in such a condition that they could get a fair return for it. Generally, the intention is to put colleges in regard to their landed property in the same position as that occupied by limited owners under the Settled Land Acts. The colleges approve of the Bill, and they believe it will relieve them of difficulties which, in some cases, are really pressing. I think I have answered every question put to me, and I hope the House will allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: There is one remark I want to make. I will be extremely brief. This Bill puts the whole of the new power it creates in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. Clause 1 provides that—
  "The powers of sale, enfranchisement, exchange and partition, and the power of granting building leases, with option of purchase, shall not be exercised without the consent of the Board of Agriculture, and capital money payable on any such sale, enfranchisement, exchange, or partition, or on the exercise of any such option, shall be paid to the Board of Agriculture."
  It is well that colleges should have power to divest themselves of property if needs be, but I cannot understand why they should be put under the Board of Agriculture.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: It is so now.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not know what the right honorable Gentleman means. A college is not compelled to go to the Board of Agriculture now, if it wants to sell land, and I do not think it should be compelled to do so. I presume the Board of Agriculture has nothing to do, and is desirous of finding a job.
  Question put—
  "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  House divided:—Ayes 230; Noes 74.—(Division List No. 90.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Duckworth, James

  Lowles, John

  Aird, John

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire)

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Ascroft, Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Asher, Alexander

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  McEwan, William

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Fison, Frederick William

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Balcarres, Lord

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Manners, Lord, E. W. J.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Fry, Lewis

  Monk, Charles James

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith-

  Garfit, William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Morgan, Hn. F. (M'nm'thsh.)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Morley, C. (Breconshire)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Mount, William George

  Bethell, Commander

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Bigwood, James

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Brassey, Albert

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Butcher, John George

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hazell, Walter

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Helder, Augustus

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc.)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Rankin, James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hornby, William Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Howard, Joseph

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. James

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Kemp, George

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cox, Robert

  Kenyon, James

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kimber, Henry

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Knowles, Lees

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Crombie, John William

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Shaw-Stewart, M. F. (Renf.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

  Lambert, George

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfleld-

  Leighton, Stanley

  Souttar, Robinson

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Spicer, Albert

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Drucker, A.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  752

  753

  Strauss, Arthur

  Waring, Colonel Thomas

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Woodall, William

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wayman, Thomas

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Wyndham, George

  Thorburn, Walter

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc., N.)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  NOES.

  Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Pinkerton, John

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Harwood, George

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbysh.)

  Holburn, J. G.

  Roche, John (East Galway)

  Billson, Alfred

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Caldwell, James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Steadman, William Charles

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Tennant, Harold John

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen)

  Crean, Eugene

  McKenna, Reginald

  Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Tully, Jasper

  Daly, James

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Murnaghan, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Davitt, Michael

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Chas.

  O'Brien, Jas. F. X. (Cork)

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Dillon, John

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W. R.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Owen, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Pease, Alf. E. (Cleveland)

  Mr. Herbert Lewis and Mr.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Strachey.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law.

  INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
  MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTS: There are one or two points of importance which I desire to raise. The object of this Bill,
  754
  as I understand it, is to enable the Secretary of State for India to acquire compulsorily certain portions of land on which the India Store Depôt now stands. According to the explanatory statement of the Bill it appears that, whereas the largest portion of the land has a good long lease to run, the particular plot in question has a lease of only two or three years to run. It is, therefore, desirable that the India Office should acquire it. As the House is aware, the whole question of the charges which are to be placed upon the Indian revenue has been under the consideration of a Royal Commission. The first reason why I ask the House to reject this Bill is that that Commission has not yet reported. The Commission is certain to make some recommendation with regard to such expenditure. The other reason why I make this Motion is because it appears to me very questionable

  755
  indeed whether it is in the interests of India that this Store Depôot in England should be carried on at all. I do not think it necessary to make any apology for raising this question. The Bill raises a question of policy. There is no other time to discuss it. It is almost impossible to refer to the Indian question except for an hour or two during the Debate on the Address at the beginning of the Session, or at its expiring moments. There is an increasing feeling in favour of a change, and India ought to have more of the time of Parliament. This Bill raises one or two very important points in reference to the placing of home charges upon the Indian revenue. I wish very briefly to explain to the House why I make this Motion. I think the noble Lord opposite will admit that it is the declared policy of the Indian Government to reduce the purchase of stores for India in England, whenever the Government can satisfy themselves that those stores can be purchased in India without loss to the Indian taxpayer. That is the policy which he declared himself, on behalf of the Indian Government. The only right test of this lies in an examination of what is bought and stored in this depôt in England. I will take a few facts from the East Indian Finance Statement, which lies in the Library, in regard to stores procured in England for shipment to India. It is for the year 1895–6, page 31. I find that they amount to a total value of £831,375 for that year. I should like to give you a few of the chief items. The item for stamps is of the value of £43,000; post office, £46,000; telegraph, £43,000; coal, £57,000; stationery, £39,000; buildings, £31,000; Army clothing, £210,000; and Army ordnance, £235,000. Now, it must be apparent that there are many questions raised on this point. First of all, there is the question, to what extent is the Store Depôt in England used for these stores? The second point is, is it not a fact that most, if not all, of these things could be bought in India itself as cheaply as here. It is very interesting to read a Blue Book dealing with the facts relating to the moral and material progress and condition of India. One of the items purchased in England
  756
  which, I suppose, is to some extent stored in these stores, is coal. I find from "The Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India" Report, that in that item there has been a very satisfactory increase of recent years. The annual output of coal in India in 1893 was 2,347,000 tons; in 1894 it was 2,820,000 tons; and in 1895—the last year for which figures are given, it reached 3,537,000 tons. Upon that point I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman opposite whether this depôt in England is used in any way in connection with these items of coal. It seems to me, in regard to these Army Clothing and Army Ordnance charges, that it would be possible, under the present condition, to equip the Army—at all events the native Army—in India with, clothing supplied from India, rather than from this country. There is every reason to believe that the articles produced, can be better and more cheaply purchased in India than in England. I have one or two criticisms to make in regard to several points. Take Clause 1 of the Bill, in which there is a reference to plans. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman where those plans are to be seen at the present moment, and whether it is possible to see them. Then Clause 2 deals with the area of the land. I would like some information from the right honourable Gentleman as to the approximate area, and the approximate value, of the land, and the building that stands upon it. The third point is in regard to Clause 8. By that section the Secretary of State for India has been empowered to pull down the present building and erect a new building. I would ask him whether he would give the House an approximate estimate of the expenditure entailed in the purchase of the land and that in the erection of this new building. The only other point on which I desire information is Clause 11. Under that clause exceptional powers are given to the Secretary of State for India in reference to those who wilfully obstruct him, and those who act with him in the erection of these buildings. Will the noble Lord allow me to ask him what reason there is for claiming privileged powers in regard to a building of this kind more than in regard to any other class of

  757
  building all over the country? The crucial point in the Bill arises in Clause 13, which charges the revenues of India with all the purchase moneys, the compensation, and the costs in connection with this Bill. It seems to me that, unless this depôt will be a means of saving to the Indian taxpayers, there is no just ground for proceeding with the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be read this day six months.
  MR. J. HERBERT LEWIS: India is a poor country, and when a few months ago it was proposed to place certain charges upon the finances of India there was a cry of indignation in this House that came, not from this side alone, for those most hostile to it were honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House. A Commission is sitting at the present moment for the purpose of determining, or, at all events, for the purpose of recommending what charges ought to be borne by India and this country respectively. And now, on the eve of that Report, when we are expecting almost daily to see it, the Secretary for India comes and asks us to pass a Bill which may prejudice materially the finances of that Report. We want to see what the Commission has to report before we sanction any expenditure of this kind. Therefore, on the ground stated by my honourable Friend—that India is well capable of furnishing some of these stores, and is becoming more and more capable in that direction every year—it does seem to be quite unnecessary that at a period like the present we should seek to enlarge the stores of the Indian Department. I think the House will require strong reasons from the noble Lord before it assents to this proposal. It may be that some of the provisions are explicable, and the right honourable Gentleman might have saved trouble if he had explained what was his Bill. It is a contentious Bill in the first instance; there are some provisions to which on general grounds the House might take exception. The crux of the whole matter lies in Clause 13. I hope we shall look upon this matter not from the point of view of the United Kingdom alone, but from the Imperial point of view. Having
  758
  regard to the enormous burdens that have already been laid upon India during the past few years in consequence of the plague, the war, and the famine—these three great scourges of the human race—I think that we should not at this moment make these additional charges upon the revenues of India. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will consider this question, especially having regard to Clause 13, and give the House some assurance that if we want the Store Depôt in this country extended, the cost of extending it shall be borne by this country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): Honourable Members will see at a glance, if they read the explanatory note, what the Bill proposes to do. India cannot provide many articles that are required for the administration of the country except at a cost greater than that paid in this country. Wherever India can provide articles of the same quality and at the same price as those supplied from this country, preference will be given to India A Store Depôt has been established for many years for the dispatch of articles which it is necessary to purchase for India which India could not provide for herself. The work is carried out on two pieces of land which belonged to the same landlord. Of one portion the India Office has a fairly satisfactory lease. Of the other portion of the land, which is an integral part of the Store Depôt, the lease is about to expire. Difficulty was found in coming to an arrangement with the landlord, and the Government asked for the compulsory provisions of the Lands Clauses Act to be put into operation. It was thus necessary to bring the question under the notice of the House, because the funds upon which the charge is made are public funds. The Commission appointed to inquire into the apportionment of the charges between the Indian and Imperial Governments, has nothing to do with the supply of stores. It is a distinct and separate question. This country is one of the greatest manufacturing countries in the world, and it consequently follows that a considerable

  759
  number of things India wants can be obtained much more cheaply here than in India. The only effect of the rejection of this Bill will be to do a good turn to a London ground landlord. I agree with the honourable Gentleman that we ought to do everything in our power to increase the demand for articles manufactured in India. Of recent years there has been a great increase in the number of articles India may require.
  MR. WEIR: The noble Lord has given no information as to the area of the land, the cost of the land, or the cost of the buildings proposed to be erected. Is it to be £50,000 or £300,000 or £400,000? We are absolutely ignorant of the amount we are going to spend. I think the people of this country ought to bear some portion of the expenditure, and that it should not be imposed on the poverty-stricken and famine-stricken people of India. If the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill is carried to a Division, I shall certainly vote for it.
  MR. J. DILLON: I wish to say a word or two in support of one of the points which have been raised against this Bill. My objection to the Bill is entirely based on Clause 13, which provides that all purchase money and compensation payable by virtue of, and all costs, expenses, and liabilities in carrying this Act into effect, shall be a charge upon the revenues of India. Are we to understand that this charge is not to be repaid to the people of India, and that they are to bear the cost of the purchase of this site in London? If that is the case, I think it is most cruel and most unreasonable to call upon the natives of India to pay the expense of providing a building in this city, and that they should pay for carrying out these works. On that ground, I shall vote with my honourable Friend if he goes to a Division against the Bill.
  MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTS: After the explanations which have been given by the noble Lord, I do not desire to put the House to the trouble of a Division; but I should be glad if he would give us some information as to the approximate cost.
  THIS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I may say, in answer to the questions which have just been put to me, that we have no idea of erecting buildings under this Vote, but that all we want is to get possession of the land. The amount asked for the land is about £70,000, but I think we may get it for very much less. The honourable Member for Mayo will therefore understand that the object of this Bill is to reduce the charge which ultimately India will have to bear.
  Question proposed—
  "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I beg now to move, Sir—
  "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection; that all petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that three be the quorum."
  Motion agreed to.

  VACCINATION BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [19th April]—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  And which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words, 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Thomas Bayley.)
  Question again proposed—
  "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. W. HAZELL: Sir, during the previous discussion on this question the name of the constituency I have the honour to represent was frequently mentioned, and it was implied, if not expressed, that a community which objected to compulsory vaccination was an ignorant and backward one. I wish to remind the House that all who know Leicester are well aware that it is one of the most advanced and enterprising communities of our great towns. It has been the seed-bed of many public movements, some of which, growing at first there, have spread over the whole land. In particular, and as relating to this subject, I may mention that the compulsory notification of infectious diseases began in Leicester by a voluntary arrangement, and was later on embodied in a local Act, long before the system was adopted throughout the country. I do not speak as an anti-vaccinator myself, but I express the opinion that a great community like Leicester, so keen upon local self-government, cannot be coerced into a course of action against the consciences of the overwhelming majority of the population. The people there are determined that compulsory vaccination, which has been dead for many years, should not be revived in any form whatever. The history of the question in Leicester can be briefly stated. There was a great epidemic of small-pox which began in the year 1870, and continued till 1873, at a time when Leicester was one of the most vaccinated towns in the country. During this visitation there were 360 deaths, and the number of cases was beyond computation. During the last 20 years there have been 30 imported cases of small-pox, mostly from vaccinated towns, but only one took root and grew into a smaller outbreak, in the years 1892–94; there were then 360 cases, and only 21 deaths. Since then no cases have occurred. This smaller outbreak found Leicester practically unvaccinated, and yet the deaths were only about one-seventeenth of those which happened during the former visitation though the population meanwhile had nearly doubled. From 1868 to 1887 there were continued and persistent prosecutions; 6,037 parents were proceeded against, 64 were sent to prison,
  762
  including three women; 193 distress warrants were issued, and the amount thus recovered was £2,388. All classes were proceeded against, including members of the council, guardians, ministers of religion, great manufacturers, schoolmasters, and one doctor. The public was so strongly opposed to the seizure of the goods of those who refused to pay the fines that it required nearly two-thirds of the police force to be present on these occasions, and there wag one instance where there were in addition 60 policemen in private clothes. At last no auctioneer would undertake the invidious task of selling the goods thus seized, and a magistrate—an ex-Mayor—declined to sit on the Bench to hear these prosecutions. At length, by a resolution of the guardians, the prosecutions ceased, and the community enjoyed peace—a peace which it was determined should not be disturbed. The cessation of prosecutions had no effect upon the opinions and practice of the population upon the subject. At present it appears that the Mayor and nearly all the council are opposed to compulsory vaccination, as are also 46 guardians out of 48, and many, if not most, of the magistrates. Indeed, it is a question whether, if an attempt be made to revive compulsion, the magistrates will be willing to inflict more than a merely nominal penalty. It has been alleged that objection to compulsory vaccination is a Radical fad. If that be so, then the number of Radicals in Leicester must be overwhelming, for the number of births is about 6,300 a year, while the number of children vaccinated is about 80, including those vaccinated by private practitioners. It is also alleged that this objection is held by uneducated people only, but the experience of Leicester entirely contradicts this theory. The president of the local society opposing compulsory vaccination is a Justice of the Peace and a Conservative, and in the opinion of the Mayor it is a physical impossibility to reimpose compulsion. If the Bill passes, it will even permit two prosecutions for each child, which means a possibility of 12,600 cases being brought before the magistrate yearly, and that reduces the scheme to an absurdity. But, while the community is determined against compulsory vaccination, they have taken the

  763
  most advanced and intelligent steps to keep small-pox and other contagious diseases out, by the most perfect system of sanitation and isolation. They have even gone to the extent of putting families in quarantine, and if a workman has small-pox in his family, he can claim payment from the local authorities in compensation for the wages he loses by staying away from his employment. The people of Leicester desire to be let alone in this matter. They believe that they are successfully carrying on a great experiment, and they are determined to continue their experiment, and to convince the country that vaccination is not the only remedy against small-pox. They specially resent the proposal that the Local Government Board should instruct the vaccination officer, who is the servant of the local guardians, to proceed with prosecutions against the will of his employers. This proposal meets with the strongest possible resentment. They further object to the retention of limited penalties, because, while the penalties proposed in the Bill are a small sum to the well-to-do, they will be a cruel burden upon the poor, and on this and on many other grounds they desire, in the strongest possible way, that the Bill should be withdrawn. I do not think that at the present time the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board can look upon this Bill as a permanent and satisfactory settlement of this controverted and difficult question, and I therefore wish to record my protest against it in the strongest possible terms.
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I desire, Sir, to take some part in this Debate, because I am the only remaining Member in the House of the Royal Commission which sat from May, 1889, to August, 1896, upon this subject. When that Commission was appointed there were several Members of the then House upon it, but from one cause and another they are no longer with us. The Commission, I may mention, had the great advantage of having for its chairman Lord Herschell, who gave the most constant attendance to the sittings of the Commission, and to whom it is mainly owing that such an interesting and valuable Report was pre-
  764
  sented to Parliament. In the course of the time during which the Commission sat it lost two very eminent medical members, Sir William Savory, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and Dr. Bristowe, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; and it is well to remember that, though they were lost to the strength of the majority Report of the Commission, their places were not filled up. We also lost by death Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, a Member of this House, who brought a spirit of candour, fairness, and independence to bear upon public questions. The opposition to vaccination was conducted with the greatest possible ability before the Commission, and a former Member for Leicester, Mr. Picton, an opponent of vaccination, was a member of the Commission throughout. It was, no doubt, to be regretted that the Commission lasted so long, although there were many reasons for it, and that the Report was not sooner published. It was to be regretted, I say, because, in many places the delay in issuing the Report was made an excuse for the suspension of operations connected with vaccination. Out of 122 unions where vaccination was not enforced, no less than 46 pleaded as an excuse that the Royal Commission was sitting. Well, Sir, such an excuse has been withdrawn for many months; but the fact that the proceedings of the Royal Commission were made an excuse for suspending vaccination made it all the more desirable that some legislation on the lines suggested by the Royal Commission should be introduced into Parliament; and I for one, as a member of the Royal Commission, am grateful to the Government for dealing with the question, even although the Measure which is now before Parliament is of small dimensions. I am rather amused to find that it is now pleaded as an excuse for not taking steps to promote vaccination that this Bill does not follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission. As a matter of fact, I fear there are very few people who have read the Report of the Royal Commission. If they had read it, they would have known that three out of the four proposals of the Bill are founded on the recommendations of the Royal Commission; and I think that this should be known when such a plea is put forward by those who ought to

  765
  have paid more attention to the recommendations of the Commission than they have done. The Bill is a compromise, and we do not, as a rule, love compromises. No doubt it is on that ground that the Bill has been criticised and attacked, but my belief is that the Bill, although a modest one, is drawn on the right lines. It is a small practical Measure, and it will not satisfy extreme people on either side, but I think that is rather a recommendation than otherwise. The main object of the Bill, as I understand it, is to help to make vaccination more acceptable to the country, and to remove objections and apprehensions which may not unreasonably be felt. It ought always to be the desire of those who believe in vaccination, and who hold that the benefits that it has conferred upon the country are absolutely incalculable, not to make war upon individuals, and not to override objections or misgivings or prejudices, call them what we may, but to get vaccination done, and secure that the children of this country are vaccinated. Consequently, I think that whatever makes the process more absolutely safe, less liable to objection or risk, or less difficult and unpleasant, must be all for good. The Royal Commission recommended, and the Bill embodies, two provisions which belong to the Scotch system: the one, the extension of the age within which vaccination shall be performed; and the other, what is called domiciliary vaccination. I do not like the expression "domiciliary vaccination," but what is meant by it, of course, is the visits of the medical man to the homes of the people for the purpose of performing vaccination, instead of giving the people the trouble and the inconvenience, not to speak of the risk, of going to the public station. But I do not understand that, while the Bill recommends this so-called domiciliary vaccination, it supersedes the stations. I imagine that there will still be stations where vaccination can be performed, but that the provision of the Bill is in favour of what is called domiciliary vaccination. The people of Scotland are proverbially intelligent—I do not venture in this House to compare that intelligence with that of the southern parts of the
  766
  United Kingdom—and there is no doubt that in Scotland vaccination has met with very little opposition. I only mention the circumstance for the purpose of saying that I believe the absence of objection is greatly owing to the exceedingly wise and discerning manner in which the vaccination laws have been enforced by the parochial boards; and, although their powers are now transferred to the district councils, I doubt not that the same discretion will be exercised by the new body as was used by the old. I will not dwell upon questions relating to vaccine lymph, but it is of great importance, in view of the anxiety which has sometimes prevailed, and prevailed with reason, about arm-to-arm vaccination. Probably it is on Clause 2 of the Bill, which contains the provision about repeated penalties, that the greatest differences of opinion will prevail. I do not much wonder that Her Majesty's Government have made the proposal which they have embodied in this Bill. I am entirely with them in their object, but I doubt the value of the provision. Our recommendation—the recommendation of the Royal Commission in its first Report, which was against repeated penalties—was said to be fatal to vaccination. If that be true—and I do not admit it for one moment—will the provisions of Clause 2 of this Bill secure vaccination? I doubt it exceedingly. A letter appeared the other day in a leading journal mentioning that certain societies possess funds ready to be devoted to the payment of fines, and the writer seemed to think that the funds had better be so used. Well, if there be fines, who can doubt that funds will be forthcoming to pay them? How, then, does the Bill secure more vaccination in the future? Will it not rather keep alive the feeling of irritation on the subject to no good purpose? I sea two objections to Clause 2. You may get the fines paid—I do not doubt that you will—but you will make martyrs, and you do not in that way recommend or secure vaccination. What is the present state of things in many towns? The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has spoken with reference to Leicester; and there are other towns which, in a greater or less degree, are like Leicester. The state of things is

  767
  this: with compulsion in force by statute you do not secure vaccination to any great extent in certain towns; and will anyone assert that the provisions of Clause 2 will alter that state of things in those places? I should be disposed myself to trust more to the beneficent changes suggested in this Bill: the safe lymph, the domiciliary visits, and the extension of the age, added, I may say, to the more intelligent feeling about the practice, which may possibly in some degree arise owing to the subject being again brought before the country by this Bill. The Bill does not, of course, follow the recommendations of the Commission in regard to clause 2. May I be permitted to read a section—it is very short—of the Report of the Royal Commission upon this very important point? We say in section 521—
  "We are now in a position to state the reasons which led us to recommend that repeated penalties should no longer be enforced; indeed, they will be apparent from what we have already said. We do not doubt that the fact that penalties may be repeated secures in some cases the vaccination of children who would otherwise remain unvaccinated, but we believe that the irritation which these repeated prosecutions create, when applied in the case of those who honestly object to have their children vaccinated, and the agitation and the active propaganda of anti-vaccination views which they foster in such cases, tends so greatly to a disuse of the practice, in the districts where such occurrences take place, that in the result the number of children vaccinated is less than it would be had the power of repeated prosecutions never existed or been exercised. This seems to us to be a crucial question. A law severe in its terms, and enforced with great stringency, may be less effectual for its purpose than one of less severity, and which is put in force less uncompromisingly. When this is the case, it cannot be doubted that the law which appears less severe is really more effective."
  But it may be asked, what do you propose? Well, in section 525, the Royal Commission made one or two recommendations. "It must, of course, be a necessary condition, "they reported—
  "of a claim of this description, that it should be such as would prevent an objection to the practice being alleged merely as an excuse to save the trouble connected with the vaccination of the child. We may give the following as examples of the methods which might be adopted. It might be provided that if a parent attended before the local authority, to satisfy them that he entertained such an objection, no proceedings should be taken
  768
  against him. Or, again, a statutory declaration to that effect before anyone now authorised to take such declarations, or some other specified official or officials, might be made a bar to proceedings."
  Well, the Commission did not recommend repeated penalties, but they did not leave the subject suspended in the air, and they took that clear view of the subject which induced them to make this recommendation in reference to a statutory declaration. I think it would impress those who entertain conscientious objections, or who have apprehensions about vaccination, with the solemnity and importance of the proceeding, and those who really entertain conscientious objections—and there are many such—and those who from one cause or another have been afraid of vaccination, would feel a great responsibility in making that declaration, so that they would make it seriously, and would on no occasion be likely to make it lightly. I do not believe that such a provision would increase the number of conscientious objectors—I mean of those who would so describe themselves; but, at all events, it would show who really were the conscientious objectors. I think further, that the question of re-vaccination should certainly receive mention in the Bill. The only other part of the Report of the Royal Commission which I will venture to quote has reference to this subject. In section 533 the Commissioners say—
  "After full consideration of the whole question, we are, however, deterred, by the consideration to which we have adverted, from proposing that re-vaccination should be made compulsory. At the same time, in view of the great importance of re-vaccination, we think it should be in every way encouraged. If an adequate fee were allowed in every case of successful re-vaccination, by whatever medical man it was performed, we think there would probably be a large extension of the practice. We think steps should be taken to impress on parents the importance of having their children re-vaccinated not later than at the age of twelve years. We recommend, further, that when small-pox shows signs of becoming epidemic, special facilities should be afforded, both for vaccination and re-vaccination."
  Of course, Sir, the Bill is not likely to satisfy extreme people—nobody expects that—but I think it will go far to satisfy reasonable objectors. It is obvious the

  769
  discussion must be limited to the Bill, and yet I may be permitted, perhaps, to mention two points before I sit down, one of them arising out of the remarks made by the Member for Leicester. But first of all let me say a word or two about the case of Gloucester, which was mentioned on the occasion of the Debate on the 19th April by the honourable Gentleman opposite [Mr. Bayley]. Gloucester, according to that gentleman, is a thoroughly insanitary place, destitute of proper water supply, and so forth; and he, of course, attributes the outbreak of small-pox to this unfavourable circumstance.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: I spoke of the state of the city before the outbreak.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: I understand the honourable Gentleman now to say that it was previous to the epidemic that Gloucester was in a thoroughly insanitary condition. It is, however, a curious circumstance that in 1891 the Secretary to the Anti-Vaccination League of Gloucester declared before the Royal Commission that Gloucester was a specially clean town, well abreast of sanitary improvements; and yet it was in this pure town, with all the best improvements of a sanitary kind, that the outbreak occurred. Now the honourable Gentleman refers to the outbreak, and says it was owing to its insanitary condition.
  MR. BAYLEY: I spoke of what I saw with my own eyes; and if the honourable Member will go to Gloucester to-day, and see place called Key Court, he will be of the same opinion as myself.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: Well, I mention the remarks of the honourable Gentleman on the former occasion for the purpose of showing that both he and the Secretary of the Anti-Vaccination League could not have been correct. Let me refer for a moment to the case of Leicester, in consequence of the interesting speech made by the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down. It is quite true that Leicester is a singularly un-vaccinated town, but Leicester, unlike almost any other town that I know of,
  770
  has adopted a most elaborate system of isolation. No one who thinks about the subject far a moment can doubt that the elaborate system of isolation at Leicester must have had a very great effect; and really, when one hears so much about interference with personal liberty, I do not know any greater interference with personal liberty than that which prevails at Leicester, where, on the smallest suspicion of small-pox in a family, not only the sick person but his family are subjected to isolation treatment. So that I always feel that while Leicester has happily been of late years much freer of the risk which might be expected from the want of vaccination, at the same time I believe it is due to the elaborate system of isolation which the town of Leicester has adopted. But I am afraid other towns in the country which neglect vaccination have not followed the good example set them by Leicester. In some quarters there is a vague impression that as small-pox is happily so rare, vaccination is either unnecessary or useless. In this House some years ago there was a most interesting and weighty speech made by Sir Lyon Playfair—now Lord Playfair—which I am sure must be in the memory of some who heard it. Sir Lyon Playfair said in substance on that occasion: Little as people knew it, the fortunate prevalence of vaccination had so fortified the country against small-pox that even if the practice were to some extent to become rare it would be some time before the neglect of vaccination told. But I need not say how far he was from suggesting that neglect could go on with impunity. I confess that I see with some anxiety that since then some towns have dropped into neglect of vaccination. Sooner or later it is to be feared the same result will follow as at Gloucester. I do not doubt, if ever such similar epidemics should break out again—which Heaven forbid—that there would be the same rush to vaccination as at Gloucester; but that would not undo the mischief or make up the arrears of protection. I believe this Bill would remove some of the grounds which the opponents of vaccination have to work upon. If security as to the character of the lymph is given, if the operation is performed without trouble or risk to the infant, and if the infant has passed the tenderest period when vacci-

  771
  nation may conceivably be attended with the greatest risk, then I think even those who are disposed to resist or to neglect vaccination may reconsider their decision. I must, however, speak disparagingly of Clause 2. I do not attach much importance to Clause 2, even in the interests of vaccination. That opinion will not, of course, prevent me from voting, as I shall very heartily do, for the Second Reading of this Bill. But I hope that the Government will reconsider Clause 2, and that in the course of the proceedings in Committee they may be disposed to give effect in a greater degree to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and if they do that I believe they will make the Bill a much more valuable Bill to the country.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: The speech of the right honourable Baronet the Member for Ipswicn, who preceded me, was a speech of very great importance. It was a speech made after an experience of seven years upon the Royal Commission, and deluged with facts upon the question of vaccination. The right honourable Baronet, in making his speech, has had the advantage of considering and reconsidering his position since the Royal Commission, which sat to consider this matter, and reported upon it two and a half years ago. The right honourable Baronet substantially agreed with the contention which was advanced, with singular force and great good judgment, by the honourable Member for Ilkeston, who, as the House is aware, is an extremely able advocate of vaccination. Practically, therefore, we now have before us not only the opinion of a former Secretary of the Local Government Board, but of the only remaining Member of the Royal Commission who has now a seat in this House, that compulsion is dead, and that in any future Bill dealing with the question of vaccination any compulsory clauses ought to be eliminated. I do not quite understand the inference which the right honourable Member drew from his own argument. He appeared to be inclined to remove the second clause absolutely from the Bill, whereas far greater effect would have been given to his argument if he had suggested the abolition of the compulsory powers altogether, and had, in lieu of the proposals in the Bill, pressed
  772
  for his suggestions of sanitation and isolation. But, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the speech of the right honourable Baronet is a speech which Her Majesty's Government must weigh and consider carefully in dealing with the future course of this Bill. Having regard to the startling fact that no less than 122 of the local authorities boards of guardians, to which this Bill again re-intrusts the administration of the Acts—46 of which have alleged the sitting of the Royal Commission as a pretext for so doing—have refused to carry out the compulsory powers under the Acts, it appears to me that in many districts of the country it is impossible to carry any further the policy of dealing with vaccination by compulsion. I have read much of the evidence given before the Royal Commission, and also the Report, and I should imagine that any practical man, after having considered the general effect of that evidence and Report, would have come to the conclusion that it was of no use whatever to treat the question of vaccination by any measure of compulsion. The old policy of carrying out vaccination by force, and the cruel penalties proposed to be inflicted in this way against persons who have a conscientious objection to it, is a policy which is absolutely dead, and one which we must at once give up as a useless and hopeless policy. Substantially the speech of the right honourable Baronet amounted to this: that the future policy with regard to vaccination should be a policy of friendly advice to the public, and that facilities should be given to those people who favour vaccination to follow out their inclinations. So far as I myself could see, his argument did not go farther than that. His whole argument came to this: that the real hostility to vaccination arose largely from the fact that it was a constant interference with the liberty of the subject, and that there is a natural desire upon the part of the parents to retain their own freedom of judgment upon a matter upon which, while it excites a great deal of interest in the country, there is a great diversity of opinion. Even before I heard the important and weighty speech of the right honourable Baronet, it appeared to me that the true policy of Her Majesty's

  773
  Government in this matter of vaccination would be, as it has been in other matters of late, a policy of "silence and polite withdrawal," and I think there would be quite as much safety in their doing so. It is, of course, a merit of the Bill that it does away with repeated prosecutions. But those who, like myself, represent constituencies where vaccination has practically been abolished, and abolished, I might almost say, with the connivance of the Local Government Board itself, consider that there should be some further concession made to the feelings of those persons who have a conscientious objection to the practice of vaccination at all. There is undoubtedly, as the honourable Member for Leicester said, a very strong consensus of opinion amongst those interested in this question of vaccination that it is unfair to give the rich man an opportunity of paying his two fines, and so escaping scot-free, whilst the poor man is subject to two fines, which, in all probability, he cannot pay, and he may have to make three appearances before the court. This is shown by an answer which was given to the honourable Member for the Market Harborough Division on Thursday last. This is a question largely affecting working people, whose wages are much interfered with by these repeated prosecutions. They are compelled to make three appearances in court, and are subjected to two fines, and unless there are strong and substantial reasons for maintaining—and maintaining in a more rigid form than it has been attempted to be maintained for the last few years—this policy of coercion, it is simply ridiculous to maintain this part of the Bill, and have people up two or three times before the court, and allow the rich man to pay and get off scot-free and put all this trouble and affliction upon the poor man. Now, this Bill is a rather inconsistent and foolish attempt to bolster up a system which is really discredited by the evidence of the Royal Commission. That evidence shows a wide divergency of opinion upon this question, not only amongst those who are the excited advocates of personal liberty in this matter, but those who by scientific qualifications and medical research are entitled to give an opinion upon this subject. Undoubtedly, the evidence given before the Royal Com-
  774
  mission shows a very wide and serious difference of opinion upon this subject. This Bill is an endeavour to enforce once more a system which could only be justified by the practical unanimity of scientific men that vaccination is substantially a sure preventive from the ravages of small-pox, and on the other hand that it is free from every risk and danger to the children who are to be operated upon. The President of the Local Government Board dwelt upon this policy of domiciliary visits as if it were a concession and an advantage to the public; but I have read a somewhat singular comment upon this policy of domiciliary visits—
  "At an adjourned meeting of the Ormesby Urban District Council, in the course of short discussion on the subject of a house-to-house visitation for the purpose of vaccination, Dr. Knott, the medical officer, said that the medical men appointed by the guardians had visited North Ormesby, and in many cases had met with a scandalous reception. They had not been received in a respectable way at all, and were looked upon more like bailiffs than doctors. In some instances they were told to vaccinate the cat. In several instances the people who were visited said that when they desired to be vaccinated they would have their own club doctors."
  Well, I venture to say that if the President of the Local Government Board would accompany some of his own officers and go through some of the districts that I am familiar with, and go through the experiences some of those gentlemen have, I am bound to say that I think, genial and conciliatory as he always is upon every occasion, he would find himself in the course of the day in exceedingly difficult and unpleasant positions. I venture to predict that these domiciliary visits, if ever carried into law, will be bitterly resented by the people. There is this further extraordinary provision, the right honourable Gentleman proposes to force upon the local authorities, who are entrusted with the carrying out of this Act—he is going to compel them to elect an officer who is practically to be placed, so far as his authority is concerned, above the heads of the boards of guardians; and although the boards of guardians may be elected by people who dislike this Act and disapprove of it upon conscientious principles, and although the boards of guardians may pass resolutions that

  775
  there shall be no prosecutions for the non-compliance with the provisions of the Vaccination Act in that area, yet their officer, whom they will have to elect, whether they like it or not, is to have the power of instituting proceedings and carrying out prosecutions against the wishes and in spite of the resolutions passed by his own board on the subject; and he also has a right of imposing upon the ratepayers of the district, who, through the boards of guardians whom they elect, entirely disapprove of his action in the matter and repudiate it, the expense entailed by the prosecutions in which he engages. Any attempt to carry out such a foolish policy as that in the Midland counties of England will be farcical and ridiculous in the extreme. The right honourable Gentleman gave the explanation, that he did not want to overload the Bill, and this matter would be dealt with by regulations, and described to the House that these vaccination officers would have power to initiate the prosecutions themselves, for which the ratepayers would have to pay, although the boards of guardians had resolved that no prosecutions should take place.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): I said those were powers we possess already, and could put into force at any moment. They have nothing to do with the Bill.
  MR CHANNING: Are they powers which the right honourable Gentleman has ever enforced under any circumstances before?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: They have nothing to do with the Bill.
  MR. CHANNING: The domiciliary visits, which will be deeply resented by many of the people, are aggravated by the extraordinary provision that the vaccination officer elected by the board of guardians would have power to initiate prosecutions, for which the ratepayers would have to pay, although the board of guardians might have resolved that there should be no prosecutions.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: Again, I must point out that those are powers which
  776
  are already possessed, and can be put in force at any moment; they have nothing whatever to do with the Bill.
  MR. CHANNING: At any rate, the policy announced by the right honourable Gentleman on the Second Reading of the Bill amounted to this: that he was prepared to support a system under which the vaccination officer will be able to initiate prosecutions, and to impose charges upon the rates in the locality where the board of guardians, with the full approval of the inhabitants, may have passed a resolution to the effect that they did not want anything of the kind to be done. Now, I venture to think that is a very unwise proposal. I say the only justification of such a policy would be scientific certainty that vaccination will prevent small-pox, and that there is freedom from risk of contamination. What are the facts? It is admitted by the certificates of doctors, who saw the children die, that, between 1881 and 1895, 773 children died from the effects of vaccination—that is, one healthy English child per week during that whole period. There can be no reasonable doubt that in the case of thousands upon thousands of other children's deaths they have been contributed to by the process of vaccination. The uncertainty, if not the worthlessness, of vaccination has been absolutely proved again and again. I myself brought before the House in 1889 the case of St. Joseph's Industrial School at Manchester, where all the pupils and attendants were vaccinated, yet small-pox was introduced by a well-vaccinated child of 12, and half the school took it. In the evidence given before the Royal Commission there is also a substantial admission that for many years has been denied, that certain loathsome diseases can be communicated by vaccination. Now, it is stated that the lymph which is to be provided under the new system will obviate that. I listened with the greatest interest to the able and lucid speech of the honourable Member for Edinburgh University, but I will be glad to hear some further explanation on this point, because I do not see why glycerine should be fatal to the germs of these horrible diseases, and not destroy the germs of cowpox itself.
  SIR WILLIAM PRIESTLEY: It has been proved.
  MR. CHANNING: We are all familiar with the explanations which are given as to the improvement in the figures as regards small-pox. The diminution, I venture to say, is explained, not by vaccination, but by improved sanitation and the policy of isolation. I find, as regards Leicester, the mortality from small-pox, when it was well vaccinated, was practically the same as in Birmingham, but since Leicester has become a non-vaccinated town the number of deaths from small-pox have enormously diminished, as compared with Birmingham and other towns. In my own experience I know of two cases where, shortly after successful re-vaccination, there have been cases of small-pox. Certainly, the Bill has not pleased the medical officers. The honourable Member who preceded me spoke of isolation as affecting the liberty of the subject, but under the process of vaccination you are imposing upon a helpless child a certain risk, on the plea that there may be some chance of escaping a possible future risk. Well, I think the policy of this Bill is a most foolish outcome of the cogitation of the right honourable Gentleman upon the results of the Royal Commission. Apparently, the right honourable Gentleman wishes to make a trifling concession to those who conscientiously object to vaccination, but I venture to think the Bill will not be received with either enthusiasm or gratitude. The country is coming to the common-sense conclusion that it wants no more compulsory vaccination. If people want to be vaccinated they can easily go to their own medical man and get the operation performed upon themselves or their children. Compulsion is a policy which I do not think the right honourable Gentleman will venture to re-establish in this country. Some 120 boards of guardians Lave refused to carry out the policy of this Act. Does the right honourable Gentleman think seriously he will find these gentlemen willing at once to adopt and give effect to this Bill when it becomes law? Does he propose to carry out his policy by the fire-and-sword process? I have treated this matter
  778
  from a non-Party point of view, but regarding it for the moment as a question of Party interests, I hope the right honourable Gentleman will carry his policy through, and send down his vaccination officers to coerce and override the boards of guardians. If he attempts that, I venture to predict that there will be a good many seats which will be lost to his Party in the Midland and Northern counties, and their present occupants will be doomed to political extinction, and the results will be disastrous to the authors of the policy of this Bill.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: There are, it appears to me, three different views on this subject. There are a certain number of persons who consider vaccination almost absolutely preservative against small-pox, and that it is perfectly innocuous. There are other persons who think it may be preservative, but that it is so harmful that it should not be resorted to. There are a third class of persons who don't presume to legislate on a subject on which doctors differ, and I am one of these. I should not venture to lay down any strong opinions, but I do think that there is such an opinion in this country that it is most improper to compel parents to vaccinate their children, having regard to the divergent views as to its efficacy. Now, Sir, this Bill reduces the penalties to two. Well, so far so good; but what surprises me is the miserable want of logic on the part of the vaccinators. What is their doctrine? That small-pox is so infectious that, unless all children are vaccinated, the community must suffer owing to the spread of the disease. Logically, therefore, they ought to insist on the vaccination of every child in the public interest. It is admitted that vaccination wears out. Why do they not insist on re-vaccination? I understand that in seven years the supposed preventive effect disappears, and I should like to know how many Members of this House have been vaccinated within seven years. Let us consider how many of them have not been vaccinated, and if they have been visited with severe penalties for jeopardising the health of Parliament by abstaining from re-vaccination. I point this out as an argument of the absurdity of the proposal. Heretofore the

  779
  idea prevailed that by the imposition of repeated penalties the resistance of a parent who refused to have his child vaccinated would be worn down, but here you have only two penalties. In other words, anyone for the comparatively small sum of £2 may contract out. What would be said if the President of the Board of Agriculture were to allow any dog to wander about unmuzzled in consideration of a payment of £2? It would be said at once that such exemption would neutralise and destroy his own scheme, and so it is with the present Bill. Again, what would be said if we had the plague here, and if it were laid down generally that any person having the malady was not to ride in a public vehicle, but that if he chose to pay double fare he could go about in a cab? I wish merely to point out how unfair it is between the rich and the poor. The proposal in this Measure to allow people to purchase immunity by payment of £2 would favour the rich. At any rate, we know on this side of the House that £2 is a lot to a poor man. The poor man who could not pay would be imprisoned, and thus the Bill would draw a distinction between rich and poor. But the Bill is so illogical that it reduces compulsory vaccination to an absurdity. I am inclined to think that if this contracting out clause is persisted in, compulsory vaccination will be done away with. Then, with regard to calf lymph, there is a point that requires explanation. I have heard that cows are liable to consumption. If lymph were taken from an apparently sound calf, could anyone be sure that the animal did not come from a consumptive family? How are you to guarantee the child if you cannot guarantee the calf? Now I want to know this—does the Local Government Board claim that it has the power to initiate prosecutions without the assent or approval of the guardians? If so, will the right honourable Gentleman explain how it occurs that that power was obtained? Further, I would ask, supposing he considers he has those powers, if he intends to use them only in the event of this Bill being passed? I wish to know whether the Local Government Board claims that it has power to initiate prosecutions without the assent or approval of the guardians. If so, will the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government
  780
  Board explain how that power is obtained? Some honourable Members on this side of the House think that these powers are given in the third clause, but I do not urge the third clause in the matter. If the Bill passes the Second Reading I hope we shall have some expression of opinion in regard to the points I have raised. If it passes, it will be my bounden duty to propose or support a considerable number of Amendments to it; in fact, I hardly think that if the right honourable Gentleman persists in the Bill we can hope that the House will rise before the end of September. We shall oppose it line by line, so far as the compulsory powers are concerned, and I have also, after communication with my constituents, framed a new clause which I shall propose.
  MR. R. ASCROFT: I did not propose to take any part in this Debate, but the board of guardians in the constituency which I represent passed a resolution unanimously asking me to oppose this Bill, on the ground that they objected to any kind of compulsory vaccination. The board of guardians is not a political board—it is, six of one and half a dozen of the other so far as parties go—therefore, there can be no suggestion that any representations they may make are based on political grounds. Under the present system you prosecute—it is not prosecution, in many cases it is persecution—and the result is that at the present moment compulsory vaccination was never so much, hated and detested in this country. In every constituency in the country there is a large body who feel strongly on this subject. Magistrates refuse to inflict fines, or, if they do, the amounts are so trifling that they are of no avail; and boards of guardians will not allow their officers to prosecute. Now there is to be a change. We are told that the vaccination officers, although they are paid by boards of guardians are to take their orders from the Local Government Board. But that is contrary to the spirit of local government, and will be resented in every constituency. If this proposal is passed, and the Local Government Board takes upon itself the duty and responsibility of dictating in this way to boards of guardians throughout

  781
  the country, it will lay itself open to general execration on the part of Boards of Guardians, and the Bill in that respect will be a failure. With regard to the proposed domiciliary visits, they also will be a failure. Years ago we had in this country a Hearth Tax, under which the authorities had power to enter every house and count the number of hearths. That was considered to be an interference with the liberty of the subject, and the tax was abolished. As to these domiciliary visits, in the commencement it will be a polite invitation; in a little while the medical officer will come accompanied by the vaccination officer, and a little later by the police-constable on the beat, and a system of coercion will spring up which may not be intended at the moment, but which will inevitably result if this Bill is passed. The Government has tried in every way to popularise vaccination. I do not blame this Government—all the Governments we have had for many years have tried in every way to popularise vaccination. It has been enforced on the Army, the Navy, on School Boards, on the Post Office, on Civil servants. Pretty nearly everybody who wanted office had to be vaccinated, except gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench. Their day is still to come, and in the meantime I should like to know how many Members of the Front Bench have been vaccinated. I should like to see the day when acceptance of office will depend on vaccination, still I do not think that will be sufficient to prevent any Member accepting office. If this Bill, instead of being devoted to compulsion, had done something more for sanitation, isolation, pure air, and pure water, good drainage, notification of infectious diseases, and competent medical treatment, we should have made great strides towards stamping out small-pox. It is useless attempting to hide the fact that the Bill is unpopular with the people. When passed it will be resented, and every endeavour will be made and every means taken by those people whose conscientious scruples are roused—whether rightly or wrongly—to have impediments thrown in the way of carrying out the Bill. If so, the object in view, the stamping out of small-pox, will be defeated from the very commencement. Boards of Guardians have already
  782
  passed resolutions, and some of these have been embodied in resolutions and petitions to the right honourable Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board. So far as I can see, this is a fight between the Local Government Board and the Boards of Guardians throughout the country, and all those persons who object to compulsory vaccination. And I do not hesitate to say that the Local Government Board will be defeated. They may not be defeated in passing their Bill—there is a majority in this House that can pass any Bill; but they will be defeated in the object they wish to attain. It would be better to establish in every town some little building adapted and fitted properly where people could take their children to be vaccinated if they wished, but in proposing compulsion the Government was taking a serious course. You may take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. It was only the other day that an account was published in the papers of the Board of Guardians in one of the Metropolitan districts passing a resolution to compensate the parents of several children who had lost their lives from erysipelas, contracted by means of vaccination not from calf lymph. For years and years you have been trying to compel people to vaccinate their children from other children, and have been prosecuting them for failing to do so. How is it you have only found out your mistake now? These people have been right and the Government in their prosecutions have been wrong. We are told by the honourable Member for Edinburgh University that calf lymph properly prepared is not injurious; but who is going to guarantee the preparation? I hope and trust this Bill will not be read a second time; if it is I can assure my honourable Friend opposite that opportunities will be taken to prepare as many Amendments as possible, and I hope it will never become a Bill so long as I am a Member of this House.
  DR. R. FARQUHARSON: Seven years ago I had the honour of seconding the proposal to appoint the Royal Commission on vaccination. I did so because I was convinced that the more vaccination was

  783
  inquired into the more its merits would become patent. I am bound to say that, after a long trial, vaccination leaves the court without a stain upon its character. It may be said that the parturition of this mountain mouse has been long-continued and laborious. I can only say that I am glad indeed that the Government have had the support and assistance on this occasion of the honourable Member for Northampton, and I believe the honourable Member for Edinburgh, who has put the case for vaccination so completely that I almost hesitate to make any more remarks after his very able, lucid, and complete speech. When I said that this Bill was not a logical one on the findings of the Committee, that, Sir, no doubt is a conclusion which recommends itself to many honourable Members of this House. I may say that on these matters I am rather a "thick and thinner." I am not much of a believer in your conscientious objector. I should prefer myself that we should have a paternal Government ruling over us, as in Germany, who would take care that we were vaccinated with calf lymph. In Germany, when a schoolboy arrives at school age, he is not allowed to go into school at all unless he has been reasonably vaccinated. I do not want to be too stiff-backed upon an occasion like this. I should have preferred the Government to have taken up a strong and vigorous line of action, and continue some sort of compulsion; but we must, of course, go with the times. There is no doubt about that. I am bound to say that, after the speech of my honourable Friend and professional Brother who sits on the Front Opposition Bench, and who so well acted his part as politician and medical officer to the Local Government Board, I have no doubt he is right, and I must keep my stronger opinions and make them fall in with us. That proposal was perhaps better than that which this Bill proposes to carry out. There is one point which I think this House will not dispute, that is that small-pox has diminished, and that it is a much less terrible disease than it used to be. And what is the reason of it? Why has it diminished? It has been stated that a great number of
  784
  people marked with small-pox used to go about in the old days, and it used to be rather the exception to see a person who was not marked with it. I was reading in an article the other day a description of this disease in the old days, and it stated that small-pox began to be such a usual thing that no one took any notice of it, nor thought that it was anything special or unusual. Well, we say that small-pox has diminished, and no one in their senses can deny that it has diminished. I say it has diminished on account of vaccination, but our opponents say that it is on account of sanitation. ["Hear, hear!"] I won't say "Hear, hear!" but I will say half a "Hear, hear!" because I think that everyone will admit that sanitation must of course influence every disease and every human constitution; and, of course, if you place people under better sanitary conditions, with their houses well drained, there is no doubt in the world that those people are placed in a better position by their constitution for withstanding the ravages of any disease. But my friends are bound to go further than that if they want us to believe that sanitation is the one thing which has brought this great result by which the diminishing of smallpox has been carried out, and they are bound to prove that there is some scientific connection between small-pox and sanitation. My honourable Friend the Member for Edinburgh placed that very clearly before the House. He told us that a certain number of diesases, like typhus and typhoid fevers, were produced by bad drainage, and bad sanitary conditions, and that diphtheria, and a lot of other diseases of that kind, are well-known to depend solely and specifically on bad sanitary conditions. But I do not think any prominent scientific man has ever brought forward any case or scientific evidence to prove that small-pox has any specific relation with sanitary conditions. Then there are other diseases which my honourable Friend told the House of, relating to the same class, such as measles, scarlet fever, erysipelas, and whooping cough, which, if small-pox had been diminished by improved sanitation, ought also to have diminished. But, instead of being

  785
  diminished, these diseases have actually risen coterminously with the improved conditions of sanitation during the last few years. Then, again, this is also another proof: the larger number of insanitary places have often had very low small-pox rates, as anyone who has been to Germany within the last 20 or 30 years, and who has seen the condition of sanitation there, and observed the state of zymotic diseases, will admit. Now, what are the facts of the case? Why, that during a long succession of years, in which sanitation made no special progress, small-pox has gone on diminishing and diminishing, and that disease is almost entirely stamped out in Germany. Then there is another great point. In Leicester and Middlesbrough, and all those places where there have been epidemics of small-pox, we have had an opportunity of studying its effects, and it is quite evident to anyone's mind that the people who suffer most are the young unvaccinated children. I do not want to weary the House with statistics of unvaccinated children and unvaccinated people, but at the same time I may be permitted to point out that the children and people who are unvaccinated are the most heavily hit by this disease, whilst policemen, postmen, and soldiers, who are officially revaccinated, have escaped the disease altogether. And, finally, there is the illustration of the nurses, and that is a very sore bone for the anti-vaccinators to pick, for they have tried their best with it for many years, but they have not made much impression upon it. In every small-pox hospital every nurse has to be revaccinated, and they escape the disease, but, in one or two cases, the nurses who have declined to be vaccinated get the small-pox, and occasionally die from it. That is a condition of things which can be absolutely proved, and often has been proved, by most direct arguments. Now, Sir, I do not want to detain the House longer, but I should like to say one word more, and that is in reference to isolation. Isolation is no doubt very important, and far be it from me to undervalue it; but I am inclined to think that the taking of people from their homes and shutting them up in hospitals is an interference with their
  786
  personal liberty. Is it possible that you can always get sufficient hospital accommodation to effectively isolate cases of small-pox? Small-pox is a disease which it is not at all very easy to diagnose in the early stages, and if you drag people out of their homes to convey them to a small-pox hospital you not only damage their constitutions but you run the risk of spreading the disease as you pass through the streets. It is not altogether improbable that a strong medical opinion exists in favour of these smallpox hospitals in a large number of cases, but it has been pretty well proved that these hospitals have been the means of disseminating small-pox around the locality in which they are situated. But apart from the fact that this isolation in hospitals may eventually be the means of preventing the spread of the disease, I do not think that it is an extremely agreeable process for a person with small-pox in his own comfortable home to be shifted into a large hospital with a lot of other small-pox patients, where you see the depressing sights which are inseparably associated with every large hospital containing a large number of patients. Now we have heard a great deal about calf lymph, and my honourable Friend below me was not quite sure about the advisability of mixing calf lymph and glycerine. Now my honourable Friend the Member for Edinburgh was absolutely within his scientific rights when he stated that, by experiment, it had been proved that glycerine preserved the vaccine lymph and destroyed every source of infection. That is founded on strict scientific experiments, not only carried on here by the observation of scientists in this country, but also in Germany it has for many years proved to be a process which has been swift, sure, and effectual. The old-fashioned idea is that vaccination by calf lymph is more irritating; but by improved method of culture and administration I believe it has now been absolutely shown that the use of calf lymph is not attended by nearly so much irritation as the old-fashioned method. Now my honourable Friend below me referred to the divergence of opinion upon the Report of the Royal Commission among scientific men. Well, is there anything

  787
  in human affairs, scientific or otherwise, in which it is possible to get unanimity among human beings? There are one or two people who do, I think, argue against vaccination. Dr. Collins, the well known and respected chairman of the London County Council, does toot go as far as we do. His opinion is, I believe, that the effect of vaccination wears out quicker than we say it does, and he does not think that compulsion is necessary. I do not think that even Dr. Collins has ever disputed that vaccination is a preventative against small-pox. My impression is that he is convinced that vaccination is a remedy for small-pox, but that it soon wears out. It is, however, in the first place, generally admitted that the danger is minimised by vaccination with calf lymph; secondly, by the effect of the glycerine, which destroys the germs; and, thirdly, I should be strongly in favour of this: that the calf should be first examined by a surgeon. If the examination was satisfactory, the calf should then be killed, but the lymph taken from it should not be used till a post-mortem examination has been made of the calf, and a searching inquiry made, so that the surgeon is able to certify absolutely, from an examination of all the organs, that the calf was perfectly healthy in every part, and that there was no possible danger in using that lymph. I believe a good deal of bad vaccination, as my honourable Friend has told us, has been caused by using impure lymph from other persons. I do not think there is any doubt about this. But these objections, I think, will be entirely removed by the fact that glycerine has a destructive effect, and will prevent the irritation which frequently causes erysipelas. In Scotland we are a well-vaccinated people—we are a sensible people. Anti-vaccinators do not come up to Scotland. I remember at some of my meetings I was pursued by a paid agent of some society, who heckled me a little, but he got no satisfaction either from me or the meeting. I am bound to say this: that the system of house to house visitation is carried on very well now in Scotland, but I do not think it will work so well by this Bill. With regard to these domiciliary visits, my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton did
  788
  paint a picture which is, perhaps, coloured rather highly; but still, if you wash out some of the colouring there will be little of the true picture left. He said that these visitations would not be well received. In Scotland vaccination is all done by the family medical attendant. How much better that is. The family doctor simply comes to the house and says, "Your child is not vaccinated. I have some very good calf lymph, which is free from syphilis; let me vaccinate the child." He rarely meets with a refusal, because the parent is much more inclined to agree than if an utter stranger, whom he had never seen before, had entered the house, and metaphorically presenting a pistol at his head, said, "I have come to vaccinate your child." I think if some form of private vaccination could be carried out it would be more effective. My honourable Friend the Member for Edinburgh thinks that public vaccination is much better than private vaccination, but the vaccination which satisfies the mother does not always satisfy the sanitarian. He wants three or four good marks to give the child protection. I really think that if you could arrange for a system of visits by private practitioners, rather than by the public authorities, the results would be much more satisfactory. Without wishing to trespass any further upon the time of the House, I should like to refer to a remark of my honourable Friend. He mentioned certain cases of revaccination being carried out. I do not think that parents object very much to that. When I had the honour of filling the post of medical officer to Rugby School there were 500 boys there. An epidemic of small-pox came into the neighbourhood, and I revaccinated more than half the school. Every parent was asked and gave his consent. I revaccinated with great success, without causing any inconvenience, and with some pecuniary advantage to myself, although I should have got a greater pecuniary advantage out of a good epidemic of small-pox. Just one other point. The Government do not want to go quite so far in this direction. Although the Bill is a small one, it is not a bad one as far as it goes. Perhaps it contains the germ from which better Bills will come in the future. I think it will prove bene-

  789
  ficial in many directions, and I shall be very happy to give it my support.
  DR. CLARK: I had hoped that at least one voice, on some side of the House, would have been raised in favour of Clause 2, which I look upon as the most important clause of this Bill, because it contains the principle of the Bill, and yet no one has raised his voice in its favour. I cannot agree with my honourable Friend who has just sat down in the view which he has taken of the results of the past Royal Commission. I endeavoured years ago to impress upon the Chairman of the Local Government Board the necessity as to reinvestigation into this question. I did that in connection with my honourable Friend the Member for East Donegal, and we then took a Division of the Committee upon a vaccination grant. At that time the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Croydon was Chairman of the Local Government Board, and he then stated on behalf of the Board that all the assertions that had been made regarding vaccination, and regarding certain evils which were supposed to come occasionally with it, were unfounded. He said he would not have either a Royal Commission or a Select Committee, because, in the first place, no one would serve, and, in the second place, no one would come forward to give evidence. At that time we made certain specific charges—if you like to call them so—against vaccination. Can my honourable Friend who has just sat down say that these charges were unfounded? We had a Commission appointed, and every one of those charges has been borne out by the Report of the Royal Commission, and I am astonished to hear my honourable Friend say that the verdict of the Commission left not a stain upon the character of vaccination. What were the facts? I asserted that in my experience as a public vaccinator I had seen symptoms caused by vaccination. I said I had seen several cases. That statement was denied, absolutely denied, on behalf of the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board for two years afterwards sent out a form in which that denial was contained. What occurred
  790
  before the Royal Commission? We had a case two years afterwards which occurred in Leeds. A lad had been vaccinated, and syphilis occurred as a result of that vaccination. That was the verdict of the coroner's jury on the lad, who had died at the Leeds Hospital. My honourable Friend the Member for West Leeds asked a question in this House. The Local Government Board absolutely denied the fact, and sent down one of their medical officers. That medical officer reported, and we had his Report read to us in reply to the honourable Member for West Leeds, that, instead of syphilis being communicated by vaccination, it was a case of hereditary syphilis. Fortunately, the Royal Commission was sitting, and that Royal Commission appointed Dr. Barwell to make a Report to them, and a very eminent Member also investigated this case. The evidence given before the Commission was quite clear, and it can be found in the Report of the Commission. The parents were examined, and there were no signs whatever of any syphilis in them, and both the medical men were of opinion that the views expressed by the surgeons in the hospital and the opinion expressed by the coroner's jury gave the true facts of the case. Yet my honourable Friend says that vaccination left the Royal Commission without a stain on its character. He knows very well that Dr. John Donaldson is one of the ablest men in the profession.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I never doubted the fact of the occasional existence of this disease, but I say that it is of extremely rare occurrence.
  DR. CLARK: I only want to assert that, so far from the statements made by the Local Government Board then being accurate, they have all been disproved, and every assertion made by myself and the honourable Member acting with me in that Debate has been borne out by the Report of the Royal Commission. There have been cases of erysipelas following. Another assertion that we made was that vaccination often brought on other diseases which otherwise would remain stagnant. Of course, I know that vaccination is supposed to

  791
  cause lots of diseases that it has no effect upon; and vaccination, which has nothing to do with them, has all the blame thrown upon it. But I was taking absolute cases, and making absolute charges. I say that you have vaccination causing specific diseases, such as syphilis and other diseases, that it produces secondary results, such as erysipelas—and very bad erysipelas, too—and that very often it brought about a weakening of the child's constitution, where it had a susceptibility to disease. All these charges have been absolutely proved by the Report of the Royal Commission, and now we have a Bill brought in to change the entire form. Let me say this: that, as far as I am concerned, I believe that vaccination does modify small-pox, and I am rather inclined to take the view at the present time of the agencies which caused the Chairman of that Commission to take his present view. I read the able reply of my friend Dr. Collings, in the minority Report. Dr. Collings is a very strong advocate. I was talking to him only the other day, and he was then expressing views very strongly opposed to this present Bill. I believe that vaccination necessarily must modify small-pox, but I think the evidence given before the Royal Commission has shown that the first, the old view, the theory upon which this House voted £30,000 to Dr. Jenner, the theory which was held up to the time when we got this Royal Commission, must be given up. What is the history of this? Because, if we are going to pass the Second Reading of this Bill, we must understand something of our past legislation in regard to it. Looking at it from an historical standpoint, neither the medical profession nor this House, and especially the Local Government Board, have much cause to feel very strong, and to be very "cocky" about it. By the law of 1853 it is made an offence punishable with one month's imprisonment to do what the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons believed to be essentially the best method of dealing with this disease. Inoculation was then the officially recognised method. It was laid down that if a mild form of small-pox occurred, and that mild form was given to a healthy person, he was free from liability to it
  792
  afterwards. He took it under conditions which would not press very hard upon him, and the result was that inoculation prevailed, and was almost universal, like vaccination is at the present time. What was the result of that? The result was that you constantly had small-pox endemic. You kept it alive, and now and then you had waves of epidemic arising from this endemic condition. A century ago small-pox attained the highest degree of development it ever reached in this country, and the reason was because you constantly kept it there. At that time they began to give up inoculation, and then this discovery was made by Dr. Jenner. What was his discovery? He inoculated a number of children with cowpox, and then he afterwards tried to inoculate them with small-pox, and he found that after they had taken the cowpox they could not take small-pox. He came to the conclusion that the great bulk of the medical faculty thought that he had now discovered a perfect cure for the smallpox. I am speaking of what occurred in this House in the past. There is no man in this House now who would take the same view as was taken then, because of the present condition of things. We have had the law made compulsory since 1853, and we are told that in consequence there was much less small-pox, and that that was due to vaccination. It may be one of the effects, but I do not see it as my honourable Friend sees it, and I will tell you why. We have got the bills of mortality during the 18th century, and, whilst I readily admit that I do not think they are so accurate as the Returns of the Registrar General, still, we can glean from them what was the amount of the death rate from small-pox during that period. Since the last century—since vaccination was discovered, and has been put into practice—we have had two serious epidemics in this country, as a result of which there was a greater mortality than you have had at the worst time of the last century. In the 1871 and 1873 epidemics the number of cases and the mortality was very much greater than it was in the 18th century epidemics. Now my honourable Friend spoke of the influence of vaccination and re-vaccination in Germany, and also in our Army. Now, I have

  793
  been reading a very able pamphlet by Dr. Russell Worrold, who is a very able naturalist. He was the first man in this country to propound the theory of evolution, not that he was the author of it, as Dr. Darwin's book was in the hands of Dr. Hooker when Dr. Russell Worrold first sent home his paper on the theory of evolution. Dr. Darwin's book came out soon after. Dr. Russell Worrold is one of the ablest naturalists that we have, and he examined this question from the standpoint of the decision of the Royal Commission, and I should like to hear some reply, not from the Local Government Board, but from some one who has a greater technical knowledge of the subject than that gentleman. He gives, from 1864 to 1894–30 years—the Returns with regard to the Army and Navy. The Army small-pox death rate during those 30 years was 58 per million, and in the Navy 90 per million. Then he took Ireland—a badly vaccinated country—and found that the average was 15 and 45 per million. I say Ireland is badly vaccinated, because, although the towns are fairly well vaccinated, the country districts are not. So that, taking the whole of Ireland, you have 65 per million, whilst you have 90 per million in the Navy and 58 per million in the Army. So that you have 90 and 58 per million of picked lives, and in Ireland over the whole country you have only 65 per million. He also gives the Army and Navy against the towns. From 1873 to 1894 the death rate in the Army was 37 per million, and the Navy 6.8, taking the same ages, and in Leicester it was only 14.4. Now I must say, if these statistics are accurate—and they are accurate so far as Dr. Worrold is concerned—unless some explanation be given I must moderate my view with regard to the protection of vaccination and re-vaccination. My honourable Friend says that the Royal Commission was illogical. I think it was perfectly logical; the only argument which they could use was that infant mortality had lessened; but when they had got thus far there was a modification. They found that at about the age of ten years vaccination ceased to have any effect, and that, therefore, if you are to have vaccination you must of necessity have re-vaccination, which, in my
  794
  opinion, was a very logical and rational conclusion to come to. There are two views taken, and one of the things which has prejudiced me is, in my opinion, the stupid arguments on both sides of the House on this Debate. They have not taken into consideration the effect of sanitation, but they depended on vaccination, and vaccination has been a broken reed. What was the result of the inquiry in England, published in 1879 and 1880? I will read it to my honourable Friend. It is page 142 of the Report of the Commission which sat to inquire into the Sanitary Measures (India), and it says—
  "The vaccinations' returns throughout India show the same fact, that the number of vaccinations does not necessarily bear a ratio to the small-pox deaths. Small-pox in India is related to season, and also to epidemic prevalence. It is not a disease, therefore, that can be controlled by vaccination in the sense that vaccination is a specific against it. As an endemic and epidemic disease it must be dealt with by sanitary measures, and if these are neglected small-pox is certain to increase during epidemic times."
  Now, I think that is a most sensible course, and a most sensible Report, and it is the result of experience in India and of our experience here. Now, it is perfectly true that small-pox has lessened, but a number of other fevers have lessened still more. Typhus has lessened enormously, but it can hardly be said that it has been lessened by vaccination. On the contrary, the honourable Member for Deptford, in his argument, said he was a guardian for Mile End, and that seven years ago the guardians of Mile End determined to stop compulsory vaccination, and in the first year they had 80 cases in 142 days, and next year they had 42 cases in two days, and no deaths, and hence the argument that if you stop vaccination you stop small-pox. But you may, in some years, have epidemics of small-pox, you know. There have been cases of a very serious epidemic when you have the disease virulent in vaccinated towns and unvaccinated towns, as was the case in 1873, 1884, 1895, and 1896. Take that well-known, well-vaccinated town of Sheffield, one of the best vaccinated towns in the country, and then the badly—the still notoriously badly—vaccinated town of Leicester. Look at what a plague small-pox was in Sheffield,

  795
  and how easily they put it down and stamped it out in Leicester. Leicester went in for anti-vaccination, but, at the same time, it also went in for improved sanitation and for isolation, so that when the epidemic broke out there the case was sent away at once, and the result was that practically the disease had very little effect. Now, I do not know what views will be brought forward from the other side when we come to discuss the second clause of the Bill—the most important in the whole Bill, in my opinion. I am not going to discuss vaccination upon scientific principles. This is not the place to do it; but we want to get at the lines the present Bill is drafted on, and why you refuse to carry out the Report of the Commission. My honourable Friend who has spoken to-night has asked for a modification of Clause 2 upon the lines of the Commission, and I think it is perfectly clear that if you do not carry out the suggestion of vaccination and re-vaccination it is absolutely useless. I think if you take the view that vaccination is necessary, then re-vaccination is equally necessary, and the whole System should be carried out thoroughly and completely if you want any protection at all. You use the argument that if you do not vaccinate, the child who is not vaccinated may be a source of danger to the community, but then, for the same reason, a person who has lost the effect of vaccine also becomes as great a source, and if a parent has a conscientious objection why should you thrust this medical dogma down his throat. Vaccination has come through the ordeal without a stain upon its character, but all the methods adopted hitherto will have to be given up. We are going to have a new method adopted now, not really a new one, it is practically an old one; and I put the question to the President of the Local Government Board. I put some questions to him, and got the usual kind of reply, which we have received to nearly all the questions we bring before him—absolutely inaccurate replies. I asked him whether it was the case that the Madras reports had shown that they had been using this glycerinated lymph, and that in 7,000 cases they had found it to be detrimental to the persons vaccinated. I asked a much more important question.
  796
  I asked why the Sanitary Commissioners of Bengal had stopped using glycerinated lymph in Calcutta and Dargeeling, and whether they had not stopped its use because they found that it very soon deteriorated, and that the lymph sent out to them for use had become such a source of danger that they had been compelled to give it up. In the next case, I asked whether the medical advisers to the Local Government Board did not hold the same views. Why did I not get a reply? What are the facts? There was a case where 79 persons were vaccinated with this glycerinated lymph, and the whole 79 took disease. Sir George Barker said it was all owing to the state of the lymph, and was entirely caused by the glycerine being mixed with it. He said—
  "I trust that in this country we shall never have a case of this kind, because we shall not use such rubbish."
  The right honourable Gentleman is ignorant of the opinion of his own medical adviser. It seems to me that the trend of opinion is against this present system, and that it ought to be modified. Like the Commission, I have come to the conclusion that the modification is lessening every year, and if the statistics which I have quoted are correct, I am afraid it will have to be still further modified. I think the true method to be adopted is the method which the people of Leicester have been pursuing—to carry out perfect sanitation, and then, if you have an epidemic, isolate the infected persons. Then, if a person becomes a source of danger you have a right to isolate him, and so prevent the spread of the disease. I think that is the line we ought to adopt in the future.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have listened to the speech of my honourable Friend, and I must say I am as much in the dark at the end as to what he himself thinks as at the beginning, for he posed as an ardent vaccinator, and then as an anti-vaccinator. I cannot understand how any human being, with ordinary common-sense and eyesight, can have any doubt upon the question, or require statistics to show that vaccination has done infinite ser-

  797
  vice. When I was a boy in Ireland, one out of every four or five children was badly pitted with small-pox. Now, one cannot see one in every hundred so pitted. I suppose that must be the experience of every Member of this House. Take up the literature of the country, which is very often a good guide as to the social and other conditions of society, and you will find in the middle of the century that people in the higher classes were constantly mentioned as having been afflicted with small-pox. You never hear of that now. Take the statistics as quoted by the honourable Member for the Ilkeston Division, and which have never been contested seriously. An examination was made of 53,000 children in the schools in London, and it was found that of the children who were unvaccinated 360 out of every 1,000 were pitted with smallpox, and of those who were vaccinated only two in every 1,000. How are you to get over figures like these? Other figures show that in England generally one died for every 20 before vaccination, in Scotland one in every 25, in Sweden one for 12, and in Copenhagen one in every 24, and we are asked to go back to the time when this hideous holocaust of life took place every year, in order to preserve what was called "the liberty of the subject," liberty to spread pestilence and disease all around one. Now, Sir, I take another case. My honourable Friend who preceded me talked about the amount of disease that was brought about by vaccination, and there was one case of this disease which it was said had been communicated in that way, but you have only to talk common-sense in order to get a large number of people to believe you. In the first place, I do not think these observations about syphilis do apply to this Bill, which says that vaccination should take place from the lymph from a calf, and how could a calf communicate this loathsome disease? Look at the Report of the Royal Commission. Even under the old form of vaccination, in five years 299 deaths were attributed to vaccination, and of these deaths five were attributed to syphilis. Why, you would think it was something appalling? During those five years six or seven hundred thousand children were vaccinated every year, so that there were
  798
  three millions and a half vaccinated in the five years. These figures speak for themselves. I hope the Government will stand to their guns, and especially that they will not yield to the menace by which they have been threatened. An honourable Member on this side of the House said that, from a Party view, the Measure should be opposed. I am glad he was not alone in making that threat, because some similar threat was made from the Ministerial side. I hope no Government will ever pay attention to menaces of that kind. It is a matter which, in the opinion of reasonable men, irrespective of Party or political feeling, involves the deepest and highest interests of the community, and any Government which would place Party or political interest in front of the interest of the community in this respect I think is a Government which should be thrown from office by the joint votes of all honest and respectable men.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is now under discussion has been assailed by the opponents of vaccination because it does not abolish compulsion, whilst the supporters of vaccination have offered it a modified opposition because, as they put it, Clause 2 opens a door of escape. Now, in my opinion, the Bill was rightly described by the honourable Baronet the Member for Ipswich, who said it sought to make vaccination more acceptable to the masses of the people and to remove any danger which may have existed in the past. I think that was a proper description of the Bill. What is the problem which it is designed to meet? The Government do not propose to argue the question of vaccination. That they are content to take as settled—settled by facts and figures at home and abroad; settled by the weight of medical authority, and settled by the most conclusive Report of the Royal Commission. What the Government have had to deal with is a disinclination upon the part of a considerable section of the people to comply with the law, arising in some cases most assuredly from conscientious objections, and due, secondly, to ignorance and largely to indifference.

  799
  Now, where the conscientious objector refuses to have his child vaccinated on the ground of possible injury to the child—and I admit what was stated a few minutes ago by one speaker that, although it was a question ten or twelve years ago, it is now admitted that serious objection has arisen in a very small number of cases—I say that when that objection arises we hold that the new lymph ought to remove that objection; and where the objection arises from ignorance and indifference the visit of the public vaccinator to the home will, at all events, tend to get rid of that difficulty. Now, Sir, passing from the case for the Bill, let me say a word or two upon some of the objections which have been raised in the course of this Debate; and, although the Debate has spread over almost the entire evening, I must say that most of the objections were most admirably condensed in the speech of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Leicester, who opened the Debate. Now my honourable Friend put this as a question to the Government: Why ought the borough of Leicester to be coerced into a system which they believe to be wrong? May I answer that question in the Irish fashion by asking another? Why ought the borough of Leicester to claim the right to set aside the decision of Parliament? Because that in the end is what it comes to. Now, Sir, Leicester claims that right, and let us see the effect. A couple of years ago there was a most serious epidemic of small-pox in Gloucester. Gloucester was to a large extent an unvaccinated city, and the House will be able to appraise the strength of the conscientious objection there when I tell them this fact, that whenever the small-pox had got a good grip of the population, that same population which had this conscientious objection to vaccination trooped in its thousands to the public vaccination stations.
  DR. CLARK: Is it not the fact that it was because several prominent and other clubs refused to pay any sick pay unless the members were vaccinated?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am aware that some prominent anti-vaccinators were vaccinated. Now let us see how this operate. This city had claimed a right
  800
  to set aside the vaccination law, and was visited by this epidemic. Just see what danger there was of spreading the disease all round about. Why, when the epidemic was at its height a deputation from the neighbouring town of Cheltenham waited upon the Local Government Board. What was their case? I myself received the deputation, as my right honourable Friend was unable to be present. What was their case? They said, Here we are a town within seven miles of Gloucester, a town largely dependent upon the educational establishments which we have, and we are in special danger from this epidemic in Gloucester. All intercourse with Gloucester has been stopped, for Gloucester, by its neglect, had actually imperilled Cheltenham and every other town in the neighbourhood. Well, I say no town has a right to do that—a town has no right to set aside the decision of Parliament and spread the danger of disease to neighbouring communities. Very well. Now, my honourable Friend put another question, which was repeated in various forms afterwards by other honourable Members, but he put it very straight. He objected to the Local Government Board giving instructions to vaccinating officers to carry out prosecutions. He said boards of guardians in many places had refused to carry out these prosecutions, and he objected to the Local Government Board giving instruction to vaccinating officers to prosecute in such cases. The honourable Member for Northampton pressed the same objection. Now here again the question arises: ought any board of guardians, or ought any number of boards of guardians, to be at liberty of their own will to set aside the decision of Parliament? I say that Parliament ought to be supreme in these matters. Parliament has to take a view of the whole country; boards of guardians take merely a local view; and I maintain that no board of guardians has any right to set aside upon any question the decision of Parliament. If they object, let them alter that decision if they can, but until it is altered, and while the law remains, boards of guardians elected to administer the law have no right to set it aside. Now I should have thought—I may be entirely wrong, but I confess I should have thought—that many boards of

  801
  guardians would have welcomed the intervention of the vaccination officers as freeing them from what they consider a disagreeable duty. But, setting that aside, the honourable Member for Northampton asked this question plainly: Do the Local Government Board claim the power to initiate prosecutions? That was his first question. The Local Government Board claims no such power. The honourable Member then asked: Is it in the power of the Local Government Board to require the vaccinating officer to take proceedings? We have been advised that it is within the power of the Local Government Board, and in the view of the Board it is their duty, to require these officers to to act; but there is nothing about it in this Bill. This Bill does not touch that question at all. Whatever powers may be exercised in that direction must be exercised under Acts now on the Statute Book, and not under this Bill at all. All I have to say on behalf of the Local Government Board is this, that if it be their duty to require these officers to enforce the law, and to conduct prosecutions, they will not shrink from doing what is their duty in carrying out the law.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Do I understand the honourable Gentleman to say that the Local Government Board will take that course, whether this Bill passes or not?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What I am saying is that this Bill has nothing to do with those powers. Those powers, whatever they are, do not spring from this Bill, they spring from Acts already in existence, and the Local Government Board will take whatever steps they may decide it is their duty to take in carrying out the will of Parliament in this as in every other matter. Now, Sir, I come to the speech of the honourable Baronet the Member for Ipswich and the question of Clause 2 dealing with repeated penalties. Now, may I put it to the House in this way? Why has the Government Inserted that clause in this Bill? I am told it is illogical. The honourable Member for Northampton spoke of logic
  802
  as if that were the only consideration which this House ever paid any attention to. Why, Sir, I take some consolation when I remember a speech delivered at that box opposite by Mr. Disraeli once when he was in Opposition. Someone had been talking that night, just as the honourable Member has done, about logic, and Mr. Disraeli got up and said—
  "I beg to inform the honourable Member that this country is not governed by logic; it is governed by Parliament."
  Now, this clause may be logical or illogical, but it is necessary that it should be inserted in this Bill. Let us see the reasons that exist for its insertion. First of all, a Select Committee of this House recommended that cumulative penalties should be abolished, and on the strength of that recommendation the Local Government Board issued a circular, which is known as the Evesham circular, which practically left it largely in the discretion of boards of guardians to institute repeated prosecutions or not. Then we come to the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission also recommended the abolition of these repeated penalties. Now I say that is strong authority for the Government to stand behind—the Report of a Select Committee and the Report of a Royal Commission. But there is another reason, and I think an overwhelming reason, for the abolition of repeated penalties. If repeated penalties had secured the vaccination of the child, it might be the duty of the Government to stand by them; but repeated penalties have not secured the vaccination of the child, while they have secured martyrdom in the case of certain mistaken individuals. These are the reasons which have influenced the Government in abolishing these repeated and cumulative penalties. Now, my honourable Friend has stated that if we had been logical we should have insisted upon re-vaccination. At all events, the Royal Commission have not insisted upon it, and where they are not free to tread we may, I think, be excused from going too far upon the road. The honourable Member also said that in one recommendation of the Royal Commission a statutory declaration was proposed in relief of the conscientious objector. Now, our case is that the conscientious objector will be largely provided for;

  803
  first, when he finds that no danger can result in the operation of vaccination to his child; and secondly, he will be relieved to some extent, at all events, from the action of repeated penalties. I can hardly understand those Members who are opposed to vaccination so strongly objecting to this clause, because those honourable Members have been constantly pressing upon the Local Government Board the necessity for giving some relief in this direction, and for adopting the Report of the Select Committee. Well, now I come to the speech of the honourable Member for Northamptonshire. He said that the Government would be forced to admit by and by that compulsion was dead; and why? Because 127 boards of guardians had refused to put the law into operation. Yes, but there are 650 boards of guardians in this country, and a large number of the 127 boards who have acted in the way stated by the honourable Member have done so avowedly because they were waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission. Now, the honourable Member for Northampton also made rather merry over the question of lymph, and he asked a great number of questions upon it. He quoted, I think, from the Report of the Tuberculosis Commission, to show that disease might be communicated to children through lymph taken from diseased animals. That argument has been used by other Members. Let me relieve honourable Members' minds upon that point. I think it would be next to impossible to communicate any disease in that way. Every animal will be examined with a view to discovering whether it is diseased or not, and if it is found to be diseased it will be destroyed. Lymph will be used only from animals which are found to be perfectly free from disease after examination. Now, what has been one of the main cries of the anti-vaccinationists in this country? One of their main cries has been that syphilis is communicated by vaccination. That will be impossible in the future, for the great recommendation of the new lymph is that the glycerine destroys any organism that may possibly exist in it, while it absolutely adds to the efficacy of the lymph itself. I think these facts ought to go a long way to satisfy even
  804
  those who are conscientiously opposed to vaccination on these grounds. Now, Sir, I do not know that it is necessary to say more. I have dealt with the main arguments that have been advanced by the opponents of the Bill to-night, and I think, after the two days' discussion that we have had—a lengthened and a full discussion—we may now be permitted to take the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. WHITTAKER: I venture to suggest that we have no right to enforce a law of this kind unless we are perfectly sure that the protection will be complete, and also that we have no right to compel vaccination unless we are going to secure it in every person who is likely to be dangerous to the community. Neither of those conditions is secured by this Bill. We have had a great deal of medical authority quoted to us. I suppose we would all pay a great deal of attention to medical authority, but when it comes to the question of compulsion by fine, and it may be by imprisonment, we want something a little more impressive than medical authority. It was medical authority that pressed the practice of inoculation on the people of this country. The honourable Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool in a very dramatic manner, recited how, in his early days, he had seen one out of every four or fiver persons pitted with small-pox. Does he remember that that was the result of what was done when inoculation with small-pox was practically universally carried out? Yes; the medical profession inoculated the people of this country, they spread small-pox far and wide, and at last it had to be made penal by an Act of Parliament to carry out the very operation which the medical profession recommended should be carried out; and the cessation of the practice of inoculation was sufficient to account, in large measure, for the disappearance of small-pox. Do honourable Gentlemen mean to suggest that if you inoculate with small-pox you will not, of necessity, have a great many people marked with small-pox? Then my argument is that if you cease to inoculate you necessarily materially diminish the number of people so marked.

  805
  As a matter of fact, vaccination does not sufficiently protect, and the statistics prove it. In Sheffield 88 per cent. of the persons who took small-pox were vaccinated; in Warrington 89 per cent. of those who took the disease were vaccinated; in Leicester 57 per cent. of those who took it were vaccinated; in Dewsbury 64 per cent. of those who took it were vaccinated. These are figures taken from the statistics presented by the Royal Commission. In Sheffield 9½ per cent. of the cases died; in Warrington 9½ per cent. died; but in Leicester, which is not a well-vaccinated town, the death rate was under 6 per cent. Sir, there is a great deal of doubt about the statistics furnished by the medical profession. One significant feature of this Debate was the speech of the honourable Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire, when he said that members of the medical profession, to which he himself belongs, do not properly vaccinate, that they deliberately vaccinate inefficiently. He charged his brethren in the profession with deliberately vaccinating inefficiently in order to please the parents.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: The honourable Member is misrepresenting me grossly. I said, and I still assert, that some medical men do not vaccinate properly. That I am prepared to prove to the satisfaction of the House and the honourable Member. I am not prepared to allow him to say that I made a general charge against the profession.
  MR. WHITTAKER: I did not say that the honourable Member made a general charge. I said he had stated that medical men did vaccinate inefficiently, and he has admitted that. He said there were hundreds of cases in Birmingham where this was done, and he gave as his reason for making that statement that those were the children, who passed as vaccinated children, who took the small-pox. If we have medical men who will fail in their duty in such a respect, who will deceive the Government and the public by reporting that children have been efficiently vaccinated when they know that they have not been efficiently vaccinated, what reliance can we place on the statistics furnished by them? With reference to cases of disease transmitted by vaccination, it is with the utmost difficulty that you can get medical men or the Local
  806
  Government Board to admit that such cases have occurred. Reference has been made to the Leeds case. In order to explain the undoubted fact that a horrible disease had been conveyed by vaccination, the Local Government Board slandered the parent by suggesting that he himself had had that disease. That was proved to be grossly untrue. It was proved beyond all doubt that the disease was transmitted by vaccination. Yes, rather than admit that, they did not stop from slandering the parent, without the slightest evidence whatever. Then, further, I say you have no right to compel an operation of this kind unless it be for the protection of the community. It is not sufficient that vaccination should make the attack milder if small-pox be taken, because it is admitted by the medical profession that a mild attack in one case may transmit a very severe and virulent attack to another person. But further, if vaccination be a sufficient protection, then the person in danger can protect himself against that danger, and he has no right to demand that another person should be vaccinated in order to protect him. No one has a right to demand that I shall be vaccinated, lest I communicate small-pox to him, if he believes that vaccination will be a protection, because he can vaccinate himself and protect himself against the danger; and he has no right to demand that an operation should be inflicted upon me in order to protect him if there are means available by which he can protect himself. That is an answer to the nurses' argument. If it be true that the nurses are protected by re-vaccination, it is clearly open to any person to protect himself by having himself vaccinated, and he has no right to demand that others should be vaccinated. But does not the mere fact that they demand that others should be vaccinated show that they themselves do not believe in it? Reference was made by one honourable Member to the case of Cheltenham and Gloucester. Cheltenham demanded protection against Gloucester. If Cheltenham believed that vaccination would be a protection, Cheltenham could have vaccinated itself, and it had no right to demand that Gloucester should vaccinate in order to protect Cheltenham. Further than that, if you vaccinate

  807
  in order to protect the community, you ought to vaccinate all susceptible persons—all persons who are likely to spread small-pox. What I would suggest is that the Local Government Board should have the courage of their convictions. If vaccination is a protection against this terrible disease, then they ought to insist upon re-vaccination. They ought to insist that every person who is liable to spread this disease should be vaccinated and re-vaccinated when necessary. It is their duty to do that. If they know that that is a protection, and the only protection, and they fail to bring a Bill into this House to enforce that protection, they are neglecting their duty. If it is not a protection, they have no right to enforce it only on those who cannot afford to pay. I venture to say that this Bill is absurd; it is unjust, it is ridiculous. It justifies the contention that the Local Government Board is anything but clear in its own mind upon this matter. If vaccination is necessary for protection from small-pox, even the conscientious objector ought not to be allowed to escape from vaccination by the payment of one fine or two fines. If vaccination is not necessary, then I say the infliction of a fine is persecution, and is utterly indefensible. If the Local Government Board mean to give up compulsion as impracticable—which is really what this Bill comes to—let them give it up frankly and entirely, and rely upon persuasion. If they offered to pay medical men something for every person vaccinated, whether in the course of their private practice or at public institutions, I venture to say that that would lead to a greater extension of vaccination than will the provisions of this Bill. There is a very old saying that you will catch many more flies with treacle than with vinegar. No one, except the honourable Member for the Scotland Division, has given a whole-hearted support to this Bill. It is a Bill that is too ridiculous to satisfy anyone; it does not satisfy the medical profession, and it will not remove the opposition to vaccination. It will aggravate rather than allay that opposition; evasion of the law will be encouraged, and the result will be that you will get fewer persons vaccinated than ever.
  MR. ALLAN: I do not pretend to be an expert in this matter, or competent to take part in the discussion on its technical side, but I should like to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board this question: the Bill provides that the Local Government Board shall have the power of making "rules and regulations with respect to public vaccinators," and then it goes on, "and any rules or regulations made by the Board with respect to vaccination." I want to ask why the word "vaccinators" is not used in the last case instead of "vaccination"? Under these words it would be competent for the Local Government Board to frame any rules or regulations "with respect to vaccination." That, surely, would not be sanctioned by Parliament.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I would point out that the words quoted by the honourable Member refer not to the vaccination officers, but to public vaccinators.
  MR. ALLAN: Then the phraseology of the Bill is erroneous. It implies that the Local Government Board may make "any rules or regulations with respect to vaccination." It would be possible, I maintain, under those words for the Local Government Board to make any rules or regulations they choose, and compel guardians to carry them out. Either the phraseology of the Bill is wrong, or it confers upon the Local Government Board powers which they have no right to have.
  MR. J. W. WILSON: I do not wish to enter into the extremely technical matters that have been raised in the course of this Debate, but I think this House reflects the views of the country in feeling that it is not prepared to do away altogether with the present vaccination laws. The mere fact that the present state of the law gives rise to some abuses, and to a great deal of mal-administration or non-administration, has undoubtedly been established, and many of us have been eagerly awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission in order to discover the means of ensuring that the law should not be set openly at defiance by the very bodies who are entrusted with the administration of that law. I believe

  809
  this Bill is an attempt to bring the law into better harmony with the general views entertained in the country, and to do away with abuses by providing better means of vaccination, by providing for domiciliary visits, and by lengthening the period allowed for vaccination. But I do feel that clause 2, which deals with the provision against repetition of penalties, does not quite convey what it is represented to mean. If we intend really to do away with repeated prosecutions, I hope that will be made quite clear. What I desire is that those who have conscientious objections to vaccination shall be free from the penalties they have at present to undergo. I think the penalties now imposed tend to stir up opposition to vaccination among people who otherwise would not object to it. Martyrdom has a great attraction for numbers of people, and the very imposition of penalties,
  resistance to which gives some little notoriety, brings about opposition from people who would in the ordinary course hardly think of the matter at all. If it were possible to frame some kind of conscience clause, which would enable the really conscientious objector to escape the law, while compelling the merely indifferent to have their children vaccinated, that would commend itself to my mind; but I confess I see great difficulty in framing such a clause. However, I think that the exact meaning and intention of Clause 2 ought to be made plain. That can, no doubt, be done when the Bill gets into Committee. Agreeing with the general scope of the Bill, I intend to vote for the Second Reading.
  The House divided:—Ayes 237; Noes 23.—(Division List No. 91.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Crean, Eugene

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)

  Daly, James

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Denny, Colonel

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith-

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dillon, John

  Hardy, Laurence

  Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Doughty, George

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Duckworth, James

  Helder, Augustus

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Bethell, Commander

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Holburn, J. G.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Bond, Edward

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Brassey, Albert

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Caldwell, James

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Carew, James Laurence

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Carlile, William Walter

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Kenyon, James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Kimber, Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Flower, Ernest

  Knowles, Lees

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Labouchere, Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lafone, Alfred

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Lambert, George

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Garfit, William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M.'T.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Strauss, Arthur

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pinkerton, John

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lowles, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Thorburn, Walter

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Purvis, Robert

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Tully, Jasper

  McCalmont, H. L. B. ((Jambs.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ure, Alexander

  McEwan, William

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  McKillop, James

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Warkworth, Lord

  McLaren, Chas. Benjamin

  Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Manners, Lord Edw. W. J.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Round, James

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Monk, Charles James

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  More, Robert Jasper

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Morgan, H. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc., N.)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalyb'ge)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mount, William George

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Woodall, William

  Murnaghan, George

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Sir William Walrond and

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

  Greville, Captain

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ascroft, Robert

  Hazell, Walter

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Billson, Alfred

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W. R.)

  Burns, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Cawley, Frederick

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Davitt, Michael

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Mr. Thomas Bayley and

  Gibney, James

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Mr. Steadman.

  Bill read a second time.

  Question put, and agreed to—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I protest against the course proposed by the right honourable Gentleman. This is a matter upon which a very strong view is entertained by honourable Members on both sides of the House. A
  812
  great many of us have voted for this Bill believing that it would reduce the penalties, and so was in favour to that extent of those who opposed compulsion, but we did so with the intention of moving Amendments in Committee, and really I do not think it is reasonable of the right honourable Gentleman now to take the Bill entirely out of the hands of the House, and send it to a Grand Committee. I certainly should not have voted for the Second Reading of the Bill if I had supposed that the Government contemplated such a course of procedure for a moment.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I have taken no part in this Debate, although a great number of my constituents (and I daresay this will apply to many Members of this House) hold a very strong view with regard to this Bill, and desire that Amendments shall be introduced into it. As Amendments can be made in Committee, I did not think it right to oppose the Second Reading. But the moment it is proposed to send the Bill to a Grand Committee, and to take away from us the possibility of discussing the Measure in Committee of the whole House, the matter stands on a very different footing. In the first place, the Grand Committee to which it is proposed to refer this Bill is, I believe, already overburdened with work. A large number of Bills have already been referred to it, and the consequence is that this Bill will not receive all the attention it deserves at the hands of the Committee. I for one—and I think many others take the same view—will certainly oppose the sending of this Bill to a Grand Committee. We are strongly of opinion that it ought to be discussed in full Committee of the whole House, so that honourable Members whose constituents take strong views on certain points of detail should be able to have their Amendments fully discussed.
  MR. CHANNING: It has been a well-understood rule, with regard to sending Bills to Grand Committees, that only Bills should be dealt with in that way which are practically non-controversial. Now, anyone acquainted with the state of opinion on this subject in many constituencies in this country will know very well that this Bill is highly controversial. Therefore it is grossly unfair to those constituencies—I do not say they are the majority of constituencies in this country, I do not say they are even a large number, but they are, at any rate, a considerable number, and I think it is very unfair to them that any attempt should be made to remove this Bill from fair discussion on the floor of the House by honourable Members who are interested in it. I would also draw the attention of the right honourable Gentleman and of the House to the fact that many honourable Mem-
  814
  bers are absent to-night, not knowing that this Bill would come on, whose constituencies are keenly interested in the subject. The honourable Member for Keighley represents a division, the whole board of guardians of which went to prison rather than administer the vaccination laws. There are other constituencies in the same position. I venture to say that to send this Bill to the Grand Committee would be a flagrant breach of the spirit in which these Grand Committees were constituted, which is to carry on the discussion of the details of Bills in regard to the principle of which there is general unanimity. It would be grossly unfair to the constituencies, who feel so keenly upon this question, to remove the discussion of the Bill from the floor of this House. In the constituency I represent the board of guardians have refused, and rightly, in my opinion, to prosecute for breaches of the Vaccination Act. This will be a gross breach of the rights of local self-government. They will feel it to be most unfair that their representatives should be deprived of the opportunity of discussing the details of this Bill on the floor of the House in the usual manner.
  SIR W. FOSTER: During the course of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill I stated that I was not satisfied with all its details, and I said I should vote for the Second Reading in the hope that the Bill would be amended in Committee. I think there are several ways in which the Bill could be improved in some of its details; but, Sir, as I am anxious that I should get those Amendments made to the Bill, I shall certainly support the Motion of the right honourable Gentleman opposite. In the Division against the Second Reading only 23 honourable Members were to be found to vote against the Bill. If the Bill is referred to a Grand Committee, we shall have added to the Grand Committee certain Members representing the views held on this question in different quarters of the House, and I hope that I should have before the Grand Committee a larger body of support for my Amendments than I should on the floor of the House itself. Having voted for the

  815
  Second Reading, and being desirous to get the Bill amended, I shall certainly vote in favour of the proposal to refer it to the Grand Committee.
  MR. BAYLEY: It was certainly the general understanding, on this side at any rate, that the Bill was to be discussed in Committee of the whole House. This is a Bill making acts criminal acts which were not crimes before, and its details require most careful consideration. If the right honourable Gentleman had told us before the Division on the Second Reading took place that the Bill was to be sent to a Grand Committee, I venture to think that the numbers in that Division would have been very different. This is a question affecting the liberties of Her Majesty's subjects, and there are Amendments which we are going to move, and which we have been expecting to be able to move in Committee of the whole House, but which we shall not have the right to move upstairs. Under those circumstances, I hope the Government will reconsider their decision, and let us discuss the Bill fairly on its merits in Committee of this House itself.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The Motion I have made no doubt affords a very convenient excuse to honourable Members for the very remarkable manifestation of opinion which has just been expressed on this question, but I am afraid it will not avail them. It may be hard lines on the honourable Gentleman opposite who divided the House against the Second Reading and failed to find more than 23 supporters. He is perfectly well aware that if the Bill is committed in the ordinary way to Committee of the whole House, it will have no possible chance of becoming law during the present Session. Under these circumstances the honourable Member must not be surprised if I decline to accept his proposal. It is my desire to see this Bill passed into law, and the Division which has just taken place proves that that is the general desire on the part of the House. I believe the numbers in that Division quite reflect the feeling of the House, and in order that the Bill may have a chance of passing into law this Session I shall do everything in my power to refer it to the Standing Committee.
  MR. S. EVANS: Like the right honourable Gentleman, I also desire that the Bill should pass into law during the present Session, but it is on that very ground I object to its going to a Standing Committee. The right honourable Gentleman who has just addressed the House is not a member of the Grand Committee on Law, and he may not be aware how full up that Committee is with work. Such an important Bill as this will have no chance of passing through the Committee and coming back to the House in time for its becoming an Act during the present Session. I object to the Bill going to a Standing Committee on principle. It has become a great deal too much the fashion to refer important Bills to the Standing Committees. The effect will be before very long to abrogate the Committee stage of Bills in this House altogether. If that is going to be done, let it be done openly. I venture to say that it is not quits fair, in a case where there is such strong opposition to a Bill as there is in this case undoubtedly, that no notice should have been given to the House before the Second Reading that it was the intention to refer it to a Grand Committee. I know that several honourable Members who desired to be present during the Second Reading discussion have been absent to-night simply because they had no idea that the Seventh Order of the Day would be reached. I think it ought to be considered to be the duty of the Government with regard to any Bill of this class, if it is their intention to move that it be sent to a Standing Committee or any Committee other than that of the whole House, to put a notice on the Paper to that effect. There is no notice to that effect on the Paper in this case, and I think my honourable Friends who are protesting against this Motion are quite justified in doing so, and if they go to a Division, although I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, and desire to see it passed, I shall vote against this proposal of the Government.
  DR. CLARK: This is the second Bill that we shall have sent to the Grand Committee on Law to-day. I am a Conservative in my view with regard to the privileges of this House, and I

  817
  fancy that if a proposal of this kind relating to a measure of this kind had been proposed by a Liberal Government, honourable Members opposite would have met the proposal with very strong opposition. The right honourable Gentleman has referred to the small number of honourable Members who voted against the Second Reading. I cannot understand why my honourable Friend went to a Division at all against the Second Reading, seeing that the Bill does away with the severe penalties which exist at the present time, and very much modifies the present procedure, and all that is necessary now is to reform Clause 2.
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member must not discuss the clauses of the Bill on this Motion.
  DR. CLARK: I simply want to point out that far the second time to-night an important Bill is proposed to be sent to one of the Grand Committees, and I warn honourable Gentlemen opposite that if they persist in the policy of referring first-rate, or even second-rate, Measures to the Grand Committees, there is danger that the same measure will be meted out to them when they are opposing Bills proposed by Gentlemen now sitting on this side of the House.
  The House divided:—Ayes 301; Noes 50.—(Division List No. 92.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Kenyon, James

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Knowles, Lees

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lafone, Alfred

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith-

  Fison, Frederick William

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lowe, Francis William

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lowles, John

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Flower, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Bond, Edward

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brassey, Albert

  Garfit, William

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Butcher, John George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  McEwan, William

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  McKillop, James

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Charrington, Spencer

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Monk, Charles James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hardy, Laurence

  More, Robert Jasper

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmthsh.)

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Helder, Augustus

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Mount, William George

  Crean, Eugene

  Howell, William Tudor

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Denny, Colonel

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Penn, John

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Warkworth, Lord

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'T.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc., N.)

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Round, James

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Woodall, William

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Thorburn, Walter

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Sir William Walrond and

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Ure, Alexander

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Doughty, George

  Pinkerton, John

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Duckworth, James

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bethell, Commander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Billson, Alfred

  Gibney, James

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Birrell, Augustine

  Greville, Captain

  Steadman, William Charles

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Hazell, Walter

  Strachey, Edward

  Burns, John

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks., W. R.)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  McLaren, Charles Benjamin

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Daly, James

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Davitt, Michael

  Murnaghan, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Dillon, John

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Mr. Labouchere and Mr.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ascroft.

  Bill committed.

  TELEPHONES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report whether the telephone service is or is not calculated to become of such general benefit as to justify its being undertaken by municipal and other local authorities, regard being had to local finance; and, if so, whether such local authorities should have power to undertake such service in the districts of other local authorities outside the area of their own jurisdiction, but comprised wholly or partially in the same telephone area, and what powers, duties, and obligations ought to be conferred or imposed upon
  820
  such local authorities; that the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Telephone Service in the Session of 1895, and the Report of the Commissioner and the Evidence taken before him in the inquiry recently held at Glasgow, be referred to the Committee for consideration in so far as they relate to the subject of the present inquiry; that the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members; that Mr. Bartley, Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, Sir Harry Bullard, Mr. Cawley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Colville, Mr. Firbank, Mr. Fry, Mr. Hanbury, Sir Reginald Hanson, Sir Henry Howorth, Sir James Joicey, Mr. Nicol, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Tully, and Sir James Woodhouse, be members of the Committee; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that Five be the quorum."—(Sir William, Walrond.)
  House adjourned at 12.10.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  WALKER'S ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
  Judge's Report received: Bill presented, and read first time.
  NEWTOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: Orders made on 28th February last and 5th instant discharged; Bill committed.
  GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from Select Committee with amendments.
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Queen's consent, and consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
  Read second time, and committed: Committee to be proposed by Committee of Selection.
  SHERINGHAM AND BEESTON PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time; Passed, and sent to Commons.
  MARKET HARBOROUGH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time; Passed, and sent to Commons.
  DUNDEE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time; Passed, and sent to Commons.
  HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Read third time, with amendment; Passed, and returned to Commons.
  WHITWICK AND COALVILLE GAS BILL.
  Read third time, with amendments; Passed, and returned to Commons.
  BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICKSHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  Brought from Commons; read first time; and referred to Examiners.
  WISHAW WATER BILL.
  Brought from Commons; read first time; and referred to Examiners.
  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from Commons with amendments agreed to.
  HART'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the case, returned from the Commons.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  2.—Miscellaneous Series: Reports on Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:

  No. 2,076. Russia (Taganrog);

  No. 2,077. France (Marseilles);

  No. 2,078. Spain (Bilbao);

  No. 2,079. China (Pakhoi).

  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  2. Miscellaneous Series: Reports on subjects of General and Commercial Interest:
  No. 456. United States: Report on immigration into the United States:
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return showing—
  1. The expenditure from the grant for public education in England and Wales in the year 1897, upon annual grants to elementary schools.
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  2. The actual number of public elementary day schools on the Annual Grant List on the 31st August, 1897; the accommodation and number of scholars in those schools.
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  3. Detailed statistics of inspected schools, 1896–97: Public elementary day schools, evening continuation schools, and certified efficient schools; the accommodation, number of scholars, teachers employed, particulars of grant earned, income, expenditure, etc.
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  4. Summary tables of educational statistics; and
  5. Number of school boards under various heads of population.
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 2nd May, 1898, granting a retired allowance to Mr. Edward Aslat, civil engineer, Walmer, under the Board of Admiralty, under section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Against sale of, on Sundays: From Derby and Derbyshire.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read third time To-morrow.

  LONDON UNIVERSITY (COMMISSION) BILL.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: As there is considerable anxiety with reference to the progress of the London University (Commission) Bill, I wish to ask the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council, to whom I have given private notice, whether he can give any information as to the intentions of the Government in regard to the pushing forward of this Bill in the other House?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I have communicated on this subject with my right honourable Friend the Leader of the other House. The arrangements for business in that House will, of course, depend mainly on the progress of the Irish Local Government Bill. As soon as that Bill is disposed of, my right honourable Friend assures me that the London University (Commission) Bill will have a prominent place amongst those Measures which the Government intend to endeavour to pass during the remainder of the Session.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill, to which I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, although a public Bill, is put forward on behalf of the University of Aberdeen, to extricate that University from a difficulty in which it has been placed by an omission in the Universities (Scotland) Acts. My Lords, by the Universities (Scotland) Acts, it is enacted that, after due investigation, and for sufficient cause shown, the University may call upon a Professor to retire from his Chair, and upon a retiring allowance. My Lords, so far as the University of Aberdeen is concerned, there is, under the Statute and under the Ordinances which regulate that University, no power to pension a Professor who
  658
  has filled his Chair for less than ten years. Unfortunately, a case has arisen with reference to the Chair of Biblical Criticism which is an exception, I am glad to say, to the general rule, but which presents considerable difficulties. In the year 1893 that Chair became vacant, and soon after the appointment had been filled—very soon, indeed—unfortunately considerable dissatisfaction was expressed, both by the students and otherwise, with regard to the qualifications of the gentle man who had been appointed to the Chair. My Lords, I do not think it is necessary to go at length into these circumstances, because they form the subject of investigation by the Universities Committee, and also by a Committee of the Privy Council, but the result was that in the year 1896 the Senate of the University and the University Court recommended that the Professor should be retired from his Chair, which at that time he had only occupied for three years, upon a retiring allowance. That resolution, on their part, came before Her Majesty in Privy Council, and was approved of with this exception, that it was pointed out that there was in the University of Aberdeen no fund upon which the Professor's retiring allowance could be secured. My Lords, that occurred more than a year ago, and since that time the University has been endeavouring to discover some fund upon which they might base this payment, and secure it to the Professor. In the meantime, of course, the Chair has not been declared vacant. The Professor still occupies the Chair, although he does not deliver lectures. After exhausting all modes of inquiry at their disposal, and appealing to the Treasury in vain, the University came to the conclusion that the only course—a course which they did not think very desirable, but which was the only course open to them—was to secure the retiring allowance in this particular course upon the emoluments of the Chair. My Lords, a Bill to effect this object was drawn up. It was approved by the University Court and by the Senate, and was submitted to the

  659
  Chancellor of the University and also to Her Majesty's Government. The Bill in itself is a simple one, and consists only of one enacting clause. It provides that—
  "When the University Court, under the powers conferred by the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1858, Section twelve, Sub-section five, and by the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, Section six, Sub-section six, has required a Professor to retire from office upon a retiring allowance, and when there are, in the opinion of the University Court, no other available funds from which such allowance can be paid, it shall be lawful for the University Court to make the same chargeable upon the future emoluments of the Chair, and when such requisition to retire from office has been approved by Her Majesty in Council, all the emoluments of the Chair shall from the date of such approval, but so long only as said retiring allowance is payable, be paid and belong to the University Court, for the following purposes, namely, firstly for payment of the said retiring allowance, and secondly, so far as regards the whole emoluments thereafter remaining, for the sole use and occupation of the Professor in office in the said Chair."
  That, my Lords, is the whole effect of the Bill, and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): The noble Lord who has brought in this Bill has stated the case for it, so far as I think it is necessary at this stage to state it, with perfect accuracy and completeness. I do not think it is possible for me to add anything to strengthen the case which he has made out for the Bill, and I have no hesitation in saying that I hope your Lordships will consent to give it a Second Reading.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I propose to take the Report to-morrow, and as it is desirable that it should proceed as rapidly as possible, so that the Chair may be filled up, I also propose to ask your Lordships to-morrow to allow the Bill to be freed from the stage of Standing Committee.
  House adjourned at 4.40.