said, in consequence of the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick W. Heygate), he begged to ask the Question which stood in his name; and, in the absence of the noble Marquess the Chief Secretary, perhaps the Solicitor General for Ireland would answer it. The Question was, Whether, in the event of his not bringing in this year any Bill to facilitate the erection of Labourers houses in Ireland, the regulations of the Board of Works respecting Labourers' houses to be in future erected by Government loans can be made less stringent, so as to include houses of a less expensive kind?

said, in reply, his noble Friend the Chief Secretary would not be able to bring in a Bill on the subject this year. His noble Friend had carefully considered the whole question; but the regulations respecting labourers' houses and the loans for their erection were matters on which it was necessary to consult the Board of Works in Ireland; and a correspondence was now going on relating to the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the Petition of Mr. Barry, a late assistant messenger of the London Court of Bankrupty, praying the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to award compensation to him on account of his employment having been abolished by "The Bankruptcy Act, 1869;" whether it is not within the power of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to award compensation to Mr. Barry under section 131 of "The Bankruptcy Act, 1869," on account of his employment having been abolished by the operation of that Act; whether it is not the fact that a large fund exceeding £100,000 in amount was formed in the Court of Bankruptcy partly out of deductions from the sums charged to bankrupt's estates for the services of the assistant messengers, and that this fund has been paid over to the Consolidated Fund; whether he is prepared under the circumstances to recommend such compensation to be made; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Copy of the Petition, Correspondence, and other Papers relating to the subject?

said, in reply, that the attention of the Lords of the Treasury had been called to the Petition of Mr. Barry, a late assistant messenger of the London Court of Bankruptcy, praying for compensation on account of his employment having been abolished by the Bankruptcy Act of 1869. They had no power under the 131st section of that Act to award compensation to Mr. Barry. He had no doubt been a loser by the passing of the Act; now that estates were in the hands of creditors they employed their own agents to get in the assets, it not being necessary to employ the messengers of the Court; the office which Mr. Barry held was therefore much less remunerative than it would otherwise have been. The Commissioners were only able to make compensation when the office had been abolished; but in this case the office had not been abolished, and therefore they could not give compensation. No good purpose would be served by printing the Petition and the answer to it. There was no further information regarding the case than his hon. Friend's Question and this explanation had already given.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will suggest and support any proposal calculated to avoid the serious inconvenience and disadvantage consequent on the frequent introduction of very important legislation at so late a period of the Session, and at such hours in the morning, when Members of this House are physically incapacitated for the careful and efficient performance of their duties? There were now no fewer than 43 Orders of the Day on the Paper for that evening.

With regard, Sir, to the number of Orders of the Day, I can only say that, so far as I am aware, the number of Orders in the hands of the Government is not at all unusual. Speaking from recollection rather than from any minute calculation, it is within, not beyond, what it usually is at this period of the Session—that is, with so many days of labour as we have still before us. With regard to the number of private Members' Orders on the Paper, my impression is that it is large; but we have no means of controlling that number. It is entirely for private Members to consider at what period they should drop those Orders, and when they should give up all idea of being able to carry their Bills. But as to the general question, I think it well worthy of consideration. I do not think there would be any advantage in attempting to indicate any views I may entertain as to the mode of dealing with it, because it can only be met by some regulation as to the sittings of the House. But when the House shall proceed to the consideration of new regulations for that purpose, which, no doubt, it will do at an early period of next Session, the point to which the hon. Baronet has referred is one very fit and proper to be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is correct that the Acting Chaplain to the Troops stationed at the Preston Barracks, Brighton, has been summarily dismissed without notice; and, if such is the case, whether it is usual so to dismiss a Chaplain without any proper notice, or without stating any reason?

It is usual, Sir, to appoint to the acting chaplaincy the incumbent of a church near to the barracks. In this case the troops left Brighton in April, and the barracks were not again occupied till June. On this occasion it was thought expedient to put the troops under the care of the Vicar of Brighton instead of under that of a curate of one of the incumbents. This is the more usual practice, and it has been explained to the former acting chaplain that there was no intention of casting any slur upon him.

asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government can assure the House that the measures for the abolition of Slavery in Cuba and Porto Rico, which the last Spanish Ministry had undertaken to introduce in the coming Session of the Cortes, will be taken up by the new Government; and, if not, whether the Government will be prepared to urge upon Spain the fulfilment of the Treaty obligations for the abolition of Slavery by which she is bound to Great Britain?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the new Government in Spain has any intention of withdrawing from the policy adopted, though not yet carried out, by the late Ministry, with reference to the abolition of the slave trade in Cuba and Porto Rico; this country has not failed, through her Representative at Madrid, to offer suggestions and encouragement in this matter in a friendly and temperate spirit; and the late elections for the Cortes are a proof that the party of Abolitionists has been numerically increased.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it be true, as stated in one of the military newspapers, that the vacant political office of Judge Advocate General is about to be re-filled; and whether he will not delay doing so till the House can decide by Select Committee or otherwise whether that office is not sinecure and unnecessary?

Sir, the office of Judge Advocate General is not vacant; it is held by the Judge of the Court of Admiralty. The political office is vacant, since it is inseparable from the judicial office, and no provision is made for the discharge of the Parliamentary duties of the office. The question of the discharge of those duties will have to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War; but I am not sure whether it will not be wise to postpone any action in the matter until the House can inquire into it. Of course we shall proceed to fill up the office on our responsibility in case we find any inconvenience arising from the continuance of the present arrangement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Which are the Government Manufacturing Establishments and Workshops that are exempt from the operation of the Factory and Workshop Regulation Acts, and which those wherein the Government claims to exercise a dispensing power; and, if he will state the section or sections of the Act or Acts under which the exemption or dispensing power is conferred?

, said, in reply, all manufacturing establishments and workshops connected with the Government were exempt from the operation of these and any Acts unless specifically mentioned in them, and it was clear that there was not the same reason for subjecting them to the Factory Acts that there was in the case of private establishments, which had a practical interest in urging to the utmost the labour of women and children for the purpose of gain, on account of the competition to which they were exposed. No such motive existed in the case of Government establishments; at the same time he must repeat the assurance he gave the other day that, as a general rule, they were conducted in uniformity with the Acts. It was only in cases of extraordinary emergency they were not observed; but it must be remembered that children under 13 were not employed in Government establishments, and any unusual pressure on those employed was made as slight as was compatible with the exigencies of the moment.

asked what were the exempting sections?

said, there were none; but the Crown was not included in any Act unless specifically named, and it could not come under definitions applicable to places carried on for the purposes of gain.

gave notice of his intention to propose the insertion of a clause on this subject in the Bill before Parliament.

asked, whether the definitions extended to the Postal and Telegraph Departments, in which women and children were employed?

said, it would be necessary, before answering that question, to communicate with the Postmaster General.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can give any information as to the number of Workshops which will come under the operation of the "Factories and Workshops Regulation Acts Amendment Bill" now before the House, if it become Law, and how many additional Assistant or Sub-assistant Inspectors it will be necessary to appoint in order efficiently to carry out the Act; and what he estimates will be the cost of the inspection?

said, in reply, that he had for some time directed the attention of the inspectors of factories to this subject, and they estimated that the number of workshops which must be included under this Act was about 100,000, but the greater number of them, employed only about one-fifth of the women and children who were employed in factories properly so-called. The question of the number of inspectors to be employed, irrespective of the transfer of the Workshops Regulations Act to the factory inspectors, had been for some time under consideration. He thought that it would be admitted that no two public officers could have performed their important duties with greater zeal and discretion than Mr. Redgrave and Mr. Baker; and both of these officers were of opinion that under the then state of the law a very considerable reduction indeed in the number of factory inspectors and sub-inspectors might be safely made. In 1833, vast numbers of children were employed in these factories, and the great object was to guard against the employment of children illegally; and a very large proportion of the time of the inspectors was taken up in examining registers and certificates of age. At present the public feeling as to these statutes had entirely changed; both masters and men thoroughly supported the Acts, and therefore such supervision as was formerly necessary was now no longer required. The opinion, therefore, was that less strict regulations might be made, and that there might be a large reduction in the number of sub-inspectors. The opinion of Mr. Redgrave and Mr. Baker was that under the new Act, by adding three sub-inspectors to each of their districts, an efficient inspection of workshops and factories might be made, and that these appointments might be created without any additional cost to the country. This would come about in this way. The greater number of accidents returned under the statute were of a trivial character, and the result of a plan for limiting these Returns would be that there would be a saving of £2,500 at least, and this sum would be sufficient to provide the additional sub-inspectors required under the new Act. It was not intended to alter the general character of the duties of sub-inspectors; but it was under consideration that they should begin their employment at an earlier age, and at a lower rate of payment than that at present received.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, upon the abolition of Purchase in the Army, the limit of the period of the command, of a battalion will be retrospective, or whether it will simply come into operation from the 1st of November; whether, in either case, the Officers who may be displaced will at once receive any portion of the over regulation money which they have paid according to the custom of their regiments; whether Officers who go on half-pay after twenty-five years' service will receive any over regulation money; and, if so, in what proportion; and, whether Officers who have completed twenty-five years' service, or who are put on half-pay, or who went on half-pay of their own accord, will be in as good a pecuniary position as they now are, according to the existing system, with respect to the over regulation prices of their commissions?

The limit, Sir, will not be retrospective. The other questions are all questions of the construction of the Act, the terms of which were so fully considered by this House, and whose authoritative interpretation will rest with the Commissioners. The intention of the Bill is, as was repeatedly stated in the discussions, to put all the officers affected by it in as good a pecuniary position as they would have been in if the Act had not passed.

asked the Secretary of State for War, when the appointments of Colonels on the Staff for the supervision of the auxiliary forces of the Kingdom are to be made, in accordance with the announcement made on this subject nearly six months ago?

The delay in these appointments has been consequent on the delay in passing the Bill, under which the officers are to receive their powers; and to that delay few persons have contributed more efficiently than my noble Friend himself.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it meets his approval that a Colour of a Regiment which has been consecrated and given over to the care of a regiment should have been confided to the charge of a contract carrier; and, whether it is expedient, considering the extreme veneration which is attached by the soldiers to their colours, that a symbol they are taught to honour so highly should be treated with such want of respect as in the case of the colour of the 68th Regiment? He would move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of making a few remarks upon this subject. Everybody must be aware that there was the greatest possible difference between colours which were consecrated and those that were not consecrated. If unconsecrated colours were lost the question would be one only of money; but when colours had been consecrated and delivered over to the care of a regiment the matter became very different. All soldiers were taught that a greater disgrace could not arise than the loss of their colours, and every man must be prepared to sacrifice his life in defence of them. The colour in question was inscribed "Salamanca," "Vittoria," "Pyrenees," "Nivelle," "Orthes," "the Alma," "Sebastopol," and since then was to be added "New Zealand." One could hardly understand how the colonel could allow the colours to leave the regiment except under protest. Each of the badges were embroidered upon a scroll, and therefore he could not understand the necessity of sending the colours of the regiment to London, because the embroidery could have been sent down and affixed by the master tailor to the colours of the regiment. The loss had occasioned a profound feeling of regret throughout the Army, and he could not understand what was meant the other night when it was said that the colour was to be paid for by the contractor, and not by the public. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members who called "Oh!" did not understand the feelings of soldiers with regard to their colours. It was a tiling almost unprecedented in our Army for a regiment to lose its colours, which were looked upon far differently from a mere square of silk that could be purchased for so much money. He never knew colours to be sent except under an escort, and he hoped that this was the last occasion when the colours of a regiment would be treated with disrespect. These colours had been carried by the regiment throughout New Zealand, and now one was lost, no one knew where or how.

said, that he put the Question of adjournment with regret, because if this course were generally pursued it would be impossible that the Business of the House could be carried on.

said, that with the permission of the Secretary of State for War he would say a few words upon the question. There was no one who was more sensible of the attachment of soldiers to their colours than he was, and he yielded to no one in reference to anything by which the esprit de corps, gallantry, and right feeling in the Army were to be promoted. It was a single regimental colour that was lost. The proposal to send it by the contract carrier never was submitted to him; but the facts were simply these—It was originally proposed to send the scroll to the regiment to be attached, but it was reported that they could not attach it, and orders were thereupon given that the colour should be sent—as had been the case on a previous occasion when colours required repair—to London. What he had said the other night as to expense was merely in reply to the Question put to him, and he did not say whether it was right or wrong that the expense should be paid by the carrier and not by the public; he simply stated the fact. He quite agreed that the colours of a regiment ought to be respected and preserved with the greatest possible care; and he thought that on future occasions it would be desirable to take more care in reference to the transmission of colours.

said, that no answer had been given to the question whether the colours were consecrated or not.

said, that if Notice of this Question were given he would answer it to-morrow.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state upon any reliable local authority, and, if so, upon what authority, that the harvest in Berkshire will probably not be gathered in by the 20th of September; and, whether, in the opinion of the head of the Medical Department of the Army and in that of the Military Authorities, the 20th of September, looking to the health of the Troops, is too late a period of the year for them to go into camp?

Sir, the time fixed was not the 20th, but the 9th of September. The question is not whether the 20th of September would be too late for the troops to go into camp in any case of necessity. The question is, whether it was desirable to fix the period of the equinox for the encampment for purposes of instruction of 30,000 men, consisting partly of Regulars and partly of Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, and I am decidedly of opinion that it was not. On the contrary, I wish it had been possible to fix an earlier day than September 9. As to the authority on which I can make a statement with respect to the probable time of harvest, I have just received from Commissary Milne a Report, dated Newbury, Berks, August 2, in which he says—

"The farmers say that with the most favourable weather the harvest will not be over until the 25th of September, so that no horses could be spared, and they have an objection to hiring horses for military services out of their own county."

asked the Secretary of State for War, What number of Regulars, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers respectively, it is intended to employ throughout the intended manœuvres at Woolmer, now proposed to be substituted for the Berkshire encampment; and, what is the number of Troops for which there is sufficient means of Transport and Supply under the guidance of the Control Department?

It is proposed to assemble a force of about 30,000, and in addition to 15,000 Regulars and 8,000 Militia, about 2,000 Yeomanry and 5,000 Volunteers have been invited to attend. I am informed that it is doubtful whether, owing to the lateness of the harvest, the whole of the Yeomanry will be able to attend. The powers of the Control department are adequate to the supply of a much larger force; but as regards transport, a nucleus only is maintained in peace, to be supplemented by the local transport of any country in which there may be military operations.

wished to know, Whether the Control department possessed the means of transporting 30,000 men at one time?

In the Paper which was laid upon the Table and circulated yesterday morning the exact number of horses employed by the Control department is stated. That number is not sufficient for the transport of 30,000 men without drawing on the local transport, and it is not intended to do anything so extravagant as to maintain a large number of transport horses in time of peace, which in time of war we should not be able to use, inasmuch as we should be obliged to rely upon local transport in the country where the troops were engaged.

asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, How it happens that local transport was available at an early period of the year in one part of the country and not in another?

replied that depended on the harvest. Other means would be available, as he had stated in his Minute on the Report of the Inspector General of Fortifications. Sufficient transport arrangements would be made for carrying out successfully the manœuvres in the neighbourhood of Aldershot.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention now to withdraw the two Mines Regulation Bills; and, whether he does not consider that a fair opportunity of discussing and passing them may be afforded by the proposed Session of Parliament in October?

Undoubtedly, a very fitting opportunity for discussing these measures will be afforded should an Autumn Session be held, and I shall not discharge the Orders until that question has been settled.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, the system upon which Greenwich Hospital Pensions are allotted to retired members of the Merchant Service; and how it is that a retired sailor of forty-seven years' service who contributed one shilling a-month when Mate, and two shillings a-month when Master, to the fund connected with the above-mentioned Pension, can now obtain no benefit from it?

replied that the fund applicable to pensions for retired members of the Merchant Service was at present exhausted in supplying pensions to seamen who had entered the service prior to 1817 or 1818. Of course, as vacancies occurred, applications from persons who had joined the service at a later period would be taken into consideration.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it has been the custom to elect, as Trustees of Maynooth College, under the Act of the 35th George 3, cap 21, of the Parliament of Ireland, lay as well as clerical persons; if so, how many of each of these classes of persons were eight or ten years ago, and on the 1st of January last, and how many of each are now trustees; how many of the trustees are archbishops and bishops; whether, in allowing the now acting trustees to appoint as many more trustees as will bring the number up to twenty-eight, which the Bill to amend the Acts relating to the College of Maynooth is intended to do, there is to be any provision for the maintaining in the number such a proportion of laymen as now is usual; what is the number of Roman Catholic bishops and of archbishops and bishops having sees or exercising episcopal and archiepiscopal functions in Ireland; who, if the foregoing Bill becomes law, will be the electors, after the ensuing appointments are made, of trustees to take the place of retiring or deceasing trustees; whether, if it become law, the form of disapproval or veto, which appears now to exist in the Lord Lieutenant, on the framing of bye laws, rules, regulations, and statutes, which might be objectionable, will remain in force; whether the Government can state that the Roman Catholic laity of Ireland are favourably disposed towards the contemplated changes which this Bill is intended to effect and facilitate; and, whether he will lay upon the Table, in time to enable a judgment to be formed on sufficient data, any Correspondence, Resolutions, Statements, or other Documents illustrating the motives and encouragement which have led to the introduction of this Bill, and justify it being pushed through at this late period of the Session?

said, in reply, that in the year 1851 there were six lay and 11 clerical trustees of Maynooth College, and in 1871 there were one lay trustee and 16 clerical trustees. The number of trustees who were Archbishops or Bishops was 16. In allowing the now acting trustees to appoint as many more trustees as would bring the number up to 28, which the Bill to amend the Acts relating to the College of Maynooth was intended to do, it was not proposed to insert any provision to maintain any particular proportion of laymen. There was no such provision in any Act relative to Maynooth College. The number of Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops in Ireland was 28, there being four Archbishops and 24 Bishops. If the Bill became law the continuing trustees would be the electors, and the veto at present possessed by the Lord Lieutenant would be removed, as it was reasonable that the State should have no further interference with the College. With respect to the question whether the Government could state that the Catholic laity of Ireland were favourably disposed towards the contemplated changes which the Bill was intended to effect and facilitate, he would merely remark that the Government had had no opportunity of ascertaining the sentiments of the Catholic population since last night, when Notice of the Question was given. He might add that for much of the information he had just given he was indebted to Thom's Irish Directory and The Catholic Directory.

desired some information which was not to be found in The Catholic Directory. For what reason was the Bill introduced?

said, he did not mean that he had gathered any information respecting the Bill from The Catholic Directory, but that the particulars he had stated as to the Archbishops, Bishops, and trustees were given in that work. The Bill was introduced in consequence of the Government having stated that the proposed change would be effected by the Irish Church Act; but as this had not been done, it became necessary to deal with the subject by a separate Bill.

asked after what hour it would not be considered?

said, he would not proceed with it at an hour when a reasonable number of gentlemen thought it unreasonable for him to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the number of men absent from first battalion of the 4th Regiment and second battalion of the 15th Regiment on the occasion of the recent Review at Wimbledon; ages of men absent, and length of service, and Copy of Reports, if any, addressed by the medical officers concerning their regiments, representing that a certain number of men were unfit to undergo the fatigue of the march from their quarters with their arms and accoutrements?

said, if the hon. Member would move for the Papers they should be laid on the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, on the occasion of the recent Review at Wimbledon, orders were not issued to the officers commanding the second battalion, 15th Regiment, that all recruits over three months' service should march with the regiment; and, whether the medical officer did not report that ninety out of ninety-six men fulfilling these conditions were physically unfit to march; and, whether that was not the reason for their being left behind with the other recruits, numbering in all over 400?

Sir, I am informed that no such order was given from the Horse Guards, and it is not known there whether any such order was given at Aldershot.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the officers of the Board of Trade have tried the rope communication placed under the carriages of the Great Western Railway Company's express trains; whether they think that such a mode of communication with the guard is a "good and sufficient mode," and a full compliance with the Act of Parliament; whether the accumulation of slack rope in a long train does not make the mode of communication insufficient; and, whether in the case of women and children the means of communication is sufficient?

, in reply, said, he was not aware of any Report having been made respecting the rope communication adopted by the Great Western Company. Two recent cases had, however, happened on the London and North-Western line, in which it was alleged there had been a failure in the means of communication. The Board of Trade had sent an Inspector to make inquiries upon the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having granted permission to an Officer to retire from the service by the sale of his commission, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to restore to such Officer a portion only of the regulation price which he had paid; and, if so, whether it is intended to pay any and what amount of interest upon the balance due to such Officer as long as the same shall remain unpaid; and, further, in the case of Lieutenant Mackinnon, late on the half-pay of the 16th Lancers, whose name appeared in The Gazette of the 31st May last, it is intended to hand over to that Officer £250 only, instead of £1,190, being the amount of the regulation price which Lieutenant Mackinnon had paid for his commission?

Sir, it is intended to pay the money as soon as it shall have been voted by Parliament. The delay in submitting the Vote has been owing to the delay in passing the Bill. I am informed that Lieutenant Mackinnon was allowed to sell without waiting, and gave his consent in writing to the conditions. There is certainly no intention, on the part of the Government, to pay interest on the balance.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will give a day for the consideration of the Papers relating to the proposed manœuvres? In order to explain his reasons for asking the question he would read a portion of a resolution which had been passed in Berkshire. A committee appointed in the western district of the county protested that the lateness of the harvest was no reason for the abandonment of the proposed manœuvres as far as the farmers were concerned, inasmuch as they had not departed from their original intention, and still wished to aid in the arrangements and to supply the necessary transport. The committee went on to state that they considered they had been treated with a want of courtesy by the Secretary of State for War. ["Chair."]

A Member, in putting a Question, is at liberty to state any facts which are necessary for the clear understanding of the Question; but he must not enter into other matters.

said, he thought it was necessary, in order to explain his Question, to show that what had occurred in Berkshire did not support the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He wished also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay on the Table of the House the Instructions contained in his Minute to the Quartermaster General and the Inspector General of Fortifications; and likewise the Programme submitted to him by them of the military manœuvres in Berkshire?

It is not, Sir, in my power to set aside the Elections Bill, the discussion on the Treaty of Washington, or the remaining Estimates in order to discuss the matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has called attention; but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has given Notice of a Bill in reference to this subject. He intends to ask the assent of the House to that Bill on the earliest day he can find for the purpose, and then the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have an opportunity of discussing the matter.

Sir, as there is considerable perplexity and dissatisfaction in the public mind on what is a very important subject, I hope the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will be brought forward at a time when the House will be able to fully consider it.

was understood to say that the documents referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) had been already laid upon the Table.

said, he wished to put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury, of which he had given him private notice. It was, Whether a certain statement made in an evening paper was correct? The readers of that journal were informed, minute particulars being given, that the Pope was about to take up his residence on a Scottish island. The writer added—

"I am further informed that Mr. Gladstone has been sounded privately on the subject, and has expressed himself favourable to the residence of His Holiness in the British Islands under certain conditions and stipulations."

Sir, on receiving the notice which my hon. Friend kindly gave me I ventured to suggest in a note to him that I thought the exigencies of this case of a local report might be met by a local contradiction; but as he has thought it necessary to raise the question in the House, and as great interest is taken in all matters relating to a change of residence on the part of the Pope, I beg to assure him there is not the slightest shadow of a foundation for the statement.

said, he had not received the letter which the right hon. Gentleman had been kind enough to send.

said, he wished to put a Question to his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Henry Storks) as to the autumn manœuvres. There must, in his opinion, have been some Minute from His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief with reference to this subject, for it was impossible to conceive that His Royal Highness could have been completely ignored—

The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not state matters of opinion in putting his Question.

said, his object was to ascertain whether such a Minute had been made, and, if not, why not? The Reports published, instead of being addressed to His Royal Highness, were addressed to Lieutenant General Sir Edward Lugard; he believed, therefore, that these must be considered as garbled Reports and extracts merely—

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled, in asking a Question, to state his personal opinion.

Then he would confine himself to asking, Whether there was any Minute by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief upon the subject; if not, why His Royal Highness had not been consulted; and why the only Minute which had been put forward was one signed by his right hon. and gallant Friend himself who was the accused party?

, in reply, said, he thought it hardly fair that such Questions as this should be put without previous Notice. However, he was prepared to say that he was not aware of there being any written Minute by His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, nor was he aware that the Reports were garbled in any way. The Reports were addressed to Lieutenant General Sir Edward Lugard, as he was the Under Secretary of State for the War Department; the instructions were given at a War Office meeting. He was not aware that he was an accused party in any respect. He should be very glad to answer any accusation that might be made.

said, he was the last man to make any objection to the very moderate annuity to be given to His Royal Highness Prince Arthur. The Bill was not in the hands of Members, but he should take no objection on that point, because he supposed it would follow the precedent established in the case of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. He only ventured to state that he thought the modest provision that was about to be made for His Royal Highness was quite in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people of this country. He believed him to be a Prince who would do honour to the country in the high position in which he was placed, and therefore it was that he thought the people would most ungrudgingly grant this annuity. He rose to call attention to the rather significant Vote which was taken the other night. That Vote, in his humble judgment, did not express in its actual terms the views of hon. Gentlemen who sat below the gangway, or of the masses whom they claimed to represent; but that Vote did, he believed, embody the sentiment of many who, Englishmen as they were, loyal as they were, most anxious in every way to support the Sovereign of this country in that high position in which she was placed, were yet particularly anxious that the Sovereign should come more among her people than she had done for some considerable time past. He believed he was only expressing the views and opinions of large masses of his fellow-countrymen when he stated that, having granted to Her Majesty, as they believed, a very liberal provision for the high position which she occupied, they were anxious that she should, in that high position, spend the money in the way in which it had been granted—namely, for her benefit and that of the nation. He would only add, upon his own part, the expression of a hope that the right hon. Gentleman who could make use of the Royal Prerogative, stating that the exercise of that Prerogative was asked for because it was in accordance with the view of the majority of the House of Commons, supported by the view of the majority in the country, would, in like manner, be able to state his full belief and his earnest hope and conviction that effect would be given to the desire of the vast majority in that House and in the country that Her Majesty would return and come among them as she had done heretofore. He ventured to assert—and proof of this would be found, if necessary, in what was going on in Dublin at the present moment—that if such a course were taken, the Queen would gather again to her the hearts of the whole of her people, and she would be, as she had been heretofore, the most popular Sovereign in the world.

said, his hon. and gallant Friend had spoken his mind courageously, as he always did, on this subject, and he thanked him for the opportunity thus afforded of saying a few words in justification of the unpopular vote which he gave the other evening at an hour when he was unwilling to detain the House with a personal explanation. He was additionally anxious to make the statement, as it was quite possible that the same reasons which influenced his conduct might also have influenced the action of some of the small minority who accompanied him into the lobby. He was not one of those who wished to find fault with the Government, or to speak harshly of them for bringing the Vote before the House, because he did not conceive it possible for any Ministry placed as they were to have done otherwise than they did, or to have broken through all the rules of routine, and gone contrary to the action of all former Ministries. But when the Vote was once proposed, it became a matter to be dealt with by the House, and it was in that light that he, as an humble representative of the people, wished to view the matter. The only question which they, the Members of the House of Commons, ought to ask themselves was this—would the granting of this money conduce to the contentment and welfare of the country at large? There was no contract, no agreement, no bargain that this Vote should be given, that had been clearly laid down by the great authorities upon the Treasury bench. It was suggested, however, that there was an honourable understanding, and that, as far as he could understand, was the view taken by the majority of hon. Members. But if there was an understanding, there must be something understood upon both sides, and here he was partly, inclined to agree with his hon. and gallant Friend opposite. When, at the beginning of her reign, a large sum of money was settled upon Her Majesty, the object was to keep up what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had very properly described as the pageantry of the Crown. He was not in a position himself to say whether that pageantry had been kept up to the satisfaction of the country or not; he did not know enough about these things. But he believed that there was an opinion abroad—he had no wish to put the matter coarsely, but simply to render his meaning clear—that the country did not get its money's worth for what it had given. There being an opinion of that sort in existence—whether rightly or wrongly he would not say—when a Vote of this description was brought forward, it would have been well if the Prime Minister had been prepared to state the exact position which both parties occupied, and whether the Crown was not now in a different position from that which it occupied 30 years ago, in being able to make provision, without a special grant, for the person for whom the House was called upon to give this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman rested the grant more upon the ground of precedent than of agreement. That, how-over, was a dangerous ground, for if they went back to precedents, there was no saying how many Princes and Princesses they might not have to subsidize—down even to the grandchildren of the Queen; for the House would remember that an annuity of £12,000 a-year was granted to the Duke of Cambridge, which he now enjoyed. The painful and unfortunate part of the matter was, that those who thought it right on public grounds to vote against this grant were supposed to be doing something harsh towards the young Prince for whom the Vote was asked. No doubt, it might be hard; but it very seldom happened that persons could take action in public matters without hurting the feelings or injuring the prospects of somebody or other. He himself felt most reluctant to say those few words in vindication of his own vote, lest it might seem as if he was casting some slur upon the young Prince, of whom, as far as he knew, nothing but good had ever been reported. But, as he said, it was necessary to begin somewhere, if this system, which seemed to have for its object to subsidize as many as possible of the branches of the Royal Family, were ever to stop. He believed this was the right time to interfere, and he did not think the feeling of this country would for many years longer willingly sanction the granting of these large sums of money. All the grace, all the charm, all the value of these grants to Royalty, it seemed to him, must depend upon the unanimity with which they were given. No doubt the House had been nearly unanimous in support of this Vote; only 11 Members divided against it. But let them look the facts in the face. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had stated—and he had since heard the statement confirmed in conversation by many Members representing large constituencies—that there was growing up in the minds of the people in large towns an increasing feeling in favour of Republicanism. Now, there was nothing so foolish as to hide, or pretend to ignore the facts—nothing so foolish as the ostrich policy of hiding one's head and thinking there was no danger. Such a feeling existed in the country. [An hon. MEMBER: Question.] Well, he believed he was speaking directly to the question. He was very far, indeed, from saying one word in justification of the feeling of which he had spoken; but undoubtedly it existed, and the only possible way in which legislation could add to that feeling was by making the people of this country believe that the expenses connected with Royalty were enormous, extravagant, and unnecessary. He did not believe that even among those who called themselves Republicans in the large towns, any one of them could get up and say one word against the way in which Her Majesty had performed all her political and constitutional duties, and if that were so, it was clear that the feeling which actuated these men in crying out against Royalty was the feeling that they were paying far more for it than was necessary, or than they thought it to be worth. He would quote one sentence from a nobleman who, in political sagacity and forethought, was certainly equal to any Gentleman in that or the other House of Parliament—Lord Derby.

"Any institution," he said, "which is successfully to be defended must carry its justification upon its face, or else it is quite certain to go down in the first gale of popular opinion."

expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman, in proposing the annuity for His Royal Highness Prince Arthur, had omitted to make the very important statement which he made this year in the case of the Vote for Princess Louise—that if the Crown Lands had remained in the hands of the Crown to the present time they would be realizing an income of nearly £1,000,000 a-year, while the Civil List amounted only to £385,000. That omission he knew had been much commented on.

I was not aware that the Bill for granting this annuity had not been circulated amongst hon. Members; but if that is an objection to the second reading of the Bill, I will not press the Motion. I can assure the House that the Bill has been framed entirely on the basis of that agreed to for the Duke of Edinburgh's annuity. The words will, I think, be the same, with the necessary change of name. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Colonel Beresford) has alluded to a former statement I made when making a similar proposal to the House. On this occasion I referred to the lengthened statement I formerly made, and in order not to repeat it I stated that I entirely adhered to it. I am glad to correct a certain amount of misapprehension which appears to prevail with regard to it. I never stated that the Queen, if upon her accession she had not surrendered the Crown Lands, would now be deriving from them a revenue of £1,000,000 a-year; but I stated—and it is strictly true—that if during a series of reigns it had not been the case that a most valuable part of the Crown Lands—much of the most valuable part of the Crown Lands—had been used for the benefit of the Metropolis, and not for the benefit of the Royal Family, that in that case the revenue of the Crown Lands would have increased. ["No!"] I am perfectly ready to maintain it; but I am desirous of removing misapprehensions it was certainly well should not be entertained. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has treated this subject, with one or two exceptions, in the most gentle and courteous manner which it admits of from his point of view, and he discusses them—as he always does others—in the true spirit of an English gentleman. Though I am not particularly certain that I understood the meaning of the expressions he used, I will endeavour to give them the explanation they seem to require. I understood the hon. Baronet to say there is no proof that the revenues of the Crown, as they are now administered, would not fairly admit of an adequate provision being made out of them for the younger branches of the Royal Family, without making special application to Parliament. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: The savings out of the Crown revenues.] That is to say, the hon. Baronet assumes that the economies practised have been so large as to enable the Queen to dispense with the necessity of applying to Parliament. It is with reference to that that I wish to state there is not that difference beteen the past and present expenditure of Her Majesty and the Court as might be naturally supposed. My hon. Friend has gone back to a state of things before the death of the late lamented Prince Consort, and imagined the possibility of saving a sufficient sum out of the Royal income to dispense with the necessity of coming to Parliament for provision for the younger branches of the Royal Family. Since that period Her Majesty has not been able to reside in London to the degree which we all desire, and which she would herself have desired; yet many entertainments have been given at Buckingham Palace which have required proportionately a much larger expense in the removal of the establishment than would have been incurred if the Court had been more stationary in London. In point of fact, the difference in Court expenditure, between what it is now and what it was before the death of the Prince Consort, is but a very small difference relatively to so large a sum, and would not at all admit of that change which my hon. Friend appears to suppose. Well, Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot), who has also adverted to this subject, has expressed a feeling which he entertains, and which in truth springs up spontaneously in the minds of everyone of us; but he has used an expression on which I would venture to comment. He says that if Her Majesty were to appeal more in the view of the community he is quite certain that she would gather again to her the hearts of all her people. I do not in the slightest degree quarrel with the spirit which I am sure prompts that expression; but I venture to say that Her Majesty, in the exemplary discharge of her public duty, has never lost that confidence and that respectful loyalty which has been founded upon a long experience of the personal qualities of the Queen in every function of Royalty. Those sentiments have undergone no change, and the feeling of regret to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given expression—and in which I have no doubt he carried with him the sympathy of many Members of the House—is not merely a feeling proving that the Queen has lost the hearts of her people, but is a feeling growing out of the very fact that she possesses those affections, and that the truth and strength of those affections make the people desirous of seeing the Queen among them. I have only to say upon that subject that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, I feel certain, have observed with some satisfaction that during the present year Her Majesty has found herself able to undertake a great number of public duties, placing her in the view of the people, than has been the case for some years past. I venture also to express my conviction that, while I am sure no one would wish the Queen to go beyond the performance of her duties which health and strength will permit, it will be the earnest desire of Her Majesty to comply at all times with the wishes of her people by undertaking to discharge every function of a public character which she shall be advised or find herself able to perform.

said, he could not omit to notice one expression of the Prime Minister's, because he was afraid that from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman an impression would go abroad to the effect that the improvements in the Metropolis had diminished the value of the revenue derived from the Crown lands. Now, he did not think that the Votes for the Crown should depend on what the Crown Lands produced. He was confident that the people of this country would always provide the amount that was necessary to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown without regard to whether the revenue of the Crown Lands increased or diminished. If this question were discussed, he could prove that the largest portion of the increase of that revenue was entirely due to the improvements that had been effected in the Metropolis, and to the great increase in the value of rents therein, and it was an illusion to say that if Hyde Park had been let on building leases a larger income would now be derived from the Crown lands.

moved, in page 18, line 24, after "in," insert "section 3 of," in order to direct attention to the Interpretation Clause, where it was stated what "corrupt practices" should mean.

moved, in line 31, after "or," insert—

"3. Falsely and deceitfully personates or applies for a ballot paper, or assumes to vote in the name of any other person whose name appears upon the register of electors, whether such other person shall then be living or dead, or the name of such other person be the name of a fictitious person."

said, that the reason why the clause was drawn as it stood in the Bill was because the Government, while admitting that personation was a great offence, did not think it right to impose a severe punishment, for that would only result in the discouragement of prosecutions. To interfere in this case would be to raise again very wide questions with respect to election offences.

said, he was quite willing to insert a provision limiting the punishment to penal servitude for seven years if that would meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, the whole question of offences was a very important one, and he could see no reason for departing from the scale of punishments which existed in the present law. The difficulty of procuring detection ought neither to increase nor diminish the penalty.

moved, in line 33, after "ballot paper," insert—

"Shall be guilty of felony, and be liable at the discretion of the Court to be kept in penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than five years, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years."

said, that the former decision should govern this question.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved, in page 18, line 34, leave out sub-sections 4 and 5, which provided penalties for the offence of endeavouring to secure the identification of voters. He considered the loss of the vote quite sufficient penalty for the publicity; and the voter should be encouraged to vote rather than frightened from the poll by an accumulation of penalties.

observed, that now that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit Clause 30 an elector would escape without punishment if he committed an offence for which a non-elector would be liable to two years' imprisonment.

said, that if the Bill passed that year, as they hoped it would, they could reduce the penalties if the experience of the municipal elections warranted their doing so.

objected to offenders under these sub-sections being classed with forgers.

moved the insertion of the word "fraudulently," so as to make it necessary before punishing a man for voting twice that he should have done so wilfully.

was of opinion that voting twice was and ought to be an offence, and he did not see how it could be put a stop to without a punishment being attached to it. Besides, as they all knew, a discretion in the administration of the punishment was vested in the tribunal.

questioned whether the mere application for a ballot paper a second time should constitute an offence, because he heard of cases from which it seemed to be commonly believed that it was not improper to vote first for A and then for B.

confirmed this as far as the North was concerned.

said, it was desirable the attempt should be an offence in accordance with the ordinary practice in common law, and thought it might be left to the Judges to be lenient in cases of extreme ignorance.

objected to the words in sub-section 8, which proposed to make a voter who "offers to vote" falsely liable to the same penalty (two years' imprisonment) as the voter who actually accomplished the offence. He moved, therefore, the omission of the words "offers to vote."

sympathized with the motive which prompted, this Amendment.

said, that their object was to prevent the accomplishment of the crime, and in order to do that effectually the attempt to commit it must also be strictly prohibited. It would be dangerous legislation to enable a man, without fear of punishment, to take all the preliminary steps towards recording a false vote.

suggested that Section 9 (making liable to the penalty of two years' imprisonment anyone guilty of depositing in the ballot-box any paper other than the ballot paper given to him as an elector by the presiding officer) was too severe, and might well be modified. He moved the omission of the section.

pointed out that the term of two years' imprisonment was the maximum penalty for extreme cases—not one to be imposed in every case for all the offences mentioned in the clause.

moved to omit the clause.

desired to retain sub-section 6, which provided—

"That any one refusing to disobey the lawful commands of the presiding officer given in execution of his duty as such, should be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds."

said, he should be glad to see at least the 1st section retained, which provided that if any person failed to vote (after being provided with a voting paper), and did not return the paper to the returning officer, he should be liable to the penalty of £10. He thought that unless this provision was retained the "Tasmanian dodge" would soon be introduced into our English elections.

supported this. Sub-section 1 makes it penal for a voter to leave the polling-place without putting his paper in the box. If a man brought out a blank polling paper, it could be filled up by an agent and given to another voter, who could go in and put it in the ballot-box, returning his own blank paper to the agent on coming outside, who would be only too glad to give a sum of money for it, and might go on repeating the practice all day.

knew there were good reasons for retaining the clause, and especially the 1st sub-section; but the Government thought it would be better to try the scheme without too many penal clauses, and the offence aimed at by the 1st section was forbidden by the last clause.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he had a strong objection to the imposition of additional penalties, and more particularly for the mere attempt to obtain information as to the manner in which a man voted, or even, as the clause provided, for offering an opinion on the subject. He therefore proposed the omission of sub-sections 1 and 2, which provide that if any of the persons employed—

"Attempts by any means to obtain or assists any person in obtaining information as to the person for whom any elector votes, or offers any opinion or affords any information to any other person as to the vote which he knows, believes, or suspects any person to have given at an election."

said, he was willing to strike out the words with reference to "offering an opinion" at the beginning of sub-section 2, but could not assent to the rest of the Amendment. If they were to have the Ballot at all, the presiding officer who took the votes, the clerk who assisted him, and the agent who was there to watch the proceedings in the interest of the candidate, ought not to be allowed either to ask the voter how he voted, or, if they found it out, to divulge the information they had obtained.

said, he thought it desirable to limit the time within which the offence might be committed.

observed that in the United States the attempt to enforce secrecy had been made and had entirely failed. The New York Tribune, of the 11th July last, said—

"It is by no means true that men constantly desert their avowed principles under the Ballot. On the contrary, party fealty is, if anything, too strong, and the readiness of the average elector to vote strictly in accordance with his avowed principles encourages conventions to nominate candidates who are personally unworthy, in the confidence that party discipline will secure their election. It is very much to be wished that the desertion of avowed principles, or, to speak more correctly, the scratching of tickets which contain objectionable names, were a great deal more common. It is a mistake to suppose that the Ballot facilitates an improper concealment of one's political faith. In America no man thinks of making a secret of his political principles, or professing the creed of one party and voting for the candidates of the other. Every voter may vote in secret if he chooses; but he is quite ready to tell all about his ballot if you ask him, and the Englishman who believes (as the Liberal opponents of the Ballot do) that the elector ought to face responsibility like a man and take the consequences of his action, would be perfectly satisfied with the operation of the secret vote as we have it in the United States. The truth is that in ordinary cases the Ballot is not secret at all; its value lies in the fact that any individual may make it secret so far as it relate to himself, whenever it suits him to do so."

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the Amendment. It was quite impossible that some of the sub-sections could be carried out, for many of the electors might not choose to keep their votes secret for any length of time.

said, he thought the clause ought not be allowed to stand, and that it would be monstrous to subject a man to a term of imprisonment for merely offering an opinion.

said, he had agreed to the omission of those words. He had no objection to introduce in sub-section 1 the words "during the poll," after "attempts."

observed that the parties employed at the election were to be punished not merely for attempting to obtain information, but for affording information which the voter himself might have given.

said, that if the words "during the poll" were to be applicable to the whole of the clause the objection would in a great measure be done away with.

said, he hoped that before the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the insertion of the words in question, he would consider whether they were consistent with the protection which the Bill was meant to secure to the voter.

proposed at the beginning of the clause, after the word "employed," to insert the words "under this Act at any polling-place."

said, the alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman removed the objection which he entertained to sub section 1, by making the penalty applicable to the divulging any information which he had officially obtained during the poll.

moved an Amendment extending the penal effect of the subsection to any attempt to obtain that information between the time of the polling and the declaration of the poll.

moved the omission of those words in the 2nd sub-section which rendered it penal for any person to offer an opinion as to the vote given by another.

moved an Amendment providing that the penal effect of the 2nd sub-section, which rendered it penal to afford information as to the vote of any elector, should also be governed by the insertion of words which would confine the sub-section to such information as was afforded during the poll, or between the polling and the declaration of the poll. If such an Amendment were not made, no one would be found who would be sufficiently rash and reckless to accept the thankless office of presiding officer and be tonguetied.

said, he could not see any objection to the words as they stood. The mouths of Income Tax Commissioners were also stopped in a similar manner, but no inconvenience arose from that.

moved an Amendment providing that the information to be dealt with by the 2nd subsection should only be such information as was obtained under the 1st subsection.

moved, in page 20, line 19, leave out "or," and insert—

"And shall be guilty of felony, and shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years nor less than three years, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years."

said, that if such a thing was already a larceny, it would still remain so under this Bill.

moved an Amendment, providing that the penalty should be increased from £100 to £500.

pointed out that this clause only provided a penalty for such breaches of duty as were not already dealt with under the other clauses. The other and larger penalties imposed by the Bill would also be in force.

moved that notice should be given in one "or more" newspapers.

said, he thought there would be some difficulty with regard to the sheriffs in those cities which were counties of themselves, the sheriffs therein being the returning officers.

believed there would be no alteration made by the Bill in the existing law.

moved, in sub-section b, line 36, leave out from "but acting with the assessors" to the end of the subsection, and insert in lieu thereof—

"And that section forty-three of the Municipal Corporation Act, fifth and sixth of William the Fourth, chapter seventy-six, which provides for the election of ward assessors shall be and is hereby repealed, and so much of the said Act as requires Municipal Elections to be holden before assessors or their deputies shall not extend to Municipal Elections holden after the passing of this Act."

said, he thought the words of the Amendment would go further than was necessary, and undertook to prepare a proper repealing section.

called attention to the phraseology of the clause, with the view of preventing both the sheriff and the mayor from acting as returning officer.

said, he would look into the clause.

said, he would have some conversation with his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) on the subject of the clause.

said, he would leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he had an Amendment, which proposed to insert the words, in page 30, line 21—

"And also any place the boundaries of which have been fixed and ascertained under the provisions of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or by any private local Act, and in which a register of voters is kept, and is revised every year."

said, he had to propose an Amendment similar in effect, but more technical in form, on the clause, the object being to extend the Act to towns under Town Commissioners in Ireland. The Bill, as originally framed, did not include towns under Commissioners in Ireland, but was confined to municipal boroughs. Strong remonstrances had been made to him and to other Members of the Government against the exclusion of those towns from the operation of the Bill, inasmuch as towns similarly circumstanced in Scotland were included in the Bill. In Scotland the Police Act might be applied to towns with 700 inhabitants; but in Ireland the Act could not be applied to a town of less than 1,500 inhabitants, and it appeared to him and his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill that those towns under Town Commissioners should be brought within its scope. The hon. and learned Gentleman then read the words of the Amendment which he proposed, and which were not on the Paper.

said, he did not rise to oppose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but merely to say that if the words had been on the Notice Paper the Irish Members would have had an opportunity of considering them in order to see whether they required any alteration.

said, that the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) had precisely the same Amendment, and the non. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) had also a similar Amendment for three weeks on the Paper. His own Amendment differed from theirs in only being framed more technically, and it was practically their Amendment.

repeated that the Amendment was not on the Paper, and the Committee could not therefore judge of it.

said, that if the Government intervened and accepted the Amendments that were proposed by hon. Members, they should either give notice of their intention to do so, or they should bring up the subject in the shape of a new clause on the Report. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Bruen) had great cause to complain of the conduct of the Government.

said, he would not have departed from the usual course but for the fact that he did not propose to make any addition whatever to the Amendments that had appeared on the Paper. He had a fancy that the form of his Amendment was the better one; but, practically, it was the same thing.

said, that hon. Members who had not legal knowledge or acquaintance with technicalities could only deal as plain men with the circumstances as they came before the Committee, and endeavour to understand them. The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement might be quite correct; but he had pursued a most unusual course. If the Government intended to adopt the Amendments of hon. Members, notice should have been given, and the Committee ought not to be hurried into this course.

said, that it was quite a usual practice when an Amendment, especially of detail, was accepted by the Government to alter the wording so as to adapt it better to the object in view.

moved, in page 31, line 16, to insert after "thereat" "so far as the same Laws, statutes, and usages are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act."

said, he saw no ground for making the proposed change.

said, as this was the last clause of the Bill, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) whether he was satisfied with the result of his labours, and whether now on mature reflection he did not think that several of the Amendments proposed by Members on the Opposition side of the House, and which the right hon. Gentleman had contested, ought to have been accepted?

said, that he was satisfied with the Bill, and that he had accepted all the Amendments from the other side which he thought would improve the Bill.

said, he was pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the measure. He confessed that he was not satisfied with it; and it was a relief to his mind tha the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with his labours.

informed the Committee that the Government had the privilege of proposing the new clauses which they wished to insert before new clauses could be proposed by any private Member.

proposed to insert, before Clause 7, the following clause—

("Time of notice of Election and of nomination and poll.)

In a Parliamentary Election the returning officer shall give notice of the time and place at which he will proceed to the Election, and fix the day of Election, as follows (that is to say):

1. In the case of a borough, he shall give such notice on or on the day after the day on which he receives the writ, and shall fix the day for the Election not later than the fourth day after that on which he receives the writ, and shall give not less than two clear days' notice of the day so fixed:

2. In the case of an Election for a county, he shall give the said notice within two days after the day on which he receives the writ, and shall fix the day for the Election not later than the ninth day after that on which he receives the writ, and shall give not less than three clear day's notice of the day so fixed.

The poll shall take place on such day as the returning officer may appoint, not being in the case of a Parliamentary Election for a county or a combination of boroughs less than two nor more than six, and in the case of any other Parliamentary Election more than three, clear days after the day fixed for the Election."

inquired why, if the notice in the borough was to be given on the day on which the writ was received, or on the day after, it was not to be given in the county sooner than two days.

said, that at the last General Election in 1868, the shortening of the period for giving notice of the day of election (under an Act passed in that year) was attended with very beneficial results. Therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman had made the period for giving such notice as short as possible.

said, he could state the difference between the present law and the intended law. A little more time was necessary between the nomination and the day of election on account of the preparation of the ballot paper. As to boroughs, according to the present law, suppose the writ was received on July 1, the last day for giving notice would be on July 3. According to the proposed law the last day would be July 2. According to the present law the first day for nomination would be July 5; according to the proposed law it would be July 4. July 5 would be the last day for nomination, and also the first day for polling for boroughs. According to the present law the first day for polling would be July 6. The last day for polling for boroughs it was proposed should be July 9, according to the present law it was July 8. As to counties—again supposing that the writ was received on July 1—according to the present law the first day for nomination would be July 5; no alteration was proposed; the first day for polling, according to the present law, would be July 8; no alteration was proposed. But, according to the present law, the last day for nomination would be July 15; it was proposed to make July 10 the last day for nomination. The last day for polling, according to the present law, would be July 18; it was proposed that July 17 should be the last day for polling. He thought the clause had better be left as it was, and if it were desirable it could be altered on the Report.

said, he hoped the Government would consider the period between the reception of the writ and the giving of notice of the election.

It is the same as now.

said, that otherwise they would be inviting people to carry on their election business by surprise. Suppose a man accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, it might be known to hardly anyone that a writ was issued. The writ might have been prepared beforehand, and it might go down the very day it was moved for; and could anyone say that three days was a fair notice, in a county that an election was to come off?

It is not so.

The day of nomination was the day of election, if there was no opposing candidate.

It is the same as now.

asked how, in a county, it was possible for parties to know who would be put up? The time was altered some years back to six days. It was then considered only fair play to all parties that six days should intervene, because this gave full opportunity of the notice appearing in all the county papers, the only way in which information could be given in counties. In six days they were sure to take in the day of the election, and it was but fair play to the electors that they should know that a vacancy had occurred, and that they were called on to exercise their franchise. It would be impossible, in counties, that three days would give the necessary information. It would be a complete job, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not want that. The right hon. Gentleman left it to the returning officer to say how many days after the receipt of the notice the nomination should take place. In fairness and consideration to the returning officer the Committee ought to fix the number of days. Fix them, if they pleased, according to the number of the electors; but let not the returning officer be exposed to the insinuation which he would be exposed to if power was given to him of determining the time that was to elapse between the receipt of the writ and the day of polling.

explained that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was under some error. The time of notice from the receipt of the writ was not altered at all, neither was the first day for nomination altered; therefore there could be no greater surprise than now. It was true that under the clause the discretion of the returning officer as to the last day would be altered; but at present he might choose any day between the 5th and 15th (if the writ was issued on the 1st); but as he would be limited to between the 5th and the 10th, it was necessary to give him some discretion between the day of nomination and the poll. It was impossible to make a hard-and-fast line between the day of nomination and the day of poll, because the preparation of the ballot papers would vary in different counties according to their circumstances.

said, that the clause, in all but one respect, embodied the scheme he had himself put on the Paper; but he thought that in the point on which it differed it was for the worse—namely, that it did not allow, as he had proposed, that there should be one clear day between the nomination and the poll. He feared that, unless this was given, a rival candidate might be started at the last moment, of whom neither the candidates nor the constituency could know anything, and the result would occasion great inconvenience.

said, that the periods fixed for county elections by the Act of 1868 had worked very well, and he suggested that the precedent of the Act might be followed in regard to the interval between the nomination and the poll, the shorter the interval the better.

agreed that the shorter the interval the better, within proper limits; but he was convinced that the period he now proposed was necessary. At the same time, if hon. Gentlemen would think the point over, and would communicate with him before the Report, he should be glad as any of them could be to shorten the period. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Goldsmid's) suggestion, it seemed to him that if the returning officer could prepare the papers the election might well take place the day after the nomination; but in large towns that would sometimes, of course, not be possible.

said, that he did not exactly see why the preliminaries should require more time in the counties than in the boroughs. The different periods, therefore, that were now proposed for towns and for counties required explanation.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that at present there was a difference in the time allowed to elapse between the day of nomination and that of the poll in boroughs and in counties. The matter would be left to the discretion of the returning officer. In large counties the preparation of the voting papers must necessarily take some hours.

said, that the effect of the clause in Ireland would be to deprive them of the clear day that now always elapsed between the day of nomination and the poll.

said, he thought that the sooner the polling followed the nomination the better.

entirely coincided in that opinion, only he wished to see it applied to counties as well as to boroughs.

said, he thought the clause would be much improved by the introduction of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid). A clear day between the nomination and the poll would be found indispensable in most boroughs.

again explained the precise nature of the proposals contained in the clause, and in regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rochester, he pointed out that the returning officer would not be obliged to take the polling the day after the nomination. It would be discretionary on his part.

said, he thought that it had been overlooked that in counties there would be some difficulty in providing rooms fitted up for voting, unless there was full time allowed for doing so.

suggested that there should be one clear day between the nomination and the day of the election, as was the case in Ireland.

asked, why they should lengthen the time in English boroughs when the present time was found convenient?

said, that under the new system polling places would require more fitting up than was required under the present system.

proposed to amend the clause by substituting "6th" for "9th" in section 2 of the clause, and "4" for "6" in the third section, in order to make the period between the day of nomination and that of polling as short as possible.

said, he thought that it would not be prudent to shorten the time more than he had already done.

said, that there was a special Act which shortened the time for the election of 1868, and that Act worked remarkably well.

said, he thought the time provided in the Bill was the least that should be allowed in counties.

pointed out that county electors might have qualifications in various counties, and therefore it would not be desirable to have too many elections upon the same day.

proposed an Amendment to insert, after "Parliamentary election," "less than one nor."

proposed to insert after Clause 17 a clause with regard to polling-places.

(Division of counties into polling districts.)

(For the purposes of a Parliamentary Election every county in England shall be divided by the county authority (as hereinafter denned) of such county into polling districts, with a polling place assigned to each district, and arranged in such manner that, so far as is reasonably practicable, an elector resident in the county shall have a polling place within a distance not exceeding four miles from his residence (so, nevertheless, that a polling district need not in any case be constituted containing less than one hundred registered electors); and the county authority shall, by the same or any subsequent order, determine the polling places at which the revising barristers are to hold their courts,)—(Mr. William Edward Forster,)

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had taken time to consider this matter; but he did not think that the clause proposed would be satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the distance of four miles within which every resident elector, as far as reasonably practicable, should have a polling-place. Now, he thought the meaning of these words, "as far as reasonably practicable," would be that the polling-place should only be within that distance of the large majority of the electors. Especially in the less populous districts there would be many men who had to go much more than four miles before they could vote. For that reason he was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had not stated his reasons for adopting the distance of four miles instead of two miles, as he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had proposed. A four mile distance had many of the faults of the present system, and few of the merits of a real multiplication of polling-places. Like all half-and-half measures it was open to objections on both sides. Many of the electors would be disinclined to walk the additional distance, while, on the other hand, the expense of the conveyance of voters to the poll, which was borne by the candidates, would only be very slightly diminished. In the Amendment which he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would presently move to the clause, he had adopted the three mile distance in order to meet the wishes of the Government as far as he could, and also because there was a precedent for such a distance in the provisions of the Education Act of last year. The right hon. Gentleman might say that children of tender age could not be compared with electors; but the Committee must bear in mind that they were legislating not only for rich voters with carriages, and for young and healthy voters, but for old, poor, and feeble electors. A limit of three miles was by no means unreasonable, and he did not see what objection it was open to, especially as any single polling-place at an ordinary county election ought only to cost about £10.

said, he would postpone his reply until the hon. Baronet's Amendment was before the Committee.

said, he thought the limit adopted by the right hon. Gentleman a very illiberal one. He thought every parish ought to have a polling-place. Parish officers ought to be the persons to take the votes of the parishioners. He objected to the idea of the candidates having agents at every polling-place. The parish officers were to be trusted to discharge this duty as they were trusted at present in counties and in boroughs to place the greater portion of the electors on the register. By a proper development of parochial authority and responsibility much expense could be got rid of and arrangements much simplified.

said, the hon. Gentleman had submitted a plan adapted to the future. When the First Lord of the Admiralty had carried his Bill for reforming local government, he might act on the suggestion which, had just been made; but the regulations the Committee had already made with regard to presiding officers were not such that the duties could now be safely intrusted to overseers. In many parts of the kingdom the parishes were small, and he could hardly suppose that under any circumstances there would be a polling-place in every parish. The hon. Member would admit that his suggestion would hardly suit our present circumstances.

said, he hoped, at all events, that the right hon. Gentleman would consider those suggestions before he re-introduced his Dill next year. Any legislation must as far as possible be of a permanent character; and therefore he trusted that during the Recess the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether some parochial authority could not be introduced into the Bill. It was hardly worth while discussing the matter now, as they would have to discuss it at another time. Small parishes could be combined, as they were for school boards under the Education Act.

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment for reducing the distance from four miles to two.

moved, as an Amendment, the omission of the words "so far as is reasonably practicable," which were used in reference to fixing the districts for the polling-places. The Quarter Sessions would have to make the arrangements for fixing those districts, and it would be a great evil to have party discussions at the Quarter Sessions on such a subject. The direct terms on which such arrangements were to be made should be laid down, so that the Court of Quarter Sessions might know what they were to do and what they were not to do.

said, if the hon. Member would visit him in the autumn, they could take a walk of 20 or 30 miles across the moors, and he would then see that it would be impossible not to leave some discretion, because it would be unreasonable to provide polling-places for the sparse population.

repeated that it would be most convenient to adopt the arrangement he had suggested. No man could object to go to the centre of his parish, and if he were more than four miles from it that would be his misfortune.

moved to insert three instead of four in reference to the number of miles within which the polling-places should be brought to the residence of electors. He said the proposals of the Government were more liberal for Ireland than for England. The Returns for Irish counties showed that, in proportion to population, they would have many more polling-places than English counties were likely to have. In the case of his own county he did not think the Amendment would make much difference, because the limit of 100 electors would leave things much as they were now.

said, the hon. Baronet must bear in mind the clause did not propose any limit of four miles as a minimum; it would leave it to the discretion of the county authorities to make the distance as much loss as they liked. It would be going too far to propose compulsion with reference to a less distance than four miles. There was no analogy between children going to school every day, and electors going to the poll once in three or four years. It was possible that hereafter they might find it necessary to go further; but considering the expense that was likely to be incurred by the change, and that it was to be borne by the candidates, it was going far enough to make the four-mile distance compulsory, leaving a discretion with reference to a less distance.

said, that by putting a polling-place within reach of every voter they would save the expense of conveying voters to the poll. He believed it would be found many voters would not walk even three miles to record their votes.

urged the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment for the convenience of electors.

referred to suggestions he had previously offered to the Committee, one of which was that the county voter should be placed as nearly in the same position as the borough voter in regard to the facilities for going to the poll. The second suggestion he made was that the polling-places should be situate at such distances as to enable workpeople to record their votes during the dinner hour, so that they might be freed from the effects of any influence on the part of their employers. He had thought these suggestions, being consistent with the principle of the Bill, would have been adopted, and he deeply regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not given them some consideration in this clause. He should now therefore support the Amendment.

objected to the multiplication of polling-places, because a multiplication of expenses would follow, as election agents would probably require to have a confidential clerk, and well paid, at each polling-place. He did not think that the distance as between three miles and four miles would much affect the aged and infirm, for many persons who could walk three could, also walk four miles.

said, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted. In canvassing the poorer voters they were very often told—"I voted at the last election for so-and-so, and have never been paid for my day's work." Many such voters would not walk even one mile, and the clause would disfranchise hundreds and thousands of county electors.

said, the Committee ought to consider what would be the inconvenience or loss to the electors if the clause were passed. How were they to be repaid for the loss of their day's wages in walking to the poll? It was only reasonable and right that the distance of the polling-booths should be reduced as much as possible, in order to save the time and labour of the working classes.

wished the distance could be reduced even to one mile. If a man had to walk four miles to the poll and four back, he would at least lose three hours, which would be tantamount to a day's wages. No poor voter could afford such a sacrifice, and as for the aged and infirm such a distance was out of the question.

said, he would vote for the Amendment because he held the limit of three miles would save expense, and do away with the necessity of carrying voters to the poll, that being the greatest of all objections in county elections. Under the Education Act they would have school-houses at a distance not exceeding three miles, and he hoped that it would be made compulsory that they should be used as polling-places.

said, the reason why the Government proposed four miles was that it being in the power of the county magistrates to make the distance much less they thought no harm could be done and that this was a fair figure. The probability, moreover, was that supposing the four mile standard was adopted a large majority would only have about a mile to walk.

said, he thought the electioneering agents would have the best of it under the proposed conditions.

said, he thought the question was solely one affecting the convenience of voters. His object was that the House should be a fair representation of the constituencies, and this could not be the case unless the utmost facility for voting existed.

pointed out that under the law as it now stood the county magistrates might make as many polling-places as they liked, and the Bill only said that the distance must in no case exceed four miles.

said, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment, as in many counties without it voters would, to a large extent, be disfranchised. In the county he represented (Middlesex) there were at the last Election 18 polling-places to 25,000 electors, and he could state that there was no point on which the electors were so sore as that in regard to the paucity of polling-places, though the county was really a small one. He trusted the Committee would accept the Amendment.

said, he had not heard one conclusive argument for the preference of the figure four to three. In spite of existing Acts, for causes into which he did not care to go, magistrates had not provided sufficient polling-places. If the Amendment was not carried magistrates would divide the counties into districts, with the polling-places separated from each other by eight miles.

pointed out that in many districts with which he was acquainted the union of as many as 10 or 12 parishes would be necessary to furnish the stipulated quota of 100 electors. He proposed, accordingly, to substitute 50.

believed the reduction to be absolutely necessary.

said, the same argument applied as in the former case. The magistrates already had a discretionary power, and he did not think it wise to go further in the direction of compulsion than the Bill already went.

pointed out that the magistrates already possessed many discretionary powers which were not exercised—such, for instance, as the power to form highway districts and to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains.

said, the magistrates generally declined to interfere unless applications were made from individual parishes, which were not very probable if the effect were in any way to increase expense.

said, the Bill contained so many new matters that one must assume that the magistrates would regard any figures contained in the Bill as indicative of the wishes of the Legislature. Accordingly, it was very desirable to adopt the reduced limit of 50.