asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any control over the administration of Criminal Law in the island of Jersey; and, if so, whether his attention has been directed to the case of Harriet Gilbert, a girl of fourteen years of age, who was recently convicted on a charge of having stolen a small piece of butter and a few pence, and sentenced by a Jersey magistrate to imprisonment for one month, half of which time was to be passed in solitary confinement; whether, as reported, she was placed in a damp cell, and during the first and third weeks of imprisonment her fare was limited to a pound of bread daily, and a totally insufficient quantity of water, which, in spite of her earnest request for a further supply to quench her thirst, was not increased; and, whether, in consequence of this treatment, the child died before the term of the sentence had expired?

I have, Sir, no control, as Secretary of State, over the administration of the criminal law in Jersey, except when advising Her Majesty in the exercise of her Prerogative. The prisons in Jersey are governed by a Prison Board, established by an Order in Council dated 1860. No reports are made to the Home Office by this Board, and there is no inspection of prisons in Jersey by the Prison Inspectors connected with the Home Office. I believe it is quite true, as stated in the Question, that a girl 14 years of age was sentenced to imprisonment for a month for theft, that half of this time was to be passed in solitary confinement, and that during the first and third weeks of her imprisonment she was kept on bread and water. Since my attention was called to this matter, I have communicated with the Governor respecting it, and am glad to find that his attention had already been directed to the case, and that he had made very stringent inquiries. It turns out that, by no rule of the Prison Board, but by a practice which has grown up, whenever a prisoner has been sentenced to solitary confinement, he has always been kept on bread and water. The Governor very properly interfered the moment the matter was brought to his attention, and that custom has in consequence been entirely discontinued for the future. The girl, however, was sentenced to this imprisonment. She was an old offender, and had been in custody five times within the previous six months. Probably, therefore, she deserved her sentence, but the bread and water formed no part of her sentence; and the magistrate, I believe, had no notion of the existence of this rule of the prison when he inflicted the sentence. However, I am happy to say that such an incident can never occur again. The authorities of the prison deny that the girl's health suffered injury from the dampness of her cell. She seems to have been naturally of a weakly constitution, though her death was no doubt accelerated by her treatment in prison. I regret very much that such a case should have occurred, and can only repeat that it cannot occur again.

asked, whether an inquest had been held on the body of the girl, who died in prison before her sentence expired?

said, there was no Coroner in Jersey, but an inquiry had been held by the Vicomte into the cause of death, and the conclusion come to was that the child died from natural causes.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to a statement in "The Times" newspaper of April 2nd of the sanitary condition of Beggars' Bush Barracks, and to the quotation from the Annual Report of 1873—

"A serious sanitary defect in barracks awaits removal until the Engineer department is in the possession of the necessary funds. I allude to cess pits in the vicinity of the officers' quarters and those of the barrack sergeant;"

whether numerous deaths, including those of two officers, have not taken place from scarlet and typhoid fever; whether a third officer was not taken ill and his life for a time despaired of; and if the officers' cook has died from typhoid disease in those barracks; and, whether the existence of these cess pits and ash pits, reported upon by the Dublin Sanitary Committee in 1873, and the report duly transmitted to the Commander in Chief in Ireland still exists?

Sir, I will give my hon. Friend such information as I have been able to collect on this subject. With respect to the Annual Report of 1873, I am not able to discover what that Report is; at all events, it is not an official Report connected with my Department, though I have no reason to doubt that some such Report was made. In December, 1873, the officer of Royal Engineers asked permission to remove these cess pits, and accordingly they were done away with, and the privies in the rear of the mess premises and barrack sergeant's quarters were converted into water-closets by March, 1874. With respect to the second Question, I am sorry to say that there were several deaths in 1873, especially of children. The medical officer in charge of the 2nd Battalion of Scots Fusilier Guards thus reports as to the year 1873—

"Zymotic diseases have furnished a larger number of admissions than usual, owing to the occurrence of enteric and scarlet fevers when the battalion was quartered in Beggars' Bush Barracks, Dublin. These diseases could not be traced to any sanitary defects existing in those barracks. There were seven cases of enteric fever of mild form. With the exception of two, all recovered. Among the men there were 10 admissions from scarlet fever of a mild type; all did well. There were 21 cases of scarlet fever among the children, seven of whom died."

In 1874, I find that in the 3rd battalion of Grenadier Guards four cases of typhoid fever occurred in connection with these barracks. Whether they were attributable or not to insanitary conditions within the barracks is, however, open to question. The first case was that of a soldier admitted into hospital with typhoid fever, after confinement in prison cells. He stated that he had been employed in cleaning a drain near the officers' kitchen. The next case was that of Captain Langham, who resided in barracks, but who was absent in Glasgow from the 29th of October to the 3rd of November. About a fortnight after his return he appears to have been attacked. Being married, he resided at some distance from the officers' mess, from which, however, his meals were procured. The third case is that of Captain Van de Weyer. The surgeon-major stated that this officer was from the 20th to the 23rd of November on a visit to a country house, in which, it is believed, a case of typhoid fever had occurred some time before. On the 24th and 25th of November he was in barracks, apparently quite well, and on the 26th he left Kingstown for England. About a fortnight afterwards, at a county seat where he had gone to shoot, he was taken ill, with symptoms of fever, of which he died near Windsor. The fourth case was that of a mess cook, a civilian, who was employed in the kitchen during the day, sleeping outside. He died out of barracks. I am informed that the Medical department has no knowledge of the third officer alluded to in the Question in connection with these barracks. The principal medical officer in Ireland, in his Report, January 2, 1875, states—

"The general health of the troops has been good during the period specified. The Grenadier Guards have not been so healthy for the past 20 years."

As I have already stated, the cesspits have long since been removed, and no cause of disease can now be found in the barracks; but additional ventilation for the drains has been authorized, and the Army Sanitary Committee will inspect the place on the 12th of April.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he has received a copy of the resolutions of a public meeting held at Folkestone on the 31st March (the mayor in the chair), and a letter from the medical officer of health (Mr. Bateman) in reference to a statement reported to have been made by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath, impugning the sanitary condition of the town; and, if the details given by the Medical Officer of Health are correct, viz.: that in the years 1873 and 1874 there were only four fatal cases of fever and scarlatina, and in the three past months of this year no case of fever at all, in a population of 13,000; while the whole average mortality in past years has been under 17 per 1,000?

, in reply, said, he had received only that morning a letter in reference to the matter to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, accompanied by a report from the medical officer of health for Folkestone; that the statement which the hon. Gentleman had quoted was in accordance with the facts stated in the letter, and that there was no information at the office of the Local Government Board to lead him to doubt to accuracy of that statement.

said, as the statement just made would seem to impugn his accuracy, he must claim the indulgence of the House for a few moments whilst he set himself right in its estimation. He considered it a duty which every Member owed to the honour of the House, not to rest for a moment under the imputation of having deceived the House even in the smallest particular. In the first place, he had a right to complain of want of courtesy on the part of the hon. Gentleman who had put down this Question without having given him any Notice by letter or otherwise of his intention to ask it. He might have been absent, he might not have returned from the Recess, and then the hon. Gentleman would have had an opportunity of blackening his character while he would not have been able to defend himself. The way in which this matter arose was as followed:—While the House was in Committee on the Artizans Dwellings Bill he was anxious to extend the operation of the measure to places of less population than 25,000, the figure proposed by the Home Secretary. His argument was, that in the smaller towns, worse places, more dens of fever, were to be found than in the largo towns; and he gave as an example a town in which he had lived for many years, and with which he has well acquainted—namely, Folkestone. He stated then—and he repeated now—that there were dens of fever there worse than could be found anywhere else in this country. That statement was challenged by a town councillor of the name of Harrison, who went round with a paper with the view of getting the Mayor to get up an indignation meeting, because he was anxious that those dens should not be inspected, while he (Lord Robert Montagu) and those who were acting with him tried to force inquiry into those matters. The argument which he (the town councillor) used to the lodging-house keepers was that, if statements were published about the sanitary condition of Folkestone, visitors, by whom the lodging-house keepers made their livelihood, would not come to reside there in summer. "We are great as Diana of Ephesus; we gain our livelihood by lodging-houses; no matter about the health of the people."

said, that the noble Lord was entitled to give a personal explanation, in order to show the accuracy of the statement he had made; but he was now passing the bounds of explanation by debating the question.

said, he would confine himself to explanation. An indignation meeting was held, and to show the House the way he was attacked, he would quote one sentence from the speeches which were made at that meeting, when the resolutions to which the hon. Member's Question referred were passed. One speaker, the person to whom he had already referred, characterized his remarks in Committee of the House as being "the most glaring, lying, barefaced statement I ever saw in print." Had he brought that language before the House as a Question of Privilege, he ventured to think that the Speaker would have said that it was a serious breach of the Privileges of that House to make such an assertion with respect to the remarks of any Member in Committee. He did not, however, think it right to take up the time of the House by bringing the matter forward as a Question of Privilege. Nor did he think that those persons were worthy of the distinction of being brought to the Bar of the House, as they were persons who were always daily to be seen in their shirt sleeves. He preferred, rather, to treat them with the contempt they deserved; but he unhesitatingly asserted that if any hon. Gentleman would go to Folkestone and inspect the place, they would see for themselves that in the statement he had made in Committee he was not deceiving the House. He referred them also to the Registrar General's Returns, as published in The Times on the 19th of August last, where they would find that Folkestone stood, not in the first, nor the second, but in the third category of towns where the death-rate was 23 per 1,000, and not 3 7 per 1,000—that high death-rate being caused by those very fever dens to which he had referred. The rest of Folkestone was healthy enough, and it was in the localities of those fever dens where the death-rate was so high as 23 per 1,000. He would only add that in the statement he had made in Committee he had spoken accurately, and he never would be guilty of deceiving the House in any matter

said, he wished to say a single word in reference to what the noble Lord had said about not having received Notice of the Question on the Paper. He did not think that he had been guilty of any want of courtesy towards the noble Lord. When he gave Notice of the Question he was aware that the noble Lord was in the House, and therefore he thought there was no occasion to call the attention of the noble Lord to the matter, as he otherwise would have done. He would not enter into the matter of controversy beyond saying that he believed that the statements which had been made to the House in regard to the condition of Folkestone had still been made in error.

, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Brewers' Licence Duty is unjust and unfair in its incidence and ought to he repealed,"

said, he felt deeply sensible of his inability to do justice to this question, but he would endeavour to place the subject clearly and completely before the House, having due regard to brevity, on the one hand, and the importance of the question on the other. It was essentially necessary at the outset to remove some misapprehensions which existed in the public mind in relation to this question generally. There were some, he understood, who believed that in 1862 the brewers were instrumental in having the hop duty removed, and that they were quite satisfied with the Brewers' Licence Duty as it now existed. The brewers had nothing whatever to do with the removal of the duty on hops, that work being entirely carried out by the hop-growers themselves, under the very able leadership of the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson). Another mis- apprehension was that this question was, to some extent, part of the great licensing question which had occupied so much attention for the last two years. It was in no sense connected with that great question; indeed, it might well be discussed from the view of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who, he regretted to say, could not be present that evening owing to domestic affliction, as from the commercial and financial point of view from which he himself wished to treat it. Again, it was said that the brewers of this country were large and wealthy traders; but, so far as they were furnished with the facts, that was not the case. Last year the number was 28,968, and of that number 9,000 were so small that their whole annual turn-over did not exceed from £500 to £600. Whilst 18,600 did a business of under £2,000 of a turn-over, no doubt some of the remaining 1,368 did very large businesses indeed. He was perfectly well aware that the interests of the large brewers of the country were well represented in that House, and that probably it would be deemed presumption in him to bring forward such a question. Looking to the position of the small brewers, the course of affairs had been, as in relation to manufactures generally, that the larger gradually absorbed the smaller; but that was a state of affairs which need not be encouraged by unnatural means. Now, this licence duty undoubtedly operated in that direction. The tax was imposed in 1862; but it was essential to look at the Financial Statement of 1860, which was one of the most notable among the many made by the late Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of its main features was the lowering of the duty on the light wines of Europe. There was a slight reduction in the hop duty, preparing the way for its repeal in 1862. The Revenue at that time was only £150,000 more than the Expenditure, and the question was how to abolish the hop duty and avoid a deficit—in other words, how far it was possible to substitute with equity to all parties some other form of impost which would entirely set free the foreign trade as well as the British trade in hops. To do this the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to re-adjust the licence duty as it then existed, so as to take in the whole of the hop duties at that time. It was found that in the smallest quantity of beer that could well be brewed—one barrel—2 lbs. of hops and two bushels of malt would be used, and if 2 1bs. of hops were taxed at the then rate of 14s. per cwt, there would be 3d. a-barrel as the future outcome of the Brewers' Licence Duty. On that basis this tax was imposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer held out to the brewers and consumers that they would obtain a supply of hops at a lower rate, and that, therefore, this would not really be a tax. In his (Mr. Holms's) opinion the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in the view he then entertained. Before the duties on light foreign wines had been reduced, the importation was 6,000,000 gallons; but in 1862 it had increased to 9,650,000 gallons, and since to a far greater extent. It was calculated that an increase in the importation of hops would also follow the change proposed, and that hope was founded on the fact that whereas the average amount of the import duty was but £30,000 a-year, it amounted in 1862 to £ 110,000. The right hon. Gentleman was therefore justified in believing the price of hops would be lower, but the result was entirely different. In fact, hops were a great deal higher now than they had ever been known in this country before. In re-adjusting the Brewers' Licence Duty the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day laid it down, as a rule, that the charge should be so taken as to relieve the small brewers, who, in comparison with the larger, were hardly dealt with. This was a matter of very considerable importance; but the fact was that even now the pressure was still the other way, for while the man who only brewed 20 barrels of beer paid at the rate of 7½d. per barrel duty, the brewer of 50 barrels paid only 6½d., the brewer of 100, 5d. per barrel, and the brewer of 1,000, 3¼d. So that the injustice remained till this day. Undoubtedly before the hop duty was removed everybody paid according to the amount of hops consumed; but now the poor man whose beer had only a "nosing" of hops had to pay the same through the licensing duty as the rich man who used 1s. 8d. worth of hops per barrel. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time said—

"It would not be quite just to the regular brewer when called upon to make an equivalent payment in respect of the hop duty, that the private brewer should he allowed to go scot-free."—[3 Hansard, clxvi. 408c.]

Again, that it would be extremely hard that the brewer who brewed for sale should pay 3d. a barrel in lieu of duty, and that, at the same time, anyone who brewed for himself should be allowed to brew without doing so: And again, that—

"We are going to require from brewers for sale a payment in hard cash for every pound of hops they are estimated to use, and we cannot fairly make that demand upon them if we give to persons who choose to brew in private a positive premium by telling them that they shall have their hops free of duty without any payment at all. It may be true that brewers for sale brow more cheaply than private brewers. With that we have nothing to do. Our business is simply not to interfere. We ought not, without grave reasons, to give a premium to private brewers: but we should, as far as we can, leave both parties in the position in which we find them, asking them to bear the same burden of taxation."—[3 Hansard, clxvi. 782–3.]

Nothing could be more emphatic than that language, yet not a single private brewer had paid any duty since 1862, and some large private establishments were now brewing at least as much as anyone out of nine-tenths of the small brewers for sale. A letter he had received from a small brewer gave an instance of a private establishment which brewed 200 quarters of malt a-year, and it was added that 20,000 brewers who brewed less ale in the year were obliged to pay duty. Many large farmers now brewed beer for their homesteads, and even paid part of the wages in it; undergraduates at the University Colleges were getting their beer duty free; and some large places of business in London were taking advantage of the fact that they could brew without paying more duty than that upon hops. The House accepted the maxim of Adam Smith that the subjects of the Realm ought to contribute to its revenues as nearly as possible in proportion to their ability; but that maxim was violated when the rich nobleman was exempted from a duty paid by the small brewer at his gate. His belief was that had Parliament, in 1862, had the least notion that private brewers were to escape, the measure of that year would not have been passed. It was not so much of the amount of this tax as of the manner in which it was raised that he complained; it was one of those taxes that shackled trade and crippled industry. Had a slight increase been placed on the malt duty in 1862, we should have been rid of the difficulties attending the collection of this tax, and the worry- ing of the small brewer, and the private brewer would have paid his proportionate share of it. The tendency of our legislation in this country had been to encourage free trade, to open our ports to raw materials, and to remove every shackle from industry. In 1830 Mr. Poulett Thompson illustrated the condition of manufactures that were impeded by taxation, and he read a letter describing the hindrances to the manufacture of paper incidental to the collection of the duty upon it. That letter was strikingly analogous in the description it gave to another letter which he held in his hand, which related how brewers were hampered by having to give lengthened notice of the exact quantity they desired to brew, and to place distinctive marks on all their rooms, under a penalty of £200, while they had to pay the duty in advance; so that it was a tax on capital as well as on production. What trade would stand the re-imposition of a duty on what had once been relieved? Would calico printers tolerate a re-imposition of the duty of 3½d a square yard on calico? Yet the Brewers' Licence Duty was practically a repealed tax re-imposed. It was clearly unfair as well as impolitic that any particular trade should be singled out for taxation opposed to the general tendency of our legislation. In 1830, three reasons influenced Parliament in removing the duty—first, it was done to remove a shackle from trade; secondly, it was done to remove the very inequality which was now urged as a grievance, for it was said at the time that the beer duty fell wholly on the lower and middle classes, who did not brew their own beer; and, lastly, it was said that the existence of the beer duty favoured the consumption of ardent spirits, which, he believed, was a sound reason for repealing it. Contrary to the intention of Parliament, however, the condition of the small brewer was worse at the present moment than in 1830, because of the trammels imposed upon his trade. There were 27,000 of these small brewers, many of whom retailed their own beer. They had first to pay the duty on malt; they had then to pay on the malt in their brewery; thirdly, if they were retailers they had to pay a licence duty; and, lastly, they paid income tax. They were, however, in the latter case in a different position from their brother-manufacturers, because the Inland Revenue had before them the returns of the malt they had used, and they corrected one return with the other. He believed that if the beer brewed for the working classes was of a sound and good quality there would be a fair chance of its displacing a portion of the present enormous consumption of ardent spirits. There was considerable misapprehension as to the drinking habits of the working classes and the use they were making of their money, and he had, therefore, prepared two sets of facts which threw some light on the subject. The first showed the home consumption of beer, wine, and spirits in 1860 compared with 1873. In beer the increase had been 35 per cent; but when it was recollected that in England and Wales beer was the beverage of the working classes, while very little was drunk in Scotland and Ireland, and when it was further recollected that the population of England and Wales had increased during that interval by 17 per cent. while taking Ireland and Scotland together, there had been no increase of population at all, it would be found that there had been an excess of 30 per cent in beer over the consumption of 1860. In wine, however, the excess of increase in 1873 as compared with 1860 was not less than 137 per cent. In spirits the increase was 30 per cent; but in brandy, of which the working classes drank least, it amounted to 158 per cent. The rich man now drank three bottles of wine where he used to drink one bottle, although the amount of duty paid into the Exchequer upon our total import of wine was precisely the same. But it was far otherwise in regard to beer. The poor paid precisely in the ratio of their consumption, and they paid an increase of £6,200,000 as compared with 1860. He would not deny that in many places they drank too much beer, but during the last Easter holidays, staying in a country house in a neighbouring county, he was told by his host that the labourers of that part of the country did not get beer more than once a-week. They met a labourer whom they questioned upon the subject, and he told them that he drank cold tea to his dinner every day but Saturday, and he believed that this was true of many other counties. The other set of facts which he had prepared, showed that if more beer were consumed, the consumption of beer was not greater, but less in proportion to other articles of diet. In 1860 the home consumption of butter was at the rate per head of the population of 3·26; in 1873, 4·39. In cheese it was, in 1860, 2·24; in 1873, 4·69. In currants and raisins it was 3·59; in 1873, 4·29. In eggs it was 5·83; in 1873, 20·56. In potatoes, 2·18; in 1873, 26·17. In tea, 2·67; in 1873, 4·11. In malt, however, it was 1·45; in 1873, 1·98. So that the working classes were not spending the whole of their increased earnings on alcoholic liquors. It was an axiom that whatever manufacture was carried on should be left as free as possible to the manufacturer. Let the Government tax the article used in the manufacture of beer if they pleased, or after the manufacturer had made it, but not trammel the man in making the article itself. It ought also to be borne in mind that we had competitors all over the world, and unless we left the manufacture of beer as free as possible, our brewers would find themselves at a disadvantage with their rivals. Our export trade in beer already amounted to £2,500,000 a-year, and we had competitors in Austria, Germany, and elsewhere. The question had been raised whether this was a tax that fell upon the producer or the consumer. He would take it either way; but if the producer had paid it, the present system as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) had pointed out, gave a qualified monopoly to the rich brewer, who more easily paid the duty beforehand. He was, however, quite confident that, as a rule, the consumer paid the duty in the shape of a deteriorated article, and that, therefore, this was a consumer's question, and it was for the House to consider further how far they were by this tax encouraging adulteration, especially in the beer produced for the poorer classes. He could not imagine that the brewers expected that this duty could be entirely repealed without something like a registration licence being substituted for it. He had, however, no doubt that this was one of those duties which ought to be removed at the very earliest date. No one could expect that it would be repealed at the expense of the creation of a new tax; but if it were unjust, and he believed it to be, in addition, most injurious and impolitic, the Executive Government ought to remove the duty at the very earliest moment. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he objected to the duty in question because it was saddled on the brewers in consequence of anticipations which had never been realized. At the time when the hop duty was abolished, it was supposed that a large reduction would be made in the price of hops; and as it was thought that the brewers would receive all the advantage, it was deemed right and fair that they should pay to the Exchequer a portion of the benefits they were to receive. What, however, were the facts? In 1862 the price of hops was between £6 and £8 a cwt.; now the same quality of hops could not be bought under £14 to £16. The brewers, therefore, instead of receiving an advantage, had to pay double the price they paid in 1862, and on that account this tax ought to receive great amelioration, if it were not completely removed. He objected to the tax also on account of its inequality. Since the tax was levied, there had been a reduction in the number of small brewers to the extent of over 700 a-year; and he believed, if it were continued, an industry which was of great importance to many towns and country districts would be altogether extinguished, so far as small brewers were concerned, and the manufacture placed in the hands of a few gentlemen who had the command of unbounded capital. He was aware that it had been said that matters affecting taxation ought not to be brought forward before the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his annual statement, or upon Budget night, or after the financial scheme had been launched. Still, he hoped that the present being no Party question, and one which was founded in reason and justice, Her Majesty's Government would see their way to a reduction, if not to a total abolition of the tax.

I regret, Sir, very much, for various reasons, the absence from the House of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). We always listen with pleasure to the speeches of the hon. Baronet, and the cause of his absence to-day must enhance our regret that he is not in his place. I regret his absence also because he has placed upon the Paper a Notice which appears to me to indicate the proper mode of dealing with the question which has been submitted to us by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I will take upon myself the duty the hon. Baronet would have discharged were he present, and conclude by moving the Previous Question upon the Resolution of the hon. Member for Hackney. I do so partly because, as has just been said by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Sherriff), it is not very convenient that the House should come to a Resolution of this character upon the eve of the Budget; but, at the same time, I wish distinctly to say that I do not at all challenge the propriety of discussions of this sort—a fair and full discussion upon the merits of taxes, either before the Budget or when it is laid before the House, or, indeed, at any time that may appear to be desirable for attracting attention to the subject. I will go further, and say that with regard to this particular question, I think it is one which very well deserves some quiet and candid and impartial consideration on the part of Parliament; because, although it has been brought forward from time to time for a good many years, and although it has been more than once adverted to in this House by private Members, by Chancellors of the Exchequer, and by other Ministers, yet unquestionably it has been commonly discussed under circumstances of some disadvantage. I am ready to concede to the hon. Member for Hackney that there is some force in the opening part of his observations with regard to some of the fallacies with which the question has been more than once met. for instance, it is a fallacy to deal with it and seek to set it aside on the ground that brewers are a rich body. It is perfectly true that there are a very large number of brewers who are men of very moderate means, and who are not to be passed over because it is said that they belong to a rich body of persons. I would even go beyond that, and say, Let them be as rich as you please, they are not to be treated unjustly. They have a right to come forward and say—" You are not to treat us unjustly simply because we are rich. We demand justice, and if we can show that we are treated with injustice, we have a right to ask for redress," Again, I would frankly admit that there is no reason why we should say, We will not deal with this manufacture as we deal with other manufactures, because it is capable of being turned to abuse. No doubt, any intoxicating liquor may be, and often is, abused; but as long as men conduct their business fairly and properly, and are engaged in a legitimate calling like this, odium ought not to be attached to it, or fair play withheld from it. Therefore, I say it is quite reasonable and fair that every question should be heard, and temperately and fairly considered. On the other hand, I must be permitted an observation on the other side. I think it would be very unfortunate that anything like what may be called "Party" and "political" feeling should be imported into a question of this sort. It would be greatly to be lamented if in a question like this any political influence which might be supposed to be possessed by a body of men such as the brewers are, should be allowed to enter into the consideration of the subject, as though hon. Members were not to regard it on its own merits and decide it without reference to the influence a particular body of men may exercise in the constituencies. I believe there are circumstances connected with the agitation on this subject which justify me in making that remark, and in warning hon. Members that in a question of this sort they ought to lay aside all considerations except those of abstract justice and expediency. Now, the hon. Member for Hackney asks us to affirm a Resolution of a very serious character. He asks the House to say that the Brewers' Licence Duty is unjust and unfair in its incidence, and that it ought to be repealed. Well, I believe if we were to take any one tax upon our list of taxes, and devote ourselves exclusively to a consideration of that tax in order to see whether we could not find inequalities, or what might be called unfairness in it, there is scarcely any tax that would absolutely stand such a scrutiny. Take, for instance, the duty on tea. It would be perfectly competent for anybody to say that it is unfair because it presses equally on tea of a high quality and on tea of a low quality. I hardly like to refer to the income tax; but who has not heard it said that it was unfair in its incidences? Then, again, you might take local taxation, and many persons would be ready enough to say that it is unfair in its incidence, because it presses unequally on different classes of property. If you take any article in the whole category of taxes, it is probable that you will find in it some kind of unfairness and inequality. But you are not on that account to come forward and ask the House of Commons to pass a solemn Resolution that any tax in which you can find inconveniences or inequalities of that sort is to be condemned as unjust; and still more ought you to be cautious that you do not carry a Motion of that kind to the extent of declaring that the tax is so unfair that it must necessarily be repealed. If there are inequalities, let us consider what these inequalities are; whether they admit of being remedied without the necessity of sweeping away the tax altogether, or whether the tax is such that however you amend it, it still must remain unjust, and therefore ought to be abolished. This is the last position which the Motion asks the House to take, and which the hon. Gentleman in his speech points to. Well, now, where is the essential injustice of this tax? I am not talking at this moment about the particular incidence or the scale of the tax—I will come to that presently—because I am disposed to admit that there is something to be said on the scale of the tax. But let us look at the tax itself, irrespective of the particular pressure of the scale in its present form. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion made an admission or statement towards the end of his speech which I was very glad to hear, and in which I think he was perfectly right. I doubt whether everybody promoting this movement, or the brewers out-of-doors, will agree with him. He said it was a consumers' question, and I believe it. I will not take upon me to say what is the precise mode in which this tax is distributed in the prices charged to the consumers of beer; but of this I am sure, that the original burden laid upon the brewers and sellers of beer is taken into account in the arrangements they make; that it bears upon the rate of profit they make; that it influences the price paid, either the actual price in money, or which is more unsatisfactory, the price paid in deterioration of quality, by the consumer. We must, therefore, approach it as a consumers' question. The hon. Member asked whether there was not an injus- tice in this tax. What are the circumstances? It has long been the policy of Parliament to raise a considerable amount of revenue by taxation imposed upon various intoxicating liquors—spirits, wine, and beer, or the materials that compose beer. A direct duty on beer has long been given up. In the year 1862, the duty upon hops was put an end to; and at that time this surcharge upon brewers' licences was introduced instead. Well, the hon. Gentleman says the reason why the duty on hops was taken off in 1862 was that the duty on light wines had been greatly reduced, and that it was thought fair by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gladstone), at the time to make some reduction in the duties on beer in order to balance the reduction that had been made in the duties on light wines. I confess that is a new view to me. I confess that is not the way in which I heard the speech of my right hon. Friend when he brought forward the Budget in 1862. As far as I recollect, the main point that was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this—that there were inherent objections to the hop duty; that it caused great inconvenience; that it was productive of gambling and uncertainty, and that it was open to a great many objections. Therefore, he proposed to meet those objections by abolishing the duty. The hon. Gentleman curiously enough, without perceiving the tendency of his own argument, quoted the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that he would endeavour to provide some other means—as he could not spare the revenue—by which he might be able to bring into the Revenue about the same amount as had been obtained from the hop duty. But if the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to take off the hop duty in order to reduce the tax on beer in compensation for the reduction in light wines, I do not quite understand why he should substitute something that would bring in the same amount of Revenue from the same article. I have never been able to discover either in what was said on that occasion or on subsequent occasions by my right hon. Friend, that he held out any idea, such as brewers are apt to suppose existed in his mind, that this was a mere temporary removal of the hop duty, and a temporary placing of it on brewers' licences with the view to get rid of it altogether whenever he had a sufficient surplus. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do was to alter the incidence of the tax without diminishing the flow of Revenue into the Exchequer. Now, has he done more than that? I think not. I had a comparison made some time ago as to the amount that came into the Exchequer under the present system, and what would probably have come into it under the old hop and licence duties. The calculation was made for 1873; but it would be applicable more or less to the year which has just passed. The result is, that in 1873 the brewers purchased something like 65,500,0001b of hops, and according to the old duty of 1½d. per pound, this would have produced £409,000. There would have been also the old licence duty, which would have produced about £78,000; and the total result of the maintenance of the old duties in the year 1873 would have been about £487,000. The amount which was actually paid into the Exchequer under the present system was £448,000, or £39,000 less than the Exchequer would have received if the old system had been maintained. That proves this at all events, that the arrangement was one which gave effect to that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was his intention in doing away with the hop duty—namely, to substitute for it a tax in the form of an addition to brewers' licences which should produce somewhere about the same amount of revenue as the hop duty had produced. The arrangement has produced rather less. The Exchequer is not a gainer thereby, and the consumer, we may presume, is left in about the same position as before. The hon. Gentleman says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made this change, held out certain advantages which have not been realized—that he said brewers would not suffer from the additional burdens put on them, because they would get their hops at a lower rate. The hon. Gentleman says that has proved a delusion, and that the price of hops has not fallen but, on the contrary, has risen. I do not intend to enter into the question whether the price of hops has risen or fallen, because I do not think it has anything to do with the question. The point is, what the effect of the removal of the duty upon hops was, and whether if you had not removed that duty hops would not have been higher now than they are. It is true that the price of hops has risen, though the rise has been a good deal exaggerated; but I cannot see how, because the price has advanced after the duty has been taken off, therefore the taking off the duty did no good at all. Some years ago the duty was taken off gloves; yet I know that I pay more for my gloves than I did before; but it does not follow that there has been no relief to the purchasers of gloves by means of taking off the duty. The fact, is that there has been a very large increase in the demand for hops, and the effect has naturally been to raise the price. I suspect, however, that you will find that the price has been steadier than it was before; and, certainly, if the duty had not been removed, the price of hops would have been higher than it now is. The hon. Gentleman points out, as did the hon. Member for Worcester, that the number of small brewers is continually diminishing, and he says you must attribute that to the alteration which was made as to brewers' licences. The licence duty crushes, as I understood him, small brewers. But if the hon. Gentleman had carried out his researches a little further he would have seen that the diminution in the number of small brewers did not commence with the abandonment of the hop duty, but that it has been going on for a great number of years—since 1830 most assuredly. The reduction since 1830 was from 49,228 to 38,000 in 1862. No doubt there has been a further decrease since; but it is a decrease which is due not to this system or any other system, but to natural causes, which would have operated whether you kept up this duty or not. The natural advantages possessed by large capitalists and great brewers have been quickened and advanced of late years by the development of the means of communication, and the consequent case with which beer in large quantities can be transported from extensive manufacturing centres over the whole country. The almost inevitable result of this has been to close many of the small breweries which previously existed in parts of the country placed beyond the reach of the large towns. These brewers have been displaced by the superior energy and the great excellence of production shown by the large brewers whose names are household words among us, and not in any way by the operation of the licensing of brewers. I would also point out, as confirming this view, and as an answer to another objection raised by the hon. Gentleman, that the same process which has resulted in the reduction of the number of small brewers has operated also upon the practice of private brewing, which instead of being a formidable competitor to the business of the public brewers, has become altogether insignificant, in comparison. We cannot say what is the exact amount of private brewing, for we have no Returns; but we can say what is the difference between the quantity of malt charged with duty and the quantity known to be used by the public brewer; and it is fair to infer that the remainder chiefly represents what is used by private persons. Until about the year 1862 the difference between the total quantity of malt charged with duty and that known to have been used by public brewers was about 2,700,000 bushels. This may be taken to represent the quantity used by private brewers and manufacturers of vinegar and yeast. During the last seven years the difference to which I allude, instead of being 2,700,000 bushels, has fallen to 400,000 bushels, about half of which, it is fair to assume, has been used in the manufacture of yeast and vinegar; so that, as will be seen, the consumption of malt in private brewing is less than half per cent of the total consumption. While I admit that in theory an apparent injustice is done by allowing the private brewer to use malt which has not paid duty, I contend that in practice the injustice done is very insignificant; but that is a matter that lies rather apart from this part of the question. I now come to another portion of the question, that is with regard to what the hon. Gentleman said, and said with truth, as to the inequality of the present scale of licences. One of the points strongly insisted upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) when he made the alteration in 1862 was that, according to the then existing scale of brewers' licences, very great injustice was done to the small brewer, who was called upon to pay a certain fixed sum, while the larger brewer who paid somewhat more was only called upon to do so up to a limited point, beyond which there was no increase whatever in the amount of licence duty which he had to pay. My right hon. Friend therefore proposed the present scale, which was intended to remedy the injustice complained of, and instead of stopping at a certain limit it was so arranged as to carry on the tax up to any amount that the brewer might brew. But if you will look into the details of that scale you will find this unsatisfactory result, that the small brewer pays a great deal more on the malt that he brews—say 20 or 30 quarters—in reference to each barrel, than the brewer who brews his hundreds of thousands of barrels; and, therefore, that is an injustice that is still in existence under the present scale. This matter is one to which I have given consideration, and it is a point upon which I hope to be able to make at the proper time some proposal to the House. I shall do this because I think such a proposal will be entirely consistent with the spirit of the plan adopted by Parliament in 1862 at the instance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich. Passing to another point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney, I must say that I do not think any alteration in the amount of licence duty chargeable would remedy the grievance of which he complains when he says that the charge falls more heavily than it ought upon the brewer who uses but a small quantity of hops in comparison with the malt which he puts into his beer. The inequality arises from the varying principles on which different brewers conduct their manufacture, and cannot be remedied or mitigated by altering the licence duty. Then there is one other point on which the hon. Gentleman has touched, and which I know is one that is very largely complained of, and that is one which I think is worthy of consideration also. It relates to the time at which the duty is collected. What is said is, that under the old system the hop grower paid his duty, but credit was allowed to him, and he frequently had a considerable time before he had to pay the duty; and that, to a certain extent, the brewer got the benefit of that length of time, whilst there is no credit now, but the tax is levied even before the beer is brewed. That is a point that is worthy of consideration, though it is not convenient at the present moment that I should make any positive statement; but it is a matter that I have undoubtedly under consideration, and I should be willing to see whether it would be possible to meet the complaints upon the point. With regard to the actual incidents of the scale and the time that the duty is collected, on these two points I am quite willing to say that the subject is under consideration. I have had frequent communications with practical officers upon the subject, and though I reserve myself from any pledge, I may say that it is one on which I am not indisposed to consider the frequent communications that have been made to me. With regard to the general argument of the hon. Gentleman that this duty is in itself unjust, and that it is one which the House can only deal with by abolishing it, I am sorry to say I can only resist such a proposition, as being unreasonable, unfair, and not capable of being sustained by argument. It is all very well to compare brewing with the manufacture of calico or any other similar process, but we all know that the two things are not similar. The taxes laid in some form or other upon the manufacture of intoxicating drinks are altogether out of the category of taxes laid, or possible of being laid, upon the production of articles such as calico, and I cannot for a moment admit the force of arguments based upon analogies which are no analogies at all, and ought not to determine our course in a matter like the present. In conclusion, therefore, I will only express my hope that the House will not adopt that which is, as a rule, the inconvenient practice of placing upon the Books of the House a Resolution condemnatory of a tax of this character. There is nothing in the circumstances of this tax to warrant any such exceptional course; and I think the House will do wisely by leaving the matter in the hands of the Government, contenting itself with the fact that the question has been fairly brought forward and temperately and dispassionately discussed. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Previous Question.

said, it was his intention to have moved the Previous Question, in the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) if it had not been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had both looked at this question within a very narrow sphere indeed. The majority of the Irish Members of the House held that, as a class, the brewers, from whom this complaint emanated, had been exceptionally favoured in the matter of legislation. It had been stated that the brewing interest was in a state of decay, but he was unable to find any evidence of it, either in the metropolis or elsewhere in England; and so far from its showing any signs of ruin, decay, or death, beer was king in this land. It might, however, be true that the small brewers were being slain by their greater brethren. The abolition of this tax was urged as a relief to the brewers, and as an encouragement of the manufacture of beer in the interests of sobriety; but it struck him as being a very extraordinary appeal. It was on that ground that the late Prime Minister introduced the sale of light wines in England and Ireland by confectioners; but a more disastrous measure to morality had rarely emanated from that House, for it had increased tippling among the women population of Ireland to an extent previously unknown there. So far from its being in the interest of sobriety, it had established so may fashionable drinking schools and female drunkards. What he wished more particularly to point out, however, was that the beer interest was already unduly favoured. Assuming that alcoholic beverages ought to be taxed according to the amount of spirit they contained, he found that beer paid only 2s. per gallon, German and French wine 4s., Spanish and Portuguese wine 6s., and whiskey no less than 10s. Now he made to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) this proposition—that he should equalize the duty upon all alcoholic spirits in the country, whether it was contained in beer, wine, or whisky, and then he should be able to come before the House with a case that was at all events, equitable as between the different branches of the trade. Beer was principally made in England, while whiskey was, for the most part, an Irish and Scotch manufacture; and he trusted that before conferring further advantages on the brewing interest, the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would set about redressing the inequality which already existed in regard to this matter between the different parts of the United Kingdom.

said, he hoped that after the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the hon. Member for Hackney would not press his Resolution to a division, and he also hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, when he addressed himself to this question, consider whether the inconveniences arising from the calls of the Excise officers upon the brewers could not be removed.

Having been the person who originally introduced a proposal for the repeal of the Brewers' Licence Duty to the House, I may perhaps be permitted to say a few words on the present motion. It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the right course in this matter, viewing the time and the circumstances under which the Motion has been addressed to the House. Even if he were prepared to deal with the subject, it would be impossible for him at the present moment to agree to a Resolution of this kind, which would impair and cripple his power of dealing with the general finance of the country. At the same time, there is little value, it appears to me, in the argument which is so constantly urged upon the House, that Resolutions directed against particular taxes ought not to be brought forward at this period of the financial year. A Motion for the repeal of a particular tax is commonly said to be too soon if taken before the Budget, and too late if taken after it. Now so far as my experience goes—and I have had a good deal of experience in matters of this kind—that is not an accurate statement of the case. A proposal of this kind made before the Budget is, no doubt, inopportune when it merely asks the House to pledge itself with regard to a particular portion of the finances of the country without keeping the higher financial position of the country in view. In that case the objection would not, I think, be unfair if it were urged that the Motion was made too soon; but undoubtedly no one is in a position after the Budget to urge that then the Motion is too late. If a Member then disapproves of any portion of the financial scheme of the Government, or if he has an alternative plan, there is no reason why he should not bring his Motion forward. I could easily, if necessary, cite cases in which this has been done; when it has been my duty to propose the repeal of a tax, or to suggest an alteration. Motions in opposition have been made to my proposal, and either success has followed the opposition, or else it has met with very formidable support. In any case the proposal in opposition has had a fair trial, and a just comparison has been made between the rival schemes. In this case my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not find himself in a condition to offer an actual opposition to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, and I am very much disposed to concur in his observations as to this duty. It may be amended and mitigated, although not repealed, and I think that the two questions ought to be kept entirely distinct. For total repeal I should decline to vote, or for the repeal of any other tax, until I had the whole finances of the country under review. As a general rule, I think that to vote for the repeal of a tax would be inexpedient, except when we had the power of considering it in connection with the entire finances of the country. There might be some other case not then before me in which the inducement to repeal would be much stronger than in the case of this particular tax. My hon. Friend behind me will not, I think, compromise his title to urge his question on the House, when we know the actual condition of the national finances, and to press for the repeal of this tax, provided there be money disposable by withdrawing his present Motion, and therefore I hope he will cheerfully accept the promises made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the part of the Government. The protest that has been made against premature proceeding will not in the slightest degree deprive him of his power to renew his application when the general finances of the country come on for consideration.

said, he could not support the Motion. The hon. Member for Hackney had made an admirable anti-malt tax speech, but he regretted to say that when he brought forward last Session his Motion for the repeal of the malt tax the hon. Member for Hackney was conspicuous by his absence on the division. He had always urged the repeal of the malt tax on the ground that it was an interference with the farmer in the cultivation of his land, as well as with the maltster in the manufacture of his malt and the brewer in the manufacture of his beer. Whenever they interfered with any industry by public officials, who necessarily laid down stringent rules and regulations, they did an irreparable injury both to the manufacturer and the consumer. In the abolition of the hop duties they took off the duty on the article at the point of production and laid it on at the point of consumption. That was the true principle. The Brewers' Licence produced something like £500,000 a-year, and the malt tax produced over £7,000,000 a-year. He thought the impost unjust; but he objected to repealing the Brewers' Licence until the malt tax was repealed.

said, he had been instructed and gratified by the able speech of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), and he had listened with the interest that it demanded to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was one of great ability and immense ingenuity; but he did not think that any hon. Member was satisfied by his arguments that it was fair to tax one class of tradesmen whilst all others were free. He saw no good reason why he should be obliged to pay some £10,000, £12,000, or £14,000 a-year for liberty to begin his business, while wine merchants and others were allowed to go scot-free. The injustice thus inflicted was, he contended, one which was unparalleled in any other country. In 1860, when the duty on wine was reduced in many instances from 7s. 6d. to 1s. per gallon, no extra licence duty was imposed. If every manufacturer and trader was bound to take out a licence for carrying on his trade the brewers would not complain; but it was unjust to tax in that way one class of tradesmen alone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in thinking that the increase of the price of hops since the repeal of the duty was the natural consequence of a large increase in the business of the country. The reason was that the grower, not being forced into the market with his hops as soon as gathered to raise money with which to pay the duty, was able to hold on and get a better price. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Brewer's Licence was an injustice in theory and not in practice; but if he had to pay £12,000 or £14,000 a-year for carrying on his trade he would find it was an injustice in practice as well as in theory.

recommended the hon. Member for Hackney to withdraw his Motion as premature, until the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Financial Statement. He deprecated the idea that it was inopportune to discuss important questions of finance at any time when it was done without any intention of embarrassing a Government. He was not concerned for the brewers, and he did not believe that the imposition of this tax was a very serious injury to them, because, as in almost every other case, it was the consumer who, sooner or later, paid the tax, but he objected to it as a tax on a profession. He thought it wrong in principle to tax professions of any kind. He thought it a great advantage that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have the opinion of the House freely expressed as to those taxes. This tax was unjust and unfair; it was a graduated tax, but graduated in the wrong direction, to the gain of the large brewer and the disadvantage of the small brewer. It was thoroughly vicious in principle, and therefore he would set his face against it.

, in reply, said, he was glad to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to examine into a small portion of the tax, but the speech had confirmed him in his intention of going to a division. That speech contained two points—the inequality of the scale, and the time of payment; but, as the main grievance, the vexatious character of the import. He trusted that the House would go to a division, and he rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman had, in some sense, by moving the Previous Question, challenged one; because any Government which seriously intended to take into consideration a question of that kind would be strengthened in doing so if it knew the mind of the House upon it. It was high time that the opinion of the House should be declared on that subject.

rose to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill that day six months. He said, that it was an invidious duty to undertake to oppose a Bill of this description; and in so doing he wished it to be understood that he did not grudge holidays to any member of the community. He opposed the Bill because, in his judgment, the principle on which it rested was unsound. It was a step in advance of the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), and an interference with trade. If it passed, it would become highly important to know where that description of legislation was to end. He was aware that the assumption on which the Bill before the House was framed was that the original Bill had been attended with so much good that it was deemed advisable to give to its provisions a wider application. He had inquired of managers of banks in London and the provinces, and nearly all of them said that the Act had worked well, and had been attended with great success, while its inconveniences had been comparatively trivial. Still, there were some inconveniences, such, for instance, when a holiday fell upon a market day in a country town. For this reason, he thought it would have been well had the Bill been made applicable to London, and London alone, as its conditions were daily becoming so different from those of other towns; elsewhere arrangements should be left in private hands, as at present people were taken from their work at inconvenient times. He observed that docks had been struck out of the Bill; but if the Customs remained that would, to a great extent, affect docks as well. He thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) should explain why the Customs, Bonded Warehouses, and Inland Revenue had been selected as objects for those special favours. If they adopted the principle of the Bill they could not allow it to stop there. It must be extended to the employés at the Post Office, to railway servants, miners, factory operatives, agricultural labourers, publicans, and others. He knew of no reason why, if a man was interested in a large number of railway operations, he should be subject to those fixed holidays. He wished to know why Bonding Warehouses and Custom Houses were especially selected? Another question he wished to ask of the hon. Gentleman was whether he was aware that the existing law entailed a large charge upon the public? He thought the House ought to know clearly, before it voted this Bill, whether the extensions it proposed would lead to increased expense; and, if so, where that expenditure was to end? He moved that the Bill go into Committee on that day six months.

seconded the Amendment, believing that the effect of the Bill would be to interfere most unjustifiably with trade. The steamship owners in the North of England had sent a memorial, which had been presented to the House that day, setting forth that if a steamer arrived on a Saturday afternoon preceding a Bank Holiday, the entries at the Customs could not be made till Tuesday, so that the discharge of the cargo, which might be of a perishable nature, could not take place till the Wednesday. That was a matter of a very serious moment. On the Tyne the Custom House clerks had fixed holidays quite independent of the Bank Holidays, and he could not see why that House should enter on a system of legislation which would be an interference with the labour question throughout the whole country.

supported the Bill. The country had derived great advantage from the passing of the existing Bank Holidays Act, and he regarded the present Amending Bill as a necessary sequitur. It was found that on these holidays there was hardly any trade at the institutions included in this Bill; and therefore it was proposed to give persons employed in them the benefit of the holidays.

pointed out how entirely different in principle the Bank Holidays Act was from this Bill. It was impossible for the bankers to close their establishments without an Act of Parliament authorizing them to do so; but the principle involved in the present Bill went further than that, inasmuch as apart from the interference with trade and shipping, it proposed to release Government employés from their duties on four days of the year, at the public expense. And if the privilege of this Act was made to apply to the Customs and Inland Revenue, he did not see how they could refuse to put the Post Office, and other Departments of the public service on the same footing. He objected to the Bill on the ground that it was an unwarrantable interference with the rights of labour. The working classes, unfortunately, had too many holidays in the course of the year, it was very hard upon the men working at the docks, railways, and shipping, that for an additional four days in the year they should be precluded from earning their living. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had made an alteration in his Bill, which, to a certain extent, disarmed his opposition, because it now left work in the Customs optional; but any work done on these four days would be at the expense of the merchant and shipowner. He should like to have some statement from the Treasury Bench as to the arrangement which it was proposed to make by which the Customs officials would be able to carry on business on these holidays.

said, that the operation of the Bank Holidays Act had given general satisfaction; and it was a farce to keep the Customs open on Bank Holidays, for practically they did no business at all. Still, so long as they were open a great many merchants and others engaged in business felt themselves bound to go to their offices; whereas if the Bill passed they would not come. It was a misapprehension to suppose that the Act was intended to apply only to the Banks, although it was necessary to use a term which should distinguish Bank Holidays from other holidays. Bills of exchange were payable before the holidays, but not until after Bank Holidays. There were only four of these holidays in the year, and nobody could say that, as Englishmen, we did not work hard enough. Holidays of this kind were more valuable to employés than these granted at irregular intervals by their employers; because it enabled members of the same family engaged in different pursuits to arrange beforehand as to the manner in which they would meet and enjoy themselves. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. James) would not press his Amendment, but allow the House to go into Committee.

complained that the Bill proposed to give two new holidays, and as this would seriously affect the mercantile community he thought the House ought to consider well before they adopted it. If the House went into Committee upon it he should move to re-consider this question on the Report.

assured the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) that if this Bill became law care would be taken that no impediment was thrown in the way of trade. There had been communications with the Custom House authorities on the subject, and there was a distinct understanding that every possible precaution would be taken to prevent these holidays causing any delay in ships entering and leaving a port. A reference had been made by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) to the additional expense which would be thrown on the Exchequer. Care had been taken that if the Bill passed no additional burden should be placed upon the Exchequer, and the only additional expense would be a small charge for the attendance of a clerk in the event of its being necessary to clear a ship on a Bank Holiday.

said, he hoped, after the explanation made on the part of the Government, the House would not be put to the trouble of dividing. No facts had been adduced which were not discussed on the second reading. The greatest facilities would be given for the performance of any necessary work on these holidays. A vessel might be discharged, loaded, and cleared on these days, and only a trifling charge would be made for the attendance of the clerks, so that there would be no impediment thrown in the way of trade.

supported the Bill, as he believed that if fixed holidays were agreed upon throughout the country fewer irregular holidays would be taken, and, consequently, that both manufacturers and artizans would be benefited by the arrangement.

said, after the assurance of the Secretary of the Treasury he should not proceed with his Motion.

proposed to render the Bill permissive as regarded the docks by leaving out in page 1, fine 12, the words, "all docks, Custom Houses," and inserting "the Customs." On a former occasion he had stated that the East and West India Dock Companies wished for this Bill. He believed he had gone a little too far in making this statement; but could say that these Companies were not opposed to the Bill if it were made permissive as far as docks were concerned.

moved that the words "post offices" be inserted. The Post Office employés were a very hard-worked body of men, and he thought they were fully entitled to the holidays which it was proposed to give to other classes of the community. Under the operation of the Bill business would be restricted, and few letters would be required, and the Post Office clerks ought to have on Bank Holidays the same opportunity for rest and recreation as they had on Sundays.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman could hardly be in earnest in proposing such an Amendment, as its effect would be to disorganize all our commercial transactions, and to make the entire Bank Holiday scheme ridiculous.

said, his object was to place post offices on the same footing as other offices. If a few clerks could transact the Customs business on a Bank holiday, he did not see why three-fourths of the Post Office clerks should not be released from labour on the same day.

pointed out that closing the Post Office on a Bank holiday was altogether out of the question.

also opposed the Amendment.

moved, in line 13, after "warehouses," to insert "and in every Post Office Savings Bank and other savings banks." He thought the same rule should be applied to these banks as to other banks.

opposed the Amendment on the ground that in small towns where the savings bank was open only once or twice a week for a few hours great inconvenience would be felt if the proposal was agreed to.

said, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Amendment. The Government could not assent to it so far as the Post Office savings banks were concerned. The Postmaster General had power to close these banks on Bank holidays. He had done so in London, and was willing to do so wherever it could be done without inconvenience. He admitted that Post Office servants were very much entitled to consideration; they were hard-worked and had few holidays, and the Government were desirous to give them every indulgence which could be given without injury to the public service.

moved, in page 1, at end of Clause, to add—

"And it shall be lawful for the directors or governing body (by whatever name known) of any dock or docks in England and Ireland respectively to cause the said days or any of them to be kept as holidays in such dock or docks, any restraining Clause in any Act of Parliament notwithstanding. "

The Amendment was necessary, because some docks throughout the country were governed by different rules from these in London.

said, he had reason to believe that some inconvenience had been found in closing the Inland Revenue Office on the anniversary of Her Majesty's coronation and on the birthday of the Prince of Wales. He should therefore propose to take away these holidays, and to assimilate for the future the practice of the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments in that respect.

moved a clause providing that the 28th of June should be a Bank holiday under the Act. There was no Bank holiday between spring and autumn, and he could not help thinking that a summer holiday would be very acceptable to the country.

said, the Government would have no objection to substitute an earlier day for the 3rd of August as a Bank holiday, but they decidedly objected to the creation of a fifth Bank holiday. He did not think that a fifth holiday in the year was necessary, or that the country desired it. He should not object to the 27th of December being a Bank holiday if Christmas fell on the Saturday.

then moved the following clause:—

"Whenever the twenty-sixth day of December (as mentioned in Schedule hereto) shall fall on a Sunday, the Monday immediately next following, that is to say, the twenty-seventh day of December, shall be a Bank Holiday under this Act, and also under 'The Bank Holidays Act, 1871."

Experience of late years had shown that there would be no inconvenience in having three holidays in succession at Christmas when Christmas Day fell on Saturday.

sympathized with the objects of the hon. and gallant Member in introducing the Bill, but felt compelled to insist on the advisability of doing what was aimed at, if it were possible, either under the provisions of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Acts, or by amending these provisions if amendment could be shown to be necessary and desirable. In these institutions boys were being trained to industrial pursuits; but one clause of this Bill would go further than the Acts, by compelling a boy to adopt a trade even against his will; and that he could hardly agree to. There were several ships employed under both Acts, and, if more were wanted, he should be glad to render assistance in obtaining them. In the five training ships there were 14,000 boys. These had been established as training schools at an expense of £50,000. They were doing much good, and perhaps they would do more. Hitherto part of the work had been done by private benevolence; but this Bill would throw a burden on the rates, which was another reason for seeing whether its object could not be accomplished by an extension of the system at present in operation. He would be glad to have a conversation on the subject with his hon. and gallant Friend, and then he would be able to judge whether it would be necessary for him to introduce a Bill amending the present Acts. He would suggest that this Bill should be withdrawn.

said, he would withdraw the Bill on the understanding just expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

, in rising to move—

"That no measure dealing with the expenses of Returning Officers is likely to reduce these expenses which does not interest the constituencies in economy by relieving candidates of the charge,"

said, that the two Law Officers of the late Government, who were responsible for this Bill, had scheduled the charges connected with an election. It was only fair to assume that they would not desire to call upon candidates to deposit more than would meet the expenses of the Returning Officer, because if the money were deposited the probability was it would be spent. If the tendency of the Bill would be to promote economy and diminish expense he would not oppose it; but it appeared it would have a directly contrary effect. To show this he would take a few examples, constituencies of different sizes, in different parts of the country. The deposit required was to be proportionate to the number of electors. In Sheffield a deposit would be required of £1,200, and at the last election the Returning Officer's expenses were £600. At Huddersfield the Bill would require a deposit of £600; and at the last election the expenses amounted to £248 19s. 4d. At Cambridge £300, instead of £166 14s. 11d. At Rochdale £600, instead of £363 5s. 1d. In Leicester the candidates would have to deposit £750 and the Bill, instead of diminishing the expenses, would increase them by 150 per cent. The same results would be found in a multitude of other places. What was the fair conclusion to be drawn from these facts? If the ingenuity of the two Law Officers of the Crown in the late Government manifested itself in framing Schedules which, instead of diminishing election expenses, would increase them by 100 or 150 per cent. it was evident that economy in Parliamentary elections could not be secured by means of Schedules. Let the House remember what had been done in municipal and school board elections. These were very moderate, because it was not the candidate but the constituency that bore the expenses, while in Parliamentary elections the reverse was the case. There was no reason why elections should be more expensive in one case than the other, and the certain way to economy was not by framing Schedules, but by interesting constituencies themselves in that economy. At Southampton the school board election cost £140, and the expense of conducting the Parliamentary election the same year were £550, or 400 per cent more. At Bodmin the school board election cost £29, and the Parliamentary election £130—again an increase of 400 per cent. At Bristol the school board expenses were £393, while the last Parliamentary election cost £840, and the next election would cost £900 if this Bill should pass. The school board election at Dudley cost £240, and the Parliamentary election £700. In Exeter the school board election cost £90, but they fleeced the candidates at the Parliamentary election to the amount of £720, being an increase of about 800 per cent. With such facts before them as these, which could not be gainsaid or disputed, it would be trifling with the common sense of the House to say a word more to prove that interesting the constituencies themselves in economy was a remedy for extravagance. But, as a matter of principle, he put it to the House whether there was any reason why a gentleman who stood for the school board should not pay the necessary expenses, while if he stood for a seat in Parliament he should pay these expenses? Furthermore, it should be borne in mind, that if the constituencies had to bear all the cost, the expenses would be reduced to a minimum, as the same ballot-boxes, the same stamps, the same polling-booths, and the same machinery would do for all elections; but there was no security that under this Bill the candidates would not be obliged to have new booths and ballot-boxes, although the town might be in possession of them already. It had been proposed that the expenses of Parliamentary elections should be borne by the Consolidated Fund; but there was no more reason why the Parliamentary elections should be defrayed from that source than the school board elections, and any proposals to allow constituencies to put their hands into the Imperial Exchequer for any such purpose ought to be resisted by the House with the utmost resolution. He was told that there was a growing feeling against any addition to local rates, and Members declared that if they voted for any proposal to increase them they would incur a great amount of unpopularity. With respect to the burden which his proposal would impose upon the ratepayers, he had taken the cases of the constituencies in which the charges of the Returning Officers were heaviest, and he found that, even if these charges remained as heavy as they now were—and he had shown that they might be 300 or 400 per cent less—the burden would amount in the case of the occupier of a £10 house to the price of a single glass of beer once in three years. Could anyone then pretend that if the principle for which he contended was a true one the constituencies would object to pay such a paltry price for the sanctioning of a sound, a just, and a true principle? A friend of his who represented a large borough, but who was no longer a Member of that House, went down to address his constituents, and having done so asked for a vote of confidence. A working man arose and said that he was commissioned by a large meeting of working men to go to the meeting and object to one vote which their Member had given. Of course, his hon. Friend was anxious to know what was the single vote he had given during the five years he had represented the town which they objected to, and he was startled to find that it was the vote he gave against the proposal to make the constituencies pay the expenses of Parliamentary elections. He replied—

"That vote had given him more trouble and anxiety than all his other votes, because he had given it against his convictions, and he had sacrificed his own feelings because he thought it would please them, and this was the result."

When the Party now in office were in Opposition, Members of that Party were never weary of asserting that whatever was brought forward they would not listen to it until, if it imposed a single farthing on the ratepayers, the great question of Local Taxation and Local Government was considered by a responsible Government. Well, the Government which represented that Party had had the opportunity of considering the subject, and yet they had passed—or were in process of passing—Bill after Bill which would impose new charges on the ratepayers, so that the arguments which used to be advanced against him with so much feasibility and force had, to a certain extent, lost their cogency. The question of making the constituencies responsible for the necessary expenses of elections had, unfortunately, been confused with what was regarded as the working men's representation. But he did not bring forward this proposal in the interests of any particular class, or with the view of promoting working men's representation. He believed that the more truly representative that House was the greater and wider would be the sphere of its usefulness. That House was steadily increasing in wealth, and to many it might appear a matter of perfect indifference whether the expenses of the Returning Officer were £100 more or less, and perhaps they would consider it advantageous to them that these expenses should be higher, as the more the election expenses increased the more the area of selecting representatives was diminished. But that suggested a most important—probably the most important—consideration connected with this proposal. If this country had during the last few years been rapidly increasing in wealth, and if the House of Commons had also been increasing in wealth, it was all the more important that there should not be maintained a single artificial barrier which might impede the access of the poor man to that House. Nothing would be more likely to weaken or destroy the efficiency of representative institutions in this country than if an impression were to gain currency that that House was maintaining laws which placed obstacles in the way of poor men obtaining a seat in Parliament. In conclusion, he ventured to recommend this proposal not only on the grounds which he had already named—the practical grounds that it would secure economy and remove any impression that the House was interested in artificially preventing the poor man entering Parliament; but, beyond all, and before all, he was anxious that that House should accept the principle contained in his proposal; because he believed that nothing would more tend to diffuse amongst the people a recognition of the true relations which ought to exist between a constituency and him who represented that constituency. A constituency ought to feel that the man who aspired to represent it—to discharge an important and public trust—did not seek a favour which he was willing to buy, did not obtain a privilege which he could barter or turn to his own advantage. But was it not likely that these degrading ideas of the position of a Member of Parliament might obtain important currency if something was not done to prevent what no one who observed the times could doubt, that, as England became wealthier, a seat in that House was often a position for which the man who obtained it had to pay a heavier and heavier fine—a position which, if a man would gain it, he had to expend a higher and higher sum. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.

said, he thought the objections which he entertained against the Bill which the hon. Member for Hackney formerly introduced on this subject still held good. The hon. Member, having but a poor prospect of being able to carry that Bill, now brought it forward in the shape of a Resolution. The proposal of the hon. Member was to throw the expenses of the candidates at Parliamentary elections upon the constituencies, and thus relieve the candidates from such expenses. Now, he (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had been a Member of the Committee appointed to consider the question of Local Taxation, and the question was how far local taxation could be adjusted so as to diminish it; and here he would express a hope that the Government would lay to heart the hon. Member's remarks with regard to that subject. The ratepayers had not obtained such a considerable relief as they were entitled to expect. They should be told that they were to look to the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for further measures of relief from local taxation; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that among the Chambers of Agriculture and the local taxpayers throughout the country the Budget was in that respect looked forward to with great anxiety. He did not attribute much importance to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney with reference to the increasing difficulty of obtaining candidates for seats in that House, as there was always a sufficient number hovering about the gates of that Paradise who, whenever the oppornity occurred, were ready to go down and pay a handsome sum for the chance of obtaining the privilege. He remembered that one gentleman who had sat on that—the Ministerial—side of the House said he could not understand how life outside of the House of Commons was tolerable to one that had had a seat in it. The result of the last General Election had been to add very largely to the class who earnestly desired to be readmitted to the House. As to the question whether poor men who would be ornaments to the deliberations of the House were prevented from entering it he did not believe that, to any practical extent, they were prevented by the expense attending elections—at any rate, not by the comparatively small item of expense which would be affected by this Bill. He believed that no poor man of intelligence and respectability would have to wait long before a sufficient subscription would be organized by his friends and supporters to enable him to overcome difficulties preliminary to entering the House. If the proposition of the hon. Member for Hackney were adopted, it would not be merely electors, but also women and minors, who would have to pay the expenses of the Returning Officer, and as women and minors were not at present included in the constituency he (Mr. J. E. Yorke) objected to make them contribute to that payment. He agreed in much that the hon. Member had expressed in reference to the working man; and if he thought that the expense of standing a contest was an obstacle to his getting into Parliament, he would vote in support of the hon. Member's Resolution; but while the question of Local Taxation was still pending, he must vote against his Motion.

said, the hon. Member for Gloucester had alleged that candidates were not prevented from coming forward because of the returning officers' expenses, because plenty were always ready to come. But that was not the question. What ought to be borne in mind was that all the expenses except these of the Returning Officers were entirely under the control of the candidate. The candidates ought, therefore, not to be asked to pay expenses over which they had no control whatever, because in many instances these charges were very heavy indeed. It was not alleged that there was any difficulty in getting plenty of candidates. What was said was that the tendency appeared to be to restrict the candidates to rich men, and it could not be said that the richest men of the country were always the most intellectual, or that the rich people were these who ought chiefly to be Representatives in this House. For his own part, he had always thought it was a great mistake to limit the field of selection for Members of this House. If the expenses of the returning officers were thrown upon the constituencies, they would take care that economy was exercised. This House, however, wanted exclusiveness; and these who were in it desired to prevent other people from entering its doors. ["No!"] He ventured to say there were very few who, in private discussions on this matter, had not heard it said if these expenses were thrown on the constituencies it would enable Tom, Dick, and Harry to compete with these who were already Members. This was the real secret of the opposition to this question, and it was not a matter of economy at all. If the expenses were thrown on the ratepayers, he did not think there was any danger of multiplying the number of candidates beyond what was perfectly reasonable and right; and, as far as he was concerned, he would rather see an abundant number of candidates than see the election confined to the richest men in the country, as it was very much at present. Under these circumstances, he should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney.

said, that the amount of the charges which Returning Officers could make were clearly defined by the Bill, and if the amount of the deposit was greater than the expenses the candidate who made the deposit would be entitled to have a return of the surplus. No doubt, as the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had said, to interest constituencies in economy was a very desirable object; but, considering the heavy burdens already imposed on the payers of local rates, both in counties and in boroughs, he did not think a transfer of election expenses to them would interest them in economy. His contention was that the ratepayers in the various localities had already sufficiently heavy burdens to bear in the shape of taxation. The hon. Member for Hackney said, in the course of his argument, that if the law was altered in the way he proposed, the burden upon each £10 householder would not amount to more than the cost of a glass of beer. This would be all very well for £10 householders; but to these of higher rental the payment of sums amounting to the cost of many glasses of beer would become decidedly oppressive. Parliament ought not to impose additional burdens on these who were already over weighted and overwhelmed, unless a case of imperative necessity could be made out. He had failed to find out that there was any such case. Another reason why it would be hard to impose this burden was, that a great number of ratepayers had no voice in the election. Again, there might be cases where these called on to contribute to the expense had no interest in the election. There might be two candidates, one a Liberal Conservative and the other a Conservative Liberal, and no extreme man might appear. Yet the Radical ratepayers would have to contribute. Again, there might be a Liberal candidate and a Radical candidate, and no one to represent the body of Conservatives, but the Conservative ratepayers would be called on to contribute. The burden would thus fall on these who had no interest in the election. If the proposition of the hon. Gentleman were adopted, it would multiply contests, of which there were enough already, as Members knew to their cost. If this were made a matter of no expense, candidates would appear for the sake of the fun and excitement of a contest, but at other people's expense. Thus constituencies would be put to the trouble and annoyance of an election by candidates who had no chance of success—the person would be elected that every one knew beforehand was the choice of the electors, but the ratepayers would have to bear the expense. For these reasons, he should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney.

said, he should like to ask the Solicitor General whether the force of his objection did not apply to the elections of town councillors and school boards as much as to the elections of Members of Parliament. It was only lately that this House passed an Act of Parliament to throw the expenses of election of school boards upon the ratepayers; but the moment it became a question of throwing the expenses of Parliamentary elections upon the ratepayers, the whole House was against such a proposal. The fact was, the working classes had come to the conclusion that they were not wanted in that House; and, unless some better arguments could be adduced against the proposition of his hon. Friend than these used by the Solicitor General, it would be very difficult to make them believe that what Parliament considered suitable in the case of municipal and school board elections was not applicable to the case of Parliamentary elections.

said, he did not believe that the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon) had rightly expressed the opinion of the working classes in this matter, as he felt sure that no hon. Member wished to prevent them being represented in that House—that the working classes felt and acknowledged this. The case of municipal and school board elections was different to Parliamentary elections; because, while in the former they had great difficulty in getting good candidates, in the latter there was no difficulty whatever. The social position attached to the one was a great inducement to many gentlemen to come forward; but, in the other, there was nothing but the prospect of continuous and laborious duties. He thought that a poor man who had been selected by his fellow-citizens as a fit person to represent them would find no difficulty in obtaining sufficient contributions from them to pay for the necessary expenses attendant on his return; but his chief objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney was that it took the form of an abstract Resolution in opposition to a measure which was urgently required, and contained no definite proposal by means of which his object could be attained.

said, he had already more than once since he came into Parliament expressed his opinions upon this question, and he now thought that it would be scarcely worth while to enter into the details of the measure, which might be far better discussed and considered in Committee. If he thought the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney would diminish the amount of the expenses of election, he would have found him among his warmest supporters; but, on the contrary, he found that under it these expenses would be increased rather than diminished. At the General Election of 1868 one-fifteenth of the whole of the expenses then incurred were in the shape of the Returning Officers' charges; and if they took any course which calculated to increase the number of contests there would be no obstacle in the way of a sham candidate plunging a constituency into an unnecessary expenditure and disturbing an old Member who, from his long services, was entitled to an immunity from opposition. The late Government he recollected proposed, as a guard against the appearance of such candidates, that whenever a contest took place, the candidate should deposit a certain sum of money, and that that money should be absolutely forfeited if he failed to poll one-sixth of the constituency, and that met with the support of the hon. Member for Hackney. The object of the Bill was to lessen the expense of elections, and it had been brought forward after consulting Members upon both sides of the House. He hoped, therefore, that the House would consent to go into Committee and consider the clauses. An objection had been taken that the expenses under the Bill would be in some cases increased rather than diminished; and this was attempted to be shown by comparing the maximum charges under the Bill with the minimum charges now paid. He protested that in no case would the expenses be increased. The maximum charges allowed by the Bill would be subject to a provision that in no case should the charges exceed the sum necessary to be paid. As a rule, the Bill would reduce the charges to about one-fourth of what they now were. These charges were at present very unequal. In Manchester, with 60,000 electors, they were £1,400, whilst in Marylebone, with only 30,000 electors, they were £1,550. In the present state of the law Returning Officers could really make whatever charge they liked. The Bill had been framed to make the charges equal and reasonable, and he was sure that in Committee there would be every desire to consider fairly any proposal for amending the details of the measure.

supported the Amendment, and said, that he thought that the House had pursued an entirely wrong line upon the subject. He thought that the most simple and common-sense view would be to leave it to the ratepayers to minimize the expenses which they themselves would have to pay. The position of a candidate was one of utter helplessness in reference to disputing the Returning Officers' charges. The great objection to this part of the Bill was that it would really impose a property qualification. What else would it be when if a third candidate for Marylebone wished to come forward, he must first deposit £400 for the Returning Officers' charges? He was of opinion that opposition to the Motion would appear to be a selfish action on the part of the House, while support of the Motion would prove its independence. It was, in one sense, unfortunate that at the last General Election, while contests were going on as a rule elsewhere, there were no contests in many of the great Conservative counties of England, whereby the enormous preponderance of Conservative opinion might have been clearly shown. Was the Conservative majority, he asked, to be maintained by putting a stopper upon the free opinion of the electors? For his part, he thought that if they could not retain their position by opening the door to the free expression of such opinion, the sooner they went into Opposition the better. Conservatives had nothing to fear from contests, because they did not split up into such sections as their Friends opposite did. They voted en bloc for their man, and county Members should not be afraid of having to put their hands into their pockets to defeat bogus candidates. He trusted that the House would not pass the Bill in its present form; but that while limiting the expenses of the Returning Officer, they would allow the constituencies to take upon themselves the payment of the legitimate expenses of the candidates.

congratulated the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken upon the example he had afforded of the united action of the Conservative Party. Contrasting his speech with that of the Solicitor General, they could not but see how the Party opposite acted together and voted en bloc. The hon. and learned Member spoke of sections into which the Liberal Party were divided; but he assured the hon. and learned Gentleman that they watched his proceedings with interest and hope. The hon. and learned Gentleman had only used one substantial argument against the Bill—namely, that it had a tendency to create a new property qualification; but the Bill did not create that change, because its object was to diminish existing charges, and to limit what was now an unlimited expense. With reference to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), he might remind the House that though the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) did not go the full length of that Motion, it went a certain distance in the same direction. Against the principle of that Motion he had nothing to say: the question was whether the opinion of the constituencies was just at this time ripe for its acceptance. He feared that at present it would be distasteful to them. There were, he knew, constituencies who were enlightened and liberal enough to pay the expenses of their Representatives, and he only wished that all were. The majority, however, were not, and if they were they had the remedy in their own hands. As matters now stood, he hoped the House would be content to read the Bill a second time.

appealed to the House, not on behalf of working men only, but of poor men generally. Was it not a fact that some of the most distinguished ornaments of that House were poor men, and it was not pleasant to poor statesmen who wished to come into the House to send the hat round for subscriptions to pay the expenses; and there were places where the expenses would, under this Bill, be considerably increased, perhaps doubled, and even trebled. At Sheffield, for instance, every candidate would have to deposit £400; and where would some candidates—even distinguished statesmen—find that sum on the instant? The question was one of freedom of choice from the whole of England, for there were as many good men out of the House as in it, but many of them could not pay the large expenses demanded of them.

moved, in page 3, line 26, after "person" to insert the words "entirely unconnected with any sheriff court and." The object was this: In Scotland the Returning Officer was in every case the sheriff, and therefore it was desirable the person who taxed his accounts should be unconnected with any Sheriff Court. If they did not make such an Amendment, they might have two sheriffs taxing each other's accounts.

remarked that the special circumstances of Scotland had apparently not been carefully considered in drawing up the clauses of the Bill, and he therefore suggested the omission from the measure of all reference to Scotland, the circumstances of which country might be met by a supplemental Bill.

entirely concurred with this suggestion.

said, he thought that it might be found desirable to require the sheriff to appoint in open Court some arbiter who, in taxing the accounts, would be responsible to the public opinion.

said, he had no objection to Scotland being struck out of the Bill altogether.

remarked that the Scotch Members were' entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill, and he would suggest that a separate measure should be introduced for Scotland.

moved, in page 4, line 16, to leave out "fittings and compartments," and insert "stamping instruments, polling-stations, portable secret compartments, and other fittings and apparatus." The object of the Amendment, he explained, was entirely in the direction of economy, the intention being, in places where there were school boards, municipal and Parliamentary elections, to make it incumbent on the local authority to keep as many as possible of the permanent fittings, so that new ones would not have to be got for every election.

maintained that the words of the clause were sufficient for the purpose.

presumed the Committee would not discuss this proposal, because the House had already considered it on the Motion introduced by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), which involved the question whether the erection of polling stations should be at the expense of local taxpayers.

said, he was sorry the Amendment could not be adopted, as if the local authorities were not required to do these things the result would simply be that they would not be done at all.

moved, in page 5, line 27, to insert—

"In Ireland the returning officer shall use a court house where one is available at a polling station, and his maximum charge for using and fitting the same shall in no case exceed three pounds three shillings."

Under the Ballot Act the sheriff would have the power of charging £7 7s. for the use of the Court House, and he was certain that the sheriffs in Ireland would always make out their bills on the highest possible scale.

concurred in the view expressed by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway. He thought that each candidate should lodge a specific sum in proportion to the population of the county or borough contested.

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

proposed words which would prevent the presiding officers in Ireland from sending the ballot-boxes by one car and himself travelling by another, and so making a double charge for the same service.

said, he thought it hardly necessary to insert such an Amendment, as it would reflect rather upon the Returning Officers.

said, such a state of things as his hon. and gallant Friend had pointed out might exist under the Bill, for Irish sheriffs, although probably not less nice than English sheriffs, looked upon elections as blessed opportunities, very rarely occurring, of making candidates pay under every conceivable heading, and they would be sure to take advantage of the opportunities afforded them by the Bill.

observed, that it was the duty of the presiding officer to take charge of the ballot boxes and convey them to the place of their destination. The charge for the conveyance of the ballot boxes included every charge inci- dental thereto. He should support the Schedule as it stood.

remarked that the presiding officers and the clerks had often to incur considerable expense before the election took place. The taxing officer would take care that there was no improper multiplication of charges.

said, that the Bill would not assist Irish Members. He believed that, so far from decreasing the expenses of candidates, it would increase them.

remarked that if the presiding officer found that one clerk could not convey the ballot boxes he might employ two. If he had only one clerk, and chose to take more vehicles than were necessary to carry the ballot boxes, the charge would be disallowed.

moved to amend the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Nolan) by striking out the word "Ireland" in order that the Amendment might apply generally.

said, he was unable to see why Ireland should be omitted from the Amendment.

said, if hon. Gentlemen really wished the words of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway to be inserted, he should be ready to accept them.

proposed to leave out these words in the Schedule which would entitle the Returning Officer to charge for employing an assessor.

said, that in England an assessor was not required, and it was not contemplated that he should be paid under the Act.

moved the omission of lines 31 and 32, which would enable a charge of 1s. a-mile for the travelling expenses of the clerks of the Returning Officer to be made.

said, it was intended that travelling expenses should be allowed only when a class of persons whom it was desirable to employ could not otherwise be obtained. If it would fall in with the wishes of hon. Members who had voted in the minority in the late division, he would, on the Report, propose that the charge for the conveyance of ballot boxes should come under the head of travelling expenses.

said, he had an Amendment now to propose which only applied to Ireland, the circumstances of which country, in reference to electoral divisions, were totally different to these of England in reference to the charges for journeys by the presiding officer. He had had a conversation lately in Ireland with a presiding officer in reference to his charges for journeys, and he heard from him that he made a good thing of it, for he charged 1a. per mile for going perhaps 20 miles to the sheriff of the county, and the same amount back; and he then charged 1s. per mile for being conveyed to his own home. The travelling expenses of clerks also should not be charged for, because good clerks could be got on the spot without bringing them from a distance. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.

opposed the Amendment.

expressed a hope that his hon. and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill would re-consider the question of amount of security which the Returning Officer might demand to cover expenses, and bring up some modification of this Schedule in that respect upon the Report. Taking the Yorkshire boroughs, he found that at the last General Election the Returning Officer's expenses, excessive as they were in many instances, were in nearly every case less than the amount which this Bill would enable him to demand as security.

moved that the Schedule be omitted altogether. It implicitly restored a money qualification by requiring a candidate to give security for certain expenses, or otherwise to have his name withdrawn from the list of candidates.

said, he thought that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member was scarcely reasonable, seeing that, as a Member of the Select Committee which considered the Bill, he had an opportunity of objecting to the provision now in question, and did not then oppose it.

said, that if the Schedule were not adopted, the whole of the expenses would be thrown on the Returning Officer.

said, it appeared to him that if the Schedule were passed, a larger fine would be imposed upon candidates than the Returning Officer would have security for.

explained that he had omitted to state that he should be willing to lower the sums named in the Schedule. With the permission of the Committee, therefore, he was prepared to withdraw the figures in the Schedule, and bring up lower ones on the Report, when the House might say whether it would accept the reduced ones.

said, he would not trouble the House to divide; but he gave Notice of his intention to move, on the Report, to omit Clause 3 and the Schedule. Schedule agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.