said, that this was the same Bill in regard to which the House had arrived at a decision on the previous Tuesday. On that occasion it was proposed to suspend Standing Order 235; but the House rejected the Motion, and by so doing virtually refused to read the Bill a second time. He had been desirous on that occasion of moving that the Bill be read a second time upon that day three months; but in consequence of the form in which the proposal was placed upon the Paper he was precluded from moving that Amendment, and, consequently, the Bill could not at that stage be finally disposed of, although the House certainly discussed the merits of the scheme at some length before it decided not to suspend the Standing Order on Tuesday. The result, technically, was that the promoters were not at that time able to propose the second reading; but they now proposed to return to the attack, and, as a first step in their further action, they invited the House to suspend Standing Order 204, which related only to the question of Notice as between three and seven days. Of course, that was comparatively a minor matter; but, after the decision of the House the other day, he thought they would be perfectly justified in refusing to assent to any proposal in regard to this Bill at all, which ought justly to be regarded as one which had been rejected as a Bill by the House on the second reading. He understood that he could not move any Amendment to this particular Motion; but he certainly objected to the Motion itself.

said, he desired to explain how the matter stood. He had no interest whatever in the Bill, and he was only acting for the right hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means, who had charge of Private Bills, and who was absent on that occasion from indisposition. He wished simply to point out that this proceeding was solely to enable the Bill to be submitted to the House again and to be tried upon its merits on Monday next. The Standing Order required that it should be brought forward not more than seven days after the first reading; but that was impossible now, owing to what took place the other day. As to the merits of the Bill, he had nothing whatever to do with them; but he thought he might say that, as far as the Private Bill Office was concerned, his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means saw no objection to this proceeding, and, as he had said, the House would have an opportunity of discussing the Bill upon its merits on Monday. This Motion was only submitted in order to enable the House to entertain the Bill again. So far as the merits were concerned, he would not say that the House would have rejected the Bill if it had been in possession of the full facts. At all events, he believed it was undoubted that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would have assented, on behalf of the Government, to the Bill on Tuesday if a certain clause had been introduced. As that was the case, he thought the House would feel that it was only fair, seeing that a false issue had been presented to it on the former occasion, that no technical Rule should be enforced so as to prevent the House from having the whole question properly and fairly put before it.

said, he believed, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had explained, that the sense of the House was against the Bill on a former occasion, because it did not contain a particular clause which was in it when it was originally introduced into the House of Lords about the purchase of a dust-yard at Battersea Park. There was also another clause objected to in reference to the putting up of the fresh capital to auction. He was informed and believed that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board was now satisfied, and that the Water Company was prepared to re-introduce the Bill with the clause relating to the purchase of the site at Battersea, and also with an amended clause dealing with the capital powers. So that the only objections which had been urged against the Bill had been removed by the Company voluntarily. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be only fair to give to the Company an opportunity of having the question argued again upon its merits, and to afford them that opportunity he would support the Motion now before the House authorising the Standing Order to be suspended.

said, he should like, after what had taken place, to say a word upon this Bill. He thought that no objection could now be made to the Motion. On Tuesday he had raised an objection on behalf of the Government to the Bill as it was introduced into that House, because no provision was contained in it for removing the dust-yard, which, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, contaminated one of the filter beds of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company. But the Company had acceded to the demands of the Local Government Board in reference to that dust-yard, and had gone further and proposed to introduce a certain clause with respect of the debenture capital, on which point some objection was raised on Tuesday. The reason which induced him now to urge the House most strongly not to stop the Bill was that he was informed by the official responsible to the Local Government Board in matters connected with the water supply of London, that it was absolutely and vitally essential to the water supply of the Metropolis that this Bill should pass, or otherwise the water supply of this particular district would run short. The maximum had already been reached, or nearly so. The population of the district supplied by the Water Company was largely increasing, and if the Bill were not carried, this part of London, supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, would, in all probability, receive an insufficient supply. The responsibility was so great that he was convinced the House would not interpose any obstacle in the way of the passing of the Rill.

said, ho could not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. It was perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman was one of the Gentlemen on the other side of the House who, when the Bill was under discussion on Tuesday, raised the question of the dust-yard; but that was really, so far as he (Mr. Labouchere) conceived, to throw dust in the eyes of the House, for it had absolutely nothing to do with the question, and was altogether a minor point. The real objection to the Bill was taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg)—namely)that the Metropolitan Board of Works had not agreed to the provisions of the Bill, but had opposed it, before the House of Lords, as representatives of the ratepayers of London, and had declared that if it wore persisted in, they would oppose it before the Committee of that House. What the Metropolitan Board objected to, and what the House agreed upon on Tuesday, was that the Bill had been introduced without the concurrence of the Metropolitan Board. What was urged was that no Bill of any Water Company ought to be read a second time in that House, or sent to a Committee upstairs, unless it had upon it the imprimatur of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board. That was his (Mr. Labouchere's) idea of local self-government. Hon. Members knew perfectly well that it was always intended, when the Bill for the re-arrangement of the institutions of London was brought on, that London itself should have an opportunity of deciding upon these water questions, and the only reason why that was not the case now was that there had been no time to bring in the large Municipal Bill which had been so long promised. Until that Bill was brought in, he thought they ought to place some permanent authority in these matters in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that if this Bill were not passed, this particular part of London would be put on a short supply. The right hon. Gentleman only heard that from the Company themselves.

begged the hon. Member's pardon. What ho had stated was that he received this information from the official responsible to the Local Government Board in matters connected with the water supply of the Metropolis.

said, that might be so; but all these gentlemen were very much under the influence of the Water Companies. Was this part of London put upon a short supply now, or was it likely that it was going to be placed on a short supply, if the House refused to read this Bill a second time? This was just the sort of thing which the Water Company would say—"If you do not give us leave to borrow £200,000 on our own promise, we will put you on short supply." That had been the bullying habit of the Water Companies for a long time. Ho did not believe in a short supply. One of the reasons why the Metropolitan Board opposed the Bill was that, if the money were borrowed without any arrangement as to back dividends, when the public came to buy up this Water Company they would have to pay 100 percent on all the increased capital which Parliament was now asked to authorize. The law, as it at present stood, was most unfair to the consumer, and whenever these Water Companies came for fresh powers to Parliament, protection ought to be given in order to make the Company pay a species of ransom for the right of getting fresh capital. He would not enter into details, as that was not the time for doing so; but he would remind the House that they had already refused to suspend the Standing Orders, and had come to that decision on the merits of the case. Everyone who voted on Tuesday against the suspension of the Standing Orders, did so under the impression that he was voting against the second reading of the Bill; and now, after having practically decided against the second reading, they were asked, for the benefit of this Water Company, to support this wretched Bill. When the House went to a division on Tuesday, there were a great many more Members present than there were now; but he trusted, if they were to divide again, that the same result would be arrived at.

said, that, individually, he was as much opposed to granting additional powers to the Water Companies as any Member of the House could possibly be; but he thought, in this case, that the appeal which had been made by the President of the Local Government Board was one that ought to be listened to. The proposal was merely to suspend one of the Standing Orders so that the whole question might be discussed. He thought enough had been thrown out to convince the House that with justice the Standing Order might be suspended, and the whole matter discussed on Monday on its merits.

said, that as a question of Order he would ask whether or not, as the Motion had been objected to, it ought not, as a matter of course, to stand over until to-morrow?

said, that that Rule only applied to Orders of the Day. The Motion did not come before the House as an Order of the Day, but its only object was to facilitate a further stage of the Bill at a future time. Therefore, it was not irregular to discuss the Motion now.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the charges made by the Secretary to the Cavan Grand Jury for contract forms, cheques, &c. are legal charges; and, if not, will he use his influence to have the illegality discontinued?

The Secretary of a Grand Jury is not an officer of Government, and it does not fall within my province to advise as to the legality of the charges he may make. It is open to those who doubt his power to make these charges to contest the matter in such a way as they may be advised.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether it is a fact that the steamer employed by the Conservators of Fisheries, Londonderry district, and the lessees under the Irish Society of the Salmon Fisheries of the Boyle and Bann, is still allowed to go among the fishing fleet at night in the open sea off the county of Londonderry, and without lights, notwithstanding the late inquiry held by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, and that a few nights ago she ran through the nets belonging to poor fishermen who were legally fishing in the open sea at the time; if the coastguard made any report on the subject; and, what steps will be taken to prevent this steamer continuing the acts of injury which were sworn to at the inquiry referred to?

A Report in this matter has been made by the Coastguard, and the Inspectors of Fisheries are at present investigating it. They inform me that in some particulars the allegations are conflicting. I will ask the Inspectors to give me a Report when they have finished the inquiries.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government have under their consideration, in the interests of science and of the Maritime welfare of the Country, the advisability of requesting Professor Tyndall to resume the position he recently occupied in connection with the Lighthouse Commission?

In March, 1883, Professor Tyndall resigned the office of Scientific Adviser to the Trinity House, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and the Board of Trade. He has made no application to the President to be reinstated in that position.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that two bullocks, value respectively £12 each, were driven off a farm in the parish of Kiltoghart, county Leitrim, the property of Francis O'Beirne, a minor, on the night of the 13th inst., and that the cattle have not yet been found, although the country all round the farm for a radius of ten miles has been searched by the police; whether it is also a fact, that in May 1882 fourteen bullocks, worth £16 each, were driven off a farm, the property of a Mr. Ormsby Lawder, and close to Fenagh Police Barracks, county Leitrim, and that up to present date, in each of the above-mentioned instances, no traces of the stolen cattle have been found, nor the person or persons who carried out the robbery; if any reason can be assigned for the complete failure of the authorities in each instance, either to trace the whereabouts of the stolen property or to obtain some information as to who or what were the persons that planned and effected the theft; and, what legal redress is available to the owners of the stolen property?

The facts are as stated in the two first paragraphs of this Question. The Divisional Magistrate assures me that no effort has been spared to trace the animals and the perpetrators of the thefts; and he has himself personally directed the inquiries, and can say that nothing has been neglected, though the exertions of the police have, so far, been unsuccessful. I will see that the vigilance of the police in this matter is not relaxed.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the India Office has any information regarding the expulsion from the Native State of Travancore of M. Montelar, a French citizen; and, if so, by what authority he was expelled, and why?

, in reply, said, that the matter referred to in the Question occurred some years ago. M. Montelar had been discovered by the Regent of Travancore to be engaged in some very questionable business; and having abused his influence, the Regent requested him to leave the territory. This step was concurred in by the Govern- ment of Madras as being essential to the welfare of Travancore.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the English and Scotch Lunacy Reports will be presented; and, whether there is any insurmountable difficulty in getting them printed at an earlier date in future?

, who replied, said, that the Report of the English Commissioners was presented to Parliament yesterday. The Report of the Scotch Commissioners was now in type, and he had reason to hope that it would be presented to the House before the end of the month. The delay in the issue of these Reports was due to the large amount of statistical matter which the Commissioners had considered it desirable to include in the Reports; and he was informed that the Reports could not be presented earlier, unless an increase was either made in the staff of the Commissioners or a considerable amount of the information presented to the public was omitted.

asked if an abstract could not be presented at an earlier date?

I will make inquiry.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the fact that 73,000 tons of refined sugar have been imported from the United States in the first six months of this year, and that, according to statements made in America, a bounty of £2 per ton is paid by the United States Government on its exportation?

It is a fact that 73,000 tons of refined sugar have been imported from the United States in the first six months of the present year. In reply to the latter part of the noble Lord's Question, I would say that Her Majesty's Minister at Washington has recently reported that a Commission has been appointed by the new Administration of the United States to consider the drawbacks, and that in some of the evidence taken before that Commission the present bounty on refined sugar has been estimated at £2 per ton.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation (1884), and to appoint a Commission for the purpose of visiting and reporting on those portions of the coasts of the United Kingdom which have been indicated in the Report of the Committee as sites suitable for the construction of National Harbours of Refuge, or as localities urgently in need of refuges especially adapted to the requirements of fishermen and of the coasting trade?

Her Majesty's Government have no intention of departing from the policy of successive Governments during the last 25 years under which they have hitherto declined to make grants of public money for harbour construction, except in cases of Imperial and National necessity. As the recommendation by the Select Committee of the appointment of such a Commission as is suggested in my hon. Friend's Question contemplated grants of public money, and not loans, the Government do not propose to appoint this Commission. With regard to the subject of loans to harbour authorities, the Treasury and the Board of Trade are considering the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether James S. Gibbons, District Inspector, Irish Constabulary, who, as appears by official returns, was—

"Promoted ten steps on the seniority list, and granted a first-class favourable record (1. 11. Y. S.) for special detective intelligence and capacity, as shown in the successful prosecution of the Maamtrasna murderers,"

still retains the post of District Inspector, and the seniority so granted, al- though he has been serving for more than two years past as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Egyptian police; and, whether he will be removed from the Irish force?

In April, 1883, the services of Mr. Gibbons were lent to the Egyptian Government for a period of two years in connection with their Police Force, and, on their application, the time has been extended by a further 12 months. Mr. Gibbons is allowed to retain the rank he held in the Royal Irish Constabulary, but without pay. He will not, of course, be promoted to any higher rank should his turn arise while he is serving in Egypt.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any representation has been made to the Irish Government, or whether they are aware that, out of the sum of £42 5s. Od. allowed by the Crown for the expenses of Margaret Raftery, who attended at Summer and Winter Assizes 1883, and Spring, Summer, and Winter Assizes 1884, as witness for the defence in the case of the Craughwell prisoners, the sum of £13 2s. Od. remains still unpaid; and, what steps will be taken to secure the discharge of the debt?

The Crown Solicitor in this case is on duty at the Assizes, and in his absence from his head-quarters he is unable to give me a Report on the subject. I will, therefore, ask the hon. Member to repeat the Question on Monday next.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the officers and men of the Indian contingent at Suakin, under orders to return to Bombay at the beginning of June, have yet embarked; and, if so, in what transport; whether the Goa, the Scindia, the Roehampton, or the Persian Monarch transports were successively intended for this service, and whether none of these vessels arrived at Suakin last month; and, if he can say how many of the Force in question have been invalided during June, what has become of those invalided, and how many horses and camels at Suakin have died in the same period?

, who replied, said: The 9th Bengal Cavalry, to which, I presume, the hon. Member refers, left Suakin on the 10th of June in the Italy and Persian Monarch, and had reached Bombay on the 21st of June. The Goa, Scindia, and five other vessels not only arrived last month at Suakin but subsequently reached Bombay within the month, with followers, labourers, and mules. The Roehampton arrived later, and left Suakin for Bombay on the 12th of July. I am not yet in a position to state the casualties and invaliding for the month of June.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration the advisability of giving the Militia regiments now embodied an assurance of not being disembodied before a definite date, so that the officers and non-commissioned officers may be enabled to make arrangements with regard to the housing of their families, which they cannot do in the present state of uncertainty?

I am afraid that I can give no such assurance. The duration of the embodiment of the Militia must depend upon political conditions, which I cannot forecast.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the request of the people of the Johnstown Post Office District, near Arklow, for a different arrangement in regard to the delivery of letters, will be acceded to?

The inquiries on the subject to which the hon. Member refers are not yet complete; but I have ascertained that if the rural post of Arklow wore not despatched until after the arrival of the day mail at Arklow, a detention of four hours, and not two hours only, as suggested in the Memorial, would be necessary; and it seems doubtful whether the majority of the residents would acquiesce in such a change. There is also a question of affording a collection of letters in the evening over the whole line of post; but it is feared that the expense involved in meeting the wishes of the Memorialists would be greater than the correspondence would warrant. On this point, however, further information is being collected.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will consider the advisability of extending the period of repayment for loans for teachers' residences in Ireland from 35 to 50 years, thus reducing the annual charge from £5 to £3 15s. per cent., as suggested in a Memorial by the Catholic Bishops recently laid upon the Table?

The extension suggested by the Roman Catholic Bishops cannot, I fear, be agreed to, either in the interests of managers and teachers, or of the public. I may add that in any case the change would have required legislation, and therefore could not have been secured this Session. The question whether any less extension would be possible will receive careful consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government, in view of the experience obtained from attempts to work the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, will consider the suggestion made by the Grand Jury of Sligo, in their Petition presented to the House on the 17th instant, that certain provisions of the Relief of Distress Act, 1880, should be applied to Tramways and similar undertakings in the West of Ireland; and, whether the Government will endeavour to pass, this Session, a short Bill to deal with the subject, or will introduce Clauses for the purpose into some Bill before Parliament?

The Grand Jury of Sligo have communicated with me on this subject, but I am unable to hold out any hope of legislation in the direction suggested in their Petition. It is impossible to institute any comparison between the circumstances of the present time and those of 1880, when public money was advanced at very exceptional rates to meet the prevailing distress.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government intend to introduce into the Irish Land Purchase Bill any provision for the relief of the purchasers of church and glebe lands, or any provision to enable such purchasers to obtain a loan of the balance of the purchase-money due to the Irish Land Commissioners at a less rate than that which they have to pay said Commissioners, namely, five and a-half per cent.?

This matter is at present under consideration; but the time at the disposal of the Government renders it difficult for them to incur fresh legislative obligations without great circumspection.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If Grey-stones Harbour is to be constructed on the monolithic system, as asked by the inhabitants of the town in a recent Memorial to the Treasury?

I am making inquiries into this matter, and I would be obliged to the hon. Member if he would postpone his Question until Monday.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the Report of the Inspector of Lunatics has not been presented to Parliament; and, will he take steps to have it printed in future earlier in the year?

The Inspectors inform me that their Report had been unavoidably delayed by pressure of business of an urgent nature at the Government printing office. They add that this is an exceptional year, and that a similar delay is not likely to occur in future.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he will advise that a Royal Commission be appointed to consider the education and condition of the deaf in the United Kingdom, similar to the Commission that has been granted in the case of the blind?

I have already stated the form of inquiry which Her Majesty's Government think ought to be instituted into the education of the deaf and dumb; and although it is very possible that some principles which may be laid down by the Royal Commission on the condition of the blind may be also applicable to the case of the deaf, we do not see our way to the appointment of a second Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that some of the Medical Officers, recently returned from the campaign in the Soudan, are to be sent abroad again immediately; what is the usual run of home service for Surgeons and Surgeon Majors; with reference to the recent rules made as to examinations for promotion, what chance have the Medical Officers of attending Civil Hospitals and gaining information, and why are not Medical Officers allowed leave to attend classes as the combatant officers are to attend Garrison Classes for their promotion examinations; and, can no arrangement be made which would insure a Medical Officer remaining at least a year in a station without a move?

Service in Egypt and the Soudan does not count as a tour of foreign service unless it extends to 12 months; and, therefore, medical officers who have returned home after less than that service there will be required to complete their periods of foreign ser- vice, and will probably be sent abroad during the autumn for this purpose. The tour of home service during peace ranges from two and a-half to three years. Campaigns abroad reduce this average in proportion to the medical officers required. Medical officers, as a rule, have 61 days' leave yearly, during which they can adopt-any means they think desirable for increasing their professional knowledge. Special leave for the purpose of attending civil hospitals is occasionally granted; but the grant could not be made a general practice unless the medical staff were greatly augmented, the number of medical officers scarcely sufficing at any time for the work to be performed. Officers can attend civil hospitals or schools at places where they are stationed if their military duties are not thereby interfered with. Every endeavour is made to keep officers at the same station during a tour of home service. With this view applications for change of station are constantly refused.

asked the honourable Member for Bute, Whether Her Majesty's Government are willing to insert in the Housing of the Working Classes (England) Bill a Clause applying the Act, or parts of it, to Scotland (as in "The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1868," amended by the Bill); and, whether they will give effect to the suggestion of the Royal Commissioners that the expenses of transfer of small houses could be reduced (probably without loss of revenue), by making some abatement of the registration fees in Scotland, and of the Stamp Duties on such transfers, throughout the United Kingdom?

In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I have to say that I cannot positively state whether it is proposed to make the Bill applicable to Scotland or not; but I may mention that there are clauses in the Burgh Health and Police (Scotland) Bill which will secure the same benefits to Scotland which are desired by my hon. Friend. At the same time, unless the Scotch Members are disposed to accept that enormous Bill en bloc, it is not likely to be proceeded with this Session. As regards the second part of the Question, that will be answered by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

The suggestion of the Royal Commissioners will, no doubt, receive due consideration; but, as at present advised, the Revenue authorities do not think the present scale of stamp duties on transfers of small houses unreasonable. A reduction of the scale in cases of a small consideration would be subversive of the principle of an ad valorem, scale, and it would be difficult to confine any reduction to cases where the purchaser was poor. As regards the register house fees on searches, these are being reconsidered, with a view to their reduction.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will direct the attention of the Chinese authorities to the necessity of removing all traces of the barriers which were constructed some time ago at the entrance of the Shanghai River, with the intention of eventually blocking access to that port, inasmuch as these partial barriers, remaining in the Channel, constitute a danger to safe navigation; and, whether, at the same time, Her Majesty's Government will further urge upon the Chinese authorities the imperative necessity of resuming the work of dredging the entrance to the Shanghai River, which, only having been undertaken after long and continuous pressure on the part of the mercantile and shipping communities, was suddenly discontinued before any real work had been done?

Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Pekin will be directed to represent to the Chinese authorities the importance of removing all obstructions to navigation at the mouth of the Shanghai River. Instructions were sent in June of last year to the late Sir Harry Parkes to press on the attention of the Chinese Government the necessity of putting back the dredger which had been sent from England for the purpose of clearing the Woosung Bar, but which was temporarily removed to another place. Mr. O'Conor will now be directed to urge the Chinese authorities to proceed with this important work with the least possible delay.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is his intention to move the insertion of a Clause in the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Bill, to increase the scale of allowance prescribed by "The Returning Officers Act, 1875," in respect of the presiding officers and clerks employed in elections, in consequence of the enlargement of the constituency, the increased number of the polling places and the clerks necessary, and the extension of the hours of polling?

, who replied, said, that he must remind the hon. Member for Dover that this question was practically answered on Monday. He might, however, state that several Amendments having been put down by independent Members, which would enable the House to express an opinion on this matter, it was not the intention of the Home Secretary to propose any clause himself.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has received a Communication from the Port and Harbour Commissioners of Londonderry, complaining of the defenceless state of that port, and of Lough Foyle generally; whether the Government contemplate any steps to improve the condition of affairs, either by a man-of-war being stationed there, or a training ship and a volunteer torpedo brigade in connection therewith; and, if any, and what, local aid can be recommended by the Government?

Yes; a communication has been received from the Port and Harbour Commissioners of Londonderry, complaining of the defenceless state of that port and of Lough Foyle generally. The Government do not contemplate stationing a vessel of war permanently at Lough Foyle. In time of war every assistance would be rendered by the Navy to protect the coasts of the United Kingdom to the extent which could be afforded by cruising ships, but vessels could not be kept permanently for the defence of any one port; such permanent defences must be provided by fortifications and gunboats, supplemented, if necessary, by torpedo boats, submarine mines, and torpedoes. As to the establishment of torpedo corps for the protection of the various commercial ports in the United Kingdom and the manner in which they can be provided and manned in an efficient manner, the question is at present being thoroughly considered, but no decision has as yet been finally arrived at.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention has been called to a recent case in the Newcastle on Tyne Bankruptcy Court of the Vicar of St. Mark's, South Shields, in which it was stated in evidence that he had handed over for the purpose of liquidating his debts, among other sources of income, his draft from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and his "school grant;" whether ho will cause inquiry to be made into the truth of these statements; and, whether the teaching staff of the school for which the grant was intended have lost any part of their income in consequence of such reported diversion of funds?

I have not seen any such statement as that to which the hon. Member refers, nor has he, as I requested, furnished me with a copy of it. It is a fact that during the last two years the Vicar of St. Mark's, South Shields, has been in difficulties; but the suggestion of this Question is that public money has been applied by him to liquidate his private debts. The hon. Member does not seem to be aware that the "draft from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners," which means the half-yearly cheque sent by them in payment of his stipend, is absolutely at the disposal of the vicar. The school grant, which is awarded to the managers of the school after each examination, form part of the general income of the school, and has been handed over by the Vicar to his solicitor, with instructions to pay school liabilities out of the school grant. The cash-books and vouchers are annually submitted to the Inspector of Schools, and I am informed that no member of the teaching staff has lost any of his income, although on one occasion, owing to a lack of funds, there was an unavoidable delay. Perhaps the House will allow me to express an opinion that it is hardly fair to bring charges of dishonesty in the form of a Question without taking the trouble to verify their correctness in any way.

My Question was based on a newspaper report which I hold in my hand. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that I had asked a Question only, and it is a departure from the recognized principles for a Member of the Government to make such a statement in answer to a Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that negotiations are in progress for the very early issue of the £9,000,000 new Egyptian Loan; and, if so, whether, in pursuance of the pledges of both the late and the present Government that the requirements of the Law in this matter should be fulfilled, any steps have yet been taken to convene the Egyptian General Assembly and submit to them the proposal for a new loan, as required by the Egyptian Constitution in the case of a loan of this amount, thus:—Article 60. The General Assembly shall be consulted on every public loan exceeding £1,000,000?

It is quite true that negotiations are in progress for the issue of this loan. Her Majesty's Government cannot pledge themselves to the view taken for some time by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy in respect to the General Assembly. It is a question in which I know the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest; but, at the same time, the Government have every reason to believe that the Egyptian Government will take all the steps with respect to it which they consider to be legally necessary. With respect to the other Question asked by the hon. Member, I do not think I can go into that matter within the limits of a Parliamentary answer.

said, surely the hon. Gentleman could say if it was a fact that the Assembly had been convened, and that the loan proposed would be laid before it?

We have received corroboration of the telegram on the subject.

asked whether the statements that had appeared in the newspapers were substantially correct, to the effect that the whole of the Great Powers had given their consent to the raising of this loan?

I think I have answered that Question before. Yes, Sir; the statements are substantially correct.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Government, in view of the rebuilding of the Portrait Gallery, which will soon require more space, and of the Natural History Museum, which Sir Richard Owen declared would require in another generation to be enlarged, will acquire from the Commissioners of the South Kensington Exhibition the extra land now offered for building lots on each side of the entrance in Queen's Gate, which otherwise will have to be bought at great cost when the public buildings in question require increase?

I cannot foresee any circumstances which are likely to arise which would justify me in asking the Government to purchase the lots of ground on each side of the entrance in Queen's Gate referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet. The Government are now the owners of 16 acres of land adjoining the property of the Exhibition Commissioners of 1851. Of this only four acres are at present covered by the Natural History Museum, so that there will be ample space for enlarging that building whenever it becomes necessary to do so, and also for the erection of a new building for the National Portrait Gallery if it should be thought desirable to build it at South Kensington; but nothing has yet been decided on that subject.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can give the House any further information as to the mission of the Right honourable Member for Portsmouth; and, whether he will lay the terms of his instructions upon the Table?

I am afraid that I have nothing to state to the House on this subject. The matter is not yet settled.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to lay the terms of the Instructions to the right hon. Gentleman upon the Table?

I could not make any promise on this subject without first communicating with my noble Friend the Prime Minister. I have not had the opportunity of doing so, as the Question only appeared on the Paper to-day.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he intends to proceed with the Scotch Universities Bill, and if so, after what hour he will not proceed with it? I take this opportunity of informing the right hon. Gentleman that several Notices in regard to this Bill were dropped from the Paper in consequence of the statement formerly made on the subject.

I do not quite understand whether the hon. Member intends to state that the opposition to this Bill is diminishing or increasing.

What I say is, that in consequence of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman last week—not saying decisively, but indicating—that the Government had abandoned the Bill, the Notices have been allowed to drop in the expectation that the Bill would not be allowed to go on. What I ask now is, does he intend to proceed with the Bill?

I stated that as far as I could learn the feeling of the hon. Members for Scotland on the subject, the opposition was such that it would be impossible to proceed with the Bill; but I have heard since that that opposition is decreasing. Although we do not propose to proceed with it to-night, we would like to keep it amongst the Orders for to-morrow night to see what chances it may have.

asked, when the Government would take the Land Purchase Bill in the House of Commons?

I am afraid I cannot name a day at present.

asked the Government, whether a day had yet been definitely fixed for the Queen's College Estimates?

said, it would be impossible to say. He was afraid to take the Votes to-morrow; but he would be able to tell the hon. Member before the evening was over.

asked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would secure that the discussion in connection with the Telegraph Amendment Act should not prevent him bringing forward his Motion in regard to Heriot's Hospital?

, in reply, said, that the Government would not take any Order that would throw the hon. Member later than half-past 12 o'clock; but it would be no use declining to proceed up to that time with their own Bills, though they would not proceed with anything after the Telegraphs Bill if it was likely to carry them beyond half-past 12 o'clock.

asked, Whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would consent to lay on the Table a Return of the number of occasions on which the members of the Agricultural Committee of the Privy Council had been summoned to meet since the first appointment of the Committee in April, 1883; the names of the Committee present; and the official record, if any, of business transacted on each of such occasions?

No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot lay on the Table the Return for which my hon. Friend proposes to move, and for this reason. I have inquired into the matter; but I find there is no record in the Department of the Agricultural Committee, which was appointed in 1883. ever having been formally summoned, and consequently no record of the business transacted by them. With regard to the present Committee, it was only appointed on the 27th of June, and there has been no business before the Department to render such a course necessary. The hon. Member, however, will understand that it can be summoned at any time, and that it will be summoned at any time should the occasion arise.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information confirming the reported death of the Mahdi?

Yes, Sir; a telegram reached the Foreign Office a short time ago from Cairo. It mentions that Brigadier General Grenfell, who is on the Nile between Assouan and Wady Haifa, had telegraphed to Mr. Egerton to say the report of the Mahdi's death seemed to be generally confirmed; that a Sheik who had arrived in the neighbourhood of Assouan spoke of having attended the Mahdi's funeral. Most of the Mahdi's agents in and around Dongola appear to have returned South from that place, and Brigadier General Grenfell adds—"The news of the death is universally believed in and around Dongola."

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would be good enough to say whether the Treaty with China on the opium question had been signed; and, if so, when he would lay it on the Table?

The Treaty is signed, and will be laid on the Table as soon as possible. We are awaiting the ratification.

, in moving the insertion of the following clause:—

said, that he entirely sympathized with the object which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Thomasson) appeared to have in view; because he understood that the hon. Member meant to give what encouragement he could to friendly societies, and the Government were anxious to do all in their power to prevent this Bill having any hostile effect upon such societies. It was not possible, however, for them to accept the clause proposed by the hon. Member. If he understood it aright, under this clause a man might receive any amount whatever of relief from the rates; and if he subscribed a single farthing to a friendly society, whatever relief he received from the rates, he would not be disqualified. In other words, the smallest contribution to a friendly society would guard him from the results of the reception of any amount of relief of any kind from the poor rates. He thought that if that was the effect of the proposed clause it would be hardly necessary for him to argue against it. A man might receive a far greater amount from the rates than he had any right to from his society. Therefore, much as he sympathized with the objects of the hon. Member, he could not, on behalf of the Government, agree to this clause.

, in moving the insertion of the following clause:—

"The term 'medical or surgical assistance' in this Act shall include all medical and surgical attendance and all matters and things supplied by or on the recommendation of the medical officer having authority to give such attendance and recommendation at the expense of any poor rate,"

said, he thought that it was not necessary to go at length into the merits of the question, as it had already been pretty well thrashed out. He had received scores of letters from doctors, overseers, and medical officers in favour of the proposal he now asked the House to adopt. He had originally thought that the Government had made the provision contained in this clause; but on Tuesday, when the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had asked the Question whether medical comforts and medical extras, such as beef tea or port wine, would be included under medical relief, he had heard with profound astonishment that medical relief was only to include drugs and physic. Under these conditions, he maintained that the Bill was a mere sham. On Tuesday night the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) held an informal meeting to see what should be forced on the House in reference to the measure. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan twitted hon. Members for their slow zeal in the matter. But he begged to point out that the action of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan and his Friends would disfranchise thousands of Irish voters whose poverty compelled them to accept beef tea or wine, or something else which the medical officers might give them. He appealed to the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Deasy), who had as large an experience as any Member of the House on the subject, and that hon. Member in an exhaustive speech argued that the clause would affect numbers of Irish voters, and he went into the Lobby in support, not of the Government, but of the poor Irish voter, whose interest he would not oppose on any consideration. He would appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to make the Bill a real Bill, because without this clause it would not effect its object. In order that there should be no difficulty after- wards in regard to the question, he hoped that the House would accept the clause which he proposed. If it was not accepted, the effect would be to intensify agitation; and, so far as the Government were concerned, they would have directly violated the pledge which they gave when they introduced the Bill. Clause (Definition of medical and surgical assistance,)—[Mr. Jesse Collings,)—brought up, and read the first time.

said, that the hon. Member implored him to make the Bill a real Bill. He had certainly hoped, when he introduced the Bill, framed exactly on the lines of the hon. Member himself, using the very words which the hon. Member used, and in the same manner, that it could not be described by him as an unreal Bill. The hon. Member seemed to think that he had some power of altering the English language as interpreted by the Judges. But how could the hon. Gentleman think that the words "medical relief" meant one thing when introduced in his Bill, and another when introduced in the Bill of the Government? The meaning of the words was perfectly well known, as they were suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) in his famous Amendment to the Registration Bill. Anyone who should consult Hansard would see that by medical and surgical assistance was meant then what was meant now. And the thing was made still clearer by the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Selborne) in the other House, because he distinctly asserted that the words did not mean, as now suggested, medical comforts. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) went down to agitate the country upon this question, he was as well aware as the House was of the actual meaning of the words, as stated by his own Colleague. And yet the right hon. Gentleman, at a late hour on Tuesday night, told the House, in language more forcible than classical, that unless they introduced the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) the Bill was not worth "a rap," that being the very Bill for which the right hon. Gentleman tried to raise the whole country, and for rejecting which he denounced the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman, after careful consideration, in a letter which had been published, described the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch as a clause which would remove a gross injustice. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, and hon. Members who desired this clause, how it was that words which in June would remove a gross injustice would "not be worth a rap" in July? When the right hon. Gentleman had explained that to their satisfaction, they should, perhaps, be able to understand the motives that had influenced him. After what had passed in that House and in "another place," and after the correspondence between the right hon. Member for Birmingham and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, no one could say that the Government intended anything different now from what they intended before. He admitted that it was extremely difficult and almost invidious to draw a distinction between ordinary drugs and a glass of brandy given to remove faintness. But if they were to draw the line at all before reaching the point of removing the disqualification from everyone receiving outdoor relief, this was the place to draw it. He did not mean to argue the question now whether persons receiving outdoor relief should be disqualified. Gentlemen on both sides, with one or two very rare exceptions, desired to continue the disqualification which did exist, and had always existed, with regard to persons receiving outdoor relief. If they wished to continue that disqualification, they ought to draw the line where it had been drawn by the late Government, and was drawn by the present Government. That line was already familiar in the administration of the Poor Law system. It was not in the power of a medical officer to give anything to a patient beyond medicine. If he did so it was upon his own responsibility. The line drawn by the Bill was also consistent with the practice of hospitals. Outdoor patients received medical assistance; but they did not receive medical comforts. He wished, further, to impress upon the House that if they accepted the clause hon. Gentlemen would make the relieving officer potentially a political agent, and give him an immense power of putting men on the Register or taking them off. Then, again, the House must bear in mind how great would be the inequalities which would exist between parish and parish, and union and union, if the Amendment were carried. If a doctor took a large view of his duties—if he thought it his duty to order mutton, chickens, beef-tea, port wine, and so forth—it would be in his power, by ordering a sufficiency of these extras, to prevent a man seeking any other form of relief, and the people in his parish would be kept on the Register. But in the neighbouring parish they might have a doctor who took an entirely different view of his responsibility, and who, before ordering these large medical extras, would think it his duty to call in the relieving officer. They would thus have two adjoining parishes under different medical authority, and they would have an entirely different practice as regarded the keeping on and the striking off from the Register. If the House were going to allow a man to get everything the medical officer gave, they would allow him to receive a great deal more, perhaps, than some hon. Members supposed. Medical officers were not obliged to restrict themselves in their advice to such things as beef-tea, port wine, and brandy. Within the last 24 hours a case had come under his notice where a medical officer recommended that the patient should be removed to a better house. If they once refused to disqualify a man from exercising the franchise when he received out of the rates better lodging, better food, perhaps clothes, perhaps bedding, perhaps nursing, he failed utterly to see how they were to maintain the distinction, which they all admitted to be a wholesome and necessary distinction, between the man who received outdoor relief and the man who did not receive outdoor relief. He did not think it was necessary for him to lay any more arguments before the House; but he might say, in anticipation of the discussion about to ensue, that it was the intention of the Government, at all events, to omit Scotland from the operation of the Bill. He should be out of Order if he were to state the grounds on which the Government had come to that determination; but to that determination they had come. He wanted to point out how great would be the inequality between Scotland and England if they left Scotland out of the Bill, and carried the Amendment. [An hon. MEMBER: And Ireland.] It would be recollected that he gave a promise across the floor of the House two nights ago that if the Irish Members also desired Ireland to be excluded from the Bill it should be so. Ho had taken pains to find what the views of hon. Members were; and he was now given to understand that not only the Scotch Members, but the Irish Members on both sides, and in every quarter of the House, also desired to be excluded from the Bill. If that were the case —if Ireland and Scotland were excluded from the Bill—and they introduced this Amendment, they would produce an enormous inequality between the three Kingdoms, and he could not believe that that was a wise proceeding. In Scotland a man would be absolutely excluded from the vote even if he got purely medical relief, and to that inequality it was now proposed to add the enormous inequality of allowing men in England to receive medical comforts, which might consist of new clothes, new bedding, and of a new house, and yet to retain their names on the list. Before the House sanctioned an inequality of that kind between England on the one hand, and Scotland and Ireland on the other, it would be well seriously to pause. The Government, then, objected to this clause, because it produced an inequality between the three parts of the Kingdom, because it broke down the only practical line which could be drawn between the existing system and one which should remove entirely the disqualification or account of outdoor relief, and because the Bill, as the Government had introduced it, was precisely the Bill as brought forward by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, the Bill upon which the country had been agitated from end to end, and which had received the enthusiastic support of the agricultural labourers. If the House should force this clause on the Government, and any serious accident happened to the Bill in its future progress, on hon. Gentlemen opposite, and on them alone, would the responsibility rest.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down quite cheerfully accepted the invitation to leave Ireland out of the Bill, and to leave Scotland out of it, and apparently the right hon. Gentleman would not be sorry if he had the opportunity to leave England out of it also. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not, however, make any complaint of the way in which the Government had dealt with the Bill. On the contrary, he thought they had very fairly brought in a Bill for the purpose of meeting a grievance which might not have been at first fully understood or appreciated, but which, when it came to be insisted upon, was felt to be a very great grievance indeed. The right hon. Gentleman said, he dared say truly. that the words in the Bill were in former Amendments and in former Bills; but that really did not conclude the question. As regarded himself, all he could say was that, not having sufficiently critically examined the words of the Bill, he was distinctly under the impression that the Bill did include all medical relief—that was, that it included what might be called medical comforts as well as medicine and surgical aid. He admitted now that he was wrong in that impression; but it was not until ho had made a careful legal investigation with Ms two hon. and learned Friends the late Attorney and Solicitor Generals that he discovered that the interpretation given to the words used in the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman was the right one. What was the state of the case. The great majority in the House were of opinion that certain persons who were unfortunate enough, under pressure of illness, to receive parochial relief in the form of medical assistance ought not to be disfranchised; and if that was the principle they ought to act upon it, and not introduce fine-drawn and invidious distinctions in the matter. Surely, everybody must feel that to draw a distinction between a stimulant administered in the form of brandy and one administered in the form of ammonia was a most invidious one. They should not, he thought, make any distinction between medical drugs and medical comforts. If they accepted the principle that disfranchisement was not to be the result of receiving assistance in illness by way of remedy, they ought to take a common-sense and liberal view of the question, and do, in fact, what they had said they intended doing. He believed that in nine cases out of ten medical as- sistance included medical comforts, and if this clause was rejected the Bill would—he did not say intentionally on the part of the Government—be practically inoperative. If that were so, there would be very great disappointment and regret. Then they ought not to overlook the danger that had been pointed out—namely, the danger of placing in the hands of the medical officer the power of disfranchisement. He did not desire to put the matter invidiously; but suppose that a medical officer did desire to disfranchise the poor people in his district, he had nothing to do but to recommend as necessary to the treatment of each case some medical comforts. Ought such a power to be placed in the hands of a medical officer? The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to exclude Scotland and Ireland from the Bill, and that if the Amendment were carried there would then be great inequality between the three countries. But inequality was not in the Amendment; it was in the Bill. To redress the grievance in the country where it existed was not to create an inequality between the countries—it was to create an equality. If no man was disfranchised from this cause in Scotland the grievance did not exist; and if men were disfranchised from it in England, then to cure that evil was to establish an equality, and not an inequality, between the two countries. He did not wish to argue the question in any hostile way; but he desired to put it very seriously before the House. There could be no doubt that great expectations had been raised throughout the country in regard to it. He dared say the exact bearing of the particular distinction which had been raised between medical drugs and medical comforts was not at first fully realized; but now that it was realized and was fully before the House they should take care not to practically destroy that which was intended to be given, and ho imagined that what was intended to be given was that a man who, by misfortune and illness, required to receive medical relief was to receive such relief as was necessary for the cure of his illness. He hoped, therefore, that there would be no hair-splitting about what was and what was not medical relief; and that the House, having resolved to give a boon, would see that it gave a boon which was real.

said, they had had an illustration of the extremely difficult position in which the Government had placed themselves by having caught the Whigs bathing and running away with their clothes. On this occasion the particular suit of clothes which had been taken away seemed to him to be of the pattern of the Kilmainham Treaty—indeed, he might call it of the Maamtrasna pattern. He supposed that, owing to an arrangement with the Scottish and Irish Members, Scotland and Ireland were to be excluded from the Bill. He never liked the Bill, and was one of the 22 Members who voted against it on Tuesday night; but it seemed to him that the principle having been admitted by a large majority of the House, it was extremely inconsistent to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich. He (Mr. Macartney) belonged to what had been designated the reactionaries of the Tory Party. He could not understand the rapid changes of opinion which had recently taken place on the Ministerial side. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said that Mr. Gosset, owing to sitting in the vicinity of Friends of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, had caught some of their geniality. The Members of the late Fourth Party who were now Members of the Cabinet also sat when in Opposition near the Friends of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and they appeared to have caught up the atmosphere of those hon. Gentlemen and to have brought it into the Cabinet. It was said that a little leaven leavened the whole lump; but a considerable leaven had in this instance got into the Cabinet. It seemed to him that at present the principle was that whatever had been advocated very loudly by one Party should be adopted by the other, and that they should hunt in couples and take alternative possession of the Treasury Bench. As to the present Amendment, he thought that when once the House had, by an overwhelming majority, decided to enfranchise paupers, this hair-splitting about medical relief was rather absurd. He was opposed to the entire Bill. and could neither vote for or against the proposed clause.

said, that the arguments which had been adduced against the Amendment had been of a some- what extraordinary character. What was it that they had been told? That because the majority of the Scottish Members wished it Scotland was to be excluded from the Bill, and they were also told that Ireland was to be excluded for similar reasons. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had thrown out the threat that if this clause was adopted they would give up all responsibility for the Bill. He must enter his protest against such a threat. He hoped the Amendment would be carried by an overwhelming majority, and if it were its supporters would easily find means to have the wishes of the majority of the House of Commons on this very important subject carried into effect, notwithstanding what had been said on behalf of the Government with regard to the fate of the Bill. He passed by the arguments that had been used, and would ask the House if the Conservative jerrymandering of 1867 was to be repeated with a large Liberal majority in the House of Commons? In 1867 the Conservative Government filched one of the eggs of the Liberal Party in the shape of a provision connected with the borough franchise. What did they do? What they gave with one hand they took away with the other by the operation of the Eating Clause. Was that transaction to be repeated now, or was it not? The Conservative Government had filched the Liberal measure brought in before they acceded to power, and they took away a great part of what was intended to be given by the framework of the Bill as it stood at present. It had never been the intention of the hon. Member for Ipswich nor of any supporters of his Bill that it should have a limited scope. This fact ought to be clearly understood. In regard to the exclusion of Ireland, he believed that instead of being an enfranchising measure, supposing the Bill were to apply to Ireland, it would, on the contrary, most distinctly he a disfranchising Bill. The systems of affording medical relief were different in the two countries, and this Bill, if extended to Ireland, would be highly prejudicial. He hoped, therefore, that it would not be sought to include Ireland within the scope of the measure. There was one danger which they must guard against. They practically made the medical officer the returning officer, and gave him the power of qualifying or disqualifying electors in a closely contested election. Indeed, the politics of the medical officer in an election contest would be one of the first things to be inquired into.

said, he thought that everyone must have sympathized with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board when he was speaking on behalf of the Government in the endeavour which he made to draw distinctions which, some days ago, had been pointed out to him were absolutely untenable between the propositions he was discussing. He was one of those who thought that the Government was perfectly right in accepting this proposition; and he believed that they accepted the proposition, which was the main proposition of the Bill, with the cordial assent of the great majority of those who agreed with them in political matters. But the fact was that, although the two Front Benches had to some extent pledged themselves with regard to the principle of the Bill, the majority of the House of Commons had not pledged itself and had not really expressed any opinion upon the principle. In the divisions which took place when the Registration Bill was before the House, it was agreed by both Front Benches that it was undesirable to embody a clause of this kind in the Bill; and those who were anxious, in the pressing circumstances of the time, to get the Bill sent up to the House of Lords joined the Front Bench in resisting the introduction of a provision which was felt to be undesirable. Those who voted in the first division on the 6th of May expressed no judgment on the main principle at issue; it was merely on the question of the convenience of Parliament. But it was very difficult to understand the position taken up by his right hon. Friend. It was clear from his speech, and from the speech made by the late Attorney General, that there were those on both Front Benches who now had no heart in this proposal at all, who were not in favour of the principle of this Bill, but who were simply making it a matter of competition for the votes of the agricultural labourer at the next election. He did not take that view. He thought the proposal was a good one on its merits. He listened the other evening with great interest and with a feeling of admiration for his great courage to the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). Undoubtedly, if this Bill were to trench upon the principles which he then enunciated, he (Mr. E. Clarke) would steadily refuse to vote for it; but he thought the House had accepted the clear distinction between ordinary Poor Law relief and that form of relief which was generally given in consequence of sudden or unforeseen illness, when the heavy expenses to which the working man was put could hardly be provided for by him. He, like the late Home Secretary, quite believed, when he voted in favour of this provision for medical relief, that the term "medical relief" included not merely the doctor's fee and the medicine, but also included those things which, though they might be comforts and articles of food, were, in his judgment, necessary to the medical treatment of the patient. He had been entirely unable to find any strict definition of the term "medical relief;" but he believed that if a legal definition could be taken it would be found to include everything which the doctor ordered for the medical treatment of the case. But whether technically or not the term "medical relief" included those things, he understood it to include them when he voted for this Bill; and if it was necessary to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Ceilings) in order to make the matter clear, he should quite readily and simply, in pursuance of the intentions he had the other night, vote for the Amendment. There had been certain considerations advanced with regard to the political influence of this matter. No one could be insensible to the danger that in all eases of this kind relieving officers and medical officers might act from political motives. Unfortunately, they could not get rid of those influences. If they made it a disqualification it might be as difficult to disqualify an opponent as to please a voter who remained on the list; and he was afraid by making this relief a matter of disqualification it would have the effect of obliging the poor man, instead of getting his relief from the rates, to go to the squire or to the clergyman, or some other private source of charity, for that which he had much better take from the rates. When a man was struck down with sudden necessity he had better go to the fund to which he had helped to subscribe, and out of which, with the help of his subscriptions, others had been relieved, than go to ask for individual doles from people of the neighbourhood. He believed that to do so would lower his self-respect and independence much more than by going to the rates. In these circumstances, he certainly intended to vote for the hon. Member's Amendment. He hoped the House would not take too seriously the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech with regard to an accident happening to this Bill, for if ever there was a Bill over which the Front Bench had no real effective right or control, it was this Bill. While he believed the Government were right in accepting the principle of the measure, he thought they would have been much better advised, though, perhaps, not perfectly consistent with their dignity, if they had accepted the Bill of the hon. Member for Ipswich. They had chosen, however, to accept the principle of the Bill; they had carried that principle by an overwhelming majority and by a strong use of their influence in the House; and, that being so, surely they were not at liberty to threaten the House with abandoning the Bill, and thereby securing the disqualification of a large number of voters if the House took a different view from that which they themselves took as to the interpretation to be placed on one of the phrases of the Bill. He thought this Amendment was simply for making the interpretation of the phrase "medical relief" that which the House believed it had, and intended it should have; and, believing that, he hoped the Amendment would be successful, and that the Bill would, nevertheless, live and be carried into effect.

said, he. had assisted the hon. and learned Member for Christ-church (Mr. Horace Davey) with his Amendments to the Registration Bill, and was associated with him and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), and the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Mellor) in the preparation of their Bill and with the present Amendment, and they believed that the measure contained that provision for which they were now fighting. He was of opinion, however, that they owed nothing to the two Front Benches in this matter. It was absurd to say that the hon. Members from Ireland and Scotland wore to have their way as regarded the application of the Bill to those countries, and that the English Members were not to have their way in regard to the measure. He considered that if the Government were to throw out this Bill on account of a majority in favour of the Amendment such conduct would be a breach of faith with the hon. Member for Ipswich, who withdrew his Bill on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government would take up the measure themselves and carry it forward.

said, he hoped the Government would see that the feeling of the House was in favour of the Amendment, and that they would think it proper to include it in the Bill and see it passed into law.

said, he thought it might be convenient to state the course he intended to take with regard to this Amendment. The only course which to his mind was consistent and proper for him to pursue was to walk out of the House when the division was called. The House of Commons, as far as this Bill was concerned, had accepted what he believed to be a wrong principle—namely, that relief from the rates was not to disqualify when it was given to a poor man in the shape of medical relief. The Government said that so long as the parish doctor gave a man medicine and drugs the man should not be disqualified; but the moment he went beyond that, even to the extent of giving a teaspoonful of brandy, the man should be disqualified. He ventured to say that if they gave sick people good food and nourishment and kept the drugs and the doctor away, more people would recover. He detested the Bill, and thought it the most mischief-making measure ever considered since he had been a Member of the House; but he could not vote against the hon. Member for Ipswich's Amendment.

, after the ominous declaration of the President of the Local Government Board, wished to suggest that, in the event of the present Amendment being carried, the Government, instead of sacrificing the Bill, should fall back on the purpose of the Amendment he had moved on Tuesday for making The Bill an experiment confined to a limited period.

We did not conceal from the House, either on Tuesday or this evening, that in our opinion the adoption of the new clause or the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) would be a matter of very great importance; and we cannot, under present circumstances, take any further responsibility with regard to the measure.

I would only say that under the circumstances I suppose that the responsibility devolves on the majority of the House, whose property this Bill is, and therefore I beg leave to give Notice—I do not know what course the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to take, or how far he means to carry his dissent from this Bill; but if he only cast upon us the responsibility for the Bill I will ask whether the House will allow the Bill now to be read a third time?

The Question now before the House is whether the clause be added to the Bill.

asked whether he might be enabled to move the Amendment to the new clause standing under the name of Mr. Arthur Balfour?

said, that it was competent for the hon. Member to move the Amendment.

submitted that this Amendment would not be in Order, as the new clause must naturally come after Clause 2.

said, that the last time the Bill was before the House he had moved as an Amendment that the words "United Kingdom" should be left out of the Bill, and "England and Wales" substituted.

The hon. Member is going to a point prior in the Bill to that in respect of which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) has moved an Amendment; and it is only by asking the hon. Member to withdraw that Amendment that he can bring forward the Amendment to which he refers. Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?

No.

I beg to move that the words "United Kingdom"—

That is not in Order now.

said, he begged to move an Amendment to the effect that no new disability should be created by the application of the clauses to Ireland where such disability did not exist.

pointed out that the two Amendments which had been adopted were Amendments to the new clause. He thought that it was not competent for the hon. and learned Member to move this Amendment now, as it was in precisely the same position as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing).

contended that this was an ordinary Amendment, and might be moved in the ordinary way.

held that it was competent for the hon. and learned Member to move his Amendment, as the place of the new clause in the Bill had, not yet been determined.

wished to know how far this Amendment would go in regard to ratepayers who received medical comforts for their wives or children on the recommendation of the relieving officer or the recommendation of the doctor?

said, that the purpose of the Amendment was to insure that such persons should not be disqualified.

I beg to move that the words "United Kingdom"—

The hon. Member is not in Order now. We have passed that point, and if no further Amendments are proposed a day will be fixed for the third reading.

With the consent of the House, I will move that the Bill be now read a third time.

It would be very unusual under the circumstances to take the third reading of the Bill now, and I can only assent to that with the assent of the House.

I wish to move that the Bill be now re-committed, and if that Motion is competent I hope the House will at once assent to it, in order that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire may have an opportunity of moving his Amendment.

The hon. Member will be perfectly in Order in moving that the Bill be re-committed if he will state the purpose for which it is proposed.

It is in order that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire may have an opportunity of moving his Amendment.

said, he thought the proposal of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ramsay) was not an unfair one. He was quite sure nobody would wish that by a mere accident a question of this importance should be excluded. He did not himself know what the view of the Scottish Members generally might be in regard to the question of the exclusion of Scotland.

Might I ask, Sir, whether it is in accordance with precedent or custom for a Motion for re-commitment of a Bill to be made other than as an Amendment to the Motion to read the Bill a third time, or to make such a Motion without Notice?

The hon. Member would be in Order in moving to re-commit the Bill with a view to insert a definite Amendment.

said, he wished it to be understood that the Scottish Members were not unanimous on the question whether Scotland should be excluded from the operation of the Bill.

said, that in view of the great urgency of the Bill he trusted the House would not allow it to be re-committed, as Scottish Members were not agreed as to the Amendment.

said, he was entirely opposed to the exclusion of Scotland from the Bill. He came down to the House resolved to oppose that exclusion, or the infliction upon Scotland of a penalty which was not inflicted upon the other parts of the United Kingdom; but he would prefer to have the matter threshed out in that House rather than to have it debated in the House of Lords. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Ipswich would not oppose the re-committal of the Bill.

said, that it was by mere accident that the hon. Member for Dumbarton had been prevented from moving his Amendment.

said, it was perfectly competent for the House to agree to the re-committal.

said, that he was only desirous of addressing a word to the House with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow. Of the Scottish Members who had been consulted in this matter, 21 were in favour of the exclusion of Scotland, and five were indifferent about it, but were rather in favour of Scotland being included. The hon. Members for Glasgow and Kirkcaldy made two more who adopted the latter view.

asked whether, when the Speaker left the Chair, it would be perfectly competent for any Member to move that Scotland be excluded from the Bill?

After I have left the Chair an Amendment is to be moved in accordance with the Motion which has been carried, that the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of proposing an Amendment in respect of Clause 2.

proposed to leave out the words, in line 7, "the United Kingdom," and insert the words "England and Wales." He said it would be remembered that when this question was last before the Committee every Scotch Member in the House at that time spoke in favour of Scotland being omitted from the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) promised that he would make inquiries, and if he found that the majority of the Scotch Members were in favour of Scotland being left out of the Bill, he would, at a later stage, move the exclusion of Scotland. In consequence of what had taken place since then, he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) moved this Amendment.

said, it was quite true, as had been said by his hon. Friend (Mr. Orr-Ewing), that the other night there was a chorus of Scotch opinion in favour of omitting Scotland from the Bill; but, as a matter of fact, that was accounted for because there was no Radical Representative from Scotland in the House at the time, and he thought it was to be also accounted for by the fact that the representations made as to the law in Scotland on the subject were totally inaccurate. They had been told to-night by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the Irish Members wished to have Ireland omitted from the scope of the Bill. It was true they did so, because they had got a better Bill of their own. To include them in this Bill would be to create a certain disfranchisement in respect to medical relief. It would disfranchise those who received it from voting in the election of Poor Law Guardians. As a matter of fact, outdoor medical relief in Scotland was administered in a manner so parsimonious and stingy as to be a disgrace to any civilized nation. But there was a certain amount of medical relief given in Scotland. That House voted annually a sum of £20,000 as a grant in aid of medical relief in Scotland. The sum was handed over to the Board of Supervision—their only equivalent for the English Local Government Board—for distribution amongst the various Parochial Boards. The Board of Supervision had laid down certain regulations with regard to participation in this grant. Any Board wishing to have a share must comply with certain regulations, and the medical officer must attend to the poor on certain conditions; but there were 117 parishes in Scotland which did not think it worth their while to comply even with the rudimentary requirements laid down by the Board of Supervision, and did not participate at all in the grant in aid of medical relief in Scotland. Let the Committee understand precisely what amount of money was spent on Scotland in medical relief. The amount per head of the population spent in the parishes which complied with the requirements of the Board of Supervision, and which participated in the grant, was only 2½d. per head per annum, or, to speak accurately, 2·61 of a penny per head of the population per annum; and in the parishes which did not think it worth their while to comply with the very rudimentary requirements of the Board of Supervision, the amount spent in medical relief was less than 1¾d. per head of the population per annum. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) spoke to them about medical relief including fine clothes, and new houses, and all sorts of things. He (Dr. Cameron) thought the Committee might understand from the figures he had given what amount of fine clothing, or what number of new houses, could ho provided for the sick poor of Scotland out of 2½d. or l¾d. per head per annum. He believed that the Public Health Act of Scotland created the municipal body in towns the local sanitary authority, and in parishes it created the Parochial Board the local sanitary authority. If a man in a town contracted fever, or any infectious disease. and was unable to take care of himself, and to prevent himself from becoming a vehicle for the dissemination of disease, the municipal body, which was the sanitary authority took possession of him and placed him in hospital; and although he was maintained there out of the municipal rates, there was no question of his pauperization. In certain places in counties it was the custom for the Parochial Board to levy a special rate in respect to expenses required for epidemic diseases; but that was not universal. He had been told that in such cases men did not receive grants from the Poor Law funds, and were not thereby pauperized; but he had looked into the law on this point, and he had in his hand a standard work, in which it was laid down that the Public Health Act did not relieve the Parochial Board of the duty incumbent upon them by law, in cases of infectious disease, to take all means in their power to suppress it. It declared that it was the duty of the Parochial Board either to isolate the patients itself, or to allow the Local Authority to do so; and then it stated how the Local Authority might recover from the Board. The patients would be in receipt of relief from the Poor Law authorities, and would thus be pauperized. He believed that in certain coun- ties they would come on the Poor Poll, and that in other counties they would not. But, to put aside all those cases, there were in every county a great number of cases which must come on the Poor Roll. When a man broke his leg, or met with a serious accident, he was no longer able-bodied, and he at once came to he in the position of a pauper. He received a certain share of medical attendance, equivalent to his share of the I¾d per head per annum; and if they were to exclude Scotland from the operation of this Bill, that man would thereupon become pauperized, and lose his right to vote. This would occur not merely in the case of accidents; there were constant and innumerable cases of persons—persons suffering from consumption, or from chronic diseases of various sorts—whose relations were perfectly well able to pay for their keep, but who could not afford to pay for medical assistance for them. If the House were to exclude Scotland from the operation of the Bill, such persons as he had indicated in Scotland would he treated in a manner quite distinct from the treatment accorded to people in a similar position in England and Ireland. One principle had run through all those electoral reforms, and that was that they should take the widest measure of enfranchisement existing in any portion of the United Kingdom, and apply it to all portions of the United Kingdom. There was no justification and no logic to recommend a departure from this principle. If Parliament adopted the view of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), there would be enormous dissatisfaction throughout Scotland. He was glad the matter had come before the House in a shape in which they could take a division upon it. If any Scotch Members were opposed to Scotland obtaining the same benefit in the way of the franchise as England and Ireland had obtained it, it was right that those Members should be paraded through the Lobby, and thus have their names brought before the constituencies. The constituencies would thus he able in November next to form an opinion of the difference between the different kinds of Scotch Liberals who came to the House of Commons.

said, he was very much in favour of Home Rule, and was quite ready that the Scottish Members should decide this matter. It was said there had been no consultation amongst Scotch Members; there had been no meeting, and still less had there been any opportunity of conferring with the constituencies. He was told that the majority of Scotch Members wished to exclude Scotland from the Bill. He thought he knew one hon. Member, the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), who at one time was in favour of excluding Scotland from the Bill, but who, on obtaining further information, had changed his mind, and was now decidedly against the proposal. Another hon. Member, the Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) told him he had been in communication with Scotland, with the result that he was prepared to resist the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing). He did not see how it could be assumed that the majority of Scotch Members and of the people of Scotland were in favour of the exclusion of Scotland, because there had really been no opportunity of ascertaining how the people of Scotland really wished this question to be decided. It was true that in Scotland an able-bodied man was not entitled to relief; but, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had pointed out, a man who met with an accident or who became ill was no longer able-bodied, and therefore, under the law of Scotland, was entitled to relief. He (Sir George Campbell) was convinced that if the House of Commons adopted the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), there would, whether the majority of Scotch Members were of one opinion or the other, be enormous dissatisfaction in Scotland; because of the inequality which would be created between the treatment of Englishmen and Scotchmen in the matter of medical relief. He agreed with his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) that those Members who proposed to leave Scotland out of the Bill should bear the responsibility which would be involved.

said, he was one of those who were quite prepared to bear the responsibility of omitting Scotland from the Bill. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had given the Committee some very interesting statistics; but, unfortunately, they bore very slightly upon the matter. The Poor Law of Scotland excluded all able-bodied men from the pauper roll. No man in Scotland could get upon the Poor Boll unless he was destitute and disabled, and being upon the Poor Boll this Bill would not enfranchise him. A man could only be enfranchised by the Bill if he received assistance from the Parochial Board in the shape only of medical relief; but in Scotland he could not receive medical relief until he was upon the Poor Boll. Consequently for the Bill to be of effect there must be a change in the Poor Law of Scotland, and he questioned whether even the very Radical Member for Glasgow would propose the assimilation of the Scottish Poor Law to that of England. He(Mr. Bolton) opposed the inclusion of Scotland; first, because if the Bill were operative at all it could only be operative in an objectionable sense. It would be an encouragement to the people of Scotland, who now looked with horror and contempt upon the name of pauper, to accept that name, and plead for it the sanction of the House of Commons. He also objected to the Bill, because he felt it was the first step towards some change in the Poor Law of Scotland, and to that he was most decidedly opposed. He had still another objection to the Bill. If it would enfranchise a number of people it would also add to the rates; and certainly the ratepayers of Scotland were as much entitled to consideration at the hands of Members of the House of Commons as the very few who, according to the argument of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), might possibly come within the purview of the measure. For all these reasons he cordially supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire.

asked the late Lord Advocate for Scotland (Mr. J. B. Balfour) whether, if a man got his leg broken by accident, and was taken while unconscious, or otherwise against his will, to a place where his injury would be attended to by a Boor Law officer, he would lose his vote? If that were so he would vote in favour of Scotland being included in the Bill.

said, he thought the question had been debated on both sides in a rather broader way than it fairly required. It really lay in a very small compass. He was exceedingly averse to any clause being inserted which would exclude Scotland from the apparent advantages of this Bill. Ho quite agreed that the Bill would affect a very small class in Scotland; but still the Bill was, on the face of it, a beneficent one. It was intended as a boon to the humbler classes, and it seemed to him there would be great misconception if that boon were denied to these poorer classes. It was quite true, he repeated, that the advantages which would flow from this Bill would, in Scotland, be confined—from the peculiar system of parochial relief—to a very small class. As he understood the matter—although the able-bodied poor were not entitled either to medical or pecuniary relief from the funds raised by rates—there was still a small class at present who might be entitled to medical relief as distinct from pecuniary relief. That was the class of men who had been temporarily disabled, and who were entitled by law to be placed for the time among those who received parochial relief. That class, although small, was entitled to equal consideration with such men in England. It was said that the passing of such a measure as this would be an encouragement and incentive to persons not now receiving medical relief to come on the funds for that purpose; but there was no fear of that in Scotland, because there were two parties who must be consulted in such a transaction—not merely those who applied for relief, but the Parochial Board, who administered relief. The Parochial Boards were not entitled, under the stringent Poor Law of Scotland, to give such relief, except to those who were strictly entitled to it; and for these reasons he conceived that the passing of a clause, which would prevent the Scotch people receiving the benefits of such a measure as this, was a mistake.

said, he would only repeat, in a few sentences, the statement he made the other night of what ho understood to be the law of Scotland in this matter, taking special account of the question put to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson). In Scotland no able-bodied person was entitled to parochial relief; consequently, there would be a comparatively limited application of the Bill in Scotland as compared with England, if it became law, as it now stood. But still there were conceivable cases which might arise, as he explained the other night, to which the Bill would apply. For example, it would apply to such a case as this—A person, not able-bodied, might be in such a position that he or she could out of his or her own resources, or the resources of friends, provide adequate food, clothing, and shelter, and yet might stop short of being able to provide medical relief or assistance. Undoubtedly, in a case of that kind, the Bill would apply. Whether the cases were numerous or not seemed to be a matter on which there was a difference of opinion. He should have thought they would be few; but several hon. Friends, with whom he had conversed, thought they would be more numerous than those who were present in the House the other night seemed disposed to think. It was impossible to ascertain the number precisely; but it did appear to him to be an appreciable, and, in the opinion of some, it was a considerable number. In reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton, he should say that if a man had his leg broken, he would, by that fact, become no longer an able-bodied man, and would, therefore, fall within the category of persons who, if they were poor enough, were entitled to apply for relief. That would be a particular instance of the class—a somewhat limited class—to which he had already referred. What was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) with regard to some other points of law was quite correct. He (Mr. J. B. Balfour) thought he had stated sufficient of what the law of Scotland was on the point to enable hon. Members to form a judgment. The remaining question was whether there might not possibly be a larger number of persons affected by the Bill than many hon. Members were disposed to think; and if the number was found to be considerable, it would undoubtedly be a serious step to make the law different as between the two countries. The prevailing fooling the other night was that the Bill—and he confessed that was rather his own view—would hardly have any application in Scotland; but that appeared now to be rather doubtful.

said, he was afraid that, although his right hon. and learned Friend the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) was well conversant with the law of Scotland, he was not well acquainted with the practice of Parochial Boards. The medical officer received the names of the paupers from the Inspector of the Poor, and then he was obliged to attend to them, and then only. As to the case which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and repeated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour), if a man was obliged to send for the medical officer, he would not then be an able-bodied man, and would come on the Parochial Board, and would be disfranchised. He had some experience in the management of Parochial Boards; he employed a vast number of men; he had been Chairman of two Parochial Boards for many years, and he did not hesitate to say that such a thing as a man, not actually a pauper, losing his right to vote in consequence of receiving medical relief, never happened in Scotland, and could not happen.

said, he understood that when this subject was last under consideration the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) promised to ascertain the opinions of all the Scotch Members upon it. Had the right hon. Gentleman any objection to say what the result of his inquiries was, and what course the Government would have recommended but for the resolution they had just come to not to make themselves further responsible for the progress of the Bill?

said, he quite agreed with very much that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing) had said; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman was quite right in his interpretation of the Poor Law of Scotland. It was quite true that the parochial doctor received a list of patients whom he was expected to attend; but it was provided by the Board of Supervision that in a case of necessity the doctor was bound to attend a patient on receiving a notice from any member of the Parochial Board. The individual so attended would be disqualified from exercising the franchise unless he were protected by the this Bill. The Committee would do well to accept the late Lord Advocate's (Mr. J. B. Balfour's) interpretation of the law—namely, that if the parochial doctor attended a patient who happened for the time not to be able-bodied the patient would be disfranchised. If there were very few who would be affected by the Bill, that was a very great reason why the Bill should be allowed to remain as it now stood. What was the use of making the law in Scotland different from that in England and Ireland? It was very desirable to have uniformity in this matter. In this matter there was very considerable difference between the positions of the Scotch towns and counties. In the towns, the Town Councils, as the Local Authority, had to deal with infectious diseases, and a man in a town would not be disqualified if he received relief from the Town Council, because he was suffering from an infectious disease. But he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had very strong reason to believe that in counties outside towns the case was different. In counties the Local Authority charged with the duty of dealing with infectious diseases was the Parochial Board. If, therefore, a man in a county was striken down by an infectious disease and received temporary assistance from the Parochial Board out of parochial funds he would be disqualified from voting. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) considered that the attempt to show cause why Scotland should be exempted from the Bill had entirely failed. There was no substantial difference between the laws of the two countries in this respect, because the law of Scotland prohibited relief to any able-bodied man, yet the circumstances of medical relief pre-sup-posed a temporary disability. He would not enter into the arguments about the general evil effects which would accrue to Scotland if it were included in the Bill. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton) that the people of Scotland were extremely anxious to pay their way. It was because of that general disposition on the part of the people that he thought there was less reason for disqualifying the few persons who might be under the necessity of accepting medical relief. He failed to see that any valid reasons had been given why the Bill should not apply to Scotland as well as to England.

said, he desired to state the grounds upon which he intended to vote against the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire. In the first place, the House, by a very large majority, had approved of the principle of the Bill; and, in the second place, he was not satisfied that if the Amendment was carried it would not have the effect of disqualifying a considerable number of electors in Scotland. An impression appeared to prevail on the part of some hon. Members that there was something connected with the Poor Law of Scotland which made it impossible that this Bill could have any effect in Scotland. It did not appear to him that there was anything connected with the Poor Law of Scotland which should prevent the occurrence of a considerable number of cases to which this Bill could apply. It was true that, by the Poor Law of Scotland, no able-bodied person was entitled to parochial relief; but, on the other hand, a person might be temporarily disabled by accident or disease or delicate health, and when in that condition, though able from his own resources to maintain himself and family, he might yet not be able to procure medical attendance or medicine for himself or some of his young children resident with him and dependent upon him. It would be competent for a man in that position to go to the Inspector of Poor and explain his difficulty, and having satisfied the Inspector that he was unable to supply himself or family with medical attendance and medicine, he thought he would be entitled by the law of Scotland to receive assistance. It was quite true that in consequence of receiving that assistance he would become a pauper, and it would be the duty of the Inspector to put his name on the Roll; but he would only be a pauper in respect of receiving that medical relief or assistance either for himself or for a member of his family. As soon as he recovered he might be able to resume his duties, and to dispense with all further medical relief; and yet, in such a ease, if this Bill did not apply to Scotland, he would be disqualified from voting. Then it was said that the Bill would only apply to a limited number, and that, therefore, the benefit of extending it to Scotland would be comparatively small; while there would be an attendant evil of a much greater magnitude. It seemed to be supposed that the extension of the Bill to Scot- land would have the effect of increasing the class of persons whom ho had described as entitled to temporary medical relief of the kind he had mentioned. He had a much higher opinion of that class than to suppose that the mere extension of the Bill to Scotland would produce any general feeling of that kind among the working classes throughout Scotland. But the matter did not stop there. Suppose a tendency to apply were thereby created, that did not mean that the right to receive relief thereby arose. Even if it led to applications being made to the Inspector of the Poor it would be the duty of that officer to investigate the circumstances of each case, and satisfy himself that the person applying for medical relief was entitled to receive it. He (Mr. Asher) was unable to appreciate the attendant or incidental evil which was said to be connected with the extension of the Bill to Scotland. Therefore, on the ground that ho approved of the principle of the Bill, and that he was was not satisfied that the exclusion of Scotland would not have a disfranchising effect, his intention was to vote against the Amendment.