I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by the Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis in regard to the supervision of the sanitary arrangements and drainage of common lodging houses throughout the Metropolitan district, in order that the advantages of "The Public Health (London) Act, 1891," may be secured to such premises in common with the rest of the houses in the Metropolis, the latter being under the sanitary care of the various Local Authorities?

The Commissioner of Metropolitan Police is now in correspondence with the Local Government Board as to the steps to be taken to secure the necessary supervision of common lodging houses.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say what will be the estimated amount which will be expended in the year 1892–3 under the Imperial Defence Act and the Barracks Act respectively?

I should be very glad to give the hon. Gentleman this information, but I dare say he will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question the other evening, said he was anxious not to make any statement on finance just before presenting his annual Budget. I shall be glad to give the hon. Member the information privately, but I do not just now desire to make it public.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is a fact that, at the trial of the alleged Anarchists at Walsall, the magistrate stated in open Court that there was no evidence against some of the prisoners except such as was derived from letters written by the men themselves in their cells, at the instigation of the police and under the belief that one of the prisoners had betrayed the rest; and is such evidence admissible in a Court of Justice?

I must respectfully decline to express any opinion in reference to a case pending before a Court of Justice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to a sentence of 14 days' hard labour passed by the Wareham Magistrates on a man called Barney for stealing snowdrops valued at 1s.; and if he will inquire whether the punishment might be reduced?

I have received a report concerning this case. The defendant, who was not an inhabitant of the district and against whom a fine would not have been recoverable, was convicted of pulling up roots and flowers to the amount of half-a-bushel in an ornamental pleasure ground, enclosed by a high iron fence, with notice-boards warning trespassers affixed to it. I am informed that there have recently been many complaints by farmers and others in the neighbourhood of such acts of pilfering from gardens and allotments, for the purpose of selling the flowers and roots at Bournemouth, and that there had been numerous similar depredations at the place in question. I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the Magistrates.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any moneys were paid to the contractors supplying the Lee Metford Rifles in aid of their plant and machinery; and, if so, would he state what amount; and if these amounts are in addition to the contract price for the rifle?

No allowance was made to the contractors supplying Lee Metford Rifles which was not included in the contract price of this rifle.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact referred to by the Controller General, in the Report dated 31st March, 1891, that the cost of production of the magazine rifle (mark I.) at the two Government factories is stated to be the same—namely, £5 6s. 8d., he will state what was the amount above £5 6s. 8d. paid for the same rifle to the trade at that time, and whether this sum of £5 6s. 8d. includes interest on capital outlay, or cost of special machinery and departmental expenses at the Government factories?

The price of the Lee-Metford rifle, as made in the Government factories before 1st April, 1890, was £5 6s. 8d., which included the cost of special machinery and all departmental expenses at the factories, with depreciation of buildings and machinery, but not interest on capital outlay. The cost of similar rifles for which contracts were then entered into was practically £5 9s. 3d., but no deliveries under those contracts were made till a later date, at which time the Government factories were making the arm at £3 13s. 5d.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the charge for wages and materials in Government and private yards is the same?

The charge is included in both cases. I cannot say whether they are the same.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what percentage the Government take off for depreciation?

Ten per cent.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can inform the House how many senior telegraphists, first class and second class, at the Central Telegraph Office, were absent on sick leave during the twelve months ending 31st October, 1891, distinguishing in each class the number absent one day only, the number absent two days but not more than six days, and the number absent seven days or more?

I do not know what is the object of the hon. Member's question, and I cannot undertake to give elaborate details of the internal management of the office; but, generally speaking, I can inform him that while the sick absence of the senior branch was normal, in the general ranks the absence for less than six days was less and for periods over six days was more in 1891 than in the previous period.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in compliance with an annual custom of attending church on the Sunday nearest St. Patrick's Day, the 5th (Irish) V. B. King's (Liverpool) Regiment held a church parade on Sunday last, 20th inst., and marched to St. Nicholas Roman Catholic Pro-Cathedral, every member or the corps, from Commanding Officer down to the youngest bugler, wore the shamrock, as they have done since the formation of the corps; and whether the officers and men who wore the shamrock on that occasion were guilty of any breach of regimental or Army discipline?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I also ask him would there be any breach of discipline in the 5th Royal Irish Rifles attending Divine Service in Down Cathedral on 12th July wearing the Orange lily?

His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief has no knowledge of the circumstances referred to in the question; but, assuming its accuracy, no breach of discipline was committed, as, provided the commanding officer permitted it, it is quite open to Volunteers to wear the shamrock. With regard to the question of wearing the badge of the Orange Society, that is a very different question, and I should certainly think the commanding officer would not allow anything of the kind.

As it now turns out that what was yesterday described as a Regulation is a matter within the discretion of a commanding officer, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any objection to issue an instruction to the effect that Regulations do not prohibit the wearing of a national emblem on the annual festival?

I have all along said that a thing of this sort can be worn with the permission of the commanding officer, and that Private O'Grady, whose conduct was discussed yesterday, would have done perfectly right if he had obtained that permission.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Lord Macaulay said of the Orange lily, that it is an "emblem in Ireland of civil and religious liberty."

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the wearing of an emblem of an association called "The Primrose League" would be within the Regulations?

May I ask the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) whether, after the answer he has received, he will continue to give his support to the Tory Party?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a request from the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the British Medical Association to receive a deputation, on behalf of that body, in conjunction with the Irish Medical Association, the Irish Poor Law Union Medical Officers, and the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of Ireland, on the subject of certain serious grievances and hardships of the Irish Dispensary Medical Officers; and if he will explain why he has declined to receive such a deputation and to take those grievances into consideration with a view to remedying them?

I have not had time to communicate with Dublin, but my recollection is that a deputation waited upon the Vice President of the Local Government Board in Ireland and presented to him a draft Bill which they desired the Government would introduce. I received this with a communication from the Local Government Board, and as I saw there was no prospect of our proposing any such Bill to the House, it seemed to me only wasting time to ask the deputation to come and see me. Of course, I shall be quite willing to consider carefully any suggestion submitted to me.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the deputation should desire to wait upon him, but not with any cut-and-dried scheme in the form of a Bill, would he be inclined to consider a favourable answer to their request?

I could not promise a favourable answer to the request voiced by the draft Bill, which contains clauses the Government could not accept. I shall be glad to consider any recommendation made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the non-seconding of Surgeon Colonel Godwin on promotion will deprive some district of the services of an administrative officer of similar rank while Professor Godwin holds the Chair of Surgery at Netley, and eventually reduce the already limited number of administrative appointments for Surgeon Colonels?

The decision not to second Surgeon Colonel Godwin was given while he was a brigade surgeon. The circumstances are changed by his promotion; and I will consider whether the reasons for non-seconding still remain in force.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Constabulary took a revolver from a boy named Callaghan, near Loughgall, County Armagh, and still retain possession of it, although the district is not proclaimed; what was the result of the Excise prosecution instituted against Callaghan, and whether any evidence was given against him; and under what authority do the Constabulary Authorities detain the property of Callaghan?

The Excise prosecution referred to came on for hearing at Loughgall Petty Sessions on the 10th Inst., and now stands adjourned to the 20th prox., in order to enable the Excise Authorities to consider a recommendation made on behalf of the defendant by one of the Magistrates. The revolver, which was taken on the occasion of a recent party disturbance, when shots were fired on both sides, was found to have in its chambers four empty carriages and one loaded with ball. The police, in the discharge of their duty, retained the revolver. They purpose taking the direction of the magistrates at the next Petty Sessions with regard to its return.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has seen the correspondence between the Irish Board of Works and the Kinsale Town and Harbour Commissioners respecting Kinsale Pier; is he aware that the Commissioners passed a resolution in March, 1888, requesting the details of the increased expenditure on the pier above the estimated amount; also that the Commissioners wrote in May, 1888, asking what was the amount that the first contractor was to receive, why he did not fulfil the contract, and why released from it; and if he will explain why the Board refuses to supply this information to the Local Authorities?

No, Sir; I have not seen the correspondence, but I am informed that the Board of Works have not refused any information to the Local Authorities.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can furnish, from the information now being gathered by the Constabulary, under the direction of the Registrar General, a Return showing the number of fee-farm grants in each of the counties of Ireland?

The Returns referred to by the hon. Member contain no information as to the nature of the tenure of land in Ireland. It would, therefore, not be practicable to furnish from them a Return of the kind he desires.

I have seen the Instructions issued to the Constabulary, and inquiry as to fee-farm grants is included. Would it not be possible to prepare a Return from these notes?

I was under the impression that the Return was required to enable the Lord Lieutenant to make certain declarations. I was not aware that it would supply the information the hon. Member desires.

I will show the right hon. Gentleman the Instructions and explain what I mean.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the inquest on the body of Daisy Louisa Hopkins, who died on 1st January, aged four weeks, and who was vaccinated in the workhouse in the Buckingham Palace Road when only eight days old, and in spite of its premature birth; whether he is aware that the four vaccination sores were found at the post mortem to have all ulcerated, and that the verdict of the jury was that the death was due to congestion of the lungs accelerated by the sores on the arm; whether a similar case is correctly reported as having taken place in the same month in the City Road Workhouse, in which case the child was born, vaccinated, and died, within the space of eight days; and whether the Royal Commission on Vaccination will include in its Report any recommendation as to the practice of such early vaccination in the case of workhouse-born infants?

The question of the hon. Member, I presume, is intended to refer to Daisy Westwood, not Daisy Hopkins. The child, Daisy Westwood, was born on 10th December, 1891, in the Buckingham Palace Road Workhouse, and was vaccinated there on 17th December, and died on 1st January, at 24, Great Chapel Street, Westminster. At the inquest upon the child's body the jury found a verdict to the effect that the death was due to congestion of the lungs accelerated by sores on the arm, adding that no blame could be attached to the vaccinator. According to the opinion of Dr. Bond, who made the post mortem, it is certain that the cause of death was primarily from the condition of the lungs. The sores, which Dr. Bond considered to be due to the feeble condition of the child, would, he thought, accelerate the death. Opposite opinions were given about the child's birth being premature or not. The death of an infant in the Holborn Workhouse, which appears to be the case referred to as the "similar case," occurred in December, and was investigated by one of the Board's Inspectors after the case had been submitted to the Coroner, who saw no occasion for an inquest. An attempt at vaccination had been made; it proved altogether unsuccessful, and was not repeated. The infant, the second illegitimate child of its mother, was found dead in its cot, a fortnight after its birth, from "convulsions." It is obvious that I cannot state what recommendations the Royal Commissioners will include in their Report.

Will the subject be considered by the Commission?

It is quite within the scope of the Reference to the Commission, and I hope they will do so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary get any special training to fit them for saving life and property in case of fires; whether he is aware that in Liverpool and other great cities in Great Britain a section of the police receive special training in the testing and working of the hydrants, and in every other way to make them an efficient auxiliary to the Fire Brigade; and will he take steps to have the Dublin Metropolitan Police and Royal Irish Constabulary similarly trained?

The reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph of the question is in the negative; but the Irish police render in the case of fire every assistance in their power which the circumstances of the case may demand. In Liverpool, where the police are paid for by the Local Authorities, the Fire Brigade is, it is understood, composed of the police, and is altogether managed and worked by them. Dublin and other cities in Ireland possess their own brigades, and so far as I am aware their trained officers have discharged their duties most efficiently and with conspicuous bravery. I see no necessity for the special course suggested in the last paragraph.

The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the police rendering "every assistance in their power," but what assistance can they render if they have had no training? In the case of a fire recently at Limerick life was lost, and there were two police barracks within a short distance of the scene of the fire. To meet such cases is it not desirable that the police should have some training?

It is quite impossible to give such training to the whole of the Constabulary Force of Ireland.

I do not suggest that.

The assistance that can be given will be more efficiently rendered by persons detailed off for duty and specially trained for it. Such is the practice in most towns. Of course the police can render assistance in keeping off the people at the scene of the fire, and in other ways.

Yes; and on a recent occasion the police kept back some sailors who were willing to go to the rescue of people in danger of losing their lives.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a band from Portadown, intending to visit Armagh on 17th March, were threatened with assault if they proceeded by road to that city, and that, although they asked the protection of the authorities through Captain Slacke, the Divisional Magistrate stationed at Dundalk, they were refused protection; also that the windows of a number of Catholics in Portadown were broken by a mob on 17th March; and how many of the rioters were proceeded against by the police?

The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the band referred to applied for protection. The Divisional Commissioner and the Local Magistrates met in consultation, and unanimously decided that in the interest of the peace of the district police support should not be given to the proposed demonstration. Windows were broken in six houses occupied by Roman Catholics and in one house of a Protestant. There was no demonstration, no rioting.

And how many of the rioters have been proceeded against?

I have said the Constabulary Authorities report there was no rioting.

Then the breaking of windows is not considered rioting?

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if it is the case that the Scotch Education Department have asked the seven persons who were declared by the Court of Session not to have been elected members of the School Board of Port Glasgow to furnish the names of other two persons willing to serve with them, with the view of nominating the nine persons thus made up to be the School Board of Port Glasgow?

The Department have asked the seven gentlemen who were acting as the School Board at the date of the recent judgment to furnish the names of other two persons, with the view of nominating those nine persons as a new School Board under their statutory powers.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the serious inconvenience arising from the small number of shillings in proportion to florins and half-crowns now in circulation, and to the universal dislike of double florins and crown pieces; and whether he will direct a larger proportion of shillings to be issued in future, and limit the supply of double florins and crown pieces to the wants of coin-collectors?

The question of the hon. Member ignores what I have so often pointed out, that the Government have little power or influence in determining what class of coins should circulate, but that it is the public, and largely the bankers, who determine what silver shall circulate. The Bank, who act in this matter for the Mint, deliver to all the bankers or their other customers silver coins of such denominations as they ask for. If there is inconvenience through an insufficient number of shillings, employers of labour, tradesmen, clubs, railway authorities, publicans, or any bodies dispensing change, have simply to ask their bankers, or the Bank of England, for any additional amount of shillings and they can get them. At the Mint and at the Bank of England together there are at this moment 3,500,000 shillings at the disposal of the public if the public will only ask for them. On the other hand, if there are many florins and half-crowns in circulation, it is because these coins have been asked for and put in circulation by the persons who fetch silver from the Bank. There were 8,500,000 shillings issued to the Bank of England by the Mint in 1890–91, as compared with 4,500,000 half-crowns and florins together. With regard to double florins, no more will be issued. The hon. Member is entirely in error as to the dislike of crown pieces being universal. If the dislike were universal they would not be asked for at the Bank of England, but the Bank is continually asked for further quantities of that coin. These quantities go mainly to the large wage-paying centres. If I were to limit the issue of these crown-pieces, I should be thwarting the desire of the public in many parts of the country.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the Chairman of the Royal Niger Company, Chartered and Limited, on 31st July, 1888, to the effect that "Annual Accounts are submitted to Her Majesty's Government showing the cost of administration" of the Company's territories; whether any separate accounts of the cost of such administration have ever been supplied to Her Majesty's Government; and whether he will lay such accounts before Parliament?

The statement made by the Chairman of the Royal Niger Company, Lord Aberdare, was correct at the time at which it was made—namely, nearly four years ago—the first annual accounts having been then presented. It would not be correct if repeated now. Those accounts were fully gone into and tested by an exhaustive local examination. It is not proposed to publish the accounts of this Company at present, but during the present year the accounts will be again submitted and will be thoroughly investigated.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a fact that H.M.S. Banterer needs repairs, and whether they are such as could be done in the Government or other docks in Cork Harbour; and, if so, will orders be given to have any such necessary repairs executed there?

The question of the repair of the Banterer is now under consideration. The staff at Haulbowline is not at present capable of undertaking the required work; but before deciding whether to send her to Devonport Dockyard, I propose to call for tenders from the local shipbuilding yards at Cork for the execution of such repairs as they are competent to carry out.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, when investigating the claims of the Land Loans Inspectors of the Irish Board of Works he will cause a full inquiry to be made as to the propriety of the temporary arrangement made in 1886, whereby an ex-military Englishman was placed at the head of the inspecting staff of this Irish Department; whether, in the reduced state of the business of this Department, any necessity exists for such an officer as a Chief Inspector; and, if the office is to be continued, will he see that a preference is given to an Irishman irrespective of religion or politics?

No, Sir; I do not think it part of my duty to pronounce on the propriety of measures taken by my predecessors. In reply to the second and third paragraphs, I have to say that, as I stated some days ago, the matter is under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that an Order of the Local Government Board, dated the 27th of February last, united five rural parishes of the Cardiff Union to other parishes of that Union, thus depriving them not only of their representation on the Board, but also of their representation on the Highway Board, and on the Sanitary Authority; whether he is aware that the Board of Guardians on the same day passed, by 39 votes to 14 votes, a resolution protesting against such an Order, and urging the Department to re-consider its decision; and whether, under the circumstances, the Department will reconsider the matter?

The facts of the case referred to are these: The Local Government Board were asked to consider the claim of certain populous parishes in the Cardiff Union to increased representation, and they arrived at the conclusion that the number of Guardians for those parishes should be increased by five. The total number of elected Guardians for the Union at the time was 67, and the Board, in accordance with their usual practice in such cases, proceeded to consider whether the increase in the representation in the case of the parishes referred to might be accompanied by the addition of some of the smaller parishes to other parishes in the Union for the purpose of representation, in order that there might be no increase in the number of Guardians of the Union, which already was unusually large. The Board, on reference to the information in their possession as to the rateable value and population of the several parishes in the Union, found that there were five parishes with an aggregate population of 425, and they determined to add these parishes under the powers conferred on them by the 31 & 32 Vic, Cap. 122, Sec. 26. The Board issued an Order accordingly, having previously been informed by the Guardians of the parishes to which these small areas could most conveniently be annexed, assuming that they were added to other parishes. It is not the fact that these parishes are deprived of representation either on the Board of Guardians, or Highway Board, or Sanitary Authority. They are merely united to other parishes for the purpose of representation, and the owners and ratepayers have the same right of voting for representatives as is the case in every other parish in the Union. I have received a representation from the Guardians on the subject since the Order was issued, but their representation has not in any way affected my view that the course adopted was the right one.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the revision of the Cork telegraphic staff, which has been under consideration since 1889, and under which an increase in the clerical force of nine first-class and three second-class telegraphists was recommended, has not yet been carried out, although it received official sanction as far back as 20th July, 1891; whether the names of the second-class officers selected for promotion to the nine first-class vacancies created under the revision of 20th July, 1891, were submitted for approval many months ago, and no intimation regarding these promotions has been given, although repeated applications regarding them have been made; whether it is intended to keep these officers, who have an average service of 15 years each, in the second class for an indefinite period, although they are actually performing the duties of first-class telegraphists; whether direction will be given that the revision, dated 20th July, 1891, will be put into immediate operation; and whether, in the latter case, the promotion of the officers concerned will be ante-dated to the 20th July, 1891, the date on and from which the revision was sanctioned?

The promotions were approved more than three weeks ago (namely, on 4th March) and they date from the 20th of July of last year.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering the gravity of the news from Washington published during the last few days, concerning the relations between the United States and Great Britain on the Behring Sea difficulty, he will communicate to the House the effect of the latest communications which have passed between the two Governments on the subject?

The Convention for referring to arbitration the questions in dispute between Great Britain and the United States in regard to Behring Sea was signed at Washington on the 29th February. It is now before the Senate of the United States for their assent to its ratification. Communications have been passing between the two Governments during the last few weeks as to the arrangements to be made for the approaching fishery season. This correspondence is being printed, and will, I hope, be in the hands of Members in the course of Monday. The reply to be returned to the last Note of the United States is now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government have received any information as to whether the Senate of the United States or the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate has agreed to ratify the Arbitration Convention?

No. There was a telegram in this morning's newspaper which stated that the Committee on Foreign Relations had decided to recommend the ratification of the Convention, but up to the time that I left the Foreign Office we had heard nothing from Washington to that effect.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by Mr. Albert F. Farn, microscopic examiner of lymph to the National Vaccine Establishment, to the effect that it had never been the practice of the Department to guarantee lymph, and that calf lymph was only supplied on ivory points, which precluded microscopical examination; and whether Mr. Farn correctly stated the practice of the Local Government Board in this matter; if so, at what date subsequent to that on which the evidence in question was given (27th November, 1889) the practice of guaranteeing the purity of lymph has been introduced?

No absolute guarantee of the purity of lymph is given by the Department; but if the hon. Gentleman refers to my recent answer to a question in the House, that when calf lymph was sent out from the Department it was guaranteed to be pure calf lymph, there is nothing in my opinion inconsistent with the custom of the Department in that answer. We do guarantee that it is taken direct from the calf by officers of the Department, and, therefore, I consider that I was quite justified in calling it pure calf lymph.

I should like to ask the President of the Local Government Board if there has been any change in the practice of his Department as to guaranteeing the purity of lymph?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my opening sentence he would have heard me say that no absolute guarantee of the purity of lymph is given by the Department; but I think I ought to add, in order to make it perfectly clear what the practice of the Department is, that there are two kinds of lymph provided by the Department, one being humanised lymph, the other calf lymph. The first is provided in tubes issued by the Department, and is subjected to a minute microscopical examination before being sent out; and if there is anything in a tube other than what is considered pure it is rejected, and only what is believed, after microscopic examination by an officer of the Department, to be perfectly pure is issued. There is also humanised lymph—but a very small quantity—which is supplied on points. It is true that that cannot be subjected to the same examination as that supplied in tubes; but all the points are taken by most skilled officers of the Department themselves, and therefore there is, in my opinion, a very effective guarantee as to its purity. The calf lymph is, of course, taken direct from the calf.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the original income of the Intermediate Education Board in Ireland, so often complained of as insufficient, is to be cut down one-seventh in 1895, owing to a change in the investments, and whether he will take this into consideration in connection with the disposal of the funds that have been since granted to the Board?

On the redemption of the debentures at present held by the Intermediate Education Board, the money will, of course, have to be re-invested. The debentures appear to at present bear 3¼ per cent. interest; and if the re-investment be at a somewhat lower rate, as will probably be the case, there will be a slight reduction in the income. As, however, I have already stated, it is my intention to give all the circumstances careful consideration.

Is there any reason why the Board should not invest their capital in Three and a Quarter per Cent. Stock of the Dublin Corporation?

I do not know whether they have the power.

I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War if he could give the House any information respecting the reported repulse of British troops at Tambi?

No, Sir; we have received no further information. But I would point out that there were no British troops at Tambi. There were some Colonial Police, but no British troops.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a report from the Press Association that a stoker at the Seamen's Barracks, Devonport, was ordered 14 days' imprisonment for wearing shamrock on St. Patrick's Day last; whether he can give the name of the man imprisoned and of the officer who gave the sentence, and the general circumstances of this case, and, if the Press report is true, whether he will order the release of this man pending an investigation of the facts of the case, and until the House is afforded an opportunity of considering the matter?

Notice of this question was only received by me when I entered the House. I know nothing whatever about the facts alleged, but I am inquiring.

The scheme, Sir, embodied in this Bill I think I am justified in describing as a mere anachronism. Twenty years ago it might have excited some little interest in Ireland—even ten years ago it might have attracted some attention — but, considering the changed circumstances and the position of the Home Rule movement, the proposal is one which has no practical relation to the demands and the requirements of the Irish people. The second observation I would make is that the Bill is of a Separatist character. At present the Private Bill procedure affecting the three countries is identical, but this Bill proposes that whilst in future the English Bills should follow their present course, the Scotch and Irish Bills should go to a body of non-legislative persons operating outside the walls of Parliament. That indicates a fundamental departure calculated to surprise one all the more as coming from a Unionist Government, and is scarcely defensible on any ground whatever. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury explained that the promoters of the Bill had two objects in view. One was to relieve Parliament from overwork and lighten the labours of Members; and the other was to relieve suitors somewhat of the expense they are put to in promoting Private Bills. As to the first point, I am not aware of any serious complaint on the part of Members of overwork. Whatever may be the case as to the House collectively, and no doubt it does occasionally suffer from a pressure of business, there are a considerable number of Members who certainly enjoy a good deal of idle time. I am disposed to doubt if relief is necessary, but assuming that relief is required the question arises would this scheme afford relief? I think not. Now, Sir, the interests of Private Bill legislation in England are greatly more important than those of the other two countries. The total number of Private Bills introduced last Session was 170. Of these 137 were English, 27 were Scotch, and 6 were Irish. As regards Scotland, we have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs that the number of disputed Bills coming from Scotland in the course of a year does not exceed six or seven. He said these contested Bills were chiefly due to the North British and the Caledonian Railway Companies, and that these companies have lately entered into an alliance for a long number of years that will greatly reduce the number of Bills. Therefore, Sir, the relief that will be afforded to the Members of this House by removing from the cognisance of Committees upstairs the very small number of Scotch and Irish Bills that fell to be disposed of will be a relief that is so infinitesimal that it will not reduce the Session of Parliament by one single day. The claim of the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill will relieve Parliament must, in the circumstances, be abandoned. Then, Sir, it should be borne in mind that the stage of Third Reading, which, under the existing practice of the House, is merely formal, will, under the scheme of the Government, become a contentious stage. The other plea on behalf of the Bill was that it would relieve suitors, and on that point I regret the right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to afford us some indication of the measure of the relief. I think it would be immaterial, whilst the scheme would introduce elements of uncertainty that do not now exist. Any person promoting a Bill knows at present what the procedure will be; but if this Bill passed, the promoters of an Irish or Scotch Bill would not be able to forecast their expenditure or procedure, because it would depend upon a decision of the Joint Committee whether any particular Bill would have to go to a Committee of this House or to the Commission. Until the Joint Standing Committee had decided whether the Bill involved any new principle, the promoters would not know whether their Bill was to go to a Committee or otherwise. That would operate prejudicially to the promoters. Now, would there be a material relief in the matter of expense? Observe, the London agency would have to be retained, the fees of both Houses would still have to be paid, and we all know that the fees of both Houses required before a Bill passes the Standing Orders constitute in most cases the preponderating part of the expense. Therefore the local inquiries proposed to be substituted for an inquiry by this House would, for the reason that the inquiry was local, be more likely to be prolonged than an inquiry before a Select Committee, whilst the expense would be proportionately greater. There is, for example, the item of the salaries of the officials. I rather expect the main inspiration of this Bill is in the breasts of those who desire a new post to be created. I suppose the Railway Commissioners will require additional pay for their additional work.

No, Sir; there is no ground for such a supposition. The Railway Commissioners have accepted their present position on the distinct understanding that they would have to undertake any duties of this kind without any additional remuneration.

At any rate there would be the Assistant Commissioners, and they would have to be paid, and the army of other officials that would be created would have to be paid; so that by this scheme the promoters of Private Bills would be obliged to pay the fees of this House and the House of Lords, the fees attaching to the local inquiry, and they would, moreover, have to bear the cost of the Commissioners and of the officials of all grades whom the Bill will create. On the whole, I am inclined to doubt whether the combination of the two methods in compliance with the Standing Orders here, and the holding of a local inquiry, would really result in any financial saving. I would add that as under this Bill the Third Reading will become a contentious stage that also would involve the promoters of the Bill in additional expense. Of the two objects of the Bill, as defined by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, the first, I hold, would not be attained, and the second is problematical. As to the scheme itself, it introduces an extraordinary novelty. The Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, together with the corresponding official in the House of Lords, with the addition of two Peers and two Commoners — six gentlemen altogether — are to have power to direct this House to pass the First and Second Readings of a Bill, and to do so without debate. I doubt very much whether any existing Statute gives such a power. Supposing you pass this Statute during the present Parliament, do you think the next Parliament would go on the dictum of those six gentlemen, and pass the First and Second Readings of a Bill without debate? And if the House did agree to that, what would be the value of a Private Bill taken without debate? Would it not be better to abolish the First and Second Readings altogether? The Joint Committee are to have power to say whether the Standing Orders have been complied with, without knowing the facts. Secondly, they have power to say whether the Bill is Irish or Scotch, or both together. And there is a third power by which these six gentlemen would be able to say whether or not the Bill involves any new principle, and to that proposal I object. Although the Bill may not involve a new principle, that is not a sufficient reason for removing it from its place in this House, because there may be a proposal to apply a familiar principle on a novel combination of facts, and the new aspect of the facts may be as important as any new principle can be. Take the Bill of the Belfast Corporation the other day; there was no new principle involved in that Bill, but what made it important was that the local circumstances of Belfast are extremely peculiar. In that case, if the Bill had been referred to the six gentlemen named they would, no doubt, have said, "The Bill contains no new principle, and we will send it to the Commission in Ireland." I should not be disposed to assent to the principle that any three Members of this House, with an equal number of the other House, should, upon the mere declaration that the Bill contained no new principle, have power to remove that Bill substantially from the consideration of the House. The power of legislation would thereby be removed from this House, and the Second Reading would have to be taken without debate on the order of these gentlemen. The Committee stage would be taken in Ireland or Scotland by the Commission, and the Third Reading would be taken here. The Third Reading would be the only Parliamentary stage of the Bill, and even then it would not be competent to introduce Amendments here. The House would either have to accept or reject the Bill; they would not be able to amend it. All they could do would be to carry an Instruction to the Committee in Scotland or in Ireland to insert Amendments. I would ask anyone whether the Third Reading of a Bill, as the culmination of this scheme, would be a satisfactory proceeding? It would resolve itself into an appeal to this House from a Court outside, which had taken evidence, and upon that evidence had come to certain conclusions. It is complained that this House is not a fit Assembly to which to take appeals from Courts outside. Any proposal to amend the Bill would necessarily be a proposal dealing with evidence, and contentious arguments on that evidence, before the Commission in Scotland and Ireland. I would ask the Lord Advocate, or the Solicitor General for Scotland, to consider whether the Third Reading of a Bill, taken as an appeal from the decision of a tribunal outside, on evidence, could be taken satisfactorily in this House, and more especially under the conditions and limitations of debate, with the Speaker in the Chair? I have not the slightest doubt, while the present system continues, suitors will object to come to this House, and the result of this Bill will be great dissatisfaction. But I have a fundamental objection to this scheme, so far as Ireland is concerned. It is truly and simply a Bill to appoint a new Government Board for Ireland. But we have a supply of Government Boards already such as leaves nothing to be desired. Our hope is that the time may soon arrive when we will be able to dispense with a lot of these Boards. The practical and universal opinion of the Irish people with regard to this scheme is, that they cannot favourably entertain a scheme which proposes to devolve any part of the duty of legislating in the interests of Ireland to persons not elected to legislate.

I would appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to give the House a little more information than he has already done, in order that we may come to a wiser decision than we are likely to do without it. The right hon. Gentleman based his scheme on two grounds, the saving of labour to hon. Members, and the saving of the pockets of suitors. It is impossible that the House can form a correct idea of the saving of time and labour on the part of hon. Members of this House if we are not first informed what labour they have hitherto undergone. The Return before the House does not give the time separately of the days occupied in the consideration of Scotch and Irish Bills exclusively. Nor does the Return which was granted on the Motion of the late Mr. Craig Sellar for 1883–4–5 gave details, but only the total cost to suitors in private legislation concerning Scotland, and I believe concerning Ireland also. The House ought to be informed what is the amount of the charges which will be affected by the proposed change. I think it will be found that the labour imposed on hon. Members is not so onerous as probably the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury supposes, and speaking from an experience of upwards of a quarter of a century, it is my firm belief that the saving which the right hon. Gentleman hopes to obtain for suitors is imaginary. With regard to the proposed Joint Committee of both Houses, I submit that no Committee could in all cases tell whether the Standing Orders have been complied with unless the litigants are represented before it. A Bill does not in all cases disclose its effect, and as an illustration I may suggest that a Railway Bill in Scotland may, and almost invariably does, affect railways out of Scotland, though it does not disclose the fact. As a further illustration, I might point out that there is a Bill at present before the House for the transfer of a small piece of railway in the West of Scotland from one bay to another. The only opponent of that Bill is an English railway company, and that English railway company have to go to Aberdeen without any saving of litigation. That, of course, would mean increased cost. The powers proposed to be conferred upon this Committee are legislative powers. The Committee will have power to reject the Bill, and, in the event of its rejection, I presume that would not be reviewed by this House. In that event I suppose a tribunal not composed of elected members, but composed of a selected few will exercise powers of legislation which I believe ought to be and were generally supposed to be, confined to Members of this and the other House of Parliament. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider these points, and will at some future stage give us his views upon them. And, I would further press upon him to give the House the information which I ask for.

I think a good deal of the uncertainty and dissatisfaction which exist with regard to Private Bill legislation is connected with the large double expenses of House fees in both Houses of Parliament. And, however unimportant a Bill may be, however small it is, notwithstanding any expenses that may be saved by having a local inquiry, still, so far as the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman goes, I do not see anything in the way of a proposal to deal with the question of House fees at all. To deal with this question in a way which will be permanent it will be necessary to deal with the question of House fees. I admit that so far as Scotland is concerned there has been a feeling during the last ten years that there will be certain advantages if we have local inquiries. But I would point out to the House that circumstances have greatly changed since this agitation was set on foot. A great deal of the expense incurred in Private Bill legislation was incurred by the large Corporations of Scotland applying for powers to supply gas and water. There were many of them large undertakings, such, for instance, as bringing the water supply of Glasgow from Loch Katrine, a scheme in connection with which the Corporation had to deal with private proprietors in different parishes and with various Local Authorities. And, it was a large scheme which involved a great deal of expense. But, I submit that the supposed saving of the expenses by having local inquiries is very much imaginary. I would give as an illustration the case of the Corporation of Dundee, who applied for the purchase of the gas works in that town. At that time it was decided that the gas works should be purchased by arbitration. That led to the same kind of inquiry which I presume would exist if this Commission were established. It is perfectly well known in Dundee that the Corporation were sick of that inquiry, and they regretted that this question was not disposed of and decided by a Committee of this House, because, if it had been, it is a notorious fact that the expenses in that case would not have been one-fourth of the expenses incurred in the arbitration. And, therefore, the expense was not saved, and the decision of the arbitrators was much less satisfactory in the locality than a decision of this House would have been. What we want in Scotland much more than an alteration in regard to Private Bill legislation is the devolution of a large number of small matters which come up here for decision, and which ought undoubtedly to be decided by the County Councils of the localities where the undertakings are proposed. We have large Corporations in the cities, then we have County Councils, which embrace in their area of jurisdiction a large number of little burghs that require small municipal Bills for conducting their own Corporation matters. It is notorious that no evil whatever could come if these little matters with regard to gas and water, and other things which are purely local, were decided by the County Councils without troubling this House at all. In the large burghs in Scotland the big undertakings are all accomplished facts. Bills in regard to municipal matters have been largely brought into working, and such schemes will not in the future be again before the House. After all, we object to any departmental Court having placed within their province a judicial decision as to what are the wants of the locality as against popularly elected bodies. Most people are satisfied that the responsible Members of this House constitute a Judicial Body without prejudice. Every Committee dealing with a Private Bill has that Bill before them for the first time, and they approach it in quite an impartial way. We believe that if there were a Department created in Scotland to deal with these Bills under the Board of Supervision and other Boards in Edinburgh, we would be placed at the will of some permanent official, who would practically take the matter in hand and decide questions very much according to his own views. The principal Bills that come from Scotland would then go before this Commission sitting in Edinburgh, composed of officials, many of them highly paid. And we have a strong suspicion that the agitation which has been going on in Scotland is kept alive by certain individuals who have the expectation of getting situations as permanent officials for looking after the work. A General Committee on this subject was appointed seven years ago. One of the gentlemen on that Committee, who had been a leading light on this question, wished me to submit my evidence to his surveillance before it was given; in point of fact, he wanted evidence in favour of the views he himself was in favour of as a member of that Committee, and because my evidence was not in that particular line my name was removed from the Committee, and another witness was taken up from Aberdeen, a gentleman who knew very little or nothing at all about Private Bill legislation, and he was substituted for me, who had considerable experience. At the end of his evidence, however, when asked if he had anything to add, he said that the people of Aberdeen rather than submit their matters to a Commission at Edinburgh, largely controlled by Edinburgh lawyers, would prefer to pay their fares to London and come before a Committee of this House. I am aware that the present Bill is a great improvement on the one we had before us last year, but notwithstanding that I do not consider we have given enough consideration to the points I have brought before the House. I think also we are largely exaggerating the advantages which will be given by the Bill. There is a feeling growing up in Scotland, as in Ireland, in favour of Home Rule, which has been largely provoked by the way in which Scotland has been thrown aside on all convenient occasions, and her Representatives have not been listened to with regard to Scotch matters. Therefore, in Scotch opinion, it would be well not to deal with this question now, not to provide local inquiries for Private Bills, but to wait until you can hand all these matters over to the Scotch Members themselves. We have shown that we know probably as much about Scotch matters as the English Members do, and we should have the advantage of not being outvoted by English Members who had not listened to our arguments. That may not be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton), who is Chairman of a great Railway Company, and we know that these railway companies are very influential in the House, which is the largest, and therefore for them, the best tribunal. But railway Bills, which supply a great part of the Private Bill legislation, cannot be dealt with locally, and it is the opinion of all parties that no advantage would be gained by so dealing with them. There are also other schemes, such as water Bills, which are so large that they must come before this House, but if the local inquiries are confined to only small matters we shall be reduced, as far as Scotland and Ireland are concerned, to dealing with a very small number of Bills, and in respect to them the saving by a local inquiry would not be so much as is contemplated. I think also the House would do well to consider whether it is wise to depute these powers to any Commission whatever. If that is done I am convinced that when the Bills come up here for Third Reading you will have all the weight of Party faction and public opinion brought to bear against the decisions of the Commission, and Members will be compelled to discuss the question de novo, and unless the Commission has departmental powers to settle the question on their own judgment the saving of the time of this House will be much less than is expected. If the previous Bill had been passed it would have been in haste and without satisfaction, and I think it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would not press the present Bill this Session, although it is an improvement on anything we have had before, and is a step in the right direction. There is another Bill, which has been before the House for many years, and which the Lord Advocate (Sir C. J. Pearson) is about to introduce, which will remedy a great many anomalies existing in the police burghs of Scotland, and the usefulness of that Bill as compared with the other is beyond calculation, but whether the right hon. Gentleman will press that forward in preference is for him to say. If the Government think this Bill can be passed without a good deal of time for discussion, more time than I think will be at the disposal of the House this Session, I think they will be mistaken. On these grounds I thought it my duty to make these few remarks to the House on the introduction of the Bill.

I wish to say a word or two in explanation of my hon. Friend's allusion to the Dundee gas case. Our Gas Bill was before the Committee upstairs for several days, and the majority of the Town Council and a number of members of the Chamber of Commerce and traders were in attendance, but it was not the fault of the Committee that the matter was referred to arbitration. It was decided that the works should be transferred, but the price was left to arbitration. That was unfortunate in view of the experience of the Corporation on several occasions. The present generation is not aware of the great expense of arbitration. The parties all came to London before the umpire and two arbiters, who allowed evidence to be given which would not have been allowed in any Committee of this House. On another occasion a number of experts were brought from London to Dundee, and I suspect that the latter arbitration was even more expensive than the former. I therefore agree that it is better to thrash out every question in Committee and not to refer any at the fag end to arbitration. I also concur in recognising that the Bill is a great advance, and is far more satisfactory than anything we have hitherto had before the House. But it is desirable that we should have further information. Scotch people desire to have these inquiries, because they believe they will be conducive to convenience and cheapness, but we have had no information yet to assure us that there will be any cheapening by these inquiries. I presume that the promoters must come to London for the preliminary stages of the Bill, so there will be no saving there. Then we have had no intimation that there is an intention to reduce the House fees, which have been so repeatedly and justly complained of. We see no reason why this form of indirect taxation should exist, and it is a great burden to the small burghs which simply want to obtain sanction to the construction of a tramway or small gas works, or for the provision of a water supply. We should like some assurance that the charges made will be in proportion to the work done. To large places like Glasgow and Edinburgh, even Dundee and Aberdeen, these charges are not so material, but to small places of about 2,000 inhabitants, which cannot get a supply of water, or transfer their gas works, without having to incur an expenditure rarely under £700 or £800, and often upwards of £1,000, the question is one of great importance. Unless we have the assurance that this will be remedied, there will be little anxiety on the part of the small burghs for the passing of the Bill. For the preliminary procedure it appears to me an admirable proposal that the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) and other officers of the House shall be practically a Joint Committee to decide questions of principle and considerations of innovation, but many of us in Scotland do not approve of this mixed system of devolution and delegation. I have been from the first in favour of simple devolution. There are no tribunals in this country which enjoy more respect and confidence than Parliamentary Committees; they are formed of men of fair minds, knowledge, and discretion, who are not influenced by stereotyped considerations; they are not bound by precedent. You are proposing to appoint Judges of the Court of Session and members of the Railway Commission. We respect our Judges as interpreters of the law, but we shall not have the same confidence in them as makers of our laws. It is a dangerous principle, in some respects, that men who may subsequently be called upon to interpret Acts of Parliament should have a considerable share in making them; and the Railway Commissioners are necessarily very much bound by prior considerations and precedents created in other cases. We should prefer two Members of this House and two Members of the House of Lords to decide these questions. I agree that many of the cases which now proceed by Bill would be more efficiently and expeditiously disposed of by Provisional Orders, and the Scotch Office might be empowered to issue such Orders. While I recognise that the Bill is a great improvement, I still think it admits of amendment, and trust that the right hon. Gentleman will keep an open mind and be willing to adopt such Amendments as the feeling of the House may show to be desirable.

I deprecate extremely the growing practice of discussing Bills on the First Reading before we have their details before us. The hon. Member who has just sat down complained of want of information, but he seemed to be taking the best possible way to defer that information. I did not hear what the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) said, but it is quite possible that from his point of view he would prefer that the Bill should not be introduced, as it would probably remove part of the stock-in-trade of the supporters of Home Rule. It is often urged as one of the grievances of Ireland that she must bring her Bills to this House, but now that a Bill is brought in to remedy that, hon. Members opposite would probably prefer to do without it. I am pleased to see the Bill, and I speak not only in the name of my own constituents, but of those represented by Irish Members on this side, and by two or three hon. Members opposite, who would desire to encourage the Government in pressing forward and giving them an opportunity of dealing with these matters locally without putting witnesses and promoters to the expense of coming to London. I think it most desirable that this discussion should be short, so I will only say that I hope the Bill will be read a first time immediately.

I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that I have no wish to enter into a long discussion at this stage of the Bill, and I should not have interposed had I not thought that the right hon. Gentleman did not give us as full information as is usual on such an important question. He was extremely clear and explicit with regard to the Joint Committee, but I regret that he stopped short there, and did not give us similar information with regard to the Commission, which will necessarily do the principal part of the work, and the constitution and conditions of appointment of which must be of the very greatest importance. The small amount of information the right hon. Gentleman gave seemed to foreshadow little else than a reproduction in some way of the features of the Bill of last year. The only remarks the right hon. Gentleman made on that subject were these. He said, "The actual constitution of the Commission was a matter of less importance." I do not think many Scotch Members will agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say it would be sufficient to say they were utilising the existing Railway Commissioners, and he added, "They are highly-trained and good officers. They contain among them a Scotch Judge, who is an ex officio member for Scotch affairs," and, lastly, he added that there was power to grant additional Commissioners if necessary. I turn, Mr. Speaker, to the Bill of last year, to which there was so much objection on this side, and I find that the character and composition of the Commission was the stumbling block which led to the wreck of the Bill. In July last the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote a letter in which he said that the Government were extremely surprised at the extraordinary attitude which had been taken up by the Liberal-Gladstonian Members as he termed them, which he thought we should find it difficult to justify to our constituents, and dared us to speak to our constituents on the subject. We did speak to our constituents, and explained our position to their satisfaction. I pointed out to my constituents that the Commission of last year practically turned the Bill into nothing more nor less than a Lord President's Bill, by which the whole industrial development of Scotland was to be placed, bound hand and foot, at the feet of a clique of ultra-Conservative lawyers in Edinburgh. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks seemed to foreshadow that the present scheme is on all fours with that of last year. There were four Commissioners last year, but the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us how many there would be under this Bill. In the previous scheme the first Commissioner was a Judge of the Court of Session, appointed by the Lord President, under the Railway and Canal Act of 1888. The second Commissioner was to be one of the Railway Commissioners under that Act, and in that appointment the Lord President would also have a voice. There was to be a third Commissioner, called an appointed Commissioner, and the method of his appointment was most extraordinary, and could only have been designed for the purpose of excluding any idea of popular representation on the Commission. There was to be, first, a panel of five persons chosen by the Judges of the Court of Session, of whom the Lord President is the chief.

I may save the hon. Gentleman some trouble if I say at once that none of the provisions of the Bill of last year with reference to the body which the hon. Member is discussing find a place in this Bill.

My mind is much relieved by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am obliged to him. My idea was founded on the right hon. Gentleman's remark that the Railway Commissioners would be utilised as last year, and there was to be power of appointing others. I am very glad indeed that the character of these appointments will not only be altered but greatly improved. After the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman I have no wish to detain the House, but I wish it to be distinctly understood that the Scottish people and the Scottish Members will resist to the uttermost of their power any scheme whereby the industrial interests of the country would be placed in the hands of a clique of lawyers in Edinburgh.

I wish to ask why there is not in this Bill any provision dealing with the expenses of unopposed Bills? Reference has been made in the course of this Debate to the very great expense which is incurred in this way, and in a Return I obtained last year it was stated that the average of the last five years' fees on unopposed Bills alone was £4,000 a year. I think that is a point upon which we in Scotland have very great reason to complain. Of course I draw a distinction between opposed and unopposed Bills, and I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) that a very large number of these Bills ought not to come here at all. I will speak of a special matter in which my constituents are interested—a matter of a harbour. A very small community want to make a slight alteration in the harbour and they have to come to Parliament for permission to do it. We think that is a matter which might very well be arranged locally. In one case that was brought under my knowledge the total outlay in the alteration of a harbour was £12,000 and the Parliamentary expenses were £1,200. These are things that the Scotch people complain of, and I have found whenever this question of Private Bill legislation is mentioned the Scotch people claim that they are entitled to some relief from the heavy burdens which are now imposed upon them. For instance, with respect to the question of the extension of harbours, if all parties are agreed I do not see why the matter could not be settled in some manner before the Sheriff. That principle is not unknown in Scotch law. Take a case which the right hon. Gentleman will understand, that of a School Board. If a School Board desires to acquire land they take action under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and in 99 cases out of 100 it is arranged privately, and the whole transaction is carried out before the Sheriff at a cost of a few shillings. If in the same way a piece of land is required for a harbour, even though everyone is agreed, we have to come to Parliament. I am perfectly well aware that the case I have referred to is not analogous to that of a harbour, but I think if the Harbour Department would issue a scale of maximum and minimum fees for harbour rates, as it does for railways, it would facilitate matters, and when the parties in any particular case are agreed, I do not see why the matter should not be carried on locally before the Sheriff. So far as my own constituents are concerned they have reasonable ground of complaint that they are made to come to London over very small matters which might certainly be arranged in the locality. I do not want to detain the House, but I desired to bring this point before the Government and I hope it will engage their attention. I mention the subject at this stage, because when the Bill was last before the House an Amendment was moved to the effect that these matters should be arranged locally, and it was ruled out of order. I hope the Bill will contain some reference to this devolution which will enable us to deal in a cheaper and more effective way with purely local questions on which everyone in the neighbourhood is agreed.

I should be glad if this Bill could extend to Scotland the powers which exist to a limited extent in England, and which it is proposed to confer upon Ireland, by which the divisions of wards in boroughs can be altered to suit local conditions without the necessity of appealing to Parliament. In England, if by reason of increase of buildings or population the Municipal representation shall become unequal, the Local Authority has, I understand, power to alter the divisions of the wards without appealing to Parliament for power to effect the desired re-distribution. And the Leader of the House has intimated that in his new Irish Local Government measure he intends to introduce a clause which will give the same facilities to Ireland. In Scotland that provision does not exist, and I venture to suggest that this measure affords a convenient means of introducing that reform. One of the boroughs in my constituency would be affected by such an alteration, and I hope opportunity will be taken to introduce a clause of the kind I suggest into this Bill.

I think the last speaker is a little too sanguine as to the powers which exist in England in the matter of altering the boundaries of boroughs. In Liverpool, for instance, the question just now is a burning one, but the Corporation can do nothing without the assent of Parliament. I think the question is one, however, which might very well be dealt with either in this Bill or in the Police Bill. The general principle which the Scotch Members desire to see recognised is, that their should be local investigation of local requirements, and the feeling of anxiety is not so much that the matter should be postponed until the best method of securing that end can be found, but that an early effort should be made by legislative enactment bringing some method into effect which will secure that object; and, if afterwards a better method can be discovered, it may be substituted. The question also of House fees is another very serious matter, especially for the smaller boroughs, and I hope the attention of the Government and of the Authorities of the House will be directed to this matter. In all parts of Scotland the decisions of the Committees of this House are received with great respect, and so, also, are the decisions of the Judges who now try Election Petitions, a function which in former times was discharged by this House, and I think we might take that as a precedent, and relegate to the Judges some of the inquiries which are now made at great cost in London. It has been said that there is danger in allowing makers of the law to afterwards become interpreters of the law, but it is competent for the Attorney General and Solicitor General of England, and also of Ireland, to become Judges, and the late Lord Advocate is now a Judge. No one did more than he, probably, in preparing the details of the Local Government Bill for Scotland; but now that he has become an interpreter of the law which he assisted to make, I am sure he will address himself in the most fair and impartial manner to the duties which he has to discharge. I hope that this Bill will be successful and will be passed into law.

I think, for the purposes of this discussion, it is necessary to divide these Private Bills into two classes. There is one class in which very large pecuniary interests are involved, and another in which only very small interests are involved. In Railway Bills very large pecuniary interests are involved on both sides, and I think the present tribunal is as satisfactory as any that could be found for dealing with them. But there are a number of cases where only small pecuniary interests are involved, and in those it is extremely unsatisfactory that the people should be put to the expense of coming up to London to give evidence in support of a Bill or to oppose it. Just now, for instance, Glasgow is proposing to erect a fever hospital in my own constituency, and there is a very strong feeling against it in the neighbourhood. This is a purely working class neighbourhood, and I presented a Petition from these people bearing 2,000 signatures. That Petition doubtless had as much influence as Petitions usually have; but the unsatisfactory thing is that, as these people are not able to spend £100 in opposing the proposal and making their case heard, they can do nothing but petition. I think matters of this kind might very well be removed from London and dealt with by the Sheriff, or in some much more summary way than is at present adopted.

It is probably inconvenient that a Second Reading Debate should take place at this stage of a measure, but the temptation to hon. Members is almost irresistible when the Minister in charge of the Bill has made his explanatory speech on this stage. I agree with the Member for Belfast in the jealousy he feels in delegating any of the duties of this House to those outside unless a very urgent case is made out. I have been very carefully through the evidence which was given to the Select Committee, and I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who suggested that the tendency of special tribunals is to become "groovy." I should not like to be compelled to explain the word, but probably hon. Members will understand the sentiment which I wish to convey. In many cases I think investigations in the locality would tend to increase rather than to diminish the expenses, because a large number of witnesses would be called, and local passion, local heat, and local fury would have a tendency to extend the proceedings. And in any case this House must have the last word, and that would involve a Debate; and if the House differed, perhaps through the influence of the local Members, from the finding of the Local Authority, there would have to be another local inquiry, and the matter would then have to come before us again. Then, with respect to the work done by Members on Committees, I think the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Mowbray) who presides over the Committees of this House has somewhat exaggerated the "dodges," as he called them, to which Members resort to avoid serving on Committees, and I do not think those dodges which he has described are creditable to the House. This Committee work is not only work that we are bound to do, but I think it is work of a very interesting character. I often think that Members would be more usefully occupied upstairs than in lolling listlessly on these Benches with nothing to do, which causes a deterioration of the physical and mental faculties that I know nothing to equal. Upstairs they might be doing useful work for their constituents, and it would give them an excuse for not going down to their constituencies to open bazaars and flower shows if they could declare that their Parliamentary duties occupied so much of their time that they could not get away. But I think it should be more equally divided. There are so many Members who escape because they are Railway Directors, or lawyers, or physicians; and I wonder what will happen to the Committees in the next House of Commons, which threatens to be tilled with lawyers. Of the 670 Members of this House, only about 120 are required to serve on the Committees, and I think everyone should be prepared to take their fair share. I consider that the whole difficulty of the case might be met without any drastic change such as is now proposed, but by the very sensible suggestions of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that the House fees should be reduced, the lengthy and expensive notice required by the Standing Orders Committee be reduced, and the work begun much earlier so as to prevent the confusion of the present method, and the Provisional Order system extended. Then we should get all the benefit of local inquiry. County Councils and other responsible bodies might well be entrusted with some class of this work. I hope the House will not delegate its powers in the way that some hon. Members have proposed.

I know the ground of many of the complaints which have come from Scotland, and I say that the people are looking with very great interest on the progress of this Bill. I differ from many hon. Members who sit on this side of the House as regards the principle and the details of last years Bill. For my part, I thought the Commission set up under the Bill of last year was one of the best possible Commissions we could have had. It was composed chiefly of professional men, men accustomed to weigh evidence; and I think there could be no Commission which could report to this House more clearly and distinctly on any kind of Bill than the Commission proposed under last year's Bill. The Commission to be appointed under the present Bill has, however, this advantage, that you have Representatives of both Houses of Parliament upon it, and you will thereby save the expense of one inquiry. At present, of course, Bills coming before this House have not only to go before a Committee of this House, but a Committee of the House of Lords. Now, as an illustration of the great expense from the present system I may mention that last year a gentleman of my acquaintance was examined on the Princes Street Tunnel Bill. He was kept here ten days, and every day it was said he was to be examined, and he got, I believe, seven guineas a day for the whole of that time. Well, that is an expense which can be obviated under the present Bill, and I hope sincerely we shall have this system of Local inquiry passed this Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton) apparently objects to the Commission under the Bill having power to throw out a Bill; but I may point out that Committees appointed by this House have exactly the same power of throwing out Bills. The hon. Member for West Belfast appeared to have as his fundamental objection to this Bill that if it became law as regarded Ireland it might put a spoke in the wheel of Home Rule. From my point of view that will be a very great advantage indeed, and I hope that this system of devolution will eventually be adopted by the country and not such a drastic measure as is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian which I believe will be fraught with the greatest disaster to this country.

We have already, I think, discussed this stage of the Bill sufficiently, and now Sir, I shall not attempt to survey the whole ground of the controversy which has been opened this afternoon. But I suppose the House will desire that I should briefly reply to some of the points and objections which have been taken by the friends of the Bill and also by those who do not feel able to support it. Perhaps the most detailed criticism passed upon the measure, or at all events the criticism of the most general kind passed upon it, was that contained in the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast. He, I think, objected to the Bill upon almost every possible ground. He thought it was inconsistent with our principles in that this was a step towards separation; and he thought it was inconsistent with his principles in so far as it did not carry out the principle of separation nearly far enough. Well, Sir, on that point I would only say that though it is true that this Bill applies to Scotland and to Ireland it is not, in my view at all events, necessarily and ultimately to be limited to those two parts of the Kingdom. I regard this as an experimental measure. So far as I am concerned I should be quite content if the experiment were limited to Scotland if that were the desire of the House. Admitting it to be experimental I do not wish to press it unduly upon too large an area at once; but I do not admit that it is in any sense a step in the direction of Separatism, because I have been most careful in framing the measure to maintain the control of this House in all the important stages of Private Bill legislation. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that he did not think it would save the time of private Members, and one of his main reasons for saying that was that the Third Reading would be of so contentious a character that practically this House would be asked to take as large a part in the Private Bill procedure under the new system as it does under the system now in force. Sir, I admit it to be true that the Third Reading will be probably a more contentious stage under this Bill than it usually is at the present time; but that is because we transfer from the Second Reading to the Third Reading the Debate which takes place at present on the Second Reading. I do not believe that there will be more debate on these Bills than there is now. I believe the only change that will take place is that the Debate will take place, not on the Second Reading before the Bill goes to Committee, but on the Third Reading after the Committee has reported upon it. Then, Sir, upon the general question raised by many hon. Members of this House, and, among others, by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton) that there is no relief to be offered to Members of this House by a Bill of this kind, I would say that if that be so, what becomes of all the speeches which have been made by Members in all parts of the House, but chiefly from hon. Members on the other side of the House, upon the merits of delegation and devolution? This is distinctly a case of delegation and devolution; and I think it is strange that hon. Members who support delegation and devolution in the gross should so strongly object to carry out these principles when proposed in a more limited form. Then, Sir, the hon. Gentleman was of opinion, and in this also he followed other Members of the House, that very little economy would result from this Bill. Well, it is perfectly true that this Bill leaves unaltered the amount of House fees which are charged. I grant that; but surely it will be admitted that the amount of the House fees charged is but a very fractional portion of the total cost of fighting any Bill through Committee of this House and of the House of Lords. It really is absolutely insignificant when so considered; and when we are told of how few Private Bills come to this House from Scotland and Ireland, and therefore that the relief to Scotland and Ireland will be very small, do not hon. Gentlemen who use that argument forget that one of the reasons why there are so few Private Bills from these countries is, not because there are few undertakings which Scotsmen and Irishmen would like to see carried through by means of Private Bill legislation, but because the cost of such legislation is so great that many useful schemes have to be choked off by the very fact that their promoters have to come to this House for sanction to carry them into effect? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirlingshire, among other objections which he raised, said that we were giving legislative powers to this Commission, and, therefore delegating to them the powers which we ought jealously to keep in our own hands. Let me in the first place point out that if that be a crime, it is a crime which we already commit, because under the system of Provisional Orders there is at present local inquiry carried out by an official of the Department who has power to prevent the Bill going a step further if he so determines. That is the power which the hon. Member does not desire to give to the Commission, yet it is the power already given to an official, the power of inquiry in the case of a Provisional Order.

Only in such a case.

That is no doubt true; but in so far as the actual operation of a Provisional Order is concerned, I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that an officer of the Department has precisely the same kind of powers to which objection has been taken on the present occasion. But that is not all. Observe the inconsistency of the opponents of this Bill, for while the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirlingshire objects to the very humble amount of legislative delegation given by this Bill to the Commission, most of the other Gentlemen who have spoken against the Bill say that it does not go far enough, and that we ought to give to the County Councils altogether the power of dealing with these matters which are now dealt with by Private Bill legislation. Well, only one of these contentions can be true. They cannot both be true, that we go too far and also that we do not go far enough. Well, what do we think of this proposal to hand over legislative powers to County Councils and Local Authorities wholly unchecked and wholly uncontrolled by this House? I am perfectly ready to increase the dignity and the importance of those Bodies as far as I possibly can by giving them every duty they can properly undertake; but I do not think they can properly undertake the particular kind of business which I understand hon. Gentlemen desire to hand over to them, if it involve either a judgment upon the commercial or financial prospects of the undertaking to be adjudicated upon, or if it involve the compulsory taking away of private property for the sake of those undertakings. One hon. Gentleman, I am not quite sure who it was, in the course of this Debate reminded us of the precedent of taking land compulsorily for school purposes.

I did.

Yes; but school purposes are a perfectly well-defined public object, involving no financial interest at all, wholly divorced from financial interests, and I do not see any analogy between giving the Sheriff powers in such cases, and giving the same official or the County Council the power of deciding that land should be compulsorily taken either for harbour works or gas works.

I referred to unopposed Bills.

I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman, I was referring to other hon. Gentlemen who certainly did not confine themselves to unopposed Bills, but who said that all Bills, whether opposed or unopposed—all Bills of a certain class—should be handed over to the Sheriff or to the County Council. Observe, that in all probability, if you hand over to the County Council or the Local Authority the power of deciding these questions you are making them the judges of their own case. They are often the very Authorities who desire to acquire the land for the purposes of gas works, or who desire to take land compulsorily, or to undertake the responsibility of carrying out operations involving financial considerations. They are not the proper judges to determine whether that land ought to be taken, or whether that financial operation is sound. You require in these cases to have an independent tribunal. If you do not find one in this House you must find it in some such Commission as we propose to set up. My hon. Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Somervell) pointed out to the House, with I think great force and propriety, that there is at present no power under the Scottish Law to alter municipal areas without coming to Parliament, and he reminded us also that we proposed to give those powers in the case of Ireland, and that in a somewhat imperfect shape they already existed in the case of England. I entirely concur in the general spirit of my hon. Friend's remarks; but I would suggest to him that the proper way of dealing with the difficulty to which he has called attention is by an amendment of the Local Government Act for Scotland rather than upon a Bill dealing with Private Bill Procedure. One further point only requires to be dealt with, and it is that relating to fees. Almost every hon. Gentleman who has spoken against the Bill in this House has told us that the great obstacle to Private Bill legislation, the great hardship inflicted upon suitors who come up to this House, is the magnitude of the fees which this House charges before the Private Bill can become law. Now, Sir, I do not venture to give an opinion upon the propriety of the scale of fees which this House charges. It is not a subject on which I am competent to offer one; but I would venture to point out that it is not by legislation that those fees can or ought to be altered. They are not fixed by legislation. They do not require legislation to alter or modify them. They are fixed by the House itself, and if the House is of opinion that they are too high, there is no difficulty whatever in the House carrying out its own views upon that point without either going through the formality of a Bill, or consulting the other House of Parliament on the question at all. I do not know that I need deal at greater length with objections which I gather will be laid before us in a more formal shape at later stages of the Bill. But nothing I have heard has done anything to convince me that this simple method of devolution and delegation, by which this House will certainly be relieved of some of its labours—how much, will depend on the reception you give to this Bill—by which undoubtedly witnesses will be saved the trouble and the expenses of coming from Scotland and from Ireland; by which undoubtedly the advantages of a local inquiry will be conferred in many cases where by universal admission local inquiry would be desirable—nothing that I have heard can persuade me out of the belief that a Bill of this kind will be of advantage to the two parts of the United Kingdom to which it applies. If I am told that the power and authority of Parliament is diminished by the fact that some of the judicial duties now given to our Members will be handed over to a judicial body not nominated or controlled by this House, I would point out that this Bill elaborately provides all the principles by which that tribunal shall be guided in its decisions, while the final decision of that tribunal shall in every case be open to revision by this House itself, shall be open to alteration if the House should so desire, or to rejection if that should seem good to the majority. Under these circumstances I venture to hope that the further consideration—a consideration which will be better afforded when the Bill has been printed—will mitigate some of the objections which hon. Gentlemen opposite may feel, and will enable us to confer upon Scotland, if not upon Ireland, a boon which I am quite certain that Scotland urgently desires.

The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has referred to the question of fees as being one with which only this House can deal. We who represent Ireland know that a case has been made out for legislation of this kind in spite of what has been said to-day by the Member for West Belfast. The hon. Member for West Belfast has told us that there were only six Private Bills from Ireland last year. That in itself surely proves the necessity of a Bill like this, because it shows that many projects that would otherwise be proceeded with are absolutely killed by the expense to the promoters in having to come to this House for powers. I would like, then, to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to this question of fees, whether he would be willing to appoint a small Committee to consider that question with the view of seeing whether the fees could be reduced, or whether the scale could be so altered that for the smaller projects the fees might be lessened, so that they might pass through Parliament at much less cost?

I also would like to ask my right hon. Friend one question—namely, whether, in order to lessen the costs to parties promoting Private Bills from Scotland, a Scotch agent could, in the preliminary stages, appear as a Parliamentary agent, or whether it is imperative that a Parliamentary agent should conduct, in this House and in the House of Lords, the preliminary stages of the Bill? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider that point while considering the question of expense. Of course, my object is simply to lessen the amount of expense as far as possible.

I am afraid I cannot answer these questions straight off; but if my hon. Friend will put a question on the Paper I will make inquiries into the matter.

Mr. Courtney, Sir, I desire to return for a few moments to a subject to which I referred last year—namely, the merits of the Lee Metford rifle, and the policy which the Government have pursued both in its adoption and in regard to its manufacture. I am not going to inflict upon the Committee a long criticism of details. I will only say this, that neither from what I have read, nor heard, nor seen, nor learned by actual experiments, do I see any reason whatever to modify in any way the opinions I expressed last year. Take the shooting of the weapon, at any rate with the present ammunition, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) will himself be prepared to admit—whether from the practice of the Army or of civilians and Volunteers as shown by the various competitions in which this rifle has been used under similar conditions with the Martini-Henry—that the actual results obtained have not, at any rate, been superior to those obtained with the Martini-Henry. If you take the question of the extreme range of the rifle you will find from the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to a question the other day, that the maximum range of the rifle is very much the same as the Martini-Henry—about 3,600 yards with the direct shot, and something under 3,000 yards with a ricochet shot. I do not wish to lay very great stress on this question of shooting or of the range of the rifle, because I maintain that the soldiers never have got all that I think could be got out of the Martini-Henry, and that the question of the accuracy and range of the rifle is, to a certain extent, a matter of detail, and as a matter of fact any good modern rifle is quite good enough for all practical purposes when put into the hands of the soldier. While these, as I admit, are details, still I do not really believe that at present, with the present ammunition, you have got a bit farther forward in the member of shooting than you have got with the Martini-Henry. But when I come to the question of the construction of the rifle I would at the outset say that I do not wish to take up any impossible or impractical attitude. I am perfectly ready to admit that this weapon has many of the necessary requirements of a military weapon; but still, Sir, I do say that while it has many of these requisites, it leaves very much to be desired both in the matter of simplicity and of strength of construction. I say that it has in it too many parts; it has too many screws, too many excrescences which are liable to be knocked off or damaged, and which it is not easy for unskilled labour readily to replace. I believe that my opinion in this respect is borne out by the action of the Government itself, because at a comparatively early period after the adoption of the rifle we began to hear of improvements. In November, 1890, I think we first heard of a Mark II., and so early as February of last year a rifle was produced in the House to show the alterations. That rifle was not the rifle being served out to the Army at the time.

That was Mark II.

Yes. I do not want to be at all unfair in this matter, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members did say at that time, "Oh, it is all very well! a rifle is now being issued, but here is Mark II., and we see how very much better a weapon Mark II. is. That is the weapon which, after all, the Department is going to use." I think that the fact that the weapon Mark II. was produced so early after the other is in itself a convincing proof that the criticisms made on the new rifle were sound and weighty criticisms, and were criticisms which even those who were most in favour of the new rifle have been obliged themselves to admit. But nothing has yet been done with regard to the issuing of the improved weapon to the Army. The fact of the matter is, that this rifle was like a child prematurely born. It was like a seven months' child, which, no doubt, may grow into something very strong hereafter, but which in its early days is ricketty and weak, and requiring care and attention. I think it is the fact that some 300,000 of Mark I. rifles have been issued, or are completed and about to be issued to the Army; and what I want to know is whether any improvements at all have been introduced into Mark I., as Mark I. is now being manufactured and issued to the troops; whether it is what I may call an Improved Mark I.; or whether it is the same as before the improvements were produced last year? Of course I know that the Lewes sight has been abandoned; but with regard to the sight I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has had any complaints of the weakness of the new foresight, or whether that foresight has been complained of as being liable to be knocked off, and not suitable for the rough usage to which it is likely to be subjected? Then I would like also some information on this other point. One of the principal parts of the rifle was the attachment of the bolthead to the bolt. Now, various plans were suggested to do away with the bolthead screw. I know that two or three methods were submitted to the War Office, which were put aside; but I understand one of these boltheads has now been adopted. Are the boltheads being now manufactured on this principle? Then I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman for information with reference to the progress of the new cordite powder; as to how soon we are likely to have the new powder distributed for practical use, and when it will take the place of the present powder? It seems to me that you are not acting very wisely, when you are manufacturing such a large number of the new rifles, to go on manufacturing the Martini-Henry rifles. I cannot understand why it should be the object of the War Office to have small arms with different bores, when we could have all our troops armed with rifles of the same bore. I believe that nothing has yet been done with regard to manufacturing a small-bore carbine for the Cavalry, and that that force is still being armed, when new weapons are required, with the Martini-Henry carbine. Now, I should like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the great desirability of at once adopting a Lee Metford carbine for the Cavalry, because I believe that the Cavalry, even more than the Infantry, would be benefited by having a small-bore weapon, and especially a repeating one. I should next like to ask whether anything has been done to strengthen the magazine and the magazine spring in the present issue of the rifle? because it has been generally held that the magazine is the most unsatisfactory part of the weapon, and one which is likely to break down when it is brought into actual service. I would also like to know whether the War Office Authorities have changed their minds in regard to introducing some form of the clip system of loading for the magazine rifle? I do not think I need trouble the Committee with any further remarks at the present moment. I would only say that I honestly desire to see every effort made to secure for the Army as good a weapon as can possibly be obtained.

All the questions that have been addressed to me seem to me to be of an important character, and I am glad of the opportunity of saying—and I say it with some satisfaction — that after the further experience I have had, I am able absolutely to adhere to all I said in February of last year with reference to the new rifle. The reports we have received as to the rifle, which is now being placed in the hands of the troops, are very satisfactory. I am also able to say that the objections to it have practically disappeared, and that it is being exceedingly well received in the ranks of our Army. I have heard criticisms passed on the War Office for having been somewhat slack in adopting and introducing the magazine rifle so long after foreign countries have adopted it. I think we have profited by the experience of other countries, and that the steps we are now taking, as the results of that experience, have been of great value to us. The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question, to which I will endeavour shortly to reply. He said that, after all, the new rifle did not show any conspicuously better shooting than the Martini-Henry, and that it is not superior to it. I fully admit that I cannot say that the shooting of the new rifle is superior to that of the Martini-Henry, but that is due entirely to the ammunition. Like all foreign countries, we have had great difficulty in obtaining the right sort of ammunition for our rifles. If the right hon. Gentleman had heard the speech I made the other day, he would have noticed that I dwelt especially upon that point. We have gone so far with cordite powder that we are trying it under all conditions, and the results have been absolutely satisfactory. So far as we can see at present, we believe that the cordite powder is better than any powder produced in foreign countries which has come within our experiments. We have often to carry powder in magazines on board ships in the midst of a great heat, and therefore it is absolutely necessary that it should be such powder as will meet all conditions of heat and cold. Now the right hon. Gentleman also referred to the strength of the new rifle, and asked me whether any changes have been introduced into it since it has been issued to the troops. No change had been made in the rifles which were issued last year to the troops, but the rifles now being issued have all undergone some change in order to meet the defects which had been found to exist in them. A new sight has been substituted for the original, and the spring has been strengthened, but the magazine remains of the same size as before. When I am asked whether we have changed our opinion with regard to the system, and are prepared to adopt that which is in operation in other countries, we say we believe that the system we have adopted here is the best on the whole. In the new rifle we have got rid of difficulties which so many people consider to be very serious, but which we do not admit to be serious in their character. The right hon. Gentleman said it was highly desirable that we should have, as soon as possible, the same bore in all the rifles and carbines which are in use throughout our Army, and that we should not spend money in producing rifles with old bores. He also urged that we should issue rifles with small bores to the Cavalry. Now that is entirely our desire. We propose to issue rifles with the small bore. It has been necessary, however, to continue to make a certain number of carbines with the old bore for the use of the Volunteers and other parts of the Forces who are armed with Martini-Henry rifles. That is all I have to say upon the subject, and I think it will be agreed that I have tried to answer the questions which have been put to me.

I desire to ask for an answer to a question I put in writing to the War Office authorities, about a year and a half ago, with reference to the discharge of workmen from Government factories. The Superannuation Act for 1887 says that any man who has served for seven years and is then discharged, in consequence of a reduction of the staff, is entitled to ask for a gratuity. Now a number of men have applied for gratuities at different times, and the answer they have received is that the Secretary for War will not recommend them to the Treasury to be paid gratuities unless they have served twelve years. What right has the head of any Department, or any person whatever, to decide that an Act of Parliament which states the period at seven years shall be construed to mean twelve? It is of no use for this House to pass Acts of Parliament if they are to be so ignored. These men were not entitled to superannuation, but they were entitled to ask for a gratuity at the end of seven years' service. The exercise of such a regulation in opposition to a specific enactment appears to me, without explanation, to be unjustifiable and incomprehensible. I, therefore, beg to ask the Secretary for War why he does not carry out the Statute itself; and why it is that he fixes twelve years as the proper period instead of seven years?

In answer to the question of the hon. Member, I would explain that there are clauses in the Superannuation Act which enable the Treasury to frame certain rules, so as to avoid the difficulties attending the discharge and employment of workmen. There must be in Government factories some power of dispensing with the services of workmen in a short time. It would become a grievance if a man who had served for five or six years were to be discharged at the end of those periods, when by serving a few months longer he would be entitled to a small allowance. That is the main reason for making the rule. It was not in any way adopted with the view of getting rid of men or to defraud them of what they might expect to receive at the end of their period of service. The heads of the factories felt that the men who had served for eleven or twelve years were the men who ought to be given something at the end of their term of service, because they might have expected to have had permanent employment.

I will not discuss the reasons which caused the creation of the clauses of the Act; but I say that under it every man employed in the Government factories is entitled, at the end of seven years, if discharged owing to the abolition of employment, to ask the Treasury for a gratuity, and it should not be construed to mean a period of twelve years.

The hon. Gentleman has regard to only one portion of the Act and not to the whole of it. There are clauses which enable the Treasury to frame rules, in order to enable it to avoid the difficulties I have alluded to. I am informed that this step was not taken without most careful consideration of the facts, and I am sure the hon. Member will see that if certain rules were not laid down the working of the factories would become impossible.

I have had a case brought to my notice only to-day, in which a man has received notice to leave the factory at Enfield after serving eleven years, and nine months, and the Superintendent has assured me that he was unable to do anything towards getting the man a superannuation or gratuity because of the order which has been given by the head of the Department that a man should not receive it unless he had been twelve years in the factory. When an Act of Parliament lays down a fixed number of years, it is hard lines that the head of some Department should afterwards override the practical decision which this House has come to.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether the cordite powder to which he referred in his speech is the same powder that has been patented under that name by Sir Frederick Abel, the Chairman of the Explosives Committee, which recommended its adoption; and whether it is the case that other rifle manufacturing firms, who wanted to have their powder tried, made application to that effect to the War Office, and that their applications were absolutely ignored?

I understand that the cordite powder was made practically by Sir Frederick Abel and another gentleman, and that they immediately assigned the patent to the Government of this country. Other rifle manufacturers asked that their powder should be tried, and I gave instructions that it should be tried in such a manner as to absolutely satisfy the authorities of the War Office as to its merits. The result, however, has been that it has been decided that the cordite powder is the best powder.

I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to what is known as the Enfield scandal, as we were prevented from discussing the question on a previous occasion. The charge against the right hon. Gentleman is one of political corruption; that is to say, a charge of plundering the taxpayer for the purpose of benefitting some Political Parties that he may be in agreement with at the present moment. I received from the Committee at Enfield a notice that this matter would be brought forward by the Member for the Division on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. I do not know why that course was not taken. The Committee enclosed a precise statement of the case; and the first charge against the right hon. Gentleman is that he is paying, or has agreed to pay, to private manufacturers £5 for rifles that can be made at Enfield by our own workmen at a cost of £3 8s., and that, in fact, contracts amounting to nearly £500,000 have been given out to private manufacturers on these terms, which show that we are paying a private manufacturer £2 more for rifles than the Enfield price. If that charge is correct it is a very serious one. The Evening News and Post, a Tory newspaper, calls this "The Enfield Scandal," and says they want to know why the matter is being burked in the House of Commons by the Government. They say that the difference between the charge of £3 8s. and £5 is the difference between the cost at Enfield and the cost outside; and they say that, instead of rifles being made at Enfield at the lower price, large orders have been given to the Sparkbrook Factory at Birmingham, and to private firms at Sheffield, and other places, at the higher price. The Evening News and Post says—

"Why does not Mr. Stanhope honestly face this charge, and promise to stop the dismissal of any more Enfield rifle makers?"

Previous to that they charge the Financial Secretary to the War Office with having in his answers burked the questions put to him in this House. I am satisfied, on my own knowledge, that proper replies were not given either by the War Minister or the Financial Secretary, when this matter was mentioned here about a fortnight ago; and it certainly astonished me that the War Minister has not taken some pains to explain so serious a matter. The works at Enfield have been a great expense to the nation, and the workmen engaged there have been educated into doing this work of rifle making in an efficient manner. I quite agree that if you could get the rifles you require from private firms at a cheaper, or even at the same rate as is charged at Enfield, it would be a right and proper thing to put the work into the hands of private individuals. But having specially built these works at Enfield, and having trained skilled workmen, Government for some reason or other—while Enfield is idle—are actually paying private manufacturers very nearly double the price at which the same weapons can be made at Enfield. The only explanation of that is that it is done to please the political friends of the right hon. Gentleman. That is a very serious charge, and I want an answer from the right hon. Gentleman distinctly explaining why he is paying £5 for articles that can be produced at £3 8s. in our own factory. Now, Sir, I do not say that because men have been once employed at Enfield they should always be retained. But if these men have been working efficiently for a number of years, that fact ought to be taken into consideration; whilst it ought to be borne in mind that they have been put to great expense in many cases in getting a home near the works, and that in depriving them of their work at Enfield they will be compelled to make a fresh start in another part of the country. That is, perhaps, a view the taxpayer will not entertain, but I think it is entitled to some consideration. The matter, however, upon which I shall take a Division is a charge of political corruption against the War Secretary. I move the reduction of the Vote by £50.

I do not think the hon. Member can have made any endeavour on his own behalf to ascertain why not merely this, but previous Governments have adopted, in obedience to the demands of public necessity, the course of employing private firms; but he ought at least to have been aware that Commissions and Committees that have inquired into the supply of ordnance and rifles have universally pointed out the necessity of not relying in this country merely upon the Government factories. It must be recollected that in war we would have not merely to provide for the demands of the Army and Navy of the United Kingdom, but for the whole of the Indian Army, with all the additions which a war would cause, and for Canada, which has a Militia Force of vast numbers and which relies upon this country to meet any demand that may be occasioned by war or the danger of war. If you pass to the Cape or Australasia it is the same thing there. Go round your Empire and you will find that the demand for ordnance and for stores that will come from this extensive Empire, if it is to be met by relying upon the Government factories in this country and upon these alone, will involve us in one or other of these difficulties: either you will not be able to meet these demands in war, or in time of peace the Government factories must be kept up on a gigantic and wasteful scale. That being so, I am sure the hon. Member himself would not like to face the consequences of a scare caused by demands coming from our Colonies which we could not meet. As a matter of fact and of history, any scares that we have had have actually blocked the Supply Department with demands for arms and stores that could not, in any sense, be met. Therefore, Sir, it comes to this: that the most economical thing for this country is not to keep up enormous and gigantic Government factories and establishments, but to keep a sufficient establishment under Government control for the manufacture of arms and ordnance as will leave the Government, to a certain extent, able to dictate fair terms to the trade, and to rely largely on the trade. Now, Sir, I hope the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Office will at once dispel the illusion which has evidently overtaken the advocates of Enfield. I do not forget that this discussion was originated by the hon. Member for Enfield, who very naturally strove to make the best of his case. But, Sir, the question above all others is not Enfield against Birmingham or Enfield against Bow, but the question of what is best for the country and for national purposes. I think it is a great pity in this House we should get into these small wrangles through not having sufficient knowledge and should have to conduct our discussions under the miserable necessities of Party strife. I cordially approve the action of the present Minister of War and of his predecessor, for the present Minister of War is merely carrying out the policy which has been laid down by successive Ministers of War. It is altogether beside the question to= say that you must go to Government factories to get good rifles. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman once more to dispel the illusion that there is so great a discrepancy to be found between a rifle turned out by a Government factory and one turned out by a private factory. Everybody knows that as a matter of business you should charge the interest on capital outlay to the cost of production. But I was informed to-day by the right hon. Gentleman that the cost of a rifle, turned out by the Government factory, does not take into account the interest on capital outlay. And I think when the hon. Member (Mr. Morton) sees the figures he will see that instead of the price being double as between a Government rifle and a private factory rifle, there is only a matter of under thirty pence between them. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will kindly state what, in the case of a Government produced rifle, is the distribution of the charges which make up that cost, and then apply the same test to the rifles turned out by private firms. The Comptroller General's Report gives the cost of the production of a rifle at a Government factory at £5 6s. 8d.

That was at the commencement; since then the cost of producing rifles has been very much reduced.

I have in my hand the Ordnance Factory Report for the years 1889–90, and, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman when he rises to state when we are to have the Report for 1890–91 in our hands. Taking the figures for 1889–90 as stated in the Report, I find that the cost of a Government made rifle is £5 6s. 8d.; but it is quite evident from the following paragraph in the Report that there was some dispute between the Comptroller General and the Factory Department as to what is really the cost of the rifle. In the 36th paragraph of the Report he says:—

"In the examination of the local accounts at Enfield and Sparkbrook the transfer of the expenditure on the magazine rifle at the factory amounted to £2,564, which has been added to the cost of production at the former. The effect of this transfer has been that the cost of production per rifle, which previously stood at Enfield at £5 5s., and at Sparkbrook at £5 18s. 4d., now stands in the production statement at £5 6s. 8d. I have not yet been furnished with an explanation of that adjustment."

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can furnish us with an explanation of this adjustment, also if he can tell us what is involved or meant by the expression "transfer of expenditure from one Department to another?" I find, taking the figures, that 4,000 rifles were turned out at one factory at the cost given here, and perhaps at exactly the same as the cost of turning out rifles from another factory, where the figures run to 31,000. It puzzles me to know, if there is accurate account keeping, how it is possible in one establishment to turn out a small number of rifles and in another an enormous number of rifles and yet turn them out at exactly the same cost. That is a matter which requires some explanation. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the price of the trade to the War Office comes to £5 7s. 8½d. I want to know if these trade prices are correct, and if not, would the right hon. Gentleman state the details of how that price is made up? There is evidently some confusion, perhaps in the method of accounting. It is, I believe, beyond dispute, that in order to meet the exigencies of this great Empire, the best and cheapest way of doing it is to have a reasonable number of small Government factories, but mainly to rely also on private trade. And if you are going in any sense to expect to get the help of private trade in war you must give it encouragement in times of peace. It will not put up machinery and plant to the same extent as if you gave encouragement, and if an emergency arises the trade would not be able to give you the help you desire. The really important point of the whole thing is that private firms do claim that a rifle supplied by private trade is the cheapest that can be made. I know how these figures of the cost of Government rifles are arrived at in the Government factories to show the smallest cost that possibly can be.

I would like to say one or two words on this matter. It appears to me that the dispute as to Enfield has been going on for the last few weeks in the form of a very violent attack upon Birmingham. I quite understand from the hon. Member who represents the Enfield Division that he looks to the interests of his constituents, and no one complains of that. He does his best for them, and, we can only hope that in making his public speeches be will use a little more courteous language to the Representatives of other Divisions whose industries are of the same character as those of his own Division. Hon. Members on this side of the House seem to make this question an engine for a political attack on Birmingham. The hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote seems not to have been posted up by his political friends even in the simplest manner. He asked the Secretary for War to answer two questions—namely, why a rifle costs £3 18s. at Enfield and costs £5 odd at the private factory at Sparkbrook. The answer is that the cost is not £3 18s. but £5 6s. 8d., and that Sparkbrook is not a private factory at all. Therefore, before the hon. Member for Peterborough makes these attacks he should learn the alphabet of the position, and so be able to conceal how little he knows about it.

Might I be allowed to state that I did not say Sparkbrook is a private factory? I quoted from a Tory paper, which spoke of the Sparkbrook factory at Birmingham and two other private firms in large towns.

The hon. Member was comparing the cost of rifles made by the Government and those made in private factories, and, of course, as he mentioned Sparkbrook in that connection the inference was that Sparkbrook was a private factory. We have two Government factories in Birmingham and Sparkbrook, a small arms factory at Smallheath, and another factory. The Royal Commission which sat in 1887 reported that it was highly desirable that orders should be placed in the hands of the trade, and Lord Morley's Commission urged that the Government should rely to a considerable extent on the gun trade. I suppose their object in so doing was to preserve for our own country every source of productive power which can be used when an emergency arises. But, in order to do that, private firms must get some trade, or they will not place themselves at the disposal of the Government. They should be encouraged to keep sufficient capacity for rifle making, and have orders occasionally that their premises would enable them to fulfil. The consequence of the present system is that a company went into liquidation, and the Government bought a small arms factory for £40,000 or £50,000 which cost nearer £200,000. And if they pursue that policy with other factories ruin of the same character will assuredly follow. I am not arguing now whether that policy is right or wrong, but we cannot possess this reserve of force without giving them orders occasionally. At Birmingham we have exactly the state of things recommended by the Royal Commission—a Royal small arms factory for general continual work, and a reserve force in one of the best private factories we have. The hon. Member has quoted one paper; I may quote another, which for misrepresentation and vulgarity is, perhaps, at the top of the Press of England. I am speaking of the Star, a paper sworn by by many Members on this side of the House. This paper says—

"Birmingham is busy and Enfield starving. Every rifle made in Birmingham is of inferior quality and much higher in price, and the reason they are sent there to be made is to gain votes."

We did not desire to raise the question of Enfield against Birmingham; all we want is a fair field and no favour. I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman sitting below me, the predecessor of the present War Minister, honestly held it was not right to make Sparkbrook into a Government small arms factory.

The hon. Gentleman attributed some similar sentiment to me when speaking at Birmingham. What I did say was that when it was first acquired the intention was that it should be confined to repairs, but I never held a strong opinion as to its being extended into a factory.

I will read the right hon. Gentleman's words, as this is a matter of national as well as local interest. On 21st June, 1888, the right hon. Gentleman said—

"He did not think that was quite in accordance with the understanding which had been arrived at with the House of Commons when it was first proposed to establish the Sparkbrook Factory—namely, that that factory should only be used for repairs, and not for the manufacture of small arms. He had been against this proposal from the first, and he thought, at any rate, that it would be more consistent, not only with the understanding with the House of Commons, but with the general interests of the public, if Sparkbrook had only been maintained for the purpose of repairs."

I do not think there is any doubt about that expression of opinion.

"The factory at Enfield had been increased a few years ago at considerable cost, and so much money having been spent upon it he was obliged to express his regret that the Government had not stood to their original proposal, and that they should have been led, in a very plausible and ingenious way he admitted, into a course which might lead to the establishment of another small arms factory."

I was not going to complain of the right hon. Gentleman, but to say that from the first he was against the creation of the factory at Birmingham, and that if he had had his way we should not have made a single rifle at Birmingham. The paper I have quoted makes a charge of political corruption against the Minister of War for sending orders to Birmingham, but the arguments we used when it was proposed to move the machinery to Enfield were founded on the public good and the good of the Service only. They were, mainly, that it was not wise for our system to be confined to the two factories at Woolwich and Enfield, and we pointed out that Birmingham was the centre of railways and canals and distribution well situated with regard to coal and iron, and has been the seat of the gun trade for 200 or 300 years—ever since there has been a gun trade. There was also the advantage that plenty of workmen could be got in times of pressure. There were in the factory engines of 400-horse power, and something like 1,000 machines in good order, and it was pointed out that it would be folly to practically dismantle it by simply using such an equipment for repairs only. The chief of the gun trade said that the factory was second to none, if not superior to any in the district. Those were arguments which the War Minister could not disregard, notwithstanding the pressure brought to bear upon him by the right hon. Gentleman below me. We hear a great deal about rivalry with regard to Enfield; but other work is sent there, and I find in the Report that the work turned out there amounted to £269,000 as compared with £66,000 at Sparkbrook—that is to say, four times as much. Enfield has been favoured in a wonderful degree during the past few years. The demand of Enfield is, that if a few hundred hands are put on during pressure they shall be made the nominal number, and not be reduced. I think it would have been well to leave the question of Enfield alone; but I do not blame hon. Members on this side, as in their hands Enfield is an engine of political attack to attempt to destroy the prosperity of Birmingham. Birmingham will be able to bold her own, and show that on public grounds the Royal factory, supported by the private factory, are the best to supply the requirements of the State. We do not shrink from an inquiry, but the amounts quoted are not worth the paper they are printed on, so far as ascertaining the cost of the rifles is concerned. The difference between the cost at Enfield, Sparkbrook, and the private factories cannot be ascertained at all. The right hon. Gentleman says interest on plant is charged; but there is nothing to show it, though I know he would not say a word he did not believe to be true.

Depreciation.

That is on the other side of the account. I am speaking of fixed charges, and mean a fair interest on capital outlay, which is charges in a private factory. You may take the cost of the rifle at Enfield as the simple cost of the iron, the labour, and the administrative staff, and little else. The hon. Member who last spoke referred to an adjustment which had brought the two costs very near each other; but if he had read further on he would have seen some letters, signed by a Mr. Phillips, which point out that great diversity exists between the method of estimating the cost at Sparkbrook and that practised at Enfield, and recommending the adoption of a more uniform system. Enfield was intended to be a mere experimental shop; but during 30 or 40 years, by what hon. Members on this side would call jobs, it has developed into a factory. It is an artificial creation altogether, and you have expenses for police, cottages, Divine service, and so on, all of which were already in existence in Birmingham. If these charges were taken into consideration, the disparity in price would be in favour of Birmingham. Enfield is an exotic in the growth of which hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of pounds have been spent; it has been almost a bottomless pit for public money. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question of the blot on the military system which would confine the production of arms to a couple of factories. We have never raised this question as between Enfield and Birmingham and never should have thought of doing so, but since Enfield is used as an engine of political attack, I think we have a right to ask that the question of finance should be considered before a decision is arrived at. The Secretary for War is asked to commit an act of political jobbery, in that, there not being legitimate work enough for Enfield, he is asked for political purposes to send work to Enfield which is not wanted. Sparkbrook and Smallheath are both doing good service and are turning out rifles, as good if not better, as cheap if not cheaper than Enfield, though Enfield is not charged the same cost of production as Birmingham. Without making allowance for that fact all comparisons are worthless, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not be forced by the pressure which has been brought to bear upon him from this side of the House, because of a want of love for Birmingham, to do an injustice for fear it should be thought that he is acting from political motives. I will ask him not to be forced into the political job which hon. Gentlemen seem to wish to force him into of sending work to Enfield where it is not wanted, because of the political agitation which has been raised.

It is only right after the remarks of the last speaker that I should make a short reply. With respect to the suspicion that has been cast on my figures I can only say that they were taken from answers given by the Secretary for War or by the Financial Secretary, and I must leave the question of their accuracy to the War Office. But so far as the figures have been given to this House it will be found, I believe, at present rifles are more cheaply manufactured at Enfield than at Sparkbrook, in spite of the extraordinary cheap rate at which the Sparkbrook factory has been bought, and spite of the arrangement by which Birmingham is more greatly favoured than London and its neighbourhood. Further, when you look at the fact that Enfield is being kept at a small rate of work, and that a great part of the machinery is lying idle, is it fair to compare the cost of maintenance at Enfield with the cost of the factories at Birmingham which have been kept in full work? With respect to the complaints that have been made by the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Collings) let me tell him that if we look at the Estimates for two years ago we shall find that the Estimate for wages at Enfield was £270,000, and the same year the Estimate for wages at Sparkbrook was, I believe, £100,000. This year the Estimate for wages at Enfield is only £160,000 or £110,000 less than it was two years ago, whereas the Estimate for wages at Sparkbrook is £60,000, or only £40,000 less than it was two years ago. I contend that too large an order has been given privately, or to Birmingham or somewhere else, and, while this country is being armed with a new rifle, I feel it is somewhat unjust that Enfield, which is the chief centre of the manufacture of rifles in this country, should only in the three years have had one year's full amount of work, and that at present they should be turning out a smaller number of rifles than they have done at any period during the last twelve years. If the Members for Birmingham desire a Committee of Inquiry, all I can say is that we, on the side of Enfield, only desire that the whole of the facts shall be laid before the House. I am convinced that the case of Enfield would be found to be quite as good as that of Birmingham, and I am sure that the complaint which is made on behalf of Enfield is a just complaint. I should like also to point out the desirability that all rifles made under present circumstances should be of the same bore, and I should like to ask the Secretary for War whether the carbines for the Indian order are to be large or small bore.

They are small bore.

I am glad to hear that statement, for it is one of considerable importance. It would solve the difficulty we are in at present if we at once set about providing the Indian Army with a weapon of the same bore as our own Army. This would for many years to come give sufficient work both to Enfield and Birmingham.

I think the discussion will prove to the House that any one who occupies my position has no very easy task to reconcile the conflicting claims and interests of different parts of the country. I believe, however, that no hon. Member will be inclined to credit the charges which have been levelled at me. I think the House will fairly believe of me that I have tried to the best of my power to do my duty to the country in placing those orders, without any regard whatever to political considerations, or to any consideration whatever, except that of trying to get rifles in the best and most satisfactory manner for the permanent interests of the country. Less than that no Secretary of State ought to do. I will begin with the complaint with respect to the distribution of orders for the manufacture of rifles. When we had to give out a large number of rifles for manufacture we had to consider what the resources of the country were in the way of the production of rifles and what they would be in time of war when an emergency might require the production of an enormous quantity in a very short time, and the Authorities came to the conclusion at once that to rely solely on Enfield, admirable as Enfield was in itself, would be to expose the country under certain conditions to very grave danger indeed. And we also came to the conclusion that, unless under very exceptional circumstances, Enfield ought not to be employed to the full extent of its power, but we ought to enlarge the area of production so as to be able to get from other quarters some assistance in the manufacture of a large number of rifles. In the first place we decided that we should be perfectly justified in establishing a small additional ordnance factory in the town of Birmingham. Birmingham is, after all, the main seat of the gun trade, and I believe if we were to begin again de, novo, we should establish the chief manufactory, not at Enfield, but probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of Birmingham. But we have got Enfield, and we must continue, as I think, to do justice as far as we can to the colony, which, owing to our action, has been established there. We soon found that the establishment of the factory at Birmingham did not meet all our difficulties, because when our orders fell off we found it necessary to make reductions at the factories, and everyone will see what the effect of a considerable reduction in the number of men employed must make to a particular district, and this, I believe, is the cause of the local pressure from Enfield. Therefore, we thought it right to ask the private trade, or such portions of it as was able to produce rifles, to help us in meeting the large demand that was anticipated. We employed the private trade first in London, in the district of Bow, where there was a small factory capable of doing work, and also the Small Arms Company at Birmingham, which is capable of doing a much greater amount of work. We distributed the work as far as we could between these factories, public and private, and I may say at once that we have every reason to be satisfied with the work that has been done at all of them. I do not want to exalt Enfield at the expense of Sparkbrook, or Enfield and Sparkbrook at the expense of the private trade, because I appreciate all of them, and I appreciate the fact that the private trade cannot produce rifles as quickly as we can at our own factories; but we have no fault to find with the quality of the work they have turned out. Having made this distribution fairly, and having given orders to the ordnance factories and the private trade, we found that this year the amount of orders fell off, and the War Office has treated with all these sources of supply in a spirit of absolute equality. I will not go into the circumstances under which the orders have fallen off more than has been anticipated; but the result has been that we have called upon all the factories under Government control, as well as the private trade, to submit to some reduction of their work. The orders to Sparkbrook, Birmingham, and Bow, have been reduced; and we also thought it necessary to reduce the output at Enfield. But Enfield, being our special workshop, not only for rifles but also for other munitions of war, we have been able to treat it in an exceptional manner, and we hope and believe that we shall be able to enlarge the number of orders for other munitions of war that we give to Enfield, so as to make the reduction in that place as small as it can reasonably be made. I think that everyone will see that this was a reasonable step to take, because a good many men have been employed at Enfield for a long period, a considerable population has been drawn to the place, shops have been established there, and many other interests have been created; and to go beyond the reduction that was absolutely forced upon us, or to diminish the number of orders, would be to inflict a hardship upon Enfield which we have no intention to inflict. Let us now come to the question of the comparative cost of the rifles. It is obvious that the rifle ought to cost more money when manufactured by the private trade than when produced at an ordnance factory, because the private trade has to make a profit which is estimated at 15 per cent., while there are other advantages to which it is entitled. It is obvious that when you put up new machinery in a Government factory, and the first orders have been executed, there is a chance that other orders will come in, whereas the private trade begins work without such a certainty. When asked to undertake an order for rifles, the private trade is not certain that when it has been executed they will have any further orders. Having made those remarks, let me now come again to the general question. I cannot give all the particulars that have been asked of me, and I do not think I could make myself intelligible to the House if I went into details as to the comparative cost. The matter was very closely investigated by two skilled accountants appointed by the Committee of which the noble Lord the Member for Paddington was the Chairman—Messrs. Waterhouse and Whinney. They went carefully through the whole of the accounts of the ordnance factories, and their report showed the cost of the different articles produced as fairly and reasonably as possible. Now what is the cost of these rifles? There has been some confusion about the figures, because, of course, the cost was different two years ago to what it is to-day. The reason is that after the Martini-Henry had been produced for a certain time, the cost of production fell rapidly, and it ended by becoming an exceedingly cheap rifle to produce. I am glad to say that the cost of producing the new rifle has also fallen very considerably. The present cost of manufacturing it is £3 13s., and it is calculated in this way: Wages, £2 3s.; materials, 10s.; and indoor expenses, £1.

Does that include depreciation of buildings?

Yes; depreciation of buildings and plant, and an enormous number of items, such as the maintenance of machinery, the Treasury contribution in lieu of rates, and sick and injury pay, which go to make up the general sum. It is true that India and the Colonies protested against the inclusion of interest on capital in the cost of the weapons, and its inclusion has, therefore, been abandoned. The estimated cost of the rifles was a compromise between the balance-sheets which are known as No. 1 and No. 2. The trade price of these rifles is of course higher, but it is hardly fair to make a comparison, because the price of the first 100,000 made by the trade was based upon the cost at the ordnance factory, and the second 100,000 would be considerably less, and the trade price would compare very favourably with the cost at the ordnance factory. It has been urged that India should be supplied with a larger number of rifles and carbines carrying the same ammunition as the magazine rifles. I will only say that we should be exceedingly glad to supply them; but India, like every other country, regulates its orders according to the amount of money it has at the time. It cannot order everything at once, but it has already received a very large number of rifles, and is now receiving a large quantity of ammunition, to put in reserve, and no doubt it will continue to give orders for rifles. In any case we must anticipate that a great many Martini-Henry rifles will remain in the hands of the native troops. It will be impossible to arm them all at once with rifles of the new pattern. I think I have answered all the questions that have been put to me. With regard to this Vote, it is desirable that it should be taken before the end of the financial year, for, although it is not by any means of vital importance, it simplifies the operations of the Department.

I shall not stand in the way of the Vote being taken, but there is something to which I should like to refer. All will agree that there may be bad ways and there may be good ways of providing a supply of the munition of war to the country, but the very worst way is to depend upon local influences, and above all, political influences. Now I am not aware, not having heard the early part of this debate, how far any such charges have been made against the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly could not countenance any such charges myself. But of all who can protest against that view of the case, I think the very last is my hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley, because he has, on more than one occasion, trotted out my observations with regard to the factories as an additional argument why the electors should not vote for Liberal candidates. He has done it, of course, for political purposes. Now let me say exactly what I meant. When I was Secretary for War a large addition had been made to the buildings at Enfield. It was made before my time. I confess I viewed it with regret, and I regret it still. I think that before the addition the establishment at Enfield was large enough. But advantage was taken of a Vote of Credit, of all things in the world, to enlarge the buildings and increase machinery for the manufacture of a new rifle which, after all, was not adopted into the Service. Such was the position with regard to Enfield. Then Sparkbrook had been purchased on the understanding that it was to be used solely or mainly as a repairing factory. I thought in this state of things, when we had had these enlargements, that it was not unreasonable that I should put in a little protest against the development of Sparkbrook into a new manufacturing establishment. It may be a good thing or it may not. I was not acquainted with all the facts, but I thought a protest would not be out of place. But the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Collings) thinks that everyone who seems to differ from him on these points is making an attack upon Birmingham. Now, I do not care two straws whether the rifles are made at Birmingham or anywhere else so long as they are well made and in a manner to give the largest means of supply to the country. My idea is—and I humbly follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite—that having got a Government factory we should keep it in a state of efficiency, but at the same time large orders should be given to private trade, not only that we may receive weapons from private trade, but that the private trade may be retained in such a flourishing condition that we may depend upon the trade for supply in a time of emergency. The private trade at Birmingham may get all it wishes for, and should so far as is consistent with keeping up the Government factory. My sole protest, and upon which the hon. Member has founded his observations, was directed, not against orders being given to the private trade in Birmingham, but against what seemed to me to be the wanton or unnecessary and unjustifiable extension of a Government establishment, whether at Enfield or anywhere else. The policy pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War seems to me to be a reasonable policy. He has said enough to show how extremely difficult it is in the matter of cost to arrive at the actual facts; but if there is a little haziness about the actual cost, I hope the House will not encourage any other policy than that of maintaining Enfield in a proper state of efficiency, but keeping it within due limits, and giving such orders to private trade as will secure this as a large and fruitful source of supply.

It is impossible, I think, that we can go to a Division without some fuller explanation, although I say at once that I never intended to charge any personal corruption against the right hon. Gentleman. My point is that if you pay £5 10s. to a private firm for an article which in your own factory costs £3 8s. or £3 13s., there is a loss to the taxpayer that seems to require explanation and remedy. Now, so far as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he practically admits—(Cries of "Divide!") This is considered a very serious matter outside the House as well as inside, and I trust we shall not be prevented from finishing the discussion before coming to a Division. No more important question has arisen in regard to Government administration for some time, and so far as I can make out from the information given to us by the right hon. Gentleman—

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

I hardly think the Vote ought to be put without the general consent of the Committee; but I think, perhaps, the present subject may be considered to have been discussed sufficiently.

There is a question which arises in reference to the relations between the War Office and the Admiralty in respect to stores produced at the Ordnance Factory. Millions of money are involved in the supply of stores for India, the Colonies, and the Navy.

I hope the House will agree to take the Second Reading of this, a purely Consolidation Bill. If it is read a second time I propose to move that it be referred to a Select Committee for examination.

I have no objection to make to the Second Reading, and, in fact, I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced the Bill, and for having yielded on a point of importance which was pressed on his attention by a deputation. Though nominally a Consolidation Bill, its main purpose is really the repealing of a clause in the Ranges Act of last year which was passed, I think, under some misapprehension of its meaning. Some few weeks ago I introduced a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of a number of gentlemen interested in the preservation of commons and the maintenance of common rights; and they pointed out that under the clause in question, the War Office, having obtained by purchase or lease the interest of the lord of the manor in any common, was entitled merely by the issue of a bye-law to expropriate all the commoners' rights without any opportunity given them for objecting to the process, and without the usual protection in such cases—namely, that the expropriation should only take place under a Provisional Order approved by the House, and with an opportunity for the commoners to oppose the scheme before a Committee of this House. The deputation further pointed out that by the terms of the clause the commoners had no means of securing compensation for the extinction of their rights. The right hon. Gentleman practically admitted the justice of the complaint, and now proposes to repeal that clause. So far as the future is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman has completely met our case. Henceforth, no commoners' rights can be expropriated for the purposes of rifle ranges, military camps, or exercising ground otherwise than by Provisional Order. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that in one instance operations have commenced under the Act of last year. Proceedings have already been taken in respect of a rifle range in the New Forest, and this has much excited public opinion in the district. I have no desire to express an opinion on the merits or demerits of the site selected, or whether it is the best that could be chosen for the purpose. I only wish to point out that the proceedings came under the unrepealed clause in last year's Act; but the case in favour of proceeding by way of Provisional Order in this instance is immensely strengthened by the concession made in this Bill. I venture to hope, therefore, that at a later stage of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will agree to a clause requiring the confirmation of any proceedings taken under the tenth clause of last year's Act by a Provisional Order. I think if the right hon. Gentleman would adopt that course he would avoid much trouble and allay a considerable amount of public feeling which has been excited. It appears to me only just that parties who find themselves about to be deprived of their rights should have the opportunity of having their case heard. The point I know does not properly arise at this stage, but I mention it that the right hon. Gentleman may take it into consideration. Apart from this the Bill is quite to my satisfaction, and I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for a concession which covers all that we wanted.

I object to the Bill being read a second time now before we have had an opportunity to consider it.

May I ask when it is proposed to resume the discussion upon the Vote with which we have been occupied to-day; and also what will be the first business on Monday? Will it be the Indian Councils Bill?

I cannot at the moment answer the right hon. Gentleman's first question. I do not think we can put the Vote first on Tuesday. On Monday we propose to take the Indian Councils Bill.

I rise for the purpose of moving the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name. I should have preferred to have dealt with this question in the provisions of a Bill if such a course had been open to me rather than by way of an abstract Resolution. It may be within the recollection of hon. Members present that last Session I obtained leave to introduce a Bill for the purpose, but after the Bill was prepared I discovered that it was contrary to the Forms of the House for a private Member to introduce legislation involving the expenditure of public money, and I was, therefore, obliged to move the discharge of the Order. I mention this simply for the purpose of showing that in proceeding to deal with a question such as this by way of abstract Resolution, I am taking the only course open to me by which I can obtain the judgment of the House upon a question as to which, personally, I entertain a very strong opinion, and an opinion which I have every reason to believe is shared by a very large number of people outside this House. Before I proceed to state the grounds upon which this demand for the payment of Members of Parliament is based, let me briefly examine some of the criticisms which have been urged against the proposal in this House and elsewhere; a proposal, let me say, the principle of which is accepted, and is in force in every civilised country outside the United Kingdom and in all our Colonies. This is a simple matter of fact that will not be denied by any hon. Member who may take part in this Debate. But while it will not be denied that payment of Members is a principle and practice universally accepted, it has been said, and I suppose it will be urged again to-night, that the practice has not worked so well in those countries where it has been adopted as to justify its adoption by the Imperial Parliament. It has also been urged — with what show of reason I have never yet been able to discover—but it is strongly urged that if we accept the principle of this Resolution, and legislation based upon it should afterwards be passed, we should introduce into the political life of this country the worst features prevalent in Continental politics. It is said that the people who would be benefited by such legislation would not be the people for whose benefit it would be intended, but persons described as "place-hunters and self-seeking demagogues"—such was the phrase applied to a certain class of politicians on a former occasion by the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) when opposing this proposal on 29th March, 1889. I think, upon a moment's reflection, it must be admitted that the voluntary or gratuitous principle on which our Parliamentary representation is at present based does not free us entirely from the evils arising from such characters as those described by the hon. Member for Flintshire. It is a well-known fact, and it will not, I think, be questioned by any hon. Member in this Debate, that at every contested election, local or general, we hear again and again of such characters as "carpet-baggers," who go down to a constituency in the hope that they may induce the electors to return them as Members of the House of Commons. But if these gentlemen who parade the country in this character do not expect a monetary indemnity for their services if they secure election, they do expect an equivalent to a monetary indemnity in the social position and social distinction attaching to membership of this House. The voluntary principle upon which our Parliamentary representation is based does not avoid the evil alluded to, and I certainly do not think the evil would be aggravated or the influence of such persons would be extended if this Resolution were accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire, who urged this argument on a previous occasion, referred in support of it to that very able work of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), The American Commonwealth, and he quoted long extracts from that book to demonstrate the truth of his argument that the payment of Members was the formative cause of the existence of such persons as he described as "place-hunters and self-seeking demagogues." But let me read another extract from that able and interesting work:—"Those English writers"—and what the author says of English writers applies equally to English speakers on this question—

"Those English writers who describe the payment of Members as the formative cause of that class are mistaken. That class would have existed had Members not been paid, and would continue to exist if payment were withdrawn."

So, then, it is clear we must look to some other influence than the payment of Members as the cause of that political corruption, if political corruption exists, in those countries that were referred to on a former occasion when this question was before the House. It is argued on the same ground that the adoption of this principle would lead to corruption in the House of Commons. I frankly admit that the greatest possible care ought to be taken to prevent such a result, and if I for a moment could bring myself to the conclusion that the adoption of a principle such as this would be calculated in the slightest degree to lower the tone of debate or the dignity of the proceedings of this House, I should be the very last person to urge the House to accept the proposal. But it may be interesting to the House to know that when this proposal was first made in Parliament it was made with a view "to restore representation to its ancient purity," and it was supported by Lord Althorp, Lord Ebrington, Lord Russell, Lord Howick, now Earl Grey, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Joseph Hume, whom everyone knows was a most rigid economist. Lord Blandford—who, I believe, was a relative of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill)—in introducing a Reform Bill in 1830, gave expression to these remarkable words—

"As the object of this Bill is to restore the representation to its ancient purity I propose to restore the principle and practice of paying Members the wages of attendance, according to the value of money at the present day."

On a Division being taken, the proposal had the support of those distinguished gentlemen whose names I have read out to the House. On a former occasion when I brought this proposal before the House, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite who represents the Eastbourne Division (Admiral Field) spoke strongly in opposition to the proposal, and referred to the corrupting influence of the payment of Members in some of our Colonial Parliaments, and particularly he referred to the Victorian Parliament, which he said was "capable of being bribed and bought."

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not say "was"; I said "had been."

That materially alters the question. I am glad to have the correction, because it materially strengthens the argument I shall have to bring before the House. I am sure of this: that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not say that, since the adoption of payment of Members by the Victorian Parliament, it has been possible at any time to bribe or buy over that Institution.

As the hon. Gentleman appeals directly to me, I must interrupt him with a reply. The case to which I referred occurred some years ago, but at the time the Members were paid, and the gentleman to whom I alluded stated that he had bribed.

In this connection let me read an extract from that well-known work by Sir Charles Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain. Referring to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman Sir Charles Dilke says:—

"A British Admiral not long ago made a speech in which he asserted that the Victorian Parliament could be bought or bribed. That speech did great harm, besides being untrue. Several colonial newspapers commented on the speech, and one of them, by no means friendly to the Government or the Parliament of Victoria, said, 'Our Members are bad enough at striving for office, but our Legislature is one of the purest in the world. Bribery and corruption are absolutely unknown in our politics.'"

Further, I may be allowed to read an extract from a speech delivered by a still greater authority, the Hon. James Munro, at the time Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian Parliament—a position I am told he still holds. In a speech delivered at the Liverpool Reform Club on 17th March, 1890, Mr. Munro said—

"Each Member of the Victorian Parliament is paid £300 a year, whether Parliament is sitting or not. The result of this payment has been exceedingly satisfactory. We have an honest Parliament, and a Parliament greatly in accord with the wishes of the people, who are well served by it."

So, whatever may have been the case with the Victorian Parliament at the time referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, if he will allow me to call him so, I feel sure, after hearing the extracts I have read, it will not be contended that the Victorian Parliament is now open to a charge of corruption and bribery. Passing from these criticisms—and I wish to be brief in order to afford hon. Members who may desire to take part in this Debate such opportunity as the limited time at our disposal allows—I come to the grounds on which I base this claim, that a reasonable allowance should be granted to Members for the discharge of public duties in Parliament. My first proposition is this: that constituencies are entitled to absolute liberty in the selection of their Representatives. Parliament having granted the franchise to every householder in the United Kingdom, I take it it was the intention of Parliament in this extension that every elector should have the fullest liberty of choice in selecting the person who, in his opinion, is best able to represent his views both on local and Imperial questions. That is a proposition not to be contested; it is unnecessary for me to take up time in demonstrating it; it is self-evident. I shall be very much surprised if I hear any hon. Member in the course of this Debate contest that proposition. My second contention is that the principle of gratuitous services limits the choice and deprives electors of the services of men otherwise fully competent to represent their opinions in the Imperial Parliament. This proposition may be open to some criticism, and some hon. Gentleman may rise in the course of this Debate and question whether the principle of gratuitous service does limit the area of choice in the selection of a candidate; but it can only be contended that there is absolute freedom of choice on the ground that constituencies who desire, for example, to have what is known as a Labour Representative can only give effect to their wishes by taxing themselves for the maintenance and support of their Representatives during the time Parliament is in Session. To this extent labour would be the only class taxed for Parliamentary representation. Now, my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire said in reference to this point—

"There is no difficulty in finding men ready to become candidates for Parliamentary honours, to serve any office they might be entrusted with, or even to devote their whole lives to their legislative duties gratuitously."

There are two observations I have to make on this argument: In the first place, it seems to me that such an argument is applicable to all services in this House, Ministerial services as well as the services of private Members. I am surprised that my hon. Friend did not on that occasion press his argument to its logical conclusion, because Ministerial duties differ from the services of private Members only in point of degree and not in principle. It may very fairly be argued, and the argument must, I think, be admitted, that there must be a different scale of remuneration for Ministerial services; but still I contend the difference of service is in degree, not in principle. Another observation I have to make on the argument of my hon. Friend is that it is based on the assumption that, England being a wealthy country, with a large leisured class, larger probably than any other country in Europe, therefore that class should be endowed with the privilege of legislating for all other classes in the community. To this I can only say it is a doctrine which, however it may commend itself to some minds, is sadly out of date in these democratic days. I, for one, will never contend that it is possible, or that it will be possible, for any member of any class to enter this House. Intelligence in every class must rule, and the highest intelligence will undoubtedly find its way into this House. As I have already said, I do not wish in any sense to lower the standard of ability—the standard of dignity—in this House, and most certainly I would not take any course calculated to bring about such an end; but I am impressed with the thought that the country loses much valuable service from the fact that services rendered in Parliament are based on the gratuitous principle—a principle which, therefore, excludes many men of great ability and wide experience, men who at a time like this, when social and industrial questions are coming prominently to the front and exercising the minds of Governments and public men, would render valuable assistance to this House in arriving at a proper judgment on matters of the highest national importance. Such men are excluded by an arrangement which prevents any man of moderate means from entering this House. I commend to the House the words of, perhaps, one of the greatest economists of the age, and who certainly did not favour the course I am now endeavouring to persuade the House to adopt. John Stuart Mill, in his reference to the subjection of women, puts the point with a force no language of mine can equal—

"In all things of any difficulty and importance those who can do them well are fewer than the need, even with the most unrestricted latitude of choice; and any limitation of the field of selection deprives society of some chances of being served by the competent, without ever saving it from the incompetent."

That is the position in which we find ourselves. The fear of making politics a profession has deprived the nation of much valuable service, for entrance into this House practically depends on a money qualification. But I must hasten to my proposals to remedy this state of things. In order to afford the electors greater freedom in the selection of their Representatives, I propose that Members should be paid a reasonable allowance for attending to public duties in Parliament. Now, it cannot be denied that this proposal is partially in operation at the present time. I do not wish to make any personal observations. I have already referred to the payments for Ministerial services, which differs in degree but not in principle from the services of private Members of this House, and I find from a Return laid before Parliament in 1888 that there were then in Parliament three Majors in the Army, two Colonels, six Lieutenants, one Commander and one Admiral—thirteen officers of the Army and Navy, some of them upon half-pay, some upon full pay—the aggregate amount paid to them being £6,840, or an average of £526 per annum. These Gentlemen are nominally paid for the discharge of military and naval duties; they are exempt from the discharge of their official functions during the time Parliament is in Session, so that while nominally paid for naval and military duties, they are in reality paid for the discharge of their duties in this House. The question may be asked what I consider a reasonable allowance, and I will meet that point in the frankest possible manner. Before doing so, however, I should like to cite the condition of things obtaining in some other Legislative Assemblies: France pays the Members of the Chamber of Deputies £360; Brazil and Mexico, £600; Canada and Queensland, £2 2s. per day and expenses; South Australia, £200; Victoria, £300; Belgium and the Netherlands, £200; New Zealand, £100; Prussia, £1 per day; United States, £1,000 and travelling expenses; and Japan, £160. I think that having regard to all the difficulties that Members have to contend with, coming from the North of Scotland, and from the South and West of Ireland at great personal inconvenience and at direct personal cost, a reasonable allowance might be something like £365 a year. That, in my humble judgment, is a reasonable allowance — an allowance I should be prepared to assent to as being sufficient to enable a person coming from the humble ranks of life to live not in any degree of luxury but to live in a manner becoming his position as the Representative of a great constituency, and a Member of a great Imperial Parliament like our own. There are one or two matters of detail to which I would like to refer before sitting down. If this proposal were accepted, I think it would be necessary to take some precautions to prevent bogus candidates being started at the time of an Election, and I would be prepared to assent to any arrangement which would compel candidates to make a deposit on going to the poll, which deposit they would forfeit unless they received a certain definite percentage of the total poll. In the event of a number of candidates being started and no candidate receiving more votes than half the total poll, I would agree to a second ballot, so as to secure that the person elected was the legitimate and bonâ fide Representative of the majority of the constituency. These are matters of detail which can easily be arranged if my Resolution is adopted. It only remains for me, in conclusion, to recapitulate my position. My contention is, that the constituencies are entitled to the greatest freedom in the choice of their candidates; that our present position limits the area of choice, and deprives the nation of the services of men who are otherwise competent to render it good service; and, thirdly, I ask that this allowance should be made in order to remove the difficulty. I hope I have stated my position with clearness and without offence, and I have only to thank the House for having listened to me. Believing in the reasonableness and the justness of the proposal, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name.

I rise, Sir, to second the Resolution. Since this question was last broached it has received increased support, and not long ago it was accepted at Newcastle as a part of the programme of the Liberal Party to be carried into force at the earliest opportunity. The last Debate on this subject in this House three years ago was only a qualified success. There was on that occasion a Count-out, not on the direct Motion, but after an exhaustive speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, who wished to move a Resolution that could not be brought before the House. Hon. Members went to dine, and the Debate consequently collapsed, but to-night there will be an opportunity of testing the feeling of the House in the matter. Three years ago the hon. and learned Member for East Fife, the hon. Baronet the Member for North Northumberland, and the right hon. Member for Newcastle laid down admirably the general principles on which this proposal rests. They were answered by the Home Secretary and by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India. I do not think a strong case was made out against the proposal of my hon. Friend. The main arguments were that the system would be costly, and that it would prove demoralising. The cost was estimated at a quarter of a million, which is, no doubt, a considerable sum. But that argument cuts both ways, and it would certainly invite attack upon institutions which are the delight of hon. Gentlemen opposite. No doubt the sum might be reduced by a reduction in the number of Members. But as regards the demoralising effects, I would like if someone opposite would explain how it is that to afford a bare subsistence to lawmakers is so different in principal from giving large salaries to those who are interpreters of the law. You cannot have salaries too big for the interpreters of the law. There is a great deal to be said for that view. Our Judges have large salaries and a considerable retiring allowance. I can point to a more striking instance. You cannot get a competent Attorney General or Solicitor General for a sum under £10,000 a year, and we are all ready to admit that the men we get are always up to the highest standard, at no time more than the present. Besides that allowance they require absolute freedom as to the passing of their time and the selection of their briefs, even when trespassing almost on the debateable ground of politics. All this and more may be said without the element of demoralisation entering, but the moment it is proposed to pay the expenses of a man getting into Parliament, or his salary while in Parliament, then it is said—though the man is willing to give his energy, his talents, and his time to the service of his country—that it is undermining his self respect and destroying his capacity for doing good. All is brought about by giving him £350 a year on which to live. Now, Sir, I should like to know what is the principle which underlies this distinction between the interpreters of the law—the administrators of the law in almost countless numbers—and those who make the law in this House. Why is that which is good for them poison for us? Let us take another case. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife three years ago put that of Ministers sitting in this House. I will not refer to the case of Ministers, but simply to that of political pensioners. Our motives and the motives of our supporters are being closely scrutinised in this matter, and I think, therefore, it is quite fair to try and imagine what the feelings are of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who accept political pensions. A political pensioner is a man who is endowed out of office to enable him to devote himself to supporting the interests of his Party. He has paid his Election expenses and been able to come to London, but then, finding himself in straitened circumstances, he receives an allowance which is much the same as the retiring allowance of an Ambassador — an amount that would support four Members under the scheme proposed by my hon. Friend. Nobody believes that these pensions sap the integrity of the right hon. Gentlemen who receive them, because we all know that some of the most honoured Members of this House are in receipt of political pensions. It is difficult to see how it can be maintained by anyone who approves of political pensions that no case has been made out for the payment of Members of this House. My hon. Friend who moved this Resolution is a type of men who has been welcomed to this House. Even those who are unfavourable to an undue or enlarged representation of the working classes will be ready to admit that the miners have selected their Representatives wisely, and that they are entirely worthy of the confidence of this House. Yet these men are paid by their Unions, and it is impossible to conceive any system more likely to tie the Representatives to the whims and caprices of those who sent them to this House. Besides the miners' representation there is the representation of Ireland. Not long ago some hon. Members opposite were never tired of pointing the finger of scorn at their Irish colleagues. It was constantly said that American dollars were controlling the representation of that part of the United Kingdom. I do not know that colonial contributions would be refused for the Carlton; I do know that support from the representatives of the Anglo-Saxon States of America is always reprobated by this House. If British sovereigns are better than American (and I am not prepared to dispute that proposition) here is a golden opportunity. But the support of Members is not confined to the Representatives of labour or to the Irish Representatives. Is there no trace of the old pocket boroughs in these days? Are there no members who receive more assistance from their Party than stump orators and official organisers? This power may not have been abused in the past in the case of the old close boroughs; it may not be abused now. It certainly is not conducive to independence. I think the custom of assisting Members is sufficiently prevalent to constitute a very effective argument in favour of the cost of representation being borne by the State rather than it should come from Trades Unions, the Clan-na-Gael, the Caucus, Plutocrats, or American servant girls. I should think it will be found that pretty nearly one half of a very numerous House is already in receipt of assistance of one kind or another; and it is difficult therefore to understand the opposition which is offered to a proposal such as this. We know quite well that the Tory Members wish to keep things as they are. They say that they possess the rank and the wealth of the country in great abundance, at any rate the Tory Party has a greater command than the Liberal Party of men of leisure and property, and these men constitute formidable candidates in their different localities. The Tory field for candidates is wide enough already; on the other hand our position is different. We believe in drawing our representation from a wider field; we believe in enlarging our recruiting ground in order that all classes may be more fairly represented. Some alarm has been expressed that this proposal will bring upon us a host of professional politicians. But we have a certain number of professional politicians amongst us now. And I would ask whether the amateur system can be regarded as wholly satisfactory? Some men cannot come to the House until they have made their pile, and perhaps they would do better work if it did not take them quite so long to do so. Others come here when they are making money, and it is even whispered that some come here to make money and spend more time at that than upon their Parliamentary duties. I do not think that business would be worse done if fewer Members were in regular attendance. The President of the Board of Trade said that the consequence of a Bill of this kind would be that we should be flooded with youthful barristers and penny-a-liners, but if you had paid Members you would undoubtedly be able to draw forth a larger proportion of local men. We have millions of voters in this country; they have only a few thousand from whom they can select their representatives; they ask us for freedom of selection, and we ought to give it. It is no use introducing the subject of foreign experience into this Debate, for that will only make the discussion interminable. But, Sir, deductions have been drawn from the book on the American Commonwealth of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), that certain unsatisfactory features of the American Congress are due to the payment of Members. I regret the absence from indisposition of my hon. Friend, but I know his opinion is that American experience ought not to be cited against us, and that it is untrue to say either that the payment of Members degrades Congress, or that the Congress would be improved if Members were not on salary. No one in the United States feels that a Member is degraded by getting a salary. I am not prepared to say that the ideal of rendering unpaid service to the State may not be a high one. But we have not yet had any consideration placed before us which would raise a doubt in our minds as to the expediency or advantage of the plan which we now submit to the House. Considering the circumstances in which we are placed in, we have such faith in the justice of our contention that no British subject should be excluded from the House by reason of any pecuniary disadvantage, that we can never abandon the principle of the Motion which I second. And if we have no faith that the Electors of these kingdoms will do their duty, we may abandon all hope for the future of the representative Government under which we live.

The hon. Member who has submitted this Motion in a straightforward speech gave as his principal reason in support of it that the limit of the choice of the labour portion of the community was so great that they were unable to send the Representatives they desired to send to this House. But before dealing with that point he said, with great manliness and straightforwardness, that he wished he could have introduced his views to the House in the shape of a Bill. I wish also he could have done so, for I should like to see what view the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian would have taken of that Bill. What we want to know is, whether this is the most recent item in the authorised programme of the Party opposite? I have had circulated in my constituency by my opponent a leaflet which denounces me as voting against the fundamental principles of this new item of the authorised programme of the Radical Party. Well, we want to know whether that is so or not. One advantage we should certainly have had if this had been a Bill instead of a Resolution is that we should have known what salary we might expect if we were returned to Parliament and hon. Members opposite were in power. We had a variety of quotations from the hon. Member for Wansbeck as to what the salaries of Members of Parliament are in a variety of countries. But he omitted from the list of quotations the Argentine Republic in 1888. I suppose there is no quotation of a salary of £1,000 a year for Members of the Argentine Republic. My objection to this proposal is chiefly on this ground—I think the proposal would strike a blow at the system of gratuitous public service. And I maintain that the system of gratuitous public service is Great Britain's greatest glory. An hon. Member says "No, no," but I would like him to tell me anything more admirable in the national life of this country than the fact that you can find numbers of men ready to give up all their leisure time at much sacrifice in order to carry out their public duties, not only in this House but upon innumerable bodies, both charitable and educational, without pay and without patronage, and certainly on those charitable and educational bodies without hope of any social reward or distinction. And I say, if such a measure as this is ever carried, to my mind there will be the greatest danger that you will not in future obtain the services of these men who now make private sacrifices for public duty. You may say of such a measure as this, if you pay Members of Parliament you will not destroy that spirit, because it is an inherited tradition of the British character. Well, you may not destroy it all at once, but you will go far to sap it. As a representative body the people are well affected towards us because they believe we come here without any hope of gain or reward for the most part. And, if we set the example that we will not work without pay you will have it adopted as a formula throughout the whole country that nobody shall do anything for nothing. But, examining the arguments which have been put forward in support of this Resolution, I do not see why, if we are to be paid, gentlemen who serve on County Councils should not also put forward their demand for payment, and not only County Councillors, but Town Councillors, Parochial Councillors, District Councillors, Members of School Boards, and many members who now serve upon numerous public bodies and give their services gratuitously. The argument in support of this Resolution that the choice of Members of Parliament is limited at present applies also to County Councils, in regard to whom the choice is also limited. Until you pay County Councillors, who sometimes have to go a long distance to attend meetings, you cannot expect a wade choice, and that remark will apply to District Councils and many other public bodies. County Councillors and others may justly say, You have the dignity and honour of belonging to the British House of Commons, and you have many social advantages which we do enjoy. You have your picnics to Portsmouth, you have your receptions for your wives and daughters. ("Oh! oh!") Well, I fancy hon. Members opposite will be very glad to go to receptions too when their Party is in office. And you have a great deal of notice taken of you in the Press. But in reference to Members of the Parish or County Council, when they are noticed, it is never with any favour or satisfaction. You have all these advantages and many others to repay you for your time and sacrifice of leisure; and why should we not pay County Councillors in money for their services which are not paid for in any other way? And look at the enormous bill you could run up. The hon. Member for Wansbeck would be content with the payment of Members of Parliament of £365 a year. That would amount, excluding Ministers who are paid already, to about £230,000 a year. That in a year is a good round sum to be given by the public for the privilege of being allowed to choose their Representatives from a wider circle and a larger area. To my mind, the argument is much stronger for the payment of the expenses of Members when elected. I might be prepared to give consideration to that, but I would oppose any Motion for the payment of salaries to Members of Parliament. County Councillors and Members of other public bodies would demand to be paid, and, instead of being a modest bill of a quarter of a million, if hon. Members choose to work out the sum and give the most modest salary to the members of most of these Public Bodies, the amount will come much nearer a million and a half a year than any other sum. Why should we pay many men of leisure and ability who are perfectly able and willing to render their services gratuitously? When I hear of the Colonies and foreign countries setting an example to the Parliament of this country, which is the mother of Parliaments, I think rather that this Parliament should set an example to her daughters. And as the daughters become older they may also have men of leisure and ability to perform the very services which men of leisure and ability perform in this country. And I shall not be at all surprised to find some of those Colonies reverting to the system we have at present, and relying upon the gratuitous services of their citizens for public work. As to the argument about corruption, I care comparatively little about that. It is purely a speculative opinion as to whether, if you paid Members of Parliament £300 a year, you would or would not increase the number of place men and self-seeking demagogues, and whether you would not have Members of this House who would desire to eke out their somewhat narrow incomes by taking bribes to vote in a particular way in Private Bill legislation. That is a point on which we cannot form any conclusion until we try what Members are and what they will do when they have to rely for the maintenance of themselves, their wives, and families upon £300 a year. The onus probandi is on those who wish to alter the existing state of things. Has the hon. Member who introduced the Resolution made out a sufficient case for so great a change? His great argument was that the labouring portion of the community was excluded from Parliament. I grant there is a partial grievance, and that it is difficult for them to return Members who can voice directly their particular needs and wants. That may be so, but the position of affairs in that respect has been very much exaggerated. I believe yon may see in this country, without any alteration in our present system at all, a very great increase in the Labour Representatives. When the working men come to see, after all, that by a very little self-denial they can send to Parliament the man of their choice and maintain him suitably, other constituencies besides that of the hon. Member for Wansbeck will send Members of their own choice and will afford to pay them such sums as are needed for their maintenance here. And, after all, is there a grievance? Has there been any great want of progress in legislating for the social and material progress of the people because Members of Parliament are unpaid, and will it be quickened in the least if you have paid Members of Parliament? In that case you may make very much slower progress than at present with the business of the nation. It will be the earnest desire of those Members of Parliament to stand well with their constituents, and there will be a great many more men in this House who will desire to take part in the proceedings, and so the business will be greatly delayed. Has there been any want of attention to the interests of the people by this House of Commons? The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) says "Yes." But have not technical measures in reference to mining and the industries of the country generally been passed by large majorities in this House, and have not they been met with approval by the Labour Representatives in whose interests they were passed? That legislation has largely been founded upon evidence taken before Commissions and Committees, to whom the working classes could submit evidence by the mouths of their own Representatives. I do not think any case has been made out for a change, for though there may be some partial grievance, some very small loss to one class of the community, you are asking the whole country, by changing its system, to put up with a far greater loss which would completely outbalance the advantage any section of the community could derive from Members being paid. Another strong argument against paying Members is that in this House we are too little independent of our constituents already, but when we rely for the maintenance of ourselves and our families solely upon our salary of £300 a year we will become even less independent than we are at the present moment. And I may say for myself, if I had had in this Parliament to depend for a living of £300 a year upon being returned by my constituents, I might on many occasions have been found in the Opposition Lobby. I might have been unable to vote as I have done, because some of the votes might have been thought dangerous for me in the very delicate state of my relations to my constituency. I shall always oppose any proposition to pay Members of Parliament, because it strikes at the gratuitous system of public service in this country, and also because it tends to diminish the independence of Members of Parliament, for I agree with Mr. Burke when he said that "a worthy representative of free men must himself be free."

I feel, looking to the general character of the House, that an apology is almost necessary on the part of a new Member for intervening in this Debate. And the only reason I have to offer for doing so is that in the contest in which I have recently been engaged, I placed the question of the payment of Members in the very forefront of my political programme. It is true the general question before that constituency was the question of decentralisation, and also the great labour programme. But I never lost one single opportunity of expressing my opinion that until the reform that is now before the House was carried, it would be impossible to hope that one single item of the labour programme could be carried into effect. The hon. Member who has just resumed his seat has told the House that the passing of this Resolution would deal a blow at the system of gratuitous public service. I should like to know exactly where the line is to be drawn with reference to that particular position. If it strikes a blow at gratuituous public service, so far as ordinary Members of this House are concerned, surely it ought also to strike a blow at the gratuitous service of hon. Members who rise to the distinction of becoming Members of the Cabinet. What I contend is that if gratuitous public service is such a good thing in itself as the hon. Member would advise the House it is, it ought surely to be good not only in the capacity of a private Member, but also in the capacity of a Member of the Government. And when the hon. Member says if we pass this proposal County Councillors will also have a claim for remuneration for their services, we entirely endorse that opinion. I have no claim to speak on behalf of the Mover of this Resolution, so far as I am personally concerned; but I think every man, whether County Councillor or Member of Parliament, or who occupies some other higher position in the management of public affairs, ought to be properly remunerated for his services. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hayes Fisher) instanced the case of a man who has to travel a distance in order to attend meetings of the County Council. Well, it is surely too much to ask that man to devote a great deal of time to the public matters of his locality, and also to be out of pocket for the expenses necessary to carry him to the place of meeting of that particular County Council. The hon. Member gave as another objection to the Resolution the argument that it would cost the country an immense amount of money. But I imagine, if this proposal were carried, the question of cost will be a very small consideration indeed, in comparison with the advantage the House and the country would gain. In my humble opinion, the first House of Commons to be elected on a system of payment of Members would save what Mr. Taylor said they would save when he introduced this proposal to the House—they would save the years' salaries. The inevitable result would be that they would be able to devote their whole attention to public affairs; the House would be able to get a firmer grip over the Estimates, and the general result would be advantageous to the whole community. The hon. Member asked whether the legislation of the past was not of such a character as to lead us to believe that Parliament was perfectly able to deal with the social and political questions of the hour? I think the very fact that this question is before the House is a proof that the present system of electing Members to the House of Commons is a complete and absolute failure. Need I remind the House that this very proposal was being discussed something over 100 years ago, that it was brought forward in 1830, again in 1845, and, still later, in 1870? If we had had a representative House of Commons thoroughly in touch with the democratic spirit of the age that proposal would have been carried, and we should not have been discussing it now. With regard to other questions, we have absolute proof that the House of Commons has not been in advance at least of the opinion of the democracy. Take the question of Catholic emancipation; will the hon. Member say why it was that fully 30 years of agitation were necessary before that moderate reform was carried? Will he explain why so many years of agitation were required before the great Reform Bill could be carried, or why so many weary years of agitation had to pass before the franchise was extended in 1885? All these facts seem to prove that there is something wrong with the wheels of the Constitution, that Parliament, as at present elected, is not thoroughly representative of the people, but, on the contrary, needs to be radically reformed. I support the proposal before the House, because I believe that it is absolutely impossible to obtain legislation of any real practical benefit for the great masses of the people until we have the system of payment of Members in this country. Had this Parliament been elected on a system of payment of Members, the moderate proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton to adopt arbitration in wages' disputes would not have been rejected. The reasonable proposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow that the taxation of the country should be on the proper shoulders would also have had a very different reception, and this week we have had abundant evidence of the inability of the present Parliament to deal with labour questions. The proposal of the hon. Member for Durham, which was not sweeping in its character, was rejected by the House, and all other labour questions have been similarly treated, because the electors of the country are compelled to look to one particular class for the selection of their Representatives, and are prevented from electing men who could speak with authority on the great social questions in which the constituencies are interested. Let us look for a moment at the composition of the present House of Commons. It consists of 209 Members who are directly representative of the landed interest, 128 representing the Army, the lawyers are represented by 135, the liquor interest by 24, the money interest by 33, the official interest—which consists of Ministers and non-Ministers—by 91, the railway interest by 62, the literary and professional interest by 27, the trading community and manufacturing interest by 186, and the labour interest by eight Members. I do not suppose anybody will be bold enough to say that the labour interest is over represented. On the contrary, I think the labour interest is the largest and most important in the country, and ought to have a fair representation, if not a preponderating majority. This proposal is the necessary sequel of the extension of the franchise, and until it is carried the object aimed at in extending the franchise will certainly not be accomplished. We seek to make the field of selection wider than it has yet been. Any man, however low in station he may be, provided he has the ability and capacity to take an honourable part in public affairs, ought not to be prevented, by the mere fact that he is poor, from aspiring to the position to which his ability entitles him. It is urged against this proposal that it would lead to the introduction into the House of professional politicians. I have more respect for the electors of the country than to believe they are incapable of selecting the man who honestly offers his services rather than the man who comes before them in order to gain political or social distinction. The constituencies of the country are capable of choosing between the political adventurer and the honest politician. The issue before the House is whether we are prepared to place the government of the country absolutely in the hands of the people. Are we to have a House of Commons consisting of Representatives of one class only? We ought to have no limit in the selection of Members, but to make the field of selection as wide as possible. The question is one between class government and democratic government. To my mind there is no loss of dignity in extending the power of the electors to enable them to have anyone they choose to speak for them in the House of Commons. The result of that extended power would be that the Parliamentary machine would become more perfect; it would be able to do more work; it would make the basis of the Constitution wider, and, above all, it would assure to the great labour interest of the country its proper share of representation in this House. Not only so, but it would carry out the principle of trust in the people which, so far as I know, has never yet been found to weaken the power of the State, but, on the contrary, wherever it has been shown, has been attended with the greatest success.

I desire to dissociate myself as clearly as I can from the position taken up by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Fisher). It seems to me that he dealt with the Motion in a most ungracious and ungrateful manner. If I criticised the Motion at all it would not be to object to it, but to regret that it was so limited in its scope and application. Parliaments in this and other countries have passed self-denying ordinances, and for different reasons; but, as far as I know, this is the first occasion in which a Parliament has been asked to pass a self-enabling ordinance. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it is wise that we should make the precedent we are creating as wide and far-reaching as possible. I think the hon. Gentleman limited the Resolution unduly in many ways. Speaking for myself, looking back over nine years of totally unremunerated political services, I cannot help expressing my humble regret that he has not seen his way to make it retrospective. Of course, when we come to a period of over nine years, it would be well to consider if it would not be advisable to have some sort of commutation. We must remember also that there is a future to consider as well as a past, and we must take care that others do not reap the harvest of which we have sown the seed. We must remember that a political career will have its vicissitudes, that the flowing tide will also ebb, and it may be well to consider whether it would not be fair and just to make some provision for those who are left stranded at the bottom of the poll by the receding wave of popular favour. We ought also to remember that human life is uncertain, and to consider whether it would not be well to make some provision for the widows and orphans of Members who have succumbed during the execution of their Parliamentary duties. I observed in the speech of the hon. Member a certain vagueness as to the method of payment. I was recently struck with the admirable foresight and prudence of a new Member of the House, the hon. Member for North Wexford (Mr. T. J. Healy), who stipulated that his stipend should be paid quarterly, in advance. I hope we shall receive the same pleasant and acceptable form of payment. I should also like to ask whether we are to be rewarded independently of the qualities of our services, or whether the legislator must prove himself worthy of his hire; and, if so, by what test his merits are to be measured? Is it to be by the number of Divisions he has attended? In that case, our Parliamentary life would be one slow progress through the Division Lobbies. Or is it to be by the number and length of our speeches? In that case, Sir, your task will be a most invidious one, and we who are desirous of making speeches and earning our salaries, will look upon the Mover of the Closure in the light of a highway robber, who gags us before he robs us of our hard-earned pay. There is another argument in favour of the Motion. The First Lord of the Treasury is complaining of the arrears of Public Business, and I would recommend him to put the Vote for the salaries of Members of the House as the last Vote in Supply. I think it will be found that hon. Members will be considerably less anxious to reduce other people's salaries if thereby they are delaying the payment of their own. I cannot help complimenting the hon. Member, not only on the way in which he introduced his Motion, but also on the ingenuity of his phraseology. To make out that the constituencies are to be beneficiaries under this action seems to me a pious fiction which reflects the greatest credit on his ingenuity. I am rather inclined to doubt whether the constituencies will welcome it. I am inclined to believe that, so far as payment of Members has been welcomed in the country, it has been welcomed either by constituencies who were tired of paying their own Members, or, owing to a perfectly natural confusion of terms, by gentlemen who confused payment of Members with payment by Members. The hon. Member spoke of freedom of choice, but may that not become embarrassing? The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down ought to speak very eloquently on that subject, because there were no less, I believe, than five hon. Gentlemen, more or less supporters of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, all anxious to add their little ripple to the flowing tide, and I am bound to say I watched with admiration the extraordinary manner in which Scotch Radicals carried out their desire to see Scotland preserved for the Scotch. They gave an Irish Member full power to say which among the many Englishmen and Scotchmen should be their Representative on that occasion. He made an excellent choice, and we have welcomed the hon. Member among as to-night. But if Irish Members are to be the peacemakers of the Radical Party, I cannot understand the hon. Member behind me—I cannot understand the Amendment of the hon. Member. If it is because Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are further from the seat of Government, I think that can be met by giving free passes over all the different railways to Members; and possibly the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. W. Lowther), in negotiating Commercial Treaties with foreign countries, might devise some method by which hon. Members in pursuit of health, recreation, or scientific research, might have free passes over all railways on the Continent. Now, Sir, what I am trying to make out is that in giving this Motion we should not deal with it in a niggardly and half-hearted spirit; let us be generous to ourselves as well as just to other people. I listened with great interest to the list of salaries read out by the hon. Member. He read out that one country gave £100 a year, not a cheer answered him; another gave £300, there was hardly a cheer; but, Sir, he said that America gave £1,000 a year, and then the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. J. M. Cameron), who was sitting below him, gave a hearty cheer. If only the hon. Member had raised his bid those cheers would have been more general, and not confined to the hon. Member for Wick. But the hon. Member is quite right. He has insinuatingly presented to us the thin end of the wedge, and it is for us to hammer it home, and see that the position of a Member of Parliament is something worth having—something worth fighting for. A man who seeks Parliamentary election has to make many sacrifices; he has to sacrifice his time and his money; he often sacrifices his health, and, perhaps, what should be as dear to some of them, often sacrifices his dearest principles and most cherished convictions. It seems to me, therefore, that they are justly entitled to some pecuniary compensation for the sacrifices they make—some wholesome antidote for those nauseous boluses which they are reluctantly compelled by their constituents to swallow. I hope and trust that we shall vote the payment of Members in a form which will enable those hon. Members who have struggled to gain a seat, who have won the battle and grasped the prize, to look forward in their declining years hopefully for themselves and their families to a future removed from all danger of want or indigence or necessity, and to be made comfortably off. I think the hon. Member will at least acquit me of having met his Motion in a grudging or niggardly spirit. I can only express, Sir, my profound regret that, having spoken as I have done, I am compelled to vote against the proposal of the hon. Member. I will state in two sentences why. It is because the eye of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. MacNeill) is upon me. Sir, I have carefully examined the precedents, I have carefully studied the past, and I have come to the conclusion that, as the votes of the hon. Gentlemen which were rejected the other day were wrong, I cannot be right in voting for my salary to-night. I can in no way persuade myself that my pecuniary interest in this Motion is less direct and personal than was theirs on that occasion; and, though it may be an excess of humility on my part, I cannot flatter myself that any section of the community would be more benefited by paying me a salary than some section might have been by the railway for which those hon. Members voted. Therefore, Sir, I shall not only vote against this Motion, but I will cordially support the hon. Member opposite in taking those steps which honestly, morally, logically, and consistently, he is bound to take to purge and purify the Division List to-night of any of those who have any financial interest in the Motion.

I will not attempt to pursue in detail the arguments which have been so ably laid before the House by the noble Lord. The noble Lord has pleaded for generous treatment of Members of Parliament. I am sure in our gratitude for his speech we all feel he has greatly enhanced our idea that a salary for a Member of Parliament is richly deserved. He has also spoken in feeling terms of the sacrifices which a man has to make in order to enter this House. Those who have heard his speech will be able to say that there is an extra inducement now added to enter the House, and that is the opportunity of hearing the speeches of the noble Lord. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) seemed to convey that the idea of payment of Members was a new item in the Liberal programme; are the Party opposite to have the monopoly of new items? There will be many new items in the Liberal programme from time to time, and till they have appeared in that programme for several years there is no chance of their finding a place in the programme of the Conservative Party. I fully admit the good taste and generosity of the hon. Member in not pursuing in detail the argument how far payment of Members would affect the character of the vote in the House of Commons. I feel that that is one of the strongest arguments against the Resolution, and one which has been freely made use of by Ministers. We have been told by more than one Minister during the Recess that the payment of Members would lead to the introduction of a mass of professional politicians into the House. What is meant by professional politicians? Surely it does not mean that a man will devote too much time to politics. At the present day it becomes more and more a credit to a man that he sacrifices his private profession and puts politics in its place. In these days Members are returned not only to give votes, but to study social problems and to try, either in this House or in Committee, to arrive at a solution of them. But I think that is not what is in the mind of hon. Members when they speak of professional politicians. They fear the introduction of a class of men whose livelihood would be dependent on their political career—who would be nothing more than delegates or even worse, because they might be men with no fixed opinions of their own, whose minds might be tenanted by any opinions of the moment, and who would still keep the card in the window, "to let," on the chance of getting a higher bid. It is perfectly fair to argue that the granting of salaries to Members would give a handle for putting pressure on them, but it is easy to consider how far that would apply, and what rules might be framed to obviate that. There are already Members in this House who are paid; there are Labour Members, and I am sure I shall be within the mark in saying that they are not below the standard of character and ability which the House has been accustomed to see. Everybody admits that there are too few Labour Members in the House, and at the Conservative Conference at Birmingham a resolution was passed to the effect that it was desirable that there should be more Labour Members of Parliament, provided, of course, they were Unionists. The Resolution we are discussing would do something to bring more Labour Members into the House; it would not only increase their number, but would improve their position. They would no longer be dependent on constituencies or unions, or any section of electors for the payment of their salaries. The amount of the salary would be fixed and be paid by the State; the payment would be certain, and though Members would be dependent on the constituencies for their seats, the payment of the salary would have nothing to do with the men to whom they must apply for votes. I think the passing of the Resolution would tend to bring more local men before the constituencies of the country, which is a most important point. It is true that pressure might be applied to a man dependent on a salary, but how is that pressure to be best resisted? Surely that which best enables a man to resist pressure is conviction. Constituencies are, I believe, good judges of a man's character, and they desire, above all things, even above exact agreement with their own views, sincerity and earnestness, and if they can find that they will have it. If you had more local men as candidates you would find that there would be a greater guarantee that the men elected were men of whom the constituencies had more time to judge, and men of more robust material, and, therefore, better able to resist the pressure which might be brought to bear on them through their salary. The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) has said that the country would be flooded with youthful barristers and penny-a-liners. I do not know why he should speak with so much contempt of these two classes of people. We have lately had an example of a gentleman who has held high office in the State, who has fulfilled, not without distinction, some of the lighter functions of journalism, and there may be among the ranks of youthful barristers and penny-a-liners men who may be qualified to fill the office of President of the Board of Trade. The passing of the Resolution will not give them an extra chance, unless they are local men, but rather diminish their opportunities. Then it is said that the class of men who enter the House will, as a whole, be altered; that we shall no longer have men drawn almost exclusively from the class possessing wealth, leisure, and education. I admit that men of wealth, leisure, and education, who make the best use of their opportunities, make excellent Members of Parliament. But in the minds of the electors there is a tendency to suppose that men of wealth, because they have a great stake in the country, are apt to confuse their notion of public spirit with their anxiety about their own particular stake. I think it is true to say that among men of leisure you are just as likely, as in any other class, to find men who are actuated by prejudice and indifference, men, therefore, who are fitted only to represent themselves or to represent a limited class, and such men of indifference are surety in a condition of infinite elasticity, far more open to pressure than men of reasonable and moderate convictions, even though such men have a salary. As for the prestige which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says would be diminished, I say that the prestige of a Member of Parliament depends entirely on his own merits. The prestige attaches less to the office and more to the man, and the prestige of a Member of Parliament will be enhanced rather than otherwise by the fact that there has been an open field for all other competitors. Nothing would diminish more the prestige of a Member of Parliament than the knowledge amongst his constituents that his election had been in any way rather a process of exclusion than of selection, and that there were other men whom they would have chosen if they had had a chance of standing. The Secretary for War took the line that if Members of Parliament were to be paid he should retire from public life, and I fancy the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) pursued the same argument.

I did not say so.

I will accept the hon. Gentleman's statement, but I cannot understand why, on the part of the Secretary for War, that threat should have been made. The right hon. Gentleman could not be afraid of the effect of a salary on himself, for he already receives a salary of some thousands, and I am sure we all feel that if he in any way thought his own character was being shamed by receiving that salary he would resign either the salary or the office. But if he receives a salary already he could surely stand the strain of a few extra hundreds. It must, therefore, be a matter of sentiment with the right hon. Gentleman, and I admit that the plea of sentiment is very strong. But it will not be as the paid Representatives of our constituents that we shall be here. The tendency is more and more to make the work of Parliament Imperial and not local, and it will be for Imperial work that we shall be paid by the State, and the private services that we render to our constituents will be as gratuitous as they are at present. One point we ought to bring out clearly, and that is that if Members of Parliament are to be paid all Members must be paid. The payment must not be restricted to those who chose to apply for it; for it would never do for any Member to be open to the stigma of pauperism being brought against him. It would not do for a sitting Member who had declined a salary to go down to his constituents and be opposed by a man who it was known would have to receive the salary. The agents of the Member, or perhaps the Member himself, would be certain to bring that as the chief argument against his opponent, and the conditions would be such that they could be agreeable neither to the candidate nor to the constituency. But it will always be open to hon. Members to return their salary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer already receives a considerable amount in the form of conscience money, and I think that Members of Parliament who feel that the salary is in excess of their merits, or have scruples about receiving any salary at all, will be at liberty to copy the anonymous donors of unpaid income tax. But the main argument upon which this question rests is that the change is inevitable. It is part of a much larger question. It follows from the spread of education, and the extension of the suffrage. The spread of Socialism has multiplied manifold the number of men who are perfectly fit to become Members of this House and to do useful public service, but who have not the means to enter Parliament. It will be wise, I think, if we consider this fact in time. In the old days the House of Commons used to be looked upon as the guardian of the liberties of the people. It is now something more than that, and is rapidly becoming, if it is not so already, the repository of supreme power. It may be that with all the stress of labour and industrial questions before us, the Government of this country will have to undertake wide and practical remedial legislation and possibly—though I hope not—have to make use of the strong hand. To do this they will have to depend upon the support of this House, and this House will be but a broken reed to lean upon if it does not possess the confidence of every class in the community. I have already come in contact more than once with a symptom from which we ought to take warning, and that is the attempt on the part of men who have character and influence amongst the working classes to represent that the House of Commons was not to be trusted, and that people should cease to look to it because from it they could have no hope. They say that they have not free choice of candidates, and the House is composed far too largely of capitalists. You may answer in return, and I think many people have answered, that a capitalist of large and generous views is a good and trustworthy Member. The rejoinder is that the constituencies have so little choice, and that all capitalists do not hold large and generous views. These men are therefore beginning to distrust the House of Commons. The effect of the recent organisation of the working-class has had a tremendous influence in spreading this feeling. They have lately become more conscious of their own existence, and are brimful of hope, earnestness, and resolution, and nothing would be more dangerous at the present day than to do anything which would seem to induce the suspicion that we did not wish to have Members of the working classes in this House. The current of the time has set in favour of the Labour Party, and if that current runs its natural course it will assume dimensions which are perfectly healthy and in no way extravagant, but if you dam the stream it may break forth in flood. The struggles for the extension of the suffrage have raised suspicions in the minds of the working classes as to the readiness of the other classes to admit them to political power. We should be very careful to avoid the continuance of that feeling, and this question of the payment of Members is one which touches that suspicion very nearly. The vote itself has been given freely, and the choice of candidates ought to be given freely also, and nothing will more tend to allay class differences and class suspicion than to show an open and generous mind on this question. It may be that the working class will not in very large numbers, at any rate at first, return Members of their own class to this House, but they feel strongly that they ought to have the chance and possibility of doing so. It is ours to give them that chance and theirs to say what use they will make of it. Those who wish to maintain the supremacy of this House as the ultimate authority to be looked to by the people for the remedy of all political difficulties and for the solution of all social questions, ought to remember that the power and prestige of this House must be impaired so long as anyone can say with any foundation or shadow of truth that the entrance to this House is so constructed that there are difficulties great and almost insuperable in the way of Members of that class, of which the majority of the voters are composed, gaining admission into the ranks of Members of Parliament.

I think all those who have listened as I have done to every word that has fallen in this Debate will agree with me that it has been a Debate of singularly great and varied interest. We have had a very brilliant and amusing speech from my noble Friend below the Gangway on this side of the House, we have the very eloquent and manly utterance of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, we have had the able speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, we have had a speech by a new Member, and we have had a number of other speeches which have certainly done ample justice to a very grave and important subject. I do not propose at this hour of the evening long to delay the House with the expression of my own views and I hope it will not be thought in such remarks as I have to make that I desire to imply that all the arguments are on one side in connection with this subject. I am perfectly ready to admit that in much that has fallen from the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, and in the speech of other Members on the same side there is much matter worthy of the serious consideration of the House. I do not for a moment pretend that there is nothing to be said in favour of the contention that they have advanced. I do not go further than this, that after so much consideration as I have been able to give to the matter, I think that the balance of advantage is very decidedly in the opposite direction from that in which they appear to think it is. Some hon. Members suppose that in this matter they are representing the popular view of the subject. I have very great doubt about that. They would I imagine desire that if their scheme ever came into practical operation the cost of it should fall not upon the rates but upon the Consolidated Fund. That I believe is always the proposal but why the distinction? They know perfectly well if the cost fell upon the rates, or in other words if the fact were brought home to every elector in this country that he had to pay the cost of his Representative, the measure would bear a much less popular appearance than it now does. I do not wish to lay too much stress upon that, but I think unless hon. Members can say that the ratepayers as ratepayers are prepared to support this burden, they can hardly say that this measure, be it good or bad, is one for which the public are anxiously panting. So far as I have been able to listen to the arguments advanced to-night in favour of the Amendment they practically resolve themselves into this, that by our present system, the area of selection on the part of the constituencies is greatly limited, dangerously limited, and that the area of choice open to them practically excludes a large number of poor men who would be able to represent the working classes more efficiently and more immediately than at present we represent them, and who would also be great ornaments to our debates. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in supporting the main part of his contention gave us to understand that in his judgment the whole flow of what he described as the democratic movement was in the direction of giving this very large and extended choice to constituencies in selecting those persons who should represent them. I am not sure that such observations as I have been able to make harmonise with that view. What takes place in America? In America you have Members who are not long paid, but paid at a very high rate—a rate far higher than the hon. Gentleman could desire to see adopted in this country. But do the American constituencies show this great desire as anxiously for the extension of area in the selection of candidates? I think they do not. They have imposed a limitation upon the selection of their Members, which I will not say destroys the character for ability of the House of Representatives, for I have no doubt that House contains many very able men, but which certainly must diminish the amount of available ability, because as I understand the American system they absolutely confine themselves by custom, if not by law, to selecting persons who live in the constituency for which they propose to act.

They reside not in the constituency but in the State.

Without destroying the value of my argument, I can admit that the hon. Gentleman is right. But whether it be in the constituency or in the State the limit exists, and it is of a kind that if adopted in this country would entirely destroy the character of the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Midlothian would no longer be able to represent Midlothian, the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division would no longer be able to represent Glasgow, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury, would no longer be able to represent Bury, and a similar disability would attach to many other Members of that Front Bench and also of this Bench, and to many other leading Members of the House. The constituencies in England have already a far greater choice than that which the American constituencies have by custom restricted themselves to. I think it is shown, therefore, that demand for a wide area of choice is not an invariable or necessary characteristic of even the most democratic constituencies. But let us consider the other aspect of this solitary argument in favour of the Amendment. That other aspect is that under the existing system the working classes are not adequately represented in this House. I frankly admit that I should like to see more gentlemen in this House like the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution, and like some of his colleagues, who would represent the Labour interest in a manner more immediate, perhaps, and more direct, than it is possible that Members of this House are able to do. But although I think we might with great advantage increase the number of such direct Labour Representatives, I cannot admit that the interests of the working classes are likely to be ignored by any section or Party of this House. Surely the House must be aware that at the present moment the working classes hold the balance, and much more than the balance, in the constituencies. They have in the hollow of their hand the Parliamentary and political destiny of almost every man who sits in this House, and to suppose that interests which have this backing are likely to be ignored by persons who depend upon the working classes for support is to ignore the very mainsprings upon which the political action of Representative Assemblies depends for its ultimate resort. I cannot believe, therefore, that, whatever may be the advantage of having more gentlemen like the Member for the Wansbeck Division or the Member for Morpeth, that the absence of a large Labour Party—an exclusively Labour Party—in this House has, or could have, any effect that could be antagonistic or detrimental to the real interests of the working classes. Before I come to the arguments against the Resolution, I will mention one other argument that has been raised in its favour. We have been told, with perfect truth, that there are a considerable number of men of capacity and ambition who would desire to devote their time and ability to Parliamentary work, but who find it impossible to do so in consequence of the fact that they have to earn their living in other ways. I think that is true; and I think, so far as it goes, it is an unfortunate and an unhappy fact. But I do not think that the efficiency and character of this House would necessarily be improved by turning every Member of Parliament into a great orator. To take one practical instance: take the most distinguished Parliamentary figure in this House, and conceive 670 such gentlemen—670 repetitions of the right hon. Gentleman—can you conceive the Parliamentary machine moving at all? For my own part, it seems to be the reductio ad absurdum, for you will see that it is possible to have too much of that special kind of ability which has been described as Parliamentary. So much for the arguments in favour of the Resolution, and I think we may now very profitably consider the arguments which may be advanced against it. The first argument is the argument of finance. I do not wish to lay too much stress upon it, but it is an argument which you cannot possibly ignore. The cost of the Members of Parliament—£300 a year, which we are all to get if this Resolution is carried—[An hon. MEMBER: £365.] Well, say £500 if you like, it does not matter—would be, roughly speaking, a quarter of a million. You must add to that the cost of the election now borne by the candidate himself or by his Party. You must throw in, in addition, all the salaries of County Councillors, Members of Boards of Guardians, Municipal Corporations, and the salaries of all elected officers, and, in fact, of all that enormous mass of work which is now perfectly well done for nothing, but which, if this system of payment of Members of Parliament is adopted, must manifestly be paid in future. (Opposition cheers.) I am not going beyond the arguments which hon. Members opposite would advance, and I gather from their cheers that they entirely accept the deduction I have made from the principles they have advanced. But the cost of that would be enormous; and if the Secretary of State for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty were to come down here and ask for a similar addition to the cost of the Army or Navy, there would be a howl from the economists on the other side of the House, and we could not contemplate throwing such a sum either upon the rates or upon the Public Exchequer without considerable alarm. And of this I am certain: that whether this new system which is proposed would or would not give us the best governmental machinery in the world, it would give us by far the most expensive machinery both of Imperial and local administration, and would be a burden on the taxpayers and on the ratepayers that neither rates nor taxes could easily be made to bear. The Member for Kirkcaldy appeared to think, indeed he directly stated, that the cost that would be thrown upon the community would be saved in the first five years by the great economies which would be effected in every branch of the Public Service, and that the new Parliament would be mainly anxious, by careful discussion of the Estimates to prevent the taxpayer from paying exorbitant sums which could be reduced. He meant, in fact, that every Member of Parliament would earn his keep. The hon. Gentleman is a new Member, and I think, when he has seen a little more of the manner in which we conduct our discussions, he will find that those Members who pride themselves on representing democratic constituencies are not those who are constantly pressing the Government to retrench, but are pressing the Government to expend. Let this be observed before I leave the question of finance: that the burden would not only be heavy, but inequitable. As the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down observed, if you carry out this system you must pay everyone. You cannot pay a Member here and a Member there. You cannot pay a Member who represents the working classes, and not pay a Member who represents villadom. I accept that as perfectly true; and the deduction is that you compel nine-tenths of the constituencies who do not want their Members paid, and who can get Members to represent them for nothing, to pay men who do not wish to be paid, in order that here and there a constituency which desires that its Member should be paid may have its wishes gratified. This question of finance is, I will admit, a subordinate one, and must be a subordinate one; but I think the question is important enough to throw upon hon. Gentlemen opposite the whole burden of the proof of their case. Surely if there is anything in which the English people have for many generations justly gloried, it is in the amount of gratuitous, not paid work which has been got out of the community, and used for public purposes. If you adopt this proposal you will kill at the root the spirit that has produced this gratuitous work; you will give it a blow from which it will never recover; you will put the Parliamentary stamp upon the theory that a man who gives his services for nothing is a fool. I would also remind the House that the changes which would be involved in this proposal are not confined, in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen who make it, to the alteration in the amount of gratuitous labour that would be given throughout the country—labour bearing on public life. It is frankly admitted that the result would be that a large number of candidates would start up in many of the constituencies, and the logical conclusion to be drawn from it is this—that we are not to retain our existing system of a single election—but that it will be necessary to have a double ballot as they have in France, and perhaps more, before the election of a Member could be completed. Therefore, let the House make no mistake. This is not a small matter merely effecting financial changes. It radically affects the whole system of election—it goes to the root of our electoral method, which have been in operation for centuries, and it imports foreign methods of dealing with this question, which may have a very far-reaching and unexpected effect upon the Parliamentary Government, which is also the free Government, of this country. One most important object after all I have still to come to. It is the effect which this system would have upon the character and position of this House. I think that a very great mistake has been made by every speaker in this Debate who has dealt with this particular aspect of the question. They all assumed that we, who object to the proposal and express our fear as to its result on the character of the House, are insinuating that the receipt of public money for services rendered is in itself a degrading thing. It would be impossible for anyone sitting on this Bench, at all events, to take that view of it, nor is such a view taken, I believe, by anyone who shares the view I am expressing. There is nothing degrading in taking the public money for public services, I agree with the hon. Member for Wansbeck when he says that a Member who receives £300 a year from the State is not more degraded than the Minister who receives £3,000 or £4,000 a year. But that is not the point. The point is that the whole relation between a Member and his constituency is vitally altered. No longer would it be a relation between a constituency and its Representative, but it would become a relation between those who give patronage and those who receive patronage. At present the constituencies can confer honour and position, but they cannot give money; but directly you make a Member a paid official of the constituency you alter the whole position, and for the worse. I quite admit that there are Gentlemen in this House who are paid by their constituents. I also admit that that is a position which, under the circumstances, does honour to them and to their constituents. But all this would be put an end to if the system of payment is made general. The constituency becomes then the patron, and the Member becomes a paid servant. Now, I do not wish to discuss the question whether a Member should be a delegate or a representative. A great deal of pedantic nonsense has been said upon that subject. I do not think it is possible for any man of sense to lay down any hard-and-fast rule on that subject. It is clear that on many questions we are the delegates, and simply the delegates, of our constituents. In matters of local interest we come here as delegates. I do not deny it. Let it also be understood that in almost all the larger questions of national interest we are not delegates, but representatives. In all the great questions which move the interest of the Empire, we hold to our constituents a relation of a different and more honourable—if I may say so—and a more important kind. Now, all that would be altered if Members were paid—they would be compelled to go round the political compass. They would be delegates and nothing but delegates; and they would be regarded by their constituents as labourers unworthy of their hire if they did not in every detail carry out the wishes of this or that particular group who returned them to Parliament. It appears to me that if such a result were to follow the proposal of the hon. Gentleman it would deal a blow against the greatest political institution that perhaps the world has ever seen. An hon. Member said in the course of his speech that nothing would induce him to do anything that would lower the political character or position of a Member of Parliament. I am sure he would not, and I am convinced that this protestation comes from his heart. But although the spirit and character of the institution might show an extraordinary power of surviving the greatest alterations of external circumstances, there are poisons which, if once introduced into the system, will slowly but surely corrupt its life blood, and destroy all of health and all of manhood that is in it. If you once adopt this system of paying Members you will have taken the first step towards making the English House of Commons the same as other Representative Assemblies unfortunately are—you will have, taken the first stop towards destroying that independent life and dignity which it has enjoyed for so many centuries. If that is to be the case, no advantage that may be obtained in the way of increasing the area of selection in this or that stray constituency can possibly make up for the incurable wound you will have inflicted upon the British Constitution.

The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by telling us that we imagined that we represented the popular view, but that this was not the popular view. Now I do not admit that it is, and I do not refuse to believe that it is; but of one thing I am sure, and it is that it has been from the purely public point of view that this question has been argued on both sides of the House, for the most artistic and excellent speech of the noble Lord opposite was that of a humourist, and did not profess to be anything else. It was argued entirely from the public point of view, and not from the view of the personal interest of Members. Now the right hon. Gentleman went straight to the argument which is at the bottom of our contention in this matter, and we have good reason to be obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division because he has put into the Resolution the main argument for it. It is that it limits the choice of Members, and you cannot complete the work of the last two generations—the enlargement of the franchise of the country—until you have given the constituencies a clear choice. I listened to every word the right hon. Gentleman said on the cardinal question, and I do not think that he brought forward any argument or intended to bring forward any argument against the position of my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman took the case of America, and said that there, so far from there being unlimited choice, Members must be taken from the locality to be represented. There is no use in bringing foreign instances to bear upon this question, when we are quite sure what the tendency in our own country is. There is no objection at all in this country to take candidates from a distance, and there is every desire to take candidates from all classes, whereas at present they can be taken from only one class. There is no class in this country whose representation we wish to see increased more than the class of working-men. The working-men Members are admirable Members for the interests of working-men—those interests which are not opposed to the general interests of the community. They have great influence on our legislation, and they are very good Members of Parliament for general purposes. I suppose if we had 40 or 50 working-men Members in the House of Commons, judging from the specimens we have had of them already, we should say that they were not too many; but under the present system it is impossible to get them, because the position of a Member of Parliament, while it is compatible with a man's making his living by the law, in business, or even by literature—though that is very uphill work—is absolutely incompatible with a man's making his living by means of manual labour. Now that is the main point of our contention, and the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to break it down. The right hon. Gentleman said that constituencies have done themselves the honour of finding incomes for their Members. He referred, I believe, only to the urban constituencies which return working men Members. But, surely, it is a very great exception when we remember that there is not a single rural constituency which now returns a working man, or one who even belongs to the lower middle class. Why is this? It is because the wages of the working men in the rural constituencies are so low. Well, that is the very reason we want to have them directly represented. In the constituencies that are thus represented there is, generally speaking, a high standard of comfort—the cottages are good, and the people have high wages; but there is not one single Member who can speak directly for the people in those districts where cottages are bad—the rural population who most require to be benefited by legislation. It will not encourage constituencies to find incomes for their Members when they find it said in this House that if people want to have the luxury of working-men Members they must pay for it—that is to say, the working men are to be told that that which they first did as a high-spirited and generous piece of self-sacrifice is to be turned into a permanent tax upon them if they wish to have working men to represent them. Now, I want to go straight to the question which the right hon. Gentleman raised, and I wish to say that I do not hold the same opinion as he does with regard to another class to which this Resolution applies—the men of limited means who are not working men. There is a very great number of men who would make excellent Members of Parliament who are willing to make certain sacrifices, but who cannot make the final life-long sacrifice of giving up every chance of earning their livelihood. The right hon. Gentleman says that if you get into the House so many men of great Parliamentary talents—I do not remember the exact description he gave—the competition between them would make it a bear garden; but is it not the case that the men of high education and culture in this House are rather silent than speaking Members? I know many such who are anxious to give their talents and their energies to the service of their country, but who cannot go into an absolutely unpaid profession—the one unpaid profession—the service of their country in the House of Commons. If you had 40 or 50 of them, instead of the business of the country being delayed by their vanity it would be helped forward by their modesty, their self-denial, and their public spirit. Then I come to the question of unpaid services. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking, I am quite satisfied, from his heart, says: "Are you going to strike at the root of the greatest glory of this country—the unpaid services which are rendered?" I do not believe you would be doing so in the least by passing this Resolution, because the services of a Member of Parliament are of a very different character from what are ordinarily called the unpaid services of the country. By the unpaid services are meant the members of Municipalities, Justices of the Peace, and Poor Law Guardians. The Member of Parliament not only works without a salary, but he makes very great money sacrifices in addition. In the first place, he has to face an election in which no Member can hope to reduce his personal expenses, by the greatest economy, under about £150. In the second place, there are the general electioneering expenses, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury has done so much to reduce. Then the Member for Parliament has to live for many months in the year in what is not the most expensive city in the world, but the most expensive abiding place in this country. How can these services be compared with those of a Justice of the Peace, who drives once a week to the county town with horses which he would keep anyhow, or with the services of a member of the Municipality? The Member of Parliament has to give the whole of his time for eight months in the year, and a very great deal of his time in the remaining four months, and his is the only occupation that is unpaid. Why should he not be paid? Why should the man who collects the taxes be paid when the man who imposes them gets nothing? Why should the man who drafts Bills be remunerated when he who passes them is not paid? There is nothing in the nature of the work of a Member of Parliament which unfits him for being paid, while there is everything in his sacrifices of time and money which calls for it. The right hon. Gentleman says, "See how it would lower his credit in the eyes of his constituents. They now give him position—they don't give him cash; they now give him honour—they don't give him money." That is to say, they give him prestige and not position, the thing which the rich man desires; but, on the other hand, the man whom the constituencies want is excluded from serving them and from serving his country. The service to his country, which is the highest of all services, should be paid as Ministerial duties are paid-—adequately, but not excessively. By that means many public-spirited men would be enabled to serve their country who at present are unable to do so without sacrificing their families and all that makes life dear to them.

I have no desire to detain the House. I only wish to explain the reason why I should vote for this proposal. I should do it, not because I agree with it generally, but because, if it is carried, I should propose to add to it words which would make it applicable only in those cases in which it is required. In that way I am prepared to vote for it, but I am not prepared to vote generally for forcing £300 or £400 a year upon men who do not require it.