tion before the House, and he should give his right hon. Friend his support, believing that the Resolution which he had proposed pledged him to nothing more than the assertion that the present accommodation was entirely inadequate to their requirements, and that it was the duty of the Government to consider whether some scheme, such, perhaps, as one of those suggested, could not be devised to remedy the evil. MR. GLADSTONE: The House will, I think, like to know what my Colleagues and myself conceive to be our position with regard to this subject. We believe that the matter is one on which we ought to look-I will not say for the formal initiative, for that is another matter, but for the guidance of the House, because, as official Members of Parliament, we have no means properly of dealing with this question or of mastering its details. While we are within this House we do not experience the inconvenience which is apparently suffered to a very considerable extent by other Members; and as regards the suitableness of this House for the requirements of those who spend many of the earlier hours within its walls, that is a consideration which has hardly any bearing upon Members of the Government. On this occasion, therefore, we consider it our duty to look for guidance from the House, rather than to offer advice. Then arises naturally the question whether we have arrived at a time at which we could ask the House to favour us with a distinct intimation as to its opinions. I think I may venture to say that, whatever the opinion of the House within fair and reasonable limits might be, it would be our plain duty to follow in a matter of this kind. The principle laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt), that the nation would not grudge the expense necessary to provide fitting accommodation for its representatives, is a principle which I believe to be undeniable. I cannot, however, take the same tranquil view of the expense that has been taken by some hon. Members. I think I ought first of all to give due weight to the authority of my hon. Friend behind me, the Member for Bath (Mr. Tite). Accepting his authority, I take the case to be this-that in the particular instance before us the Committee have certainly made application to an architect who, in rather an eminent degree, may be considered trustworthy as regards adherence to estimates; but, on the other hand, the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath speaking as he does of the general latitude allowed to professional men are I will not say exactly alarming but certainly not re-assuring. MR. TITE said, he wished to explain. He, in speaking, followed an hon. Member who talked of an estimate having been five times exceeded. Now he (Mr. Tite) had no reason to suppose that Mr. Barry was not perfectly competent to frame the estimate; and he said that if it were doubled it would be something. MR. GLADSTONE: I do not know whether my hon. Friend's object was to qualify my remark. If so, I think he has rather added force to it. The observation I have to make does not, however, turn upon the question as to whether professional opinion has been lax or straight-laced. It has not been owing to the carelessness of the architect that the estimate for this House has been multiplied four times. It was due to a different cause. When a private person has a design framed for him he is cautious as to introducing changes while that design is being carried into execution. But here you have a fluctuating body who propose continual changes, more or less arbitrary, while the design is in progress, and it is to changes so made that the very large excess of the expenditure over the estimate for the present Houses of Parliament is chiefly due. And this would be the case in the present instance with increased force, because when the Houses of Parliament were first built they were planned upon some uniform principle, whereas in this case we have only a change in an existing building, a change, however, which, in its nature and character, is the subject of widely different opinions. The proverb that "a burnt child dreads the fire" is therefore, to some extent, applicable in this instance. I do not say that the House, after a sufficient experience of the inconvenience, should not be altered; but that the matter would require to be very carefully looked into, and that means should be devised by which the plan once determined upon, should be carried into effect without great alterations. As regards the question of time, too, we believe that we could approach the subject with much greater advantage if we were not asked by the House to with much greater security and confiundertake it at the present moment. It dence in undertaking to consider the will not be a fault, but an honour, to the subject and state our conclusions conHouse elected by the new constituency if cerning it if further experience were perwe are able to assert that the effect of mitted. Undoubtedly, if we have to the recent change in our representative adopt the plan of the Committee, we system shall have produced a steadier shall be compelled to make a very deaverage attendance in the House. But plorable confession. It certainly is rewho can say that that has already oc- markable that a great country qualified curred? It is quite impossible to make to overcome the obstacles that stood in that assertion. The experience of two the way of her enterprize, and to perform weeks only is insufficient as to quantity, feats which make the world almost stand and when we come to consider the aghast for their arduous and difficult quality, the fact is that we have been character, should prove itself totally indealing, and that we shall deal for the competent at an expense of £3,500,000 next few weeks, and possibly for months, to erect a Chamber which should last for with such a question of great and ab- a single generation. I confess that it is sorbing interest, and that this constitutes not without some humiliation, without a an exceptional state of circumstances, sense of shame, that I should arrive from which it would be extremely hazard- positively at the conclusion that the neous to draw a conclusion for the future. cessity for a change had arisen. But I I do not know whether your recollection fully admit these difficulties must be agrees with mine, Sir, but I sat in the first faced when the proper time comes and, Session of the first Reformed Parliament. if we have made a gross blunder with That Parliament, I remember, agreed regard to this House, we must retrace with the present in two circumstances- our steps as well as we can. In the in a large infusion of new Members, and meantime, I think we are justified in in that case a combination of several asking the right hon. Member not to highly interesting and important ques- place this question in our hands, as my tions. And, undoubtedly, there was right hon. Friend would do by this Rea crowded attendance throughout the solution, until many of those who sit on greater part of the Session. But that these Benches are in a better position excess of attendance did not continue, to give the subject their consideration. and there was a perceptible decline after That is the general view we take of the time. Now, although the public would case. There is nothing in the case which undoubtedly wish us to be properly and would prevent us from following the insuitably accommodated, I think, after dication of the opinion of the House what happened in connection with the when it is given to us. The Motion of election of the present House, it is well my right hon. Friend, if adopted, would that we should feel that our ground is give us that indication very distinctly, firm and solid before we proceed. My and it would bind us to either give effect right hon. Friend who made this Motion to the decision of the Committee or to (Mr. Headlam) will not, I trust, under-place ourselves in opposition to the restand me in the slightest degree to cen- corded judgment of the House. I hope, sure or even question the propriety of therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask his bringing forward the question at this my right hon. Friend to allow some furtime. As Chairman of the Committee ther time to elapse before that opinion is which last year sat upon the subject he recorded. might fairly consider himself bound to call the attention of the House to the opinions of a Committee which, from the character of its members, is entitled to considerable attention. But such a question as this ought in the main to be decided by universal suffrage, and the 240 Members who have but newly come into the House, and whose Parliamentary experience is confined to something like a score of nights, are an important element in the case, and we could proceed a MR. HEADLAM said, he did not concur with his noble Friend the Member for Berwick (Viscount Bury) in thinking that this was a case in which the Government should act on its own responsibility On the contrary, he thought it was a case in which the House should take a large share of the responsibility, and he had framed his Resolution in that spirit. The Government had not met him with anything like opposition. The plea of the First Lord of the Resolution. Treasury was one of delay for consider- ever, that the promoters of the reduction ation, and the First Commissioner of had not supposed that a reduction to Works admitted that if an extensive 1s. 6d. would be sufficient to cause such alteration were made it should be in the direction indicated by the Committee. He was not anxious that there should be a sharp division in this case, and therefore he would yield to the request of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. an increase in the number of insurances Amendment and Motion, by leave, consideration to the question. withdrawn. FIRE INSURANCES.-RESOLUTION. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Duty on Fire Insurances should be, at the earliest MR. H. B. SHERIDAN, in rising to ask the House to assent to a further reduction of the Duty on Fire Insurances said, he regretted that his Motion should be brought forward on a day so close to that on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to make his Financial State- THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEment; but the Notice was placed on the QUER: When I consider the difficulties Paper for the Thursday before the Easter that beset the path of any private MemRecess, when he, in common with others, ber who wishes to bring any Motion had to give way in order that the im- before the House, I do not feel disposed portant debate in connection with the to complain of the hon. Member for Irish Church might be continued. He Dudley for taking the opportunity when did not, however, expect that the right it is offered to bring forward this subhon. Gentleman's financial arrangements ject, with which his name is so closely would be affected by his Resolution; all connected. I think it very natural he he hoped was to receive from the Chan- should do so. He will therefore undercellor of the Exchequer an intimation stand me as not speaking with any disthat, as soon as he had the means at his respect of him, or complaining that he disposal, he would consider the claims of places me in a position I do not wish to this question and would endeavour to occupy. Within less than forty-eight give effect to the expressed wish of the hours from this time it will be my duty House upon the subject. It was un- to make, and the misfortune of the House necessary for him to go into the merits to listen to, the Financial Statement for of the question after the discussions in the year; and I may tell the House so that House on the subject of the duty on much of a secret as that I have resolved fire insurances, and the very large num- upon the recommendations which I shall ber of Petitions that had been presented feel it my duty to make. Under these in favour of a reduction. Considering circumstances the hon. Gentleman invites the claims put forward for a reduction me to give an opinion on the policy of or remission of other imposts, the reduc- further reducing the duties on fire intion of the fire insurance duty by the surance. Now, I think it would not be present First Lord of the Treasury from treating the House with proper respect 38. to 18. 6d. was a large one. The pro- if I were at this moment to give expresmoters of the movement in favour of re- sion to any opinion I may entertain on duction looked with satisfaction on what that question. It will be my duty, within that right hon. Gentleman had done a very short time, to express my opinions as a first step. The last year during as to our financial policy; and therefore which the duty stood at 38., it produced it would be trifling with the House, and £1,600,000; and, though it was im- not acting rightly towards myself, if I possible at present to speak with ac- were to attempt to play with a subject of curacy on this latter point, he believed this importance, or if I were to give an that in the year that had elapsed since opinion which might lead to guesses as the reduction the duty had produced to anything I may say or do when I come £1,100,000. He might observe, how- to make my Financial Statement. If this Motion were brought forward at an earlier period or a later one I might state what I thought ought to be done; but as it would be impossible for me to do so now I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press his Motion. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide the House on the question. At the same time he thought that the mere fact of the former reduction in the duty on fire insurance not having answered, so far as the revenue was concerned, could not fairly be looked upon as an argument against the present Motion of the hon. Member for Dudley. If, for instance, the rate of postage had been reduced to a considerable extent, but yet not to the amount at which it now stood, we should, in all probability, never have received the revenue which the country derived from the penny postage. If they had touched this subject boldly they would have increased their revenue much more. This course of proceeding reminded him of the lines 'Gently, gently, touch a nettle, And it stings you for your pains; And if they touched this question boldly they would reap the benefit. MR. D. DALRYMPLE said, he would mention a single instance which was entirely opposed to the view taken by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. Sir Robert Peel some years ago entirely abolished the duty on agricultural insurances; and he could state, from his experience as a director of a large insurance office, that since that time the extent of agricultural insurance had not increased in anything like the proportion which the hon. Gentleman seemed to contemplate as the result of the reduction of the duty on fire insurance from 18. 6d. to 6d. MR. H. B. SHERIDAN said, he thought it was scarcely necessary to remind the House that agricultural insurances were of a character which was very soon exhausted, and that all those which were likely to take place had already been effected. The case, however, was altogether different with the profits of commercial industry, which were perpetually increasing. He was sorry to have to add that, not deeming the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be satisfactory, he should feel it to be his duty to divide the House on his Motion. He did not ask the question with a view to its affecting the forthcoming Budget in any way, but in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would consider it sooner or later. MR. GLADSTONE said, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheridan) had placed a construction upon his right hon. Friend's statement which it did not deserve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had simply observed that he felt himself precluded from discussing the subject within forty hours of the production of his Budget. Now, that seemed to him to be a very moderate way of putting the case, and as the hon. Member for Dudley desired an expression of opinion on the part of the Government with respect to his Motion, not so much with reference to the present as to future financial years, he could not see why he should be so anxious to press it at once. If the hon. Member pressed the House to a division, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought it ought to be after a discussion in which the right hon. Gentleman should have an opportunity of announcing his sentiments, and therefore he should take the liberty of moving the adjournment of the debate to that day week. MR. H. B. SHERIDAN assented. House adjourned at half after HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, 7th April, 1869. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-Resolution in Committee-Steam Boilers Inspection. Ordered-First Reading-Court of Exchequer (Ireland) Offices * [63]; Steam Boilers Inspection [64]. Second Reading-Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment [18], debate adjourned; Life Assurance Companies [35]. Third Reading Salmon Fisheries (Ireland)* [56] and passed. IRELAND-LICENSING OF BEER HOUSES. QUESTION. MR. KAVANAGH said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he would object to have the provisions of the Bill to amend the Law for Licensing Beer-houses extended to Ireland? MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, he was quite aware that the beer-house licensing system in Ireland was very unsatisfactory in some respects, and he had examined the Bill to which his hon. Friend referred with a view to ascertaining whether its provisions could be adapted to that country. It would be, however, he thought, somewhat premature at the present stage of the measure to give his hon. Friend any definite answer to his Question. He would at the same time watch the progress of the Bill, and, having seen how the House would deal with it, decide whether it was possible to adapt any part of its provisions to Ireland, or whether it would be necessary to meet the case of Ireland in a separate measure. POOR LAW (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.-[BILL 18.] (Mr. McMahon, Mr. Blake, Mr. Downing, Mr. Stacpoole.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading, read. MR. M MAHON in moving that the Bill be read a second time said, it was an exact copy (except as to dates) of the Bill introduced in 1866 by Mr. Serjeant Barry the present Solicitor General for Ireland. The object of the Bill was to extend to Ireland the principle of the Union Chargeability Bill of England passed in 1865. It was desirable that the House should at once understand that the Irish people did not want to have any experiments made upon them. They desired to have either the old English Law of Settlement and Removal, or the new English Law of Union Chargeability. The reason why it was essential that they should have one or the other of those things might be very briefly stated. The first Poor Law Relief Act for Ireland was passed in 1838. As it passed the House of Commons it created union rating and union settlement; but in the House of Lords that had been changed into the monstrous principle that divisions of unions having been adoped for the purpose of electing guardians the board of guardians should charge against the electoral division a portion of the expenses of every person relieved who might be stated on the register kept by the master of the workhouse to have been resident within the electoral district, and unfortunately the Government of the day did not feel it to be their duty to resist the alteration made by the House of Lords. Practically that Act did not come into operation until 1841, because the workhouses were not opened until 1840, and the principle of out-door relief had not been adopted in Ireland; but so gross was the injustice of the system as provided by the Bill that it was found unendurable; and in the year 1843 the law was modified, so that no person was deemed to have been resident unless, during the eighteen calendar months preceding his application for relief, he had occupied some tenement, or had usually slept for a twelvemonth within the electoral division; and if he had not, the union became chargeable instead of the division. That, however, had been found far too short a time, and in 1847 something like a satisfactory rule of settlement was adopted, and the law was altered so as to require a three years' tenancy, or thirty months' sleeping within the electoral division. But even the scant regard shown for the sufferings of the poor by those who had evicted large numbers of them, and who sought to get rid of all responsibility of contributing to their relief by driving them into the towns, was outdone by the new proprietors who came into possession of the land under the Incumbered Estates Act of 1848, so that in 1847 an Act had to be passed to make it a penal offence to unroof an inhabited house. They sought only to clear their estates. The poor rate, which was enormously high in many parts of the country, was a real terror to proprietors, and it was therefore found desirable to get rid of the settlement created by the Act of 1847. Accordingly, in 1849, an Act was passed which reduced the settlement qualification to sleeping or occupying a tenement in an electoral division within twelve months before application was made for relief. The operation of that change from that time down to the present had been to cause a general outcry and complaint, and was one of the main causes of the demand now made for union rating. It had encouraged the landed proprietors to clear their estates; and the poor people who were evicted, having no other refuge, had crowded into the towns, and, of course, when overtaken by age and sickness, had to be taken into the workhouse. At New Ross, the borough which |