member that, earlier in the debate, I gave my reasons why I could not answer such a question. The Secret Service money is a Vote on which, from its very nature, no explanation can be given; therefore, no amount of reporting Progress or obstructive divisions will have the effect desired by hon. Members. Either this Secret Service Vote is right or it is wrong. If it is wrong, then vote against it; but if it is right, it is impossible for the Government to give any explanation as to the amount spent by each Department, or as to the places or the manner in which it is spent. I hope, under the circumstances, hon. Members having fully stated their grievances, we may now be allowed to go to a division. the Vote, as he did not believe in the spent in Ireland; but that matter has alvisionary schemes which had been re-ready been discussed in this House, and, ferred to by hon. and right hon. Gen- therefore, I hope that we shall now be tlemen. He had a right to ask whether allowed to go to a division. The hon. any of that money was spent in Ireland, Member who next spoke moved to report especially as they knew perfectly well Progress, because no answer had been that there was no necessity for the ex-given to the question; but he must rependiture of a penny of it in that country. Every penny of it spent in Ireland was used dishonestly. No doubt, it was a ridiculous thing to ask the Home Secretary how the money was spent; the right hon. Gentleman was at the head of a Department that had a most serious and perilous responsibility attaching to it, and it would be preposterous for them to demand that he should open to the public eye the secrets-the necessary secrets-of his Office. But he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) defied any Minister to get up and say that he could spend a penny of Secret Service money in Ireland for an honest and legitimate purpose. If they could not establish the fact that Secret Service money was necessary in that country, then they had a right to affirm the alternative proposition namely, that none of the money should be spent there. Would the Chief Secretary get up and tell them that he did not spend a penny of Secret Service money in Ireland? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) should not go into the Lobby against the Vote for Secret Service money on general principles. Though he could not support the Vote, he, at any rate, would not go into the Lobby against it. MR. LEAMY said, that as they had not received the assurance they demanded from the right hon. Gentleman, and also considering the lateness of the hour, he should move that the Chairman report Progress. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.”—(Mr. Leamy.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has put a question to me which ought to be answered-he has asked whether any of the Secret Service money is spent upon elections. I answer that query in the negative. I quite understand the objection some people may have, on general principles, to the voting of Secret Service money. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one said that heobjected to Secret Service money being MR. GORST said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he had no doubt that no part of the Secret Service money which was spent in connection with his Department was spent upon elections; but did the right hon. Gentleman know how that portion of the Secret Service money which was not spent in the Department over which he presided was allocated? If the right hon. Gentleman did, then he (Mr. Gorst) was perfectly satisfied; but if he did not know how much was spent in other Departments, perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would get up and give them an assurance, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, that no part of the Secret Service money was devoted to election expenses? LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH said, that the whole of the allotment was under the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am very much surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst), whom I should have thought knows as much about elections as anyone, should have asked this question. I should have thought that he would have been able to speak of the practice of the late Government on this matter. For the present Government, however, I will take upon myself the responsibility of saying that in none of the Departments is any Secret Service money spent upon elections. I will go further than that, and say that for many years in this country no Administration has ever spent a single farthing of this money on elections. the Chief Secretary for Ireland would state how much of this Secret Service money was spent in Ireland. As Irish Representatives, they had a distinct right to know that; and unless they obtained the necessary information, they were quite justified in opposing the Vote by every means in their power. MR. O'CONNOR POWER said, that during the various discussions that had taken place on this Vote he had been glad to notice that a large number of English Members had alternated with Irish Members in protesting against it. He did not know whether the Home Secretary would appeal to them to have confidence in the Government, seeing that there were so many distinguished Members of the House who opposed the expenditure of this money by the late Government in the present Administration. He supposed it would be argued that now the Government were strengthened by having these Gentlemen in it, there was every guarantee that the Secret Service money would not be expended upon any of the odious purposes MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR appealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress. They had elicited this fact from the Government, that not only was some of the Secret Service money spent abroad, but some of it was spent at home. That, in fact, appeared from the very words of the Vote itself" foreign and other Secret Service money." On former occasions they had heard that a portion of the money was spent in Ireland. The Government was able to deny that any of it was spent on electioneering; but if that were so, they had all the more money to spend on purposes, perhaps, even worse than electioneering. The right hon. Gentleman said the Treasury knew nothing about the way in which the money was allocated; but, from the document he had in his hand, it seemed that the head under which these pay-upon which it used to be spent. He had ments would be accounted for was the Treasury. Hon. Members had, therefore, naturally addressed queries to the Treasury; but having made the protest which they had made, he thought it was hardly necessary to delay going to the division which must be taken on the Vote. In the division they would be able to judge of the sincerity of certain Members of the Government who, while out of Office, went into the Lobby against the Vote, but who, now that their Party were in Office, would vote in favour of it. The division would be an interesting one, and he could only regret that the Chief Secretary, after sitting in his place and hearing, over and over again, as he had done, most distinct and pointed charges against the Department over which he presided, thought it consistent with his self-respect, and with a proper discharge of the duties of his Office, to sit in silence, and to admit, by his tacit and silent demeanour, that there was really no answer to be made. MR. W. E. FORSTER: I hope the Committee will not suppose for a moment that I admit any one of these charges. MR. R. POWER said, the hon. Member (Mr. Leamy) ought to withdraw his proposal on one condition-namely, that Sir William Harcourt some been puzzling his brains to find out on for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and the other Scotch and English Members who agreed with the Irish Members, would be disposed to vote with them on the question of reporting Progress; and, as the issue was a very fair and straightforward one, he should be inclined to say that, as a matter of policy, it would be better to withdraw the Motion for reporting Progress, and take a division on the Main Question. MR. HEALY trusted his hon. Friend would not proceed with his Motion to report Progress, as the Committee was now perfectly prepared to take a division on the Vote. He could not join with his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in rejoicing over the fact that none of this money, if spent at all, was spent upon elections. If it was not spent upon elections, they might rest assured that it was spent for much more discreditable purposes. Question put, and negatived. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. PETROLEUM (HAWKING) BILL—[Lords.] (In the Committee.) Clause 2 (Regulations for hawking petroleum). Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." people who had to pay heavy rates and taxes; but this Bill proposed to legalize what these pedlars could not now do. These people could only be dealt with by prosecutions for obstruction in the streets; but tradespeople knew that that was an impracticable way of dealing with them. This Bill proposed to extend the provisions of the Hawker's Bill, and allow the hawkers to carry a dangerous commodity through the streets of towns and villages; but he should like to know in whose interest the Bill was promoted? He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it was in the interest of the poor; but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing could be more detrimental to the interests of that class who had suffered from depression of trade, and who were tradespeople, and he thought those were the people to whom sympathy was due. He could not conceive any class of poor people who were benefited. No one could have greater sympathy with the poor than he had, but he could not see for whose interest this Bill was promoted. He hoped some the promoters were, and that hon. Meminformation would be given as to who bers who represented large boroughs would look closely into the provisions of the Bill, which was calculated to do a great deal of harm. THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that this is not the second reading of the Bill. MR. COURTNEY said, the hon. Member had strangely misconceived the purport of the Bill. He seemed to oppose it as though it were a question between hawkers and non-hawkers, and as if it would increase hawking; but it had nothing at all of that character. It did not in any way interfere with the issue of licences or the restrictions applying to hawking of petroleum and not with the hawking. It simply dealt with the licences. No one not otherwise licensed MR. WHITLEY said, that the ques-to hawk would be able to hawk under tion of allowing pedlars to carry petro- this Bill. It did no more than allow a leum about in carts had become a very licensed hawker, having a licence to large cry in all the large towns. They keep petroleum, to hawk it. The hawkwere able to carry petroleum about in ing of petroleum went on now; and if the carts, and to carry on their business op- hon. Gentleman had any acquaintance posite the shops of tradespeople dealing with the rural life of England, and the in the same article; and so great had convenience of hawking petroleum from the outcry against this become that he door to door, he would see that the Bill had been asked to introduce a Bill com- dealt with the convenience of the poor pelling those people to desist from that in the country. By this Bill it was propractice. It was very injurious to trades-posed that any person who was licenced to deal in petroleum might, under certain prescribed conditions, hawk it. MR. WARTON urged that it was not safe to allow people to hawk petroleum, and he would ask hon. Members to consider what would be the result of any damage to a vessel containing 10 gallons of petroleum. He would remind the Committee of the terrible accident which had occurred in Wales some years ago, when a Peer of the Realm and other persons of less consequence were burnt to death; and if such an accident could occur on a railway with all the care taken by railway officials, how could it be said that such an accident would not occur to petroleum hawked about the streets? He begged to move that Progress be reported. Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." (Mr. Warton.) The Committee divided: - Ayes 3; Noes 70: Majority 67. — (Div. List, No. 349.) Clause agreed to. -- Clause 3 (Modification of regulations by Secretary of State). MR. COURTNEY explained that this clause proposed to empower the Secretary of State to alter, repeal, or vary regulations laid down by the Act; but he proposed to move an Amendment by which such alterations should be laid before Parliament before becoming law. The desirability must be recognized of relieving the House of the necessity for entering into matters of detail; and he thought the objections which had been raised to this clause would be removed by his Amendment. Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 8, at end, insert as a separate paragraph, Every such regulation shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith after it is made if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, within seven days after the then next Ses sion of Parliament. "If within forty days after any such regulation has been laid before Parliament either House of Parliament resolves that such regula MR. HOPWOOD said, he thought the proposed Amendment itself required amending. It proposed that the regu lations should be laid before Parliament forthwith, if Parliament was sitting, and, if not, within seven days after the then next Session of Parliament. That would mean in the Recess. The words should read-"after the commencement of." He was still resolute against the clause, and exceedingly sorry that at that hour in the morning they should have to consider what he regarded as a matter of great significance with regard to legislation. He did not at all agree that the House should abdicate its functions and allow a Secretary of State to exercise them. It was a dangerous doctrine to proclause suggested by the growing tenpound; and dangerous to pass this dency on the part of Departments to gain extraordinary powers, and so avoid the vigilance of Parliament. This affected a large class of very useful men; they were, in fact, costermongers of petroleum, carrying the article about the country. These men carried petroleum in the country from cottage to cottage, nearly all of which were lighted by it. The hawkers carried on the business with benefit to the community, and were, he thought, in every way to be encouraged rather than suppressed. A case had been made out for supervising the hawking by these men of this rather dangerous material, and the Bill which had been prepared set forth the different regulations which were to be observed. The provisions were drawn with some care, but had been rendered wide and vague in order that there might be no case which would escape the general power of the magistrates to say whether or not a person against whom a charge might be brought was guilty of negligence in the conveyance of this material. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) advocated in Committee the retention of a clause of this sort-a clause which would enable one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, from time to time, to make, or, when made, to alter, repeal, or add to tion should be annulled, the same shall thence-regulations for the purpose of rescindforth become void without prejudice to anything done in the meanwhile in pursuance thereof."-(Mr. Courtney.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added." Mr. Courtney ing, altering, or adding to regulations contained in the Bill with respect to hawking petroleum. The regulations contained in the Act would be part of the law of the land, and the penalty for That was not the way in which they should proceed. If the Act, after it was passed, required amendment, an Amending Bill should be brought in and passed. MR. BROADHURST said, he hoped. the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) would see fit to withdraw this clause. The power given to the Secretary of State to make rules aad regulations was a very serious matter, especially on a question of this kind. Under the powers of this clause, the hawking trade of these poor people might be absolutely ruined at the will of the Home Office. Let them, for instance, suppose that a change of Government took place, and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) was appointed to the Office held by the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney.) He, in the interest of his friends, the aristocratic shopkeepers, would propose at once to annihilate the hawking trade. He (Mr. Broadhurst) was, therefore, considerably alarmed at the proposal of the Government, after the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool. The fact was, that London would be absolutely starved within a single week if they put a stop to street-hawking. He had in his pocket a letter on this subject from a man at Greenwich, and he regretted very much that neither of this person's Representatives were in their place to look after his interests. The writer said that he had been in the oil trade for eight years, and mainly looked upon that for providing a living for his family, and pay breaking them would be a maximum of £20. By this clause it was proposed to intrust the Secretary of State with authority to repeal, or abolish, or alter part of an Act of Parliament. What was the use, then, of specifying any of those things which he was to be empowered to do? Why should they not say simply-"Be it enacted that the Secretary of State shall declare what the law shall be with regard to the hawking of petroleum?" The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney), who was repentant rather late, seemed to see that this was objectionable, and endeavoured to disarm criticism by saying that when the Secretary of State had passed new regulations they should be laid on the Table of the House, and not come into force until the expiration of 40 days. After they had been on the Table for 40 days, and no objection was taken to them, they would become law; so that an Act of Parliament might be by them repealed, unless there was a protest made within 40 days. The Secretary of State would be empowered to continue the Act up to, say, next February, and he might then choose to abolish or repeal the main part of it and substitute something else. It might then wait for some time until it should receive the tacit sanction of Parliament; but the moment that he made the regulations the hawker of petroleum might be prosecuted for any breach of them without knowing of the change. Of course, it would be said that, under such circumstances, magistrates would not convict; but magistrates were some-ing the rent and rates of his shop. He times led away by evidence that was not quite reliable, and they sometimes were of opinion that a defendant was not telling the truth, and this especially when he said he did not know the state of the law. It would be best to have the law contained in a Statute Book, so that the hawker might have resort to it, or his legal adviser might know where to find it. He (Mr. Hopwood) objected to giving a Secretary of State, however eminent he might be, power to alter or rescind a law. These things always resolved themselves into this. Some official suggested a certain course to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State, who was, perhaps, overworked, would only run his eye over the proposal to see if he could agree to it. If there was nothing very objectionable to his mind in it, it received his sanction. declared that if these extraordinary powers were given to the Department to interfere with his trade it might ruin him. He (Mr. Broadhurst) hoped the Committee would take particular notice of the appeal that had been made on behalf of the large shopkeepers. These people were constantly harassing the costermongers in all their large towns, although the costermongers were a class who made food possible to the poor by bringing it to their doors. The costermongers were constantly being persecuted by these large and, very often, uncivil and high-priced shopkeepers. Whatever the Committee did, he appealed to it to protect, as far as possible, not only the immediate but the future interests of these hard-working and deserving hawkers of food and other necessaries of life in their large towns. |