Commons Sitting of 14 August 1883

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 13] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) [Advances].
First Reading—Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.)* [289]; Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure* [290]; Statute Law Revision* [291]; Trial of Lunatics* [292].
Second Reading—Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) [286].
Committee—Revenue and Friendly Societies [269] [House counted out].
Committee—Report—Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) [155]; Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections)* [281].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Bankruptcy [243]; Education (Scotland) * [226], and passed.
Third Reading—National Debt* [287], and passed.
Withdrawn—Income Tax Administration * [98].

QUESTIONS.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS—EXPENSES— RETURN 261, OF 1867.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Treasury has kept up the Statement of the Cost of Royal Commissions, and if a Continuous Return of Return 261, of 1867, can be rendered, but without the Appendix and so made out as to show the total charge for these Commissions, including the Amount in Return 196, of Session 2, of 1859?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I will give directions for the preparation of this Account; but in a concise form. The particulars are annually given by the Comptroller and Auditor General, whose Report my hon. Friend has doubtless studied with his usual care.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— PUPIL TEACHERS.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the pupil teachers who have been instructed in the 26 district and minor model schools are included in the 7,041 teachers who have been recently reported by the Commissioners of National Education as untrained; if so, would he state in what respects the training in Marlborough Street differs from that afforded in the district model schools; have the Commissioners themselves recognised the efficiency of the district model schools as training institutions in appointing persons who had been pupil teachers therein as head
  456
  teachers in their model schools, although they had never been trained in Marlborough Street; whether the district model schools were originally established to train young persons for the office of teacher; and, if he would state whether they have, since their establishment, been in any way altered in their character so as to unfit them for this office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, 268 ex-pupil teachers of model schools were included in the 7,041 teachers recently reported as untrained. The Commissioners have occasionally appointed some persons—some of them pupil teachers, and some not—of high acquirements and tried efficiency to the charge of model schools. For several years these appointments have been determined by competitive examinations. There is no rule excluding untrained teachers from this competition; but the preliminary examinations as pupil teachers do not enter into the question of the candidates' claims for admission to the competition. The district model schools were established with the object of giving teachers a preliminary training preparatory to their entering the training establishments. This was the distinct recommendation borne out by the Minute of 1835, before the establishment of the model schools; and the Commissioners observed that it explicitly shows that from the earliest period it was held that mere model school training could not supersede the necessity for professional training in the training institution under a properly qualified professoriat.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—EMPLOYMENT OF PATIENTS IN CO. DOWN ASYLUM.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it has been the practice for the patients of the County Down Lunatic Asylum to be allowed to assist neighbouring landlords harvesting; if so, whether the Institution obtained any remuneration for their labour; whether the practice will be resumed this year; and, whether the patients have at any time been employed on the estate of Lord Bangor?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it has been the practice for some years past for patients in the Down Asylum to be occasionally employed in harvest work on farms adjoining the asylum. They have

  457
  not been remunerated beyond the extent of getting food and refreshment. In fact, as far as I can gather, it is rather a service on the part of the farmers to find some work for them, in order to give them some occupation and outdoor exercise. They have never worked on Lord Bangor's estate. This employment has been regarded by the patients as a favour and recreation; and it has the approval both of the Inspectors of Lunatics and of the resident Medical Superintendent of the Asylum as being beneficial to their health. It was, of course, done under careful supervision. Fifty acres of land adjoining the Asylum have lately been purchased for farming purposes; and as there will be full employment on this ground for any patients available for such work, the occasional employment outside will be discontinued, as there will no longer be any necessity to seek it.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—POLICE SUPERVISION.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why Bryan Grant, of Castlebayney, county Monaghan, is continually watched and followed all day by a policeman; whether this has gone on now for fifteen months; whether it is the fact that the policeman never loses sight of Grant, and stands over him while he is at his work; whether a constable was dismissed or punished for once losing sight of him; if he is aware that Grant can now hardly get work at his trade because of the suspicions this practice arouses against him; can he state what Grant has done to deserve the course taken by the police, or what justification there is for it; and, will he inquire whether Grant is a respectable artizan who has never in his life been charged with the smallest offence?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the man referred to is believed to be a dangerous member of a secret society, and some watch on his movements is considered necessary in the public interests. It is not a fact that a constable stands over him while at work, or that a constable was dismissed for losing sight of him. A constable was removed for going off his beat and neglecting the instructions which he had to look after Grant. It is not the fact that Grant cannot get work. I am informed that he can get plenty of
  458
  work, and is engaged daily at his trade. I gave special directions some months ago that nothing should be done which would prevent him from getting employment, and these directions are complied with. Except for his connection with secret societies, there is nothing against Grant.
  MR. HEALYasked, was it not a fact that the only evidence the Government had against this man was that Duffy, the informer, wrote his name in a book with those of 200 or 300 others? The man was perfectly harmless.
  [No reply.]

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)— THE PARISH OF EARLY (WOKINGHAM UNION).
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the condition of the parish of Early, in the Union of Wokingham, which is alleged to be so badly provided with medical attendance that the poor have to journey fourteen miles, to and fro, in order to obtain it; whether there is any office for the Registration of Births and Deaths in Early, or the neighbourhood; and, in either of the above cases, if it be necessary, will the Local Government Board do what it can to secure the requisite attendance?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, the Board are aware of the facts as regards the arrangements for the attendance on the sick poor in the Liberty of Early in the Wokingham Union. The medical officer of the district in which Early is situated has held office for 19 years. He resides within his district, and his residence is situate about two miles and a-half from Early New Town, which is the most populous part of the Liberty, and about four miles from the furthest part of Early. A large number of the persons living at Early New Town are employed at the factory of Messrs. Palmer, and most of these are attended by the medical men of the Reading Dispensary. On the 1st of July last, there were only nine cases of persons in Early receiving medical relief from the Guardians. In any case of urgency, the medical officer would attend, without waiting for an order of the relieving officer, or an order for attendance might be obtained from one of the churchwardens or over-

  459
  seers residing in Early. The relieving officer is in the Liberty at least once in each week. It has not been shown that the existing arrangements, with which, so far as the Board can ascertain, the Guardians are quite satisfied, are such that the Board's intervention is required. As regards the question as to the registration arrangements, the Board have communicated with the Registrar General, and have ascertained that the Registrar has two stations within the Liberty of Early, where he attends to register. He attends at one station every Wednesday, and at the other on the first and third Saturdays in each month. No complaint has reached the Registrar General of the insufficiency of the arrangements.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—ALLOWANCES TO TENANTS FOR PAYMENT OF POOR RATES.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that a considerable number of Irish landlords have refused, in the cases of tenants who get the benefits of the Arrears Act, to allow such tenants any credits out of their rents for poor rate paid for the year 1881, or any year prior thereto; whether, seeing that the Arrears Act contains no provision warranting such a proceeding, landlords are justified by Law in thus partially depriving their tenants of the advantages of the Act; and, whether, if not, any means other than an expensive law suit in each case can be taken to prevent the practice in question?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he was not aware whether this practice existed or not. It might have occurred in some cases; but he had no means of knowing.
  MR. HEALY: I will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an instance. It occurred on the estate of the late right hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel Taylor).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the hon. Member knew a great deal more about it than he did. He had no means of knowing what happened between landlord and tenant; and he did not think it would be becoming in him to interfere. If any injustice was done the matter could be tested in an action at law.

  IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES FUND.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will submit a statement showing what balance, if any, will remain in the Irish Church Temporalities Fund after all existing liabilities are discharged, before asking Parliament to impose further liabilities on that fund with an ultimate liability on the Consolidated Fund?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has asked me to answer this Question. My hon. Friend behind me (Sir George Campbell) will find, in Paper 234 of last Session, a full analysis of the position of the Irish Church Fund at that time, from which he will see that we calculated it could bear a charge of at least £2,000,000. Since then the arrears payments have been made; two other small charges under the Poor Relief and Irish Sea Fisheries Acts have been thrown upon it, and the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Bill, now before the House, proposes a further charge. The sums, however, do not together amount to more than £1,300,000.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that he would give Notice that, as the surety of the Consolidated Fund did not appear to be necessary, he would call attention to the point when the subject was brought forward, and move to strike it out of the Bill referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

  IRELAND—STATE-AIDED EMIGRATION —RETURN OF EMIGRANTS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the particulars in the "Cork Daily Herald" of August 9th, concerning three families of assisted emigrants who were landed at Queenstown the previous day from steamers of the Cunard and National lines; whether it is true, as therein stated, that the head of one of the families, Mary Conolly, has eight children, the eldest of whom is a boy of sixteen years of age; that her husband, who was a herd in Galway previously to his assisted emigration, was killed by sunstroke four days after obtaining employment in Boston; and that in three

  461
  weeks after his death she commenced her homeward journey to Ireland with her children, utterly desitute; whether Mary Flaherty, another of the returned emigrants, is a widow with two children, one two years old and the other four; whether her husband also died after a few months in consequence of the excessive heat, and whether she now returns to Galway "without any probable means of support;" whether it is true that her mother, described as an old and helpless woman, was left behind in Galway, when the younger members of the family were taken to America under a supposed scheme of family emigration; whether the head of the third family, Patrick Collins, who returns with a wife and live children, the eldest of them sixteen, is a shoemaker by trade, and was so employed in Tralee when he was induced to emigrate; whether the family was disembarked at Now York with a landing allowance of £4 10 s.; whether he states that he failed to get employment of any kind, and when his landing money was exhausted applied for a free passage home again; who was responsible for selecting these families for emigration; and, whether any compensation can be made to them for the loss of their moans of living?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received a very full Report with regard to these cases. From that Report it appears that the first two were properly selected cases, and that the Emigration Committee which sent them out cannot be held responsible for the misfortunes which overtook them. The Conollys were favourably started in Boston. They were earning £3 4s. per week when the husband died, during the great wave of heat which passed over the Eastern States in July. It was a period during which I remember seeing, in the newspapers, that 850 babies died in New York from the heat. The family were treated with great kindness and attention after the man's death, and arrangements were proposed to enable them to remain in Boston. The widow, however, preferred to be sent back to Ireland, which was accordingly done without any expense to herself. The Flahertys also settled in Boston, where the husband soon obtained employment. He also succumbed to the heat, and soon afterwards Mrs. Flaherty, hearing that Mrs. Conolly was going back to Ireland,
  462
  asked to be sent with her, which was done. The two families were emigrated by Mr. Tuke's Committee, and, only for their misfortunes, would have done well. Mrs. Flaherty's mother was over 60 years of age, and would not emigrate. Patrick Collins was not induced to emigrate, and no one endeavoured to influence him to do so; but, thinking to bettor himself, he applied to the Tralee Board of Guardians for assistance to go to New York. I have no doubt, from what I hear, that this is clearly a case in which the man ought not to have been sent out as a State-aided emigrant. He failed to obtain employment in New York, as he said, owing to the fact that the shoe making trade does not become active until September, and he asked to be sent back, which was done without cost to himself.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the right hon. Gentleman to answer the latter part of the Question.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Why, Sir, the poor people, when they went out, obtained incomparably better wages than in Ireland, and they had the misfortune to lose the heads of the families soon after arriving.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that good employment for four days would reconcile these poor people to the loss of their only moans of support? I would like to know whether an indictment for manslaughter would not lie against the Emigration Committee for having lured them away from their homes?
  MR. HEALYgave Notice that, on the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Bill that evening, he should raise the question whether these emigrants had the climatic conditions of the foreign countries they were sent to explained to them, for it now appeared that two men died from excessive heat immediately after being sent out.
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that, considering the fact that 3,000,000 of Irish people had gone to America, it was scarcely necessary to explain the nature of the climate to emigrants.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had heard anything about the emigrants who had not returned?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have a great deal of information, which, if

  463
  asked for in the natural course, I shall be happy to give.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— "COOKE v. HEFFERNAN."
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Cooke v. Heffernan before the Master of the Rolls, reported in the "Freeman," 4th August; whether the defendant's affidavit stated that, a few days after the decree of the Master of the Rolls, the plaintiff had proceeded to his residence, in county Tipperary, accompanied by police and a resident magistrate, and had demanded possession, not merely of the farms and stock, to which she was entitled, but also to other farms and stock; whether the Master of the Rolls said that this proceeding of demanding possession with police and a resident magistrate a few days after his decree was a most highhanded proceeding, which would not be sanctioned by the court; if he can state who the resident magistrate was, and by whose instructions he acted; what notice he proposes to take of the matter; whether last year the Waterford County Court Judge similarly condemned the action of the police in sustaining Lord Waterpark in felling trees on a tenant's land without legal authority; and, whether any instructions will be given to the police authorities, cautioning them not to again interfere and take sides in a dispute involving questions of right or title?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen the legal report referred to; but I cannot vouch for its accuracy. I find, on inquiry, that on both the occasions mentioned in the Question the police were present simply because a breach of the peace was apprehended, and not in any way to uphold any question of title.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his Question. Who was the Resident Magistrate that ordered the police to attend?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, as to that point, it was an administrative matter; and the only thing he was bound to say was, that the police were present, in accordance with their duty, to prevent a breach of the peace. In the second case mentioned, the County Court Judge appeared to have condemned the
  464
  action of the agent in bringing the police to the scene, inasmuch as he did not think there was any danger of a breach of the peace. He did not blame the police for being there.
  MR. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman says this is an administrative matter. Does he consider that when a Judge in the position of the Master of the Rolls condemned the Resident Magistrate for his action, and condemned the police for their action, the Government are to take no notice of it? I also wish to know who the Resident Magistrate was?
  MR. TREVELYAN: He did not condemn the Resident Magistrate.
  MR. HEALY: Yes; he did.
  MR. TREVELYAN: He condemned the proceedings. He said he thought it was unnecessary to send the police.
  MR. HEALY: He said it was a most high-handed proceeding.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS (IRELAND)— SWORDS BOROUGH SCHOOL.
  MR. MARUM (for Mr. P. MARTIN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the fact stated in the Reports and Evidence laid before the Royal Commissioners in respect to the Swords Borough Schools, showing there have been many misapplications of the funds in violation of the spirit and terms of the Charter; are there any, and, if so, what reasons to prevent a public examination from being held for the distribution by competition of the entire of the prizes and apprenticeship fees amongst the scholars entitled to share them under the terms of the Charter; and, will there be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the communications which have passed between the Lord Chancellor and the Government in reference to this School?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, be had communicated with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was one of the Trustees of this school, respecting the matters complained of by the hon. Member, and he had not yet heard from his Lordship. He would write again that evening.

  NAVY—THE NEW DOCKYARD SCHEME.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty,

  465
  Whether it is intended to omit altogether the leading men of joiners from the benefits of the new Dockyard Scheme; and, if not, whether he can state what steps will be taken in their favour?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Sir, the inquiries of the recent Committee were limited to the shipbuilding officers and their immediate subordinates. The position of the leading men of joiners and other trades will be considered; and no decision can be taken without a careful inquiry into the circumstances of each case.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL—THE PROPOSED SCOTCH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will inform the House whether the Office of the President of the proposed Local Government Board for Scotland will be in London or in Edinburgh?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, one of the main objects which, I think, the Members for Scotland desire is that during the Session of Parliament they should have constant access to the Minister who is charged with the Business to be given under this Bill. Of course, for that purpose he must have his records, his business papers, in London—that is quite clear—for the convenience of Scottish Members, and also the permanent Staff, the absence of which I have always considered to be one of the great defects of the arrangement. There should be somebody who could keep together the traditions, the records, and transactions of Scottish Business. That is not done. There is no such official. Therefore, of course, there must be a place of business in London. Then, as regards Scotland, Lord Rosebery, when he had charge of Scottish Business, thought it was always convenient to have a place of business in Edinburgh, where, when Parliament was not sitting, Scottish Members and other persons could have access to him, and where he could meet them; and, no doubt, that is a system which would be continued, and, if necessary, expanded. But let me remind my hon. and gallant Friend that this, after all, is an experiment. It must depend on how Business turns out, and what is most convenient.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: I understand the records will be kept in London.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That, again, I say, will depend on what course is more convenient. If it is found more convenient to keep the records in London, they will be kept in London; and if in Edinburgh, they will be kept in Edinburgh.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND)— TYPHUS IN THE ISLAND OF SKYE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the reported outbreak of typhus fever in the Island of Skye; if he can state how many cases of the disease have occurred, and whether it is true that the medical officer of the district has been attacked; and, what steps the Local Sanitary Authority or the Board of Supervision has taken to deal with the outbreak?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, attention has been drawn to the outbreak of typhus fever in Skye. A Report was received from the Board of Supervision, and the village attacked by fever was also visited by the Royal Commission which is now sitting in the Highlands. The number of cases has been 25, in about five months, of which three have been fatal. I regret to say that the medical officer, Dr. Mackenzie, was attacked with fever in the zealous discharge of his duty, and now lies dangerously ill. The earliest cases were not recognized by the sufferers to be cases of fever, and were not reported to the authorities. But the local authority have been active; and in obtaining trained nurses, first from Inverness, and then from Edinburgh, and in securing the services of another medical officer, have, I think, done all in their power.
  DR. CAMERON: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer that part of my Question, whether anything has been done in the way of securing isolation?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, it is a small village, consisting of small huts, I may say, and I believe there has not been any opportunity of isolating the patients. There is a power, under the Public Health Act, to provide hospitals; but that could not be done in such a place; and, as the outbreak seems to have been unexpected,

  467
  I cannot say that the local authority is blameable for not providing hospital accommodation before this time.

  ARMY—VACCINATION.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR.)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it has come to his knowledge that sixty-eight recruits were vaccinated at Dortrecht, in Holland, on the 25th of May last, of whom eight were found to be seriously injured, three having subsequently died; whether the fact of these injuries and fatalities was subsequently brought to the attention of the Netherlands Parliament, and a circular issued by Mr. Weitzel, the Minister of War, notifying recruits that vaccination was not to be considered obligatory, but optional; whether it is his intention to abolish or modify the Military regulation, enjoining the vaccination of recruits and the periodical re-vaccination of soldiers in the English Army; and, if he will state by what authority the Secretary of State is empowered to compel recruits to submit to vaccination against their will?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the alleged occurrences in Holland have not been brought to the notice of the War Office; but I will cause inquiry to be made through the Foreign Office. There is no intention of abolishing or modifying the system of vaccinating or re-vaccinating recruits, which has acted most successfully in protecting soldiers from small-pox, and against which system the recruits, so far as is known, have offered no objection. The Regulation for the vaccination or re-vaccination of recruits is contained in the Medical Regulations of the Army, which are issued under the authority of the Secretary of State.

  ARMY—THE ARMY HOSPITAL SERVICES— REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the fact that it is impossible for the House, at this period of the Session, to be afforded an adequate opportunity of expressing its opinion with regard to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Army Hospital Services, it is intended, before next Session, to act on the recommendation of that Committee
  468
  with regard to the proposed change in the position of the Medical Officers with the Household Troops, a recommendation dissented from by two Members of the Committee, and opposed to the opinions of all the military authorities who gave evidence on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I propose, as soon after the end of the Session as possible, to examine carefully all the recommendations of Lord Morley's Committee, and to consider how far they shall be adopted and given effect to in next year's Estimates. I cannot undertake, with reference to the particular recommendation adverted to in the Question of the hon, Member, that no steps shall be taken towards its adoption before the House has had an opportunity of discussing it; because, like all other decisions, it must be taken on the responsibility of the Government, and not of the House of Commons. But the House will, on the Army Estimates next year, have a full opportunity of discussing the question, and of expressing its opinion on any action which may be taken by the Government.
  MR. GUY DAWNAY: I rise to thank the noble Marquess for his answer, qualified though it is, and beg to give Notice that I intend, on the first opportunity, to call attention to the evidence given before the Committee of Inquiry into the Army Hospital Services with regard to the working of those Services during the Egyptian Campaign, and to the change recommended in the Report of the Committee with regard to the position of the medical officers of the Household Troops, and to move a Resolution.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE ASHBURNHAM MSS.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked, Whether, seeing that the Government propose to buy a part of the collection of the Ashburnham MSS. for £45,000, and that the Trustees of the British Museum are willing to give a further sum of £20,000 out of their annual grant towards the purchase, the Government will consent to propose an additional Vote of £25,000 to make up £90,000, the total amount of purchase money necessary to secure to the nation the whole of the collection, with the exception of the Libri and Barrois portion?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that, if the Trustees of the British Museum were ready to reduce their annual grant by £20,000, that reduction would have to be spread over a long series of years, and the Vote to be now taken would be £90,000, not £70,000. But Her Majesty's Government had a suggestion to this effect before them some weeks ago, and, after full consideration, did not see their way to adopt it.

  SUEZ CANAL—A SHIP RAILWAY.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the enforced absence of further proceedings in reference to the Suez Canal under the Resolution of the House on 31st July last, he will support the project of a Ship Railway from Pelusium to the Gulf of Suez, as advocated by eminent English engineers in 1859; and, whether he is aware that two Ship Bail-ways are now in course of construction in America, and of the feasibility of transporting the largest ships by Railway, vouched for by practical engineers of high standing?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he could not have regard to the early part of the Question, because he thought that would be matter for argument, and he could not see what the exact measure of its accuracy was. He could not admit "the enforced absence." As to whether there was a state of things that would lead them to support the projects of a ship railway, no project of that kind could be said to be before the Government, although he had had a letter from a gentleman connected with the project, who wished the Government to enter into it. It was, no doubt, a most interesting scheme; but the precedent of the United States, to which the Question referred, did not go the whole length—that was, if he was correctly informed—suggested by the hon. Member. No attempt had been made in the United States to build a ship railway for ships of the tonnage of those that went through the Suez Canal. The subject was one of the very greatest interest; but it had not reached a stage at which they could give it their serious attention.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked, whether it was not within the power of this country to open up communication
  470
  between the two seas otherwise than by water?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that was asking him a Question on a sudden which, perhaps, he should not be prudent in answering. But, at the same time, he had never heard of any limitation at all; although there might be a question for the authorities there, to establish their claim in respect to any communication.

  SUEZ CANAL COMPANY—THE ENGLISH DIRECTORS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Resolution of the Council of the Suez Canal Company, to which the English Directors gave their approval, in reference to the letter addressed on the 20th July by M. de Lesseps to Mr. Gladstone, together with any Report in explanation thereof furnished by the Directors to Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I daresay the hon. Member is aware that there was a general understanding—I do not know the date of it exactly—that, as a general rule, the proceedings of the Council should not be made public. The reason is that it is a managing Board of a purely commercial speculation; but, on special occasions, their proceedings may be made public. We have not received the minutes of the meeting to which the Question refers; but we will inquire, and ascertain whether there would be any objection to produce the text. I cannot, of course, under these circumstances, give any pledge as to the communication of the managing Board.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he had asked whether any Report had been received from the English Directors; and, if so, whether it would be laid on the Table?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon. We have a letter from the English Directors; but I do not think it is desirable to produce it. They are our agents, and the communication may, I think, be regarded as confidential.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—THE CHOLERA— REPORTED OUTBREAK IN HOLLAND.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether it is true, as alleged in one of

  471
  the newspapers, that cholera has broken out in Holland?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL, in reply, said, that when he came from the Office no such Report had been received. But, since the hon. Member had given him private Notice of his Question, he had sent to inquire, and would let the House know the result of the inquiry.

  MADAGASCAR—THE BRITISH CONSULATE.
  SIR WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have appointed a Consul General at Madagascar; and, if so, whether he will have any objection to mention his name?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not appointed a Consul General; but they have appointed a successor to Mr. Pakenham, recently deceased. The name of that successor is Mr. George F. Annesley, Her Majesty's Consul at Surinam.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDpointed out that the Question was, whether a Consul General had been appointed; while the noble Lord had stated that a successor to Mr. Pakenham had been appointed. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would ask, whether the Government had not made quite another, and a different appointment—namely, that of a Consul at Antananarivo, the capital of the Island; and, whether, in the late Consular Vote, there was not a sum of £800 taken for his salary?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, he had stated that no Consul General had been appointed. We have been and are represented in Madagascar by a Consul, whose residence is nominally at Antananarivo, though, by arrangement, he also acts as Consul at Tamatave, and lives there.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked, whether the Government had any information as to the supersession of Admiral Pierre, and the appointment of Admiral Galibar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, we have no information.

  ARMY—COST OF ALDERSHOT CAMP.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for War, If the cost of the Aldershot Camp can be rendered, in continuation of a Return
  472
  formerly made out; if so, what that cost, for the land, several buildings, and other purposes, has been; and, whether such an account can be rendered?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, if the hon. and gallant Member will inquire at the War Office for any specific item of information on this subject, we will do our best to give it him; but the preparation of the Return to which he refers would involve so great an expenditure of labour and time that I am informed it could only be rendered by increasing the clerical Staff.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked, whether the last Return was not printed on half a page of foolscap?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes; Sir; the Return is not at all a voluminous one; but it would require the examination of an enormous mass of documents, although the result does not appear very large.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked, When it was proposed to take the Army Estimates, which had been put off since the middle of June?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Army Estimates will be taken immediately after the Civil Service Estimates are concluded; it is possible they may be reached on Thursday; if not, it will be on Friday.
  In reply to Mr. HEALY,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill would be the first Order of the Day for to-morrow. Other arrangements must depend upon the progress made with that measure.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 155.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 155.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was admirably

    473
    suited, from its brevity, to the period of the Session at which the Bill was introduced. The course of Business that Session in regard to Irish Bills was, to the last degree, startling and strange, as a glance at the Order Book would show; and he would illustrate his meaning by the fact that the House was asked to go into Committee on a Bill of this importance on the 14th of August, and by the further fact that the third and fourth Orders related to the Tramways and Public Companies Bill—a Bill of great importance as affecting Ireland, which had been introduced only two or three days ago. It was impossible to ignore other Bills of more importance to the social well-being of Ireland than these two. If there was one Bill which more than another had attracted wide attention, or that was desired by the Irish people, it was the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. Deputation after deputation had waited upon the Irish Government about it, and it was known from past votes and speeches that four-fifths of the Irish Members were more or less strongly pledged to support it. [Mr. CALLAN: No, no!] He spoke according to his own knowledge. Other hon. Members could do the same, and he would adhere to his original statement. The exact proportion was not his point; but the Irish Government was pledged, through the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant, that, whatever other Irish Bill became law, the Irish Sunday Closing Bill would be placed on the Statute Book, and now the Irish Sunday Closing Bill was dropped and forgotten, and this Registration Bill was placed in its present remarkable position. Another measure that was heralded with great promises, and bold and resolute assertion, was the extension of the Bankruptcy Bill to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), who was generally considered to be a man who knew his own mind, had, within the last few days, distinctly and categorically stated across the floor of the House that the Government were determined to adhere to the clauses extending the Bill to Ireland; and, notwithstanding that distinct pledge, the measure was given up as recently as Saturday last. Then, quite recently, another Bill challenging the attention of the House was introduced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland
    474
    for the re-organization of the Resident Magistracy and Police in Ireland, after it had been postponed more than once, in order to get a good opportunity for making a statement upon it—a Bill that was obviously, from the terms in which it was brought forward, of great Departmental importance, and that Bill actually died still-born. It was almost dropped before it was printed and circulated. They had another Bill also on the Paper which vindicated the words he had used when he spoke of the conduct of Irish Business this Session as startling and strange—he referred to the Tramways and Public Companies Bill, a Bill which anyone who listened to the statement by which it was introduced must know was in no sense urgent. ["Oh, oh!"] It was a Bill for which there was at that moment no urgency of necessity. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might say "Oh, oh!" but the Bill was in no sense urgent; it was not to be confined to necessitous districts; it was not alleged that it was for the relief of distress, and it would be applied to the richest and poorest alike; and he was saying what could not be disputed when he said that it was a Bill introduced without the slightest excuse of pressure or urgency. And what was the Bill which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had moved so concisely now? It was a purely political Bill, introduced and ordered to be printed on the 26th of April, and one which no one had since heard anything of until, through the vicissitudes of other legislative proposals to which he would subsequently refer, the Government found it necessary to bring it again under the notice of the House, and procured the passage of its second reading on a Saturday in August—an unprecedented course to take with an important political Bill, in which the legislation dealt with was of an opposed character; and now, on the 14th of August, they were gravely asked to go through the clauses. He, therefore, protested against further proceeding with this Bill at a period of the Session when the sparse attendance in the House indicated the overwhelming conclusion that it could not obtain, and was not intended to obtain, a full and complete hearing. Now, what was the nature of the Bill? It had not, and could not have, a principle. The Sunday Closing Bill, which was only needed by

    475
    those who desired the moral well-being of Ireland, and the Bankruptcy Clauses, which only affected the mercantile community of Ireland, had been dropped; and the only reason why this measure was being pressed so late in the Session was because the Government thought that, at this time of the Session, they might possibly pass a measure which some people thought might have a political power in some particular places. Was there any urgency for it? ["Yes; there is."] He was not concerned to deny that the registration system in Ireland was susceptible of improvement. [Laughter.] He had admitted that more than once in that House, and was not prepared to withdraw or qualify anything he had said in reference to the subject. He saw nothing, however, in that system to justify the monstrous conduct of the Government in pressing on a Bill like this at this time of the Session; and when he admitted what he had, it was in no way to encourage or facilitate the Government in the prosecution of that conduct. Had the Bill come on at an earlier period there were many of its provisions that he should have been prepared to consider and criticize; and, just to show the importance of the measure, and what might be its operation on the administration of the Registration Laws of Ireland, he would take one or two points only for illustration. One of the principal and most important points of controversy in the registration system had reference to what was called "the Supplemental List," and the way in which it was dealt with. The expression "Supplemental List" did not occur, however, from beginning to end of the Bill; and yet, by general words, which required to be interpreted by a lawyer, immense changes would be made in many important centres of registration. He would admit that a voter whose name was on the original list of voters had had his right to vote recognized; and if that right were challenged, it was not unreasonable that he should be furnished with a specific objection. To that extent he was in favour of a modification of the existing law; and he should be prepared to take a similar view with regard to the Claimants' List. But the conditions under which the Supplemental List was prepared were wholly different; and the only point
    476
    under discussion was, what were the conditions under which the Supplemental List should be examined and considered by the Registration Court? The present law was, that any person wishing to challenge the right of another person whose name appeared on the Supplemental List, claiming to be added to the original list of voters, should have the power of furnishing to that person a general notice of objection. This Bill, however, proposed what was a grave and serious change—that any person on the Supplemental List should have a specific objection to his name, and that no longer a general objection would be allowed. That would be all right if the persons who prepared the Supplemental List, the Poor Law officers, had knowledge sufficient to satisfy themselves that every person on the Supplemental List had the proper qualifications. But that was not so—they only knew that the person whose name they submitted was possessed of two out of four of the requisite qualifications—namely, that he was rated, and had paid his rates. ["Hear, hear!"] Very well; but that did not prove the residence or nature of the occupation, which were as necessary as the other two qualifications to give the right to vote. Their object should be a pure registry. Let every man who was entitled to be on the registry be there; but if they allowed every person, without any check, and insisted upon a specific objection, to be placed on the Supplemental List, they would add hundreds and thousands who did not possess the necessary qualifications for voters. He did not want to run away with the question. The second detail he would call attention to was the proposal to shift the onus of proof from the claiming voter to the objector. That was a startling measure. The Bill proposed also to give, for the first time, to the Poor Rate Collectors, who were appointed for a totally different purpose, substantial and significant power in the preparation of voters' lists and objections. That was a matter which must be carefully examined in Committee, and if the Bill were to be considered as its importance required that stage would occupy a very considerable time. The Bill did not come accredited with the recommendation of any Select Committee. The last time a Select Committee sat on the subject was in 1875, when the

    477
    majority made a Report that was entirely opposed to the main provisions of this Bill; and what he wanted to impress upon the Government was this—that the matter required more close and minute investigation than could be given to it at this period of the Session. If there were few Amendments to the Bill, he could understand the Government proceeding with it at this time of the Session. He found, however, that the Paper of Amendments contained a substantial number of Amendments, and he assumed that if the Amendments were discussed at all adequately, considerable time must be occupied. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), who, he might say, had registration on the brain, had put down a large number of clauses. He did not know whether the hon. Member intended to press them, or whether they were merely "leather and prunella," put down to give interesting reading to Gentlemen who took an interest in Parliamentary Papers. But, if the hon. Member proposed his Amendments, they had before them an intellectual treat of some hours. He protested, and on every subsequent stage of the Bill he should protest, against proceeding with the measure after the 14th of August. He believed this to be an attempt at a most inopportune season, and in a most unsatisfactory manner, to foist legislation on the House of Commons; and he would, therefore, move the rejection of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day throe months."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he gathered from the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) that, in making his protest, he did not wish it to be followed by a long debate. [Mr. GIBSON: It is the 14th of August.] No doubt that was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reason for not wishing to enter into a long debate, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) should follow the example set, and only make a few remarks. The right hon. and learned Gentleman took exception to the general management of Irish Business. He regretted the fate of the Sunday Closing Bill; he (Mr. Trevelyan)
    478
    also regretted it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the withdrawal of the Police Bill, which he described as a Departmental Bill of first-class importance. It was, however, hardly in those epithets that he (Mr. Trevelyan) introduced the Bill, seeing that when he did so he described it as one which would promote administrative convenience and very considerable public economy; and since the withdrawal of the Bill he had indicated the nature and extent of the Departmental inconvenience which had been caused by the postponement of the measure for what he hoped would not be more than eight or nine months. The right hon. and learned Gentleman commented upon the fact that the Bill under the notice of the House was introduced on the 29th of April, yet the Government could not find time to read it a second time until Saturday, the 14th of August. That, however, was the first opportunity on which, so far as the choice of the Irish Government was concerned, they were able to bring the Bill on for second reading. He could not allow that the right hon. and learned Gentleman justly described the Tramways and Public Companies Bill, when he said it was a Bill which had been introduced with no pressure of circumstance, because it did not refer to the distressed districts. It essentially referred to those districts, for it was in the distressed districts that railways had not been made, because they would not pay, and it was in those districts that tramways alone could pay. [Mr. GIBSON: They will not be localized to those districts.] No; he would quite admit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman described the Bill now under consideration as a keenly-opposed political Bill, He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not dispute the possibility of its being keenly opposed; but he denied that it was a political Bill. It was not brought in in favour of one Party more than of another. In the speech in which he moved the second reading, he gave reasons which had convinced himself, and, he thought, had convinced other hon. Gentlemen in the House, that if the Bill was in favour of any Party, it was in favour of that Party which was, perhaps, the least actively political—namely, the quiet Conservatives of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said

    479
    the Bill had no principle; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) did not quite agree in that. The Bill had a simple and plain principle, and that was that a man should enjoy the vote which Parliament intended he should have. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had also asked what the urgency of the Bill consisted in. Well, it consisted in this—that three years ago it was read a second time without a Division by the House of Commons, which might be presumed to know more about everything that concerned elections than any other Body in the country—that it was passed by the House of Commons, and that it was then thrown out by the House of Lords, who, hon. Members could conceive, had not the same interest and thorough knowledge in those matters as the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of the monstrous conduct of the Government in bringing on this Bill at this time of the Session. If it were monstrous conduct for a Government giving plenty of reasons for doing so to read a Bill for the second time when it was late in the Session, what was the conduct of those who would throw out that Bill without giving any reason except that it was late in the Session? That was the urgency for the Bill. It was a measure brought in to help the citizen, as a citizen, to the vote which Parliament intended he should have, and in order that he should enjoy the vote at the next General Election. The urgency was, that they were three years nearer the next General Election than they were when the House of Commons determined it was just and for the public advantage that the Bill should pass. He hoped the House would, without further delay, be allowed to go to a Division on the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he should not make a long speech upon the subject, seeing that he had moved the rejection of the Bill upon the second reading. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had contradicted the assertion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), that the Tramways and Public Companies Bill was not one called for by the necessities of the case; and he said that the urgency of that Bill consisted in the fact that it would
    480
    be applied to the necessitous districts. He (Colonel King-Harman), however, maintained that it could not be so applied, because, in some of these districts, the poor rates and the county cess were so high that the required baronial guarantees could not be given; and, consequently, they could not avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill. He had no intention of opposing the Tramways and Public Companies Bill, because he believed that in many parts of the country it would do a great deal of good, though he did not think it would affect the districts where tramways were most required. As to the Bill now before the House, he saw no reason for proceeding with it at that late period of the Session, when other and more important measures had been dropped by the Government in such a pusillanimous manner. All he could say was that he was sorry the Conservative Members for Ireland had not taken a lesson from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; but this Bill, aimed as it was at the Conservative Party in Ireland, would teach them to oppose the Government in every possible way. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Yes; he did not see why hon. Members sitting on the Conservative Benches if they knew how to give battle to the Government in favour of measures which were for the good of Ireland, in the same way as the Irish Members below the Gangway, when they were fighting for measures which were of a pernicious character and not for the good of Ireland, would not be able to prevent the Government passing measures such as the one under consideration, which were absolutely unnecessary, and would do no good for the country. He desired simply to enter his protest against the Government bringing on this Bill, not in an unprecedented way for second reading on a Saturday, for the same course was followed in 1880, but for bringing it on at a time when there was no opportunity of discussing it. He hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would go to a Division, for if he did, he (Colonel King Harman) would support him in opposing it.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) recently accused Irish Members below the Gangway of having made an alliance with

    481
    rebels. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward no proof in support of that accusation, except the number of Questions put on Thursdays and Mondays. But since then, beyond dispute, the Government had entered into an alliance with hon. Members below the Gangway for the purpose, he supposed, of getting rid of inconvenient opposition. They saw an illustration of that in the Bill before the House. The object of that Bill was to flood Ireland with a number of bad votes, and another object was to take away some votes from the Conservative Party. In 1880 the other House rejected a similar measure, because it came up shamefully late—namely, in the month of September; but he thought that this year, on the 14th of August, they were really later than in 1880 in September. There was no reason why a Bill brought forward in April should not have been read a second time in June or July. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) would divide, in order to show the other House that there was a strong objection to the Bill; and, weak as they (the Opposition) were, he trusted there was a place where their weakness would be respected and their voices heard, and that a House which had often prevented what was wrong would see that justice was done.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 29: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 293.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preliminary.
    Clause 1 (Definition of Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1850) agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Extent of Act) agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Short title and commencement).
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 1, line 13, after the word "and," insert "with the exception of section eight," the object of which was to provide that Section 8 should come into operation immediately after the passing of the Act.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 13, after the word "and," to insert the words "with the exception of section eight, which shall come into operation immediately on the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that, before the Amendment of the hon. Member was put, he wished to know whether it would be regular to insert it in the present clause, because it would really involve the discussion of the 8th clause, and it might be that Clause 8 would be objected to altogether, and might never come into operation at all? Under these circumstances, he would ask the Chairman whether the Amendment of the hon. Member could be inserted as now proposed?
    MR. HEALYsaid, that, as a matter of draftsmanship, there was nowhere else in the Bill whore he could insert this Amendment, because, if the present clause were passed, they would enact that—
    "This Act may he cited for all purposes as the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Act, 1883, and shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty four."
    His object in proposing this Amendment was to provide that Section 8 should come into operation at an earlier period—namely, immediately after the passing of the Act. He had no wish to discuss Section 8 now; but he did not think there was any other place in which he could move the Amendment.
    MR. WARTONpointed out that in the Friendly Societies Bill a section was inserted which would come into force at a different time from the rest of the Act. He believed that it was the 17th section; and therefore he presumed, as a point of Order, it would be open for the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), when Section 8 was reached, to move that it should come in force at an earlier date than the rest of the Act. He did not know whether the Attorney General for Ireland was as well acquainted with the facts of the case as the Secretary to the Treasury, and he regretted that the Secretary to the Treasury was not in his place. He could, however, assure the Committee that the facts were as he had stated them.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not understand the question to be one of Order; but I certainly entertain the opinion that it would be more convenient to propose the Amendment upon Clause 8 of the Bill. I do not think, as a matter of Order, that there would be any objection to that course.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would do whatever the Committee pleased in the matter. It would, perhaps, be as well, however, that he should state his reasons for proposing the Amendment now, as it might lead to confusion subsequently, and the statement he had to make was very brief.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the statement had better be postponed.
    MR. HEALYasked if any other place could be suggested where it could be brought in?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought it would be convenient to move the Amendment, and explain the reason for it at the end of Section 8.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would be the most convenient course.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Prevention of frivolous Objections.
    Clause 4 (Notices of objection shall state grounds of objection).
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 1, line 16, after "26," insert "and 36." The clause provided for objections under Section 26 of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1850, and he thought it was evidently by an error of draughtsmanship that Section 36 had been omitted. He believed that the Government had been led into the error by the previous Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon). Schedule A absolutely referred to Clause 36; whereas it had no reference whatever to Section 26. The law as it stood under Section 26 required notice to be served on the Clerk of the Peace; and it was provided, under the present Bill, that any notice of objection might be given under that section to any person or any list of claimants; but no notice of objection given under Section 26 should be valid unless the ground or grounds of objection were specifically stated therein. There was, however, no provision in regard to the notice to be served upon the individual
    484
    occupier who claimed the right to vote; and unless they included Section 36 in this clause, the occupier who received a notice of objection would have no means of knowing what the grounds of the objection to him were. He thought it would be most unfair that the occupier should not be made acquainted with the nature of the objections against him. The Schedule attached to the Bill applied to notices of objection to be given to parties objected to by any person other than the Clerk of the Peace or the Clerk of the Union or Poor Rate Collector, and that Schedule had reference to Section 36 of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, and not to Section 26 at all. The matter was a thoroughly technical one, and exceedingly difficult to explain; but he challenged anyone to say that the Schedule attached to the Bill could apply to anything except Section 36. It certainly could not apply to Section 26; and it would be a very unfair thing for an occupier to receive a notice of objection which simply stated that he was objected to, without stating the grounds. He might be called upon to travel many miles before he would be able to find out what the nature of the objection was. He did not see what hardship it would be to require the person sending the notice of objection to state the grounds of objection, and therefore he trusted the Committee would accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, after the word "twenty-six," to insert the words "and thirty-six."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'and thirty-six' be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he had no objection whatever to the Amendment. It appeared to him that Section 26 made provision for the notice to be served, and Section 36 required the grounds of objection to be stated.
    MR. GIBSONremarked, that a good many of the provisions of the Bill had been draughted from the clauses of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), who was a complete master of the question. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would explain to the Committee how it was that he had arrived at the conclusion not to include Section

    485
    36 in the clause with Section 26? He wanted to know whether the attention of his hon. and learned Friend had been drawn to the matter, or whether it was a point which had escaped his consideration?
    MR. MELDONsaid, his attention had not been attracted to this clause until the present moment; but now that it had been it occurred to him that the objections referred to had reference to the supplemental list. There were two lists, and the supplemental list did not exist in the boroughs at all. In the counties certain officials prepared the list, and they were absolutely responsible for it, and it was called a supplemental list. In the boroughs there was only the one list, and that included the names which had originally been on the list of voters for the previous year, and also the names of those who were entitled to come upon it. He certainly saw no objection to the Amendment proposed, so as to embrace the lists prepared by the officials in the boroughs also.
    MR. TREVELYANsuggested that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) should change the words "and thirty-six" to the words "or thirty-six."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had proposed "or" originally; but he was advised that "and" would be better. He was prepared to take whichever word was most acceptable to the Government.
    MR. P. MARTINsuggested that a better Amendment would be to say that any notice of objection given might be given according to the provisions of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act. That would include both sections.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that that, in point of fact, would be in accordance with the Amendment originally placed upon the matter by the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Corry)—namely, to leave out all reference to any particular section of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act. On considering the Amendment he thought, on the whole, it was a preferable Amendment to that of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). Both hon. Members, however, were aiming at the same object.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had no objection to substitute the words "or thirty-six" instead of "and thirty-six."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, after "twenty-six," to insert "or thirty-six."—(Mr. Healy).
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GIBSON MR. GIBSON moved, in page 1, line 18, after "claimants," insert "or the supplemental list." He said, that Amendment dealt with the question already brought before the House on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair. The object of the Amendment was to include the supplemental list as well as the original list, so that general notices of objection should apply to that list as well as to the original list. He presumed that the majority of hon. Members then present were in their places when he addressed the House on a former occasion, and it would be unreasonable and unbecoming if he were to go over the same ground again. The supplemental list was prepared by the officers of the Poor Law, who were gentlemen of great respectability, but who were not acquainted with the nature of the qualifications possessed by the persons whose names appeared on the list. All that the officers knew about the persons figuring on the list was that they had paid their rates, and it was only reasonable that there should be power given to serve a general notice of objection against a claim to appear on the list.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, after the word "claimants," to insert the words "or the supplemental list."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MELDONobserved, that prior to 1868, when a person did forward a claim, unless it was objected to, he got upon the list of voters without being called upon to give any proof that his name was entitled to appear there. A change was then made in the law, and it was insisted that every claimant, whether he was objected to or not, should, in the first instance, be bound to go forward and prove his case. Consequently, at the present moment the onus was thrown upon the claimant, whether he was objected to or not, to come forward and prove his claim; but with regard to the supplemental list, a person whose name was upon

    487
    that list, so far as two of the qualifications for voting were concerned—namely, rating and the payment of rates, was relieved from the onus of proof. At the present moment these supplemental lists were actually primâ facie evidence that the man whose name appeared on the list was rated, and that he had paid his rates. What was simply proposed to be done was to extend that primâ facie evidence to the other qualifications required for voting. Upon this ground the supplementallist, according to the evidence given before the Select Committee, was prepared in the most careful way; and in the great majority of cases—nine-tenths at least—experience proved that the persons put on that list were persons whose names were entitled to appear upon it. There were three officials connected with the preparation of the list—the Clerk of the Peace, the Clerk of the Union, and, in addition to the Clerk of the Union, the person who was primarily responsible—namely, the Poor Rate Collector, was made auxiliary to the preparation of the list. What the Bill did was this—it said that the Poor Rate Collector and the Clerk of the Union had such information at their disposal as to render it desirable that the nature of the qualification, when testified to by them, should be taken, not as conclusive evidence, but primâ facie evidence, upon the subject. The whole of the Inquiry of 1874, or, at any rate, the greater part of it, was directed towards that question—namely, Whether or not it would be safe to entrust the Clerk of the Union and the Poor Rate Collector with the duty of testifying to these facts, and whether the list might be regarded as having been sufficiently prepared to render it desirable that the testimony of these officers should be considered sufficient to establish certain facts in regard to the occupation and the nature of the occupation? The evidence upon the question was altogether one way both in 1869, when a Committee sat in reference to the English registration system, and in 1874. The evidence was conclusive that the Poor Rate Collector, travelling about from house to house, and having imposed upon him the duty of inserting in the rate book the name of every person rated for the relief of the poor, was the proper person to record these particular facts. The means of knowledge of the
    488
    Poor Rate Collector were such that, unless something tantamount to a fraud was committed, a mistake could not be made by him. Upon that ground a minority of the Committee of 1874 substantially approved of the clause as it now stood. The Committee consisted of 15 Members, seven of whom voted for the Report, which contained a recommendation to this effect, while the remaining seven voted against it. The Committee was appointed at the time when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House were in power; and it was well known what power the Government of the day had in selecting the Members to serve upon a Committee. In this case, owing to the composition of the Committee, the number on each side was equal; and it was only by the casting vote of the Chairman that the recommendation for an alteration of the law was thrown out. Under these circumstances, he thought a case had been made out in support of the fact that the list was so well prepared by the Clerk of the Union, with the assistance of the Poor Rate Collector, as to justify the House in placing the onus upon the persons who prepared the list. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in 1880, moved the same Amendment, but did not press it to a Division. He hoped the clause would be allowed to stand in its present form.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsupported the Amendment moved by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), which he thought raised a point that could not be fairly and reasonably objected to. He and those who acted with him had no wish whatever to object to a person who had a fair right to appear upon the list. They had no wish to object to the claim of such person on the off-chance that by some device or trick the name might be struck off. He thought that would be a most dishonourable proceeding. At the same time, he thought that this supplemental list, especially in Ireland, was not always, and could not always be, so carefully prepared as it ought to be; and it was, therefore, right not to throw such obstacles in the way of objection to persons whose names appeared on the supplemental list as to make it impossible to frame objections. It was all very well to say that the Clerk of the Union,

    489
    with the assistance of the Poor Rate Collector, ought to prepare an immaculate list; but those who lived in the country knew that that was not the case, and that without the slightest suspicion of fraud a great number of names were put on the list which had no business to appear upon it. What he maintained was that it would be very hard not to have the power of objecting to such names if there was reason to believe that the names had no legal right to be on the list. He distinctly repudiated any imputation that he desired to prevent anybody from exercising the franchise who had a right to enjoy it. The righ hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant wished it to be inferred that those with whom he acted were the only persons who desired to see all persons entitled to the franchise in full possession of it. He (Colonel King-Harman) and his hon. Friends had certainly no wish to take it away from them; but what they wanted was that there should not be a list provided which should contain the names of a large number of persons who were not entitled to be upon it.
    DR. LYONSsaid, as a matter of fact, persons, whether authorized or not, did, as the law now stood, object to voters who were fully entitled to be upon the Register, and were frequently able to carry their objections to a conclusive issue. He was an example of this in his own person. He had been kept off the list in two counties on account of frivolous objections, and he had not yet succeeded in having his name placed upon the Register in either of those counties. It so happened that he was a good deal occupied, either in the House of Commons or elsewhere, and frivolous notices of objection were served by persons of whom he had no knowledge whatever, the consequence of which had been that his name had been kept off the list of the County of Dublin and the County of Limerick for years. He might also state that on one occasion during his absence his name had been struck off the list for the City of Dublin; and it was only after a great deal of trouble, and employing a solicitor who attended on several occasions under circumstances of an unpleasant character, that he was able to substantiate his claim. It was against such improper practices as that that he protested.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, he thought that the passing of the Bill would be facilitated by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), who had declared that it was the desire of himself and his Party to put everyone on the Register to whom the law had given a Parliamentary vote. But if anyone wanted protection, it was those who were on the supplemental list. It was a very simple matter to deal with those who had already established their claim. The persons they wanted to protect were those whose names were placed upon the list for the first time, who did not know the intricacies of the law, and who did not know how to proceed in order to substantiate their claim. He thought this was a most important part of the Bill, in order that persons whose names were placed on the list for the first time by the Registration Officers should be informed clearly what the objections against them were, so that they might be prepared to meet them at the proper time.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that owing to the late period of the Session, he had no desire to raise a prolonged debate upon his Amendment. He did not, therefore, propose to put the Committee to the trouble of Dividing upon it, but he would allow it to be negatived.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought it would be necessary to make a verbal Amendment in lines 18 and 19. At present the words stood "that section;" but the clause had been made to apply to two sections—namely, 20 and 36. It would be necessary, therefore, to change the word "that," at the end of line 18, to "these," and the word "section," at the beginning of line 19, to "sections."
    MR. P. MARTINsuggested that the consequential Amendment should run in this way. The clause now applied to notices of objection given in Sections 26 and 36 of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, and he would move an Amendment to provide that the notice should be given according to the provisions of either of those sections respectively, omitting the words "that section" altogether.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had a series of consequential Amendments to move, beginning at line 20.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to insert the words "either of these sections respectively."—(Mr. P. Martin.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. PARNELLremarked, that the sections in question referred to proceedings in connection with the registration of voters both in the counties and in the boroughs. Section 36 of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act had reference to county elections; whereas Section 26 referred to elections in boroughs. Would it not, therefore, be better to say "under the provisions of Section 36 in regard to persons on the supplemental list in counties," and vice versâ?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) that the words he has placed in my hands are not in agreement with the words which follow. It would be nonsense to say the provisions of "either of these sections respectively," and then to add the words "that section."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, it was intended to strike out the two words—"that section."
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny did not say so.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words "that section."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in line 20, to omit the words "section twenty-six of."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the words "section twenty-six of."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. MACFARLANEasked if a correction was not required in line 19?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the alteration suggested was not necessary.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. H. G. ALLENmoved, after the word "voters," in line 21, to insert the words "other than the notice to the Clerk of the Peace or the Town Clerk."
    492
    In the English Act it was not required to give particulars of the objection to the officials; but, of course, they were required to be given to the voter himself. The words of that Act—28 Vict. c. 36 s. 6—were, "No notice shall be valid, other than a notice to the overseers, unless the ground of objection be specifically stated therein;" and, to make the present clause correspond with the provisions of the English Act, he begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 29, after the word "voters," to insers the words "other than notice to the Clerk of the Peace or the Town Clerk."—(Mr. H. G. Allen.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MELDONsaid, he was afraid the insertion of that Amendment would lead to a great deal of contention, and that nothing would be practically gained. The official who had charge of the matter prepared the list for the Revising Barrister, and in that list were stated the objections which had been made, so that at a glance the Revising Barrister could see what he had to adjudicate upon. There were different classes of objections, and it would be highly inconvenient to use the word "objection" without stating the nature of the objection. The only thing that would be saved was the scribbling which would be necessary in order to fill in the nature of the objections.
    MR. H. G. ALLENremarked, that a different system was pursued in England. In the cases he had been accustomed, as a Revising Barrister of many years standing, to hear, full notice of the objections was given to the persons objected to; and he failed to see what useful purpose was accomplished by requiring a full explanation of the objections to be given to anyone else. The voter was the person to whom the information must be conveyed of the different grounds upon which he was objected to; but it was obviously superfluous to enter into such particulars upon the notice paper required to be put on a door, and an inconvenient, as well as useless, burden to be attached to the exercise of the statutory right of objecting.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), while recognizing the experience of his hon. and learned Friend, with all due deference,

    493
    said there would be considerable inconvenience to the Judge in deciding the case if he did not have a copy before him of the exact nature of the objections. It was calculated to avoid disputes and to lead to the convenience of the parties concerned.
    MR. LEWISsaid, the clause as it stood provided that no notice of objection to any person upon any list of voters should be valid unless the ground or grounds of objection were specifically stated therein. This applied only to the notice given to the Clerk of the Peace or the Town Clerk. His experience or knowledge was not equal to that of the hon. and learned Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen), although some years ago it was somewhat extensive; but he had in his mind what the practice was under the English Act, and it was this—that they gave to the voter a specific notice of objection, but that to the overseer they did not; and he did not know why they should give specific notice to the overseer. With that exception, no notice of objection was given under Section 26 to any person; it was distinctly confined to notice to the voter. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was labouring under a misapprehension, and that he intended his Amendment to refer to some other document than a simple notice to the voter.
    MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, the clause referred to the list of claimants whose names appeared for the first time upon the list, and not to the persons the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) thought they referred to.
    MR. O'SULLIVANwas of opinion that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. H. G. Allen) had given no reason why the Committee should accept the Amendment. It was better to leave the clause as it stood.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the conversation which had taken place proved one thing which he had long suspected before—namely, that although the Bill did not come before the Committee until the 14th of August, very few Members of the House, and especially those sitting on the Government Benches, were thoroughly acquainted with the provisions of the measure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) both appeared to be in a
    494
    complete muddle about it. He believed the Bill would be greatly improved by discussion.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he really could not understand what the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to. Personally, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) fully understood the clause, which was perfectly clear and intelligible, and so was the Amendment.
    MR. LEWISasked the hon. and learned Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen) to follow him for one moment while he explained that Section 26 quoted in the clause dealt with two different notices. There was the notice of objection to be given to the Clerk of the Peace, and the notice of objection to be given to the voter. The words they were now dealing with did not refer to the Clerk of the Peace, but only to the notice to be given to the voter; and why should they insert words in the clause to say that they did not apply to the Clerk of the Peace that which, as a matter of fact, they had not applied to him?
    MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 1, line 27, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall," the object being to make the requirements of the clause obligatory.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the word in the Bill was "may," and he failed to see that any advantage would be derived from changing the Government drafting. [Mr. HEALY: What harm?] The hon. Member asked what harm. There might be some inconvenience; whereas there could be no advantage in making a change.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, the provision of the clause, as it stood, was optional; whereas his hon. Friend proposed to make it imperative.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that if there was any objection to the Amendment he would withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the word "form," and insert the word "forms."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, after "(A,)" to insert "and (15) in Schedule (B) respectively."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Evidence of person objected to).
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words "Section of the."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Each ground of objection to be treated as a separate objection).
    MR. MAYNE MR. MAYNE moved, in page 2, line 17, to leave out the words "to the amount of at least two shillings and sixpence," and insert the words "a sum not exceeding two pounds nor less than seven shillings and sixpence."
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he had an Amendment which came before that of the hon. Member, after the word "objection," in line 11. The clause proposed to enact that—
    "Every separate ground of objection in any notice given in accordance with this Act shall be treated by the county court judge, chairman, or revising barrister as a separate objection."
    To that he did not object; but he proposed to omit the rest of the clause—namely,
    "And for every such ground of objection which, in the opinion of the county court judge, chairman, or revising barrister, has been groundlessly or frivolously and vexatiously stated, he shall, on the application of the person objected to, or anyone on his behalf, and upon the production of the notice of objection, award costs against the objector to the amount of at least two shillings and sixpence, and this though the name of the person objected to he expunged upon some other ground of objection stated in the same notice of objection."
    He proposed to substitute the words of the 3rd sub-section of Clause 27 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registrations Act of 1878, which provided that where an objection was made to the name of a person which appeared on the list of voters, and the name was retained on the list, the Revising Barrister
    496
    should, unless he was of opinion that the objection was reasonably made, or was occasioned by some error of entry in the books, or the difficulty of verifying such entry, or from some other special reason, order costs, not exceeding 40 s., to be paid by the objector to the person objected to. He thought that provision, which was contained in the English Act, was more just and reasonable for both sides than the proposal contained in the present clause. Where an objector gave more than one reason for his objection, a discretionary power was given to the Revising Barrister under the English Act to award costs. On the other hand, the amount of costs that could be awarded was a reasonable amount, and it was discretionary with the Revising Barrister to give costs up to the limit. He would not detain the Committee by any argument in support of the Amendment. The clause had been very well considered in the English Act, and it appeared to him to be a better clause than the one now proposed. He understood one great object was to assimilate the law of Ireland to the law of England, as far as possible, in registration matters, and he therefore proposed the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 11, after the word "objection," to leave out all the words down to the word "least," in line 17, in order to insert—"That where the objection is made otherwise than by the overseer to any person whose name appears on the list of voters, and the name is retained on the list, the revising barrister shall, unless he is of opinion that the objection was reasonably made, either on account of error in the books, or the difficulty of verifying such entry, or for some other special reason, order costs not exceeding 40 s. to be paid by the objector to the person objected to."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. LEWISsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend had fallen into one of those difficulties which people frequently fell into when they were doing things in a hurry. The Act from which his hon. and learned Friend had selected this clause, applied alike to Parliamentary and Municipal boroughs, and not to counties at all. Nevertheless, it was now proposed to apply it to counties. It was perfectly obvious that in regard

    497
    to boroughs there were considerations as to the knowledge of the objector which might be very different from those which applied to a large county, and there might be, therefore, good reasons for making a difference. The argument in favour of the clause was that under the precedent established by the Act of 1865 they ought to fine the objector for any failure to make good his objections; but it would certainly be a curious anomaly to take a clause out of the English Registration Act, which alluded only to boroughs, and to say that, "because you have that provision in regard to English boroughs, you must make it applicable to both boroughs and counties in Ireland." He thought that was a very singular mode of dealing with the question for an English Member to adopt, and he therefore preferred the clause as it had been drawn by the Government.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that another objection which he took to the Amendment was that in the Act of 1878 there were provisions for the withdrawal of objections, but there was no provision of that kind in the present Bill; and, as far as he could see, the proposal of the hon. and learned Member was altogether inapplicable to the section now under discussion. The object of the clause was to make it compulsory upon the Revising Barrister to award costs in every case where an objector failed to substantiate his objection. There were eight different grounds of objection which might be stated; and it was thought better to make the penalty in each case small, as it might be repeated eight times over, rather than give a discretionary power to the Revising Barrister to award a large penalty.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. MAYNEsaid, he thought that after the discussion which had taken place upon the last proposal the Committee would probably be prepared to accept the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper. He proposed to fix both a maximum and a minimum penalty. He feared that the maximum named in the Bill was much too small, and that in Ireland it would not operate in the way the framers of the Bill intended that it should operate. What he desired was to put a stop to frivolous objections. There were Registration
    498
    Associations in various parts of Ireland, who, if they happened to be in funds, would think nothing of spending a large number of half-crowns in order to pursue their system of objections, which they at present found so successful. He therefore proposed to omit the words "two shillings and sixpence," and to substitute "not exceeding two pounds nor less than seven shillings and sixpence."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 30, to leave out "to the amount of at least two shillings and sixpence," and insert "a sum not exceeding two pounds nor less than seven shillings and sixpence."—(Mr. Mayne.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not think it desirable that the Committee should adopt the Amendment, although he could well understand the ground upon which the hon. Member brought it forward. If they departed from the penalties fixed in the Bill in one direction they would find it very difficult to refuse to depart from them in another. Nor did he consider that the reasons given by the hon. Member were adequate, in this instance, to justify a departure. It did not necessarily follow that 2s. 6d. would be the maximum penalty, or that that would be the amount of the fine in all cases. No doubt, the duty of the overseers would be rendered more complicated by a great number of objections; and it was necessary to take care that the fine should be of such a description as to prevent frivolous objections. It was not the question of a single half-crown fine; but if the objections were frivolous they would have to be repeated upon different grounds. No doubt, if the penalty were trifling, it would afford an opportunity for making general fishing objections, and the objector would endeavour to hit his victim all round in the hope that his objections might succeed. But if a person simply gave notice of objections at random he would probably find that he would have to pay a fine, not at a minimum rate of 2s. 6d., but up to 5s., 10 s., and even a larger sum. That being the case, he did not think the hon. Member had given sufficient reason for increasing the maximum penalty.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that he had a larger experience, probably with the exception of the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), than any hon. Member, as an Irish barrister practising at Petty Sessions, and he must say that the objections of the Chief Secretary did not carry any great weight with him. The clause provided that the objections must be groundless, frivolous, and vexatious, and he was of opinion that the fine of 2s. 6d., in a case where a country farmer had had to travel a distance of 18 miles and then find that the objections served upon him were not gone into, was absurd. Nevertheless, he had known costs applied for under such circumstances, which the Revising Barrister had declined to allow. Seeing that the clause was safeguarded by requiring that the County Court Judge, Chairman, or Revising Barrister should be of opinion that the objection had been groundlessly or frivolously and vexatiously stated, 10 s. at least ought to be the minimum penalty. It was all very well for well-paid officials, like the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General, to oppose this proposition; but he was satisfied that no country farmer in the month of October, when he was digging his potatoes or harvesting his crops, would desire to go 10 or 15 miles to answer an objection, even if he got 10 s. for his trouble.
    MR. MELDONsaid, he thought the provision contained in the Bill was really a reasonable one. It was not the infliction of any fine or penalty, but a provision where a man made an objection and failed to substantiate it to indemnify the person objected to for the cost he had incurred. The section provided that on the application of the person objected to the costs he had been put to might be awarded by the Revising Barrister, and that in all cases no less a sum than 2s. 6d. should be awarded. If a man did not employ a solicitor, but simply defended his claim himself, he would not be put to any cost at all, and in that case to award 7s. 6d. would be simply to open the door to fraud, and a number of men might serve notices of objections on their friends for the sole purpose of obtaining costs. It was only the costs that were to be awarded, and not a penalty inflicted. If they were to fix a penalty they might make it any sum they pleased; but in the case
    500
    of a person who did not employ a solicitor or a barrister, surely 2s. 6d. was the utmost sum he was entitled to for costs, seeing that he was not to be paid for the loss of time or the trouble he had been put to in appearing to vindicate his claim, and he simply received the sum to indemnify him against the costs he was out of pocket. It would be altogether a new thing to insert in a Bill of this kind a provision that because a man attended a Court in person he would thereby be indemnified in a sum of 7s. 6d. or more. He thought that the proposal was not only dangerous, but that there was no precedent for it. The clause, as it now stood, provided that 2s. 6d. should be paid as costs, and that it might be left to the discretion of the County Court Judge, Chairman, or Revising Barrister whether a larger sum was awarded.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought that as the object of the Bill was, as far as possible, to assimilate the registration in Ireland to that in England, they ought not to press the Government to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, the last part of the clause provided that the costs should be awarded for the failure of an objection, although the name of the person objected to was struck off the list upon some other ground of objection. He thought the last part of the clause might be omitted without any damage to the Bill, and he would therefore move to omit all the words after the words "two shillings and sixpence."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from the word "and" to the word "objection," in line 20.—(Mr. Tatton Egerton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member was one of the most extraordinary that had been suggested. Its simple object was to give to objecting agents the chance of firing three or four shots, and if they failed in three and brought down their bird with the last one, then they were to sustain no penalty at all. All that it would be necessary for the

    501
    objector to do was to make as many objections as possible, on the chance that he might hit a blot in some way. The Amendment would simply encourage fishing objections.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he thought the opposition of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was hardly reasonable. If a large number of objections were made, and they failed to bring down the bird, then the objector would be liable to a fine for each objection he had made, and the Revising Barrister would have no difficulty in deciding that the grounds of objection were frivolous and vexatious. There were many cases in which two or three objections might seem perfectly reasonable and fair, but which were very difficult to prove. He would suggest to his hon. Friend (Mr. Tatton Egerton) that he should accept the Amendment which came next, and which proposed to omit the last part of the clause, and to insert—
    "Unless the name of the person objected to be expunged upon some one of such objections."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the Committee ought to adhere to the principle which had guided them in dealing with the last Amendment. The English Act required the fine to be inflicted in respect of every objection that was not sustained, although one objection was sustained, and he saw no reason why they should depart from that principle in the Irish Bill.
    MR. MELDONwished to point out that, in point of principle, the Amendment differed from the rest of the clause. The clause avoided giving any discretion to the Revising Barrister as to awarding costs. It was possible to have objections sowed broadcast by one side or the other, and often, when that course was pursued, costs were not asked; but it would be fatal to that system if any discretion as to awarding costs was given to the Revising Barrister. If the Committee struck out these words in every case where one ground of objection was successful, notwithstanding that a number of other objections had failed, the Revising Barrister would have a discretion in regard to allowing costs, and that would set aside the real principle of the Bill.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Revising Barrister had a discretion at
    502
    present. It would be within his discretion to decide that the objection was frivolous, and having done so he would be bound to order costs.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, they saw strong reasons against it. The clause followed the Act of 1865, and he thought it was very desirable that they should adhere to the principle of the clause. The principle of the Bill was that an objector should put himself to the trouble of making the inquiries beforehand; and if he made one good objection, that did not justify him in making two or three others which were bad. There could be no doubt that if they allowed an objector to make five or six objections with impunity, whether he substantiated them or not, it would be exactly the same thing as allowing a general objection.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Costs to be awarded not to exceed £5).
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had placed an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "five pounds," and insert "forty shillings." He wished to know whether that Amendment would leave the Bill in the same condition as the English Act?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the clause, as it stood now, was in the position of the English Act.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Proceedings on objections).
    MR. HEALYsaid, he presumed this would be the proper place for inserting the Amendment he had given Notice of upon the 3rd clause—namely, to provide that this section should come into operation immediately upon the passing of the Act. He wished to make one remark with regard to the Amendment. The Bill, on the whole, and very properly so, was not retrospective, and it would be very unfair to make its provisions retrospective in regard to the objections already served. He should, therefore, be sorry to propose anything of the kind. But what he did propose

    503
    was that when objections were served, the onus of proof should he thrown on the objectors. In view of the fact that a General Election was expected next year, the fate of the Election would probably very much depend upon the result of the next revision. If the Amendment were agreed to, it would have no penal consequences whatever, and in no way would it hurt or damage any individual. Unless it could be urged that the persons who now made objections in Ireland had a vested right in those objections to keep people off the list, it would be sufficient to say that the Clerk of the Peace or the Town Clerk should be the only objector whose objection was to prevail. He did not see how the Government could contend, in passing a law to simplify the registration, that in face of the thousands of objections which had been served in the county of Dublin during the last three months the Act should not come into force until next January, and that during the next three months the persons objected to should be put to all the trouble and expense which it was the object of the present measure to prevent. He did not propose that the other provisions of the Act should come into operation at once, but simply this clause, which required that a private objection to the voter should be sustained by primâ facie proof that there was good ground for making it. Unless it could be said that they had an interest in the efforts which had been long continued to keep persons entitled to vote out of their just rights, he did not see how the Government could object to this section having immediate application. He trusted hon. Members below the Gangway on that side would, in this instance, receive the support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 43, to add—"And this subsection shall come into operation immediately after the passing of this Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section 3 hereof."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. LEWISsaid, it would be very objectionable to introduce a violent innovation of this sort, which would hardly reach the minds of the parties concerned
    504
    in it before the Act came into operation. The hon. Member said that no penalty should ensue; but he (Mr. Lewis) was not clear that under Clause 6, together with Clause 8, a man might not be fined. He trusted the Government would not agree to the Amendment, because he thought that all parts of the Act ought to come into operation at the same time.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was of the same opinion as his hon. Friend with regard to the Amendment. There was, no doubt, a good deal in the suggestion that the new system could not come into operation too soon; but he could conceive that when a Bill was introduced, altering the whole system of registration, it might be dangerous to enact that the date which governed the Bill as a whole should not govern a particular part of it. He thought, also, that there should not be any temptation given to introduce provisions so as to suit the case of any particular election. But his chief objection to the Amendment was that it referred to a new and supplemental list of voters.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was surprised to hear the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment; but as he could not expect to carry it against the Government, he would ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Miscellaneous.
    Clause 9 (Poor rate collectors to enter objections on list. Certain provisions of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, to apply to poor rate collectors) agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Poor rate collectors to attend revision court).
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 28, to leave out from the words "ratebooks" to the word "shall," in line 30.—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he felt sure that these words were intended to effect a certain improvement in the present system. He was told there might be some officers having the custody of the rate books whose duty it ought to be to attend before the County Court Judge. The words proposed to be struck out provided for that case.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Remuneration to poor rate collectors).
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. MELDONsaid, he hoped this Amendment would be adopted by the Government, so as to make the payment to the Poor Rate Collectors, who discharged duties under the Act, compulsory upon the Guardians. These persons prepared the supplementary lists, and it was upon them that the real work in this matter devolved. The Clerks of the Union were largely paid for the work they were supposed to do; but it was the Poor Rate Collectors who actually did the work, and up to the present time they had worked satisfactorily at preparing the lists. But it was now proposed to throw them over by leaving it to the option of the Guardians whether they should be paid or not. If work was imposed upon them by the Act it was only fair that they should be paid; and for that reason he should vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend if he went to a Division.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the next Amendment of his on the Paper was consequential upon that which had just been agreed to. Irish Members objected to giving an annual allowance, and he thought the fairest way of settling the matter was to give the Poor Rate Collectors that allowance which they received under the 9th section of the Juries Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1876. He understood there was no objection to this on the part of the officers themselves.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 41, to leave out from the word "Guardians" to end of Clause, and insert the words "now allow under the ninth section of 'The Juries Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1876.'"—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he thought there ought to be some supervision over this matter of allowances to Poor Rate Collectors.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not understand the matter thoroughly. The system he advocated was already adopted by the Poor Law Board. He would find the amount fixed by a Minute of the Privy Council.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he understood the matter perfectly well, and it was for that reason he wished to see the payments to Poor Rate Collectors under the control of some responsible authority.
    MR. TREVELYANpointed out that the Poor Rate Collectors would be liable for any breach of duty—that was to say, if they did not do their work properly. Under the circumstances, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would, perhaps, withdraw his opposition to the Amendment, which the Government were willing to agree to.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, the clause which he was about to ask the Committee to read a second time was not intended to make any alteration in the existing franchise. It was intended to assimilate the law of Ireland in that respect to the law of England. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on introducing this Bill, said that the spirit of it was to make genuine that which Parliament had already granted. Now, Parliament had granted a vote to every occupier in Ireland rated at over £4 in boroughs, and to every occupier rated at £12 in counties; but, notwithstanding that, a large number of those persons did not get on the Register, owing to omission on the part of the Poor Rate Collectors. There were from this cause 12,000 people in Dublin alone precluded from voting, and he believed the number similarly situated throughout Ireland would not amount to less than 86,000. That was due to the people in Ireland not being possessed of those facilities which were given in this country. The clause which he now asked the Committee to read a

    507
    second time was one of a series which he proposed to insert in the Bill in order to carry out the object he had described, and which he trusted would meet with the favourable consideration of the Government.
    New Clause:—
    (Poor rate collectors to return occupiers under penalty.)
    "The poor rate collector shall, in every case where the valuation of any rateable hereditament is over four pounds, enter in the occupiers' column of the rate hook the name of the occupier, and, if any poor rate collector negligently or wilfully, and without reasonable cause, omits the name of such occupier, or wilfully misstates any name therein, such rate collector shall, for every such omission he liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding two pounds: Provided, That any occupier whose name has been omitted shall, notwithstanding such, and that no claim to be rated has been made by him, be entitled to every qualification and franchise depending upon such rating, in the same manner as if his name had not been so omitted, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the 6 and 7 Vic. c. 92, or in 12 and 13 Vic. c. 91, sec. 63,"—(Mr. Dawson,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he protested entirely against the clause of the hon. Member for Carlow, which would be equivalent to the incorporation of a fresh Bill with the present measure. Her Majesty's Government, after mature deliberation, had introduced a Bill of 14 clauses, to which the hon. Member now suggested the addition of four others, which would have no less effect than that of converting a Registration Bill into a very considerable Reform Bill. They could not consider a Registration Bill at that time of the Session, which had been duly weighed and debated by the House on its various stages; and, assuredly, they could not reasonably be asked to assent to four clauses which would have the effect he had described, and which had not even been read a second time. Certainly he would be no party to the introduction of the clause. He protested against that or any other new clauses being added to the Bill.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the clause which his hon. Friend had moved was one which he thought might be fairly pressed on the attention of the Government, in order that the measure might be saved
    508
    from being merely an assimilation of the Irish law with that of England in respect of a most imperfect system of registration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the clause of his hon. Friend conferred a new franchise. It did nothing of the kind; it was only to amend the present franchise, and it was a provision for preventing the intention of Parliament in passing the Franchise Act from being defeated by provisions in connection with the registration of voters in Ireland. It was, therefore, from every point of view, a most reasonable clause, and it would further go in the direction of making the present measure complete, inasmuch as, in its present form, the Bill only related to a portion of the Irish constituencies, and practically did not touch the system of borough registration in Ireland at all. If it was right that the franchise which the law had conferred upon persons in the Irish counties should be exercised, and that the difficulties left in the way of obtaining that franchise by the law relating to registration should be removed, it was also right that the franchise which the law conferred on persons living in boroughs in Ireland should also be exercised, and that the difficulties in the way of that should be removed likewise—that the path should be made smooth, as was done by the English Acts, for the Irish voters, whether in counties or boroughs, to obtain the very limited franchise which Parliament allowed to Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. The clause of his hon. Friend went no farther than the English Act provided, and he said the Government could not oppose it except by violating the principles they had advocated.
    MR. TOTTENHAMconcurred with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) that this clause was, practically, a new Bill in itself, and he thought before they proceeded any further the Committee were entitled to know whether or not it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to accept it?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the question they had to consider was whether it was more important to pass this Bill now than it was to make it a complete Bill in the sense indicated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Anything which could be

    509
    devised that would settle this difficulty once for all, Her Majesty's Government would be ready to assist in promoting. The clause of the hon. Member for Carlow, he must own, did not appear to him perfectly fitted to meet the case. He thought that unless some more specific words were introduced into the clause it would not effect the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view. But he earnestly hoped the House would take this opportunity of making the franchise a real one. The clauses which followed, though taken from the English Act, appeared to him to weight the Bill. On the main point, he did not think they ought to let the Bill leave the House until they put on record their intention that every Irishman should have the vote which in 1868 Parliament laid down should be possessed by every Englishman and Scotchman. In most of the Irish towns, he was informed that the vote was at present enjoyed by the citizens; but in the capital of Ireland the franchise, which Parliament intended to be a £4 franchise, had become, in reality, an £8 franchise. The course he should propose to be taken was that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) should withdraw this clause without reference as to whether he would or would not pass the other clauses of which he (Mr. Trevelyan) did not complain, and over which probably there would be no serious dispute or discussion. The matter was grave enough for the Government to prefer to put a new clause, or new clauses, on the Paper, in order to secure the object which they certainly believed ought to be secured.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that a more remarkable speech could not have been made by a Minister than that which had just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who was in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman obtained the second reading of the Bill, on Tuesday, the 4th of August, upon the ground that the Government had well considered the requirements of the Irish Registration Law; that the Government had had before them all that related to the matter; and that the subject had been thoroughly threshed out by them before they submitted the Bill to the House. This was the way they got the measure read a second time at the beginning of August. To-day,
    510
    when the present stage of the Bill was reached, the Speaker was moved out of the Chair by a gesture, it being thought that the measure did not require any explanation, although every one of the clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had just made such remarkable reference had been on the Paper for 10 days. When the Chief Secretary had in his mind any of those strange opinions to which he had just given utterance, it was his business to have made some short statement when he moved the Speaker out of the Chair, in order to put the House in possession of what the views of the Government were. More than that, he (Mr. Gibson) begged leave to say that it was the duty of the Chief Secretary, and of his right hon. and learned Colleague the Attorney General for Ireland, to have taken steps to re-commit the Bill, and to have introduced such new Clauses and Amendments as they thought necessary and essential. The Chief Secretary had not for the first time thought out this question. He (Mr. Gibson) assumed that, as was the right hon. Gentleman's duty and business, the right hon. Gentleman had considered these clauses, which had been on the Paper for 10 days, and had made up his mind as to which were right and which were wrong, which could be adopted without amendment, and which needed amendment. If that were so, he asked, had not the Committee a right to expect that the new clauses which the Chief Secretary now seemed to desire to submit on a later stage, in substitution for the clauses they were now discussing—had they not a right to demand that these new clauses should be put on the Paper, instead of being sprung upon the Committee at a time when they would have much less opportunity of considering them? He should like to know what was the opinion and decision of the Government in reference to the clauses they were now discussing. Suppose, as was within his right, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) said—"I stand firmly by my clause; I am fond of my own progeny"—was the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant going to vote with the hon. Member? He assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would do so. [Mr. TREVELYAN dissented.] Then the right hon. Gentleman was not going to vote

    511
    with the hon. Member; and it turned out that all the time the hon. Member for Carlow had been thinking the right hon. Gentleman was his friend, he was really an enemy in disguise. The right hon. Gentleman said that this clause required amendment. Where, and how? As a matter of fact, these new clauses created a perfectly new Bill—a very substantial new Bill. He (Mr. Gibson) declined, however, to enter into this discussion at that time of the day. The Chief Secretary had entered upon an emasculated discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had hinted that he would, and that he would not, and that he would if he could, and could if he would, and then he wound up by saying he was not prepared to vote for the second reading of this clause. He (Mr. Gibson) should like to know what was the meaning of the Chief Secretary's statement as to the other five clauses, which he had said would weight the Bill. If they added the five clauses to the 13 they would weight the Bill to the extent of five clauses; but then he should like to know whether the Chief Secretary had resolved that he would adopt the five clauses? He (Mr. Gibson) was in considerable doubt on the subject, and he would be glad if, before they passed from this stage of the Bill, they were given to understand what the new clauses were which the Chief Secretary said he was ready to introduce at a later stage of the Bill. He was of opinion that if anything were wanting to justify the observation he made at the outset of this discussion it had been amply and overwhelmingly supplied by the speech of the Chief Secretary. They had been asked to read this Bill a second time as a piece of matured and well thought-out legislation; and now it turned out that the Government had not embodied all their ideas in the Bill, but that they desired to introduce new clauses, which would give efficacy and reality to the measure. The House had thought that the efficacy and reality was to be found in the 13 clauses which originally formed the Bill. It was not his province, or his business, to give advice to Her Majesty's Government; but, still, people got very benevolent in the month of August; and he would venture to give this parting advice to the Government—that, as they had not at present made up their minds as to what where the clauses
    512
    they were prepared to introduce into the Bill, it might be as well for them to devote the months of September, October, November, December, and January to the maturing of a new Bill; and he had no doubt that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), with that urbanity and readiness which characterized him, would be quite willing to confer with the Chief Secretary, and give him any assistance he could in the framing of the new clauses.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken in very strong and decided terms, and he seemed to hold decided opinions on this matter; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) did not consider that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said anything to invalidate the position he (Mr. Trevelyan) had taken up on this clause. He imagined that the object of this clause was to place the voter in Ireland in the same position as the voter in England—that was to say, that he should not be deprived of his vote by the fact that his rates were paid by his landlord. In his (Mr. Trevelyan's) opinion, the first of the new clauses now under review, taken by itself, was not sufficient for the purpose, and for that reason he desired time to consider the matter. He should be certainly unwilling to pass a clause, or be a party to passing a clause, which held out to the Irish voter expectations which could not be realized. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) considered that the Government were in a disagreeable position in this matter. He (Mr. Trevelyan) thought they would be in a much more disagreeable position if, at the next registration, thousands of people who expected to have conferred upon them the privileges enjoyed by the English voter found they had obtained no such privileges. This was the position which he tools; up upon this 1st clause, and he regarded it as the most important of the new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson). He declined to commit himself to the exact words which he should propose to introduce; but they would be words to the effect that the fact of the rates not being paid personally should be no disqualification in Ireland any more than in England. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Government had not made up their minds about

    513
    the remaining five clauses. They had made up their minds about those clauses; and the decision they had come to was that the clauses, taken one after another, applied in Ireland just as much as they applied in England. If hon. Members met those clauses with that qualified opposition which would enable them to pass through the House, the Government would be glad to see them inserted in the Bill. On the grounds which he had now stated, he should certainly, generally speaking, support the introduction of these English clauses into the Bill; and on the grounds he had also stated he should certainly ask the hon. Member (Mr. Dawson) to withdraw his first and principal clause, and to allow the Government to bring up on Report the clause amended in such a manner as would make it more acceptable to the general body of the House.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that when he suggested that it was difficult to clearly understand the position which the Government had taken up in this matter, he was sharply rebuked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland; but he thought that what had now taken place fully justified his remark. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland had for some time past not only had their own Bill to consider, but three or four other Registration Bills, and at last they had brought in a Bill which, it seemed to him, they never intended to push to a second reading. They had, however, found themselves obliged to proceed, and they had floundered the Bill through the stage of second reading; while now, in Committee, they came suddenly upon an Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), which they had not considered. After what had just been said, he did not think it would be consistent with self-respect to take any further part in the discussion upon the Bill.
    MR. HEALYsaid, one would have thought, after listening to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson)—a speech which was full of sound and fury—that the proposal now before the Committee was not one for the object of giving to the Irish voters what Parliament intended to give
    514
    them 15 years ago. Fifteen years ago Parliament intended to give a vote to men in Ireland rated at £4; but the franchise actually given had resolved itself into one of £8. Parliament now proposed to set to rights the wrong which was committed so long go. The disgrace was not that the Government had accepted this Amendment, but that they had not long ago put some machinery in motion to correct the mistake of 15 years since. It had been said that the Government had fumbled through the second reading. If there had been any fumbling in the matter it had been on the side of the Opposition, who could only manage to get 17 votes against 90 on the second reading; while to-day, on going into Committee, they were absolutely deserted by their own Party. The fact was that the Conservatives below and above the Gangway would not be parties to this miserable attempt to prevent the Irish voter from having that which Parliament was willing 15 years ago to give him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) were, at the present moment, isolated and alone. They were not only alone in the House, but alone in the country, for their friends thought more of shooting grouse than of conferring the franchise upon the unfortunate people of Ireland. As to the Chief Secretary, he (Mr. Healy) was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, in accepting this Amendment, made any reservation whatever. If the Amendment required any alteration it was in the direction suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne). He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would remember that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on that (the Opposition) side of the House really represented no one but themselves. They did not oven represent their own Party, for their own Party had deserted them. One of them represented a constituency—Trinity College—which would probably be abolished; and the other, who represented the County of Dublin, would certainly, whether this Bill passed or not, find himself in a minority at the next General Election.
    MR. DAWSONaccepted the proposition the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had made, because it was clear

    515
    that the right hon. Gentleman had grasped the object which he (Mr. Dawson) had in view. The right hon. Gentleman had clearly enunciated, in a few short sentences, the object contemplated; and he (Mr. Dawson) should be glad now to leave the matter in the right hon. Gentleman's hands. He should also leave the second clause in the hands of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman would see that this second clause was really consequential upon the first. He would now ask leave to withdraw the first clause.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DAWSON, in moving his clause dealing with the question of lodgers, said, the law gave every person in England and Ireland alike the lodger franchise under certain conditions; but great difficulty was felt by lodgers in making their claims. For instance, persons belonging to this class had experienced great difficulty in obtaining permission from their employers to attend the Revision Court; and, as a matter of fact, many of them never made their claims. What he desired was to apply to Ireland the 41 & 42 Vict., c. 26, s. 23, so that the declaration of the lodger should be primâ facie evidence of his qualification. The second paragraph of the clause provided that—
    "Lodgings occupied by a person in any year or two successive years shall not be deemed to be different lodgings by reason only that in that year, or in either of those years, he has occupied some other rooms or place in addition to his original lodgings."
    This proposal was taken from the English Act; and he did not, therefore, anticipate that any objection could be raised to it. The next paragraph provided that—
    "For the purpose of qualifying a lodger to vote, the occupation in immediate succession of different lodgings of the requisite value in the same house shall have the same effect as continued occupation of the same lodgings."
    The following paragraph dealt with the joint occupation of lodgings by one or more lodgers.
    New Clause:—
    (Declaration of lodger to be primâ facie evidence—41 & 42 Vic. c. 26, s. 23.)
    "In the case of a person claiming to vote as a lodger, the declaration annexed to his notice of claim shall for the purposes of revision be primâ facie evidence of his qualification.
    516
    "Lodgings occupied by a person in any year or two successive years shall not be deemed to be different lodgings by reason only that in that year, or in either of those years he has occupied some other rooms or place in addition to his original lodgings.
    "For the purpose of qualifying a lodger to vote, the occupation in immediate succession of different lodgings of the requisite value in the same house shall have the same effect as continued occupation of the same lodgings.
    "Where lodgings are jointly occupied by more than one lodger, and the clear yearly value of the lodgings if let unfurnished is of an amount which, when divided by the number of the lodgers, gives a sum of not less than ten pounds for each lodger, then each lodger, if otherwise qualified and subject to the provisions of 'The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868,' shall he entitled to be registered, and when registered to vote as a lodger: Provided, That not more than two persons being such joint lodgers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such lodgings.
    "In and for the purposes of 'The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868,' and this Act, the term 'lodgings' shall include any apartments or place of residence, whether furnished or unfurnished, in a dwelling-house,"—(Mr. Damson,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. GIBSONdeclined to discuss the clauses further, and he only desired to point out that this was not strictly a Registration Clause; but, as far as there was meaning in the English language, it was a Reform Bill Clause. For instance, the fourth paragraph of the clause provided for the case of joint occupation of lodgings by more than one lodger. Now, under the existing "Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868," the persons who were dealt with had not the right to vote before the measure was passed; but the effect of the legal operation of the section now proposed would be that people who had not at present the right to vote would be given votes. A Registration Bill was a Bill conferring on those who, under the existing law, had a right to be registered as voters, facilities for registration. This clause, however, was not calculated to afford facilities for registration only, but to give the franchise to persons who were really not entitled to it. This was really a burlesque of legislation.
    MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chairman whether the clause now proposed was not foreign to the intention of the

    517
    Bill under discussion; and whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) was in Order in moving such a clause?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member was perfectly in Order in moving the clause. The proposal was simply to insert in a Registration Bill clauses which were found in a former Registration Act.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that when the Chairman had first put the clause he had said he regarded all the paragraphs of it together.
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Colonel King-Harman.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he declined to move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, the insertion of the following clause:—
    "Any person aggrieved by any decision of a Court of Revision under 'The Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1851,' may appeal therefrom to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he could understand how it was that the hon. and gallant Member and hon. Members above the Gangway, their forces having deserted them, assumed the attitude of despair. He begged to move the next new clause on the Paper.
    New Clause:—
    (Evening sittings of revision courts.)
    "Every barrister appointed to revise the lists for a Parliamentary borough containing, according to the last census for the time being, more than ten thousand inhabitants, shall hold at least one evening sitting of his court in such borough. An evening sitting shall commence not earlier than six nor later than seven o'clock in the evening, and shall be of such duration as, in the opinion of the revising barrister, shall be reasonable.
    "Special notice or notices of an evening sitting or of evening sittings to be held in a borough shall be published by the town clerk in such manner as the revising barrister may direct,"—(Mr. Healy,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, this clause had been put down too recently for Her Majesty's Government to give it serious consideration. [Mr. HEALY: It is in the English Act.] That might be; but
    518
    he was not sure that the provision was one which would apply satisfactorily to Ireland. The existing grievanee was admitted, and the question was whether this clause would not raise in Ireland grievances greater than that it would remove? On that ground he could not assent to it.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he could give the Committee some practical information on this point. He had to preside over the Municipal Revision Courts in Dublin; and he found that it was impossible for artizans and clerks, and persons of that nature, to leave their employment and attend these Courts during the ordinary hours for holding them. He had, consequently, exerted his authority as Lord Mayor, and had held evening Courts, and the result had been that he had admitted to the franchise a great many people who had a right to it, who, nevertheless, would not have put in an appearance to claim it had it not been for the course he had adopted. This clause was confined to towns of more than 10,000 inhabitants, which, obviously, would not include many places in Ireland. It would include some, however, where the operatives were not able to attend at day sittings of the Court. The object of the Bill was to give facilities for voting; but it was no use enabling a person to obtain a vote if he could not attend the Court to claim it. The right hon. Gentleman would see it was only fair and just that the opportunity now sought to be obtained for poor people to prefer their claims to be put upon the Register should be granted.
    DR. LYONSsaid, that if they were to have an effective system of registration in Ireland such a clause as this was necessary. It was unreasonable to ask a respectable tradesman or artizan to sacrifice a day's work, or it might be several days' work, through attendance at the Registration Court. Even where a gentleman of position attended the Court to get his name put upon the Register he frequently had to go again on the following day—he might not be called on at the time which was most convenient to him. He (Dr. Lyons) could state this as a fact, for he himself had had to attend personally under these conditions. He had been struck off the Register of the City of Dublin, and had been obliged to attend two days in succession before his case was called on. It was

    519
    hopeless to expect to extend the franchise to all working men, and to expect them to attend the Revision Court day after day, at the loss of their wages, in order to secure the right of recording a vote. The refusal of this clause would be a direct violation of the principle of the Bill, which was to give the franchise to all those who were fairly entitled to it. He would strongly recommend this matter to the attention of the Government.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he could not refrain from expressing his astonishment that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant should, without the slightest demur, accept important Amendments moved by hon. Members below the Gangway which had nothing whatever to do with registration, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had pointed out, and should throw difficulties in the way of accepting such an obvious Amendment as this. Everybody knew that in the large towns and cities of this country, where there were a great many poor voters, the Revising Barristers did sit in the evenings. If they had wanted an illustration of straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel they could not have had a better one than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had just given them.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had not understood the right hon. Gentleman to give him an absolute refusal. He had understood him to say that he had not had time to consider the clause, owing to its having been only just put upon the Paper. The Amendment had not only just been put upon the Paper. It had been down three days; therefore, it must have, accidentally, escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice. He (Mr. Healy) would put it down on the Report. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) said the Amendment was an obvious one; and, that being so, and there being no objection to it on either side, he hoped the Government would give it their favourable consideration.
    MR. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Member will put the Amendment down for Report we will consider it.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had another new clause to propose, requiring the Guardians of the Poor, in boroughs other than in Dublin, and in Dublin the Collector General of Rates, to give notice to the occupier of premises capable of conferring the Parliamentary franchise, in cases where the rates remained unpaid, that such rates were due. At present the practice was this—in County Monaghan, for instance, in regard to which he was able to speak, a man received notice on the 30th of June that his rates were due, and then, perhaps, two or three days afterwards, he received a summons or writ for the amount. The receipt of such summons or writ was the first intimation he received of the fact that his rates were due. Where there was strong Party feeling in a county these matters were watched very keenly by the officials, who took care not to give any notice that the rates were due. The moment they were due summonses and writs were issued for payment, the ratepayers in arrear being mulcted in costs. That was very unfair, and were tactics which, even where strong partizanship prevailed, ought not to be resorted to. The new clause would do away with these unfair tactics, would prevent many people from being improperly disqualified from voting, and besides, in that way, improving the Bill, would tend to bring about an early collection of the rates. No one would deny that it was a proper thing that the rates should be collected at the right time. At present, the balances were on the wrong side; whereas, if the ratepayers had a distinct premium offered them, in the shape of securing their votes, by timely payment of their rates, those balances would not exist, as they did now in too many cases. He asked the support of those who desired to promote efficient Poor Law administration, as his new clause would have the effect of greatly benefiting the financial administration of Poor Law Unions.
    New Clause:—
    (Rate when unpaid to be demanded from occupiers.)
    "(1.) Where any poor rate due previously to the first day of January in any year in respect of any premises capable of conferring the Parliamentary franchise for any Parliamentary borough remains unpaid on the first day of May following, the guardians of the poor in boroughs

    521
    other than in Dublin, and in Dublin the collector-general of rates, shall on or before the twentieth of the same month of May, unless such rate has been previously paid, give or cause to be given to the occupier of such premises a notice in the form (number one) set forth in the schedule to this Act annexed, or to the like effect. The notice shall be deemed to be duly given if delivered to the occupier or left at his last or usual place of abode, or with some person on the premises in respect of which the rate is payable; and, in case no such person can be found, such notice shall be deemed to be duly given if affixed upon some conspicuous part of the said premises. Any person who shall negligently or wilfully withhold any such notice shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding two pounds, to be recovered by civil bill, before the county court judge or recorder within whose jurisdiction such person resides, by the occupier of the premises in question.
    "(2.) This section shall apply to any such premises as aforesaid, notwithstanding that the immediate lessor or owner thereof is primarily liable to pay the poor rates payable out of same,"—(Mr. Healy,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he gave this proposal his most unqualified support.
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
    MR. MELDONsaid, that before that was agreed to he wished to say a word with regard to Clause 4. An objection had been raised to the effect that Section 26 of the Parliamentary Voters Act was not in the Bill; and he had put down an Amendment to deal with the point. He had discovered the explanation to be that this was a Bill to assimilate the law in England and Ireland; and——
    COLONEL KING-HARMANwished to know whether the hon. and learned Member was in Order? What had all this to do with the Bill before the Committee?
    MR. MELDONsaid, he was merely giving the reason why the Bill had not been applied to boroughs. It was because the English Act had not applied to boroughs.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is not out of Order.
    MR. MELDONsaid, the Amendment he had proposed had been a perfectly proper one.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

  BANKRUPTCY BILL.— [BILL 243.]
  (Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. John Holms.)
  BANKRUPTCY BILL.— [BILL 243.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the principal, if not the only, observation he had to make was with reference to a strong feeling which existed in many quarters as to the great number of appointments which would be made by the Board of Trade under the Bill. It was believed that the patronage which the Bill placed in the hands of the President of that Board—and in saying that he was not speaking of any President of the Board of Trade individually—would be used for political purposes. Athough he himself, at one time, entertained a considerable objection to the amount of officialism imported into this measure, and which he had evinced on the second reading, yet, on further reflection, he hardly felt justified in objecting to the officialism proposed, for the principle of the Act of 1859, that there should be as little officialism as possible, had undoubtedly proved a failure. But in order to secure the successful working of the Bill the Board of Trade must exercise in a very judicious manner the powers conferred upon them, and must refrain from making appointments for political purposes, for he believed that it would be a suicidal policy, and would result in defeating the objects of the Bill. He hoped, therefore, to receive from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill a declaration that, so far at least as he was concerned, there was no disposition to treat these appointments in a political or Party sense, and that his aim would be to secure the very best men, totally irrespective of Party. He wished to bear his testimony to the great practical success which had attended the efforts of the Grand Committee in reference to the

    523
    Bill. For his own part, he did not go into the Committee with any strong prejudices in favour of the system; but he felt bound to say that it was a thoroughly business-like Committee, and that it got through its work in a most satisfactory manner. A great deal of the success of the Committee was owing to the eminently practical and conciliatory manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade managed the Bill from its earliest to its last stage in the Committee.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was not a Member of the Grand Committee who had sat upon the Bill; but, as representing the large commercial community of Liverpool, he had watched the discussions upon it with very great interest, and he could confirm much that had been said by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). The only objection to the Bill by the commercial community which he represented was with reference to the official appointments to which the hon. Member had referred; but he was bound to say that, as far as that had gone, it had been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee. He believed that many of the objectionable features of the Bill had been removed and modified in Committee. He was sure that the House must be very anxious indeed to see this measure tried; and he believed there was also a very general desire throughout the country that it should be tried. He was very glad to be able to confirm what the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had said with reference to the right hon. Gentleman opposite the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman had met them generally in that friendly spirit, and with that good temper and tact, which no doubt contributed to the successful carrying of the Bill through Committee; and he (Mr. Whitley) hoped they would now, before the evening was over, be able to carry the Bill through its remaining stages.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he had also attended all the Sittings of the Committee, and he could also most willingly bear his testimony to what had been said as to the conciliatory spirit of the President of the Board of Trade, and to the business-like way in which the proceedings in Committee were managed. But he was afraid that unless the appointments were made in the most
    524
    careful manner, and unless the expenses were kept down, this Bill would be as great a failure as its predecessors had been.
    MR. NORWOODsaid, it was very gratifying and satisfactory to hon. Members on that side of the House to hear the chorus of commendations from hon. Gentlemen on the other side as to the admirable tact with which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had managed the Bill. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members on his own side equally recognized the admirable tact he had displayed. It had become evident, at an early part of the proceedings, that the essence of the measure would be the guidance of the Board of Trade; and he (Mr. Norwood) held that, in that regard, the Government had taken upon themselves a great responsibility. Prom the first, his own view of the Bill was that it was too official. At the same time, it must be confessed that the two systems previously tried had undoubtedly failed; and this was a great experiment by which, for the first time, the Government should furnish all the force necessary to realize a bankrupt estate, and he was extremely anxious that the Government should have the greatest possible freedom to carry out their intentions. It was a great advantage that the President of the Board of Trade would have the management of it, and would be able to set in motion the machinery of which he was the author, for if it was possible for such a system to have a satisfactory result it would be under his management. He would watch with interest the result of these experiments, and if they did not succeed he thought this would be almost the last Bankruptcy Bill which the House of Commons would be called upon to consider. The Legislature would then, no doubt, leave debtors and creditors to settle their own affairs without State interference.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was very gratifying to him, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, to find the success of the experiment of a Grand Committee so generally admitted by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. He concurred in everything which had been said on that subject. He believed there was no doubt that Bills such as that now before the House, which raised

    525
    no Party feeling, had a better chance of full, careful, and complete consideration before a Grand Committee than they could possibly have in a Committee of the Whole House. He appreciated very highly the kind expressions to himself personally which had fallen from various Members of the House, and said it was with great pleasure that he had found himself working in co-operation with so many hon. Gentlemen well acquainted with the subject, who had brought their intelligence to bear upon the Bill with the object of making it the best possible measure in the interest of the mercantile classes. He was not going to be very sanguine as to the result of this or of any other experiment, when so many experiments, tried by greater men than himself, had undoubtedly failed; but he agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ritchie) that if the Bill was to be a success, that result would be attained entirely in consequence of the choice which would be made, in the first instance especially, of the officials who were to carry it into effect, and he could not conceive any policy on his part more suicidal than to allow Party feeling to influence him to such an extent as to prevent the selection of the best possible men. Although, at present, he had hardly had time to consider the exact steps to be taken if the Bill should pass into law, he had already received an immense number of applications for appointments. The places which would be at his disposal would, as he had said on a former occasion, number 50 or 60, and in value they would vary from £200 to as much as £1,500 a-year; yet for these places there were almost innumerable applications, and he looked forward with some alarm to the prospect before him of spending the Recess in considering the several applications. He proposed, in the first place, to make a rough selection, and then to refer the matter to a Departmental Committee, and, to a large extent, found his action upon the recommendation of the Committee. Although he should reserve to himself some control, he hoped to avoid any suspicion of anything like improper Party consideration entering into the selection of the officials. He confessed he was a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) should take a somewhat gloomy view of a measure in which he
    526
    had taken so great an interest. The hon. Gentleman expressed some fear that the operation of the measure might be expensive. It was, of course, very difficult to know exactly at first what the cost of the working of a complicated scheme of this kind would be; but the further he (Mr. Chamberlain) had gone, and the more information he had been able to obtain, the more he was confirmed in the belief that the original estimate he laid before the House was a correct one, and that the extra charge imposed, although the total cost would be considerable, yet, when spread over the number of estates, it would be small indeed compared with the average charge of the existing system. He hoped to save in other directions a great deal more than the new charges would involve, otherwise the Bill would be a failure.
    MR. SLAGGsaid, he must join in the congratulations of hon. Members to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, by whose tact and ability, to a great extent, the Bill had reached its present stage. Of course, he (Mr. Slagg) could not refrain from sharing the fears expressed by many hon. Members opposite that the Bill might, like its predecessors, not come up to expectations; but, on the other hand, they could take comfort from the assurance that they could not be in any worse position under this Bill than they were under the present law. There was no doubt that the methods provided in the Bill were such that they were surrounded by great officialism, and that much depended upon the appointments made in consequence, but, perhaps, not to an extent which would render the measure difficult to work. He looked forward with hope to the operation of the measure; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would reap the full fruit his labours had deserved.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, in moving, as an Amendment, the insertion of the following clause, after Clause 78:—
    "Every trustee shall, at least once in each year during his tenure of office, send to every creditor a statement of his accounts as such trustee,"
    said, that one of the points on which the

    527
    present Bankruptcy Law failed was that creditors were not informed from time to time of what the position of affairs was; and it was with the object of removing that objection that he proposed the clause.
    New Clause (Trustee's statement of account,)—(Sir John Lubbock,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend, in the interests of economy, would not press the clause; and he did so with all the more confidence, because he agreed entirely with the object in view. If they had to deal only with the mercantile community, members of which signed the Petition presented on this subject, he should at once assent to the insertion of the clause; but the hon. Baronet hardly made sufficient allowance for the difficulties surrounding a Bill in which they had to deal, not only with very large transactions, but with an immense number of small affairs. In the case of small matters, the chief object of the Bill was to prevent large expense. He had offered to his hon. Friend, and was willing to renew his offer, that when the Bill became law he would undertake to make rules for the guidance of the Official Receivers and other officials of the Board of Trade, to insure, among other things, that in all cases of magnitude there should be such an annual report from the trustee to the creditors as his hon. Friend desired. What was done was to allow the Board of Trade a very considerable amount of discretion, in order that it might "temper the wind to the shorn lamb."
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was quite satisfied with the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to introduce rules under the Act.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause 4 (Acts of bankruptcy).
    MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved an Amendment to limit the sub-section, making it an act of bankruptcy if an execution issued against a person had been levied by seizure and sale of his goods, under process in an action, by inserting the words "for a sum not less than £20."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, after the word "him," to insert the words "for a sum not less than twenty pounds."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. The point was much discussed in the Grand Committee, on the point that a limit was formerly imposed which a Committee of the House recommended should be abrogated, and an Amendment on the subject was rejected by three to one.
    MR. WHITLEYhoped his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, to leave out the words "under process in an action."—(Mr. Arthur 0'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLAND, in moving, as an Amendment, to insert after Sub-section (e) a further sub-section making it an act of bankruptcy if the petitioning creditor had served the debtor with a writ specially endorsed, and also a bankruptcy notice to pay the amount endorsed on the writ, and the debtor had failed to comply with the notice within 14 days, said, its object was to provide a summary process against fraudulent debtors, which did not at present exist. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would assent to it, or something in the same direction, as the omission of some such clause would be a great blot on the Bill, seeing that it was necessary in order to prevent a debtor from making away with all his goods and collecting the money for them, and then getting off to Spain or elsewhere, and so be lost sight of.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, after the word "himself," to insert the words—
    "(f.) If the petitioning creditor has served on the debtor a writ specially endorsed with the particulars of the demand sought to be recovered in an action in the High Court of Justice wherein the creditor claims payment of a sum amounting to not less than fifty pounds, and has also served on the debtor in England, in the

    529
    prescribed form at, or at any time after the date of the service of the writ, a bankruptcy notice in writing in the prescribed manner, requiring him to pay the amount endorsed upon such writ, or to secure or compound for it to the satisfaction of the creditor, and he does not within fourteen days after the service of such notice comply with the requirements thereof: Provided, That no bankruptcy petition shall be presented on the ground of this last mentioned act of bankruptcy unless the creditor shall have obtained final judgment in the action for a sum of not less than fifty pounds within three months from the service of the specially endorsed writ."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the subject of the Amendment was fully discussed in the Grand Committee and negatived; and he, therefore, hoped the House would not feel themselves inclined to reverse their decision. The Amendment really proposed to restore, in some form or other, the old proceeding of trader-debtors' summons, which would be very objectionable. In 1879 a Committee of that House unanimously agreed that the trader debtor summons had been so much abused that it ought to be abolished. Moreover, the procedure which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) suggested would not enable a creditor, who feared he might be defrauded, to arrest a debtor before he got away, because he proposed that the debtor should have 14 days to comply with the service. He must be a very poor debtor indeed if he could not get away to Spain, or elsewhere, within that time. But the debtor might be an honest man, and might be pursued by an extortionate creditor. In fact, that was what the Committee of 1879 found was the case. The hon. Gentleman had asked him whether he could not do something in the same direction. Well, he had considered the matter carefully, and he thought he might be able to accept a subsequent Amendment of the hon. Member on Clause 25, which dealt more particularly with the absconding debtor. When they came to that clause he would accept the Amendment, which would, at all events, quicken the process of the Courts. Further than that he could not go.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the fact that that subject was discussed in the Grand Committee was no reason why it should not be discussed hero. The House itself was superior to any Grand Committee, even the grandest.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that the old law was often made use of for purposes of extortion, and that the Amendment would not effect the object the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had in view.
    MR. GREGORY, with reference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain), said, that he (Mr. Gregory) was a Member of the Committee of 1879, as well as of the Grand Committee; and it was beyond doubt that the process of trader-debtors' summonses did give rise to great abuses, and was made a means of preference.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, to leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word "fourteen,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
    Question, "That the word 'seven' stand part of Bill," put, and agreed to.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, in moving, as an Amendment, to insert the words "reduces the judgment debt to an amount less than the sum necessary to support a petition," said, that, as the clause stood, if a creditor had obtained a final judgment, and the debtor failed to satisfy the Court that he had a counter-claim equal to or exceeding the sum of the judgment debt, he might be made a bankrupt. He thought that was going further than was necessary.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 22, to leave out from the word "which," to the word "and," in line 23, in order to insert the words "reduces the judgment debt to amount less than the sum necessary to support a petition,"—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had been confusing two things which were different. The amount of the judgment debt was one thing; the amount of the debt on which the creditor might found a petition was something quite different, and there was no relation between them. According to the Bill, a judgment debt of any

    531
    amount constituted an act of bankruptcy. A counter-claim of any less amount would leave the judgment debt unsatisfied.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, in moving, as an Amendment, to insert words making it an act of bankruptcy to execute a bill of sale over stock in trade without having paid for the same, said, that, though he agreed with the principle of doing away with the distinction between traders and non-traders, he thought it ought to be maintained in this respect.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 29, after the word "debts," to insert the words—"(h.) If he executes a hill of sale over any portion of his stock in trade without having paid for the same."—(Mr. Arthur O Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERAINsaid, this was also a matter in which he must again ask the House not to reverse the decision already arrived at. It had been discussed at great length in the Grand Committee, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Queen's County; and the Amendment had been negatived by 45 to 6. An Act had been passed which limited the possibility of such bills of sale as the hon. Member had in his mind, and he did not think it desirable to go further. But the term "bill of sale" included many other things than what was commonly understood by the term; and if the Amendment was accepted, it would lay down a hard-and-fast rule, which would cause an immensity of inconvenience. The term included hypothecations of cotton, and the Amendment would have the effect of making almost every merchant in Liverpool bankrupt the moment the Bill became law, as the mode of transacting business on 'Change at Liverpool was of such a character that it came under the Bills of Sale Act; and that, he thought, was a sufficient reason why the hon. Member should have been content with the decision the Grand Committee came to, without bringing the matter up again.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that, though he did not altogether approve the Amendment, he thought that the facility for giving undue preference by bills of sale should be restricted. It was unfair that
    532
    a man should be able to make one creditor right at the expense of another.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. WAUGH, in moving the insertion of words making the estate of the bankrupt vest in the Official Receiver on the making of the order of bankruptcy, pending the appointment of the trustee, said, the object of the Amendment was to put an end to the expense of restraining and other orders, which would probably add £50,000 a-year to the cost of the bankruptcy proceedings.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 36, after the word "estate," to insert the words "and the estate of the debtor shall, on the making of such order, vest in the official receiver for the time being of the said court."—(Mr. Waugh.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the Government quite appreciated the object and advantages of the proposal, and would admit that it would save certain difficulties; but it should be borne in mind that, on the other hand, certain liabilities would be placed upon the Official Receiver which would be highly undesirable, for he was the mere interim protector of the estate until the trustee was appointed by the creditors. It would be impossible for the Government, consistently with the whole scope and framework of the Bill, to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Conditions on which creditor may petition).
    MR. WAUGH, in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out from ("1") to paragraph ("b,") and to insert—
    "Any two or more creditors, or any judgment creditor, who has complied with the provisions of the 4th section of this Act, shall be entitled to present a petition against a debtor, but no petition shall be presented unless,"
    said, that he did not like the distinctions laid down in the clause. If a man could not pay small debts, he certainly could not pay large.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 37, to leave out from the word "estate," to the word "and," in line 42, in order to insert the words "Any two or more creditors, or any judgment creditor, who has

    533
    complied with the provisions of the fourth section of this Act, shall he entitled to present a bankruptcy petition against a debtor, but no petition shall he presented unless,"—(Mr. Waugh,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that this matter had been also discussed before. In the Grand Committee, the proposal was made to reduce the amount to £20; but objection was taken to it on the ground that it would lead to extortion. He did not think it would be desirable to make the proposed alteration. No serious objection had been taken to the working of the system, which was to be continued under this sub-section.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. WARTON, in moving, as an Amendment, after "petition," to insert "set out the particulars of his security, and the true considerations therefor, and," said, it seemed to him that the petitioning creditor should state at once that he came forward as a secured creditor, and also state the considerations for the security.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 10, after the word "petition," to insert the words "set out the particulars of the security and the true consideration therefor, and."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he would point out to the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Warton) that this was too early a stage to ask those particulars from the petitioning creditor, though it might be desirable to do so afterwards.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, in moving to amend the clause by the insertion of the words—
    "But he shall, on an application being made by the trustee, within the prescribed time after the date of the adjudication, give up his security to such trustee for the benefit of the creditors upon payment of such estimated value,"
    said, that the Amendment was also considered in the Grand Committee. It was withdrawn after a short discussion, but with the intention, on his part, of submitting it to the House as a Court of Appeal against the Grand Committee,
    534
    which consisted only of one-tenth of the House of Commons; and of which 20 formed a quorum. Sometimes the Committee stopped its proceedings because it had not a quorum; and certain hon. Gentlemen, during the discussion of the Amendment he had referred to, waited in order to obtain the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade upon it, and then voted the way they thought the right hon. Gentleman wished them to vote. ["No!"] He merely proposed to insert in the Bill certain words which were in the Act of 1869, but had been left out quite gratuitously, and without any explanation of the why or the wherefore, the Government simply declining to accept the proposal. The clause dealt with the presenting of a petition by a creditor; and it provided that, if he were a secured creditor, he should state whether he was willing to give up his security for the benefit of the estate generally, or give an estimate of the value of his security. The Schedule of the Bill also provided that, in the case of proof of debt, there should be a similar option, and a mistake as to the value rendered the creditor liable to penalty. He thought what was reasonable in the case of proof was reasonable also in the case of the presentation of a petition; and he would, therefore, move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 16, after the word "creditor," to insert the words "but he shall, on an application being made by the trustee, within the prescribed time after the date of the adjudication, give up his security to such trustee for the benefit of the creditors upon payment of such estimated value."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the reason for the proposed change in the law was very fully explained in the Grand Committee. If the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) were accepted, a creditor might be called upon to value his security at a very early stage of the bankruptcy proceedings. There were many kinds of security which, even to a banker, were very difficult to value, and a creditor might know that his security reached the limit of £50 required by the Bill to enable him to petition, without knowing what the exact

    535
    value was; and it would be unfair to call upon a creditor to estimate the value at this early stage, and bind him to give up his security at any time afterwards at that value, or to subject him to heavy penalties if his estimate was erroneous.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to state that, in his opinion, this question had been very fairly and fully discussed in the Grand Committee; and he protested against the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that Members of the Grand Committee voted in accordance with the wish of the President of the Board of Trade. He (Mr. Gregory) thought the Amendment was clearly open to the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain).
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Power to appoint special manager).
    MR. WAUGH MR. WAUGH moved to amend the clause, by taking from the Official Receiver, and conferring on the Court, the power of appointing a special manager to act until a trustee was appointed, in order to avoid making the Official Receiver a judicial officer and Judge, as it were, in his own cause.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 1, to leave out the words "official receiver of a debtor's estate," in order to insert the word "Court,"—(Mr. Waugh)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the Amendment was totally opposed to the whole principle of the Bill; and he hoped the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) would not consider him wanting in respect, if he declined to argue again a matter which had been so fully discussed in the Grand Committee.
    In reply to Mr. WHITLEY,
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the appointment of special manager would have to be made without delay, and that time would be lost in going to the Court.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 16 (Debtor's statement of affairs).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 12, to leave out the word "three" in order to insert the word "seven,"—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Amendments made.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 28 (Discharge of bankrupt).
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDmoved to insert as one of the conditions on which the order for discharge might be refused or suspended, the following:—
    "That the bankrupt has drawn or accepted accommodation bills upon which the words 'for value received' are written, when no such value has passed."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 6, after the word "it," to insert the words,—"(d.) That the bankrupt has drawn or accepted accommodation bills upon which the words 'for value received' are written, when no such value has passed."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he could not accept the Amendment; first, because he did not think it would be operative; and, second, because he could not see why accommodation bills should be necessarily bad.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he sympathized to some extent with the Amendment; but he did not think they would be justified in making so important a change in the present condition of the House; and he, therefore, hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 30 (Effect of order of discharge).
    Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 31, after the word "liability," to insert the words "which he has."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKE (for Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)MR. EDWARD CLARKE (for Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) moved to amend the

    537
    clause by providing that an order of discharge, printed before or after the passing of the Act, should be deemed to have released the bankrupt from all debts and liabilities, from which he would be released by an order of discharge under this Act.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 17, line 36, after the word "bankruptcy," to insert the words "and an order of discharge granted before or after the passing of this Act shall be deemed to have released and shall release the bankrupt from all debts and liabilities from which he would be released by an order of discharge under this Act."—(Mr. Edward Clarke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he quite sympathized with the intention of the hon. and learned Member, which was to meet some very hard cases which had come under his notice. The effect, however, of the Amendment would be to render the Bill retrospective, and he could not accept it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 18, line 7, after the word "him," to insert the words "from any debt or liability other than debts or liabilities incurred only by personal fraud or fraudulent breach of trust on the part of the bankrupt, and not on the part of such partner, co-trustee, joint contractor, or surety, and debts or liabilities whereof the bankrupt has obtained forbearance by his own personal fraud, and not wholly or partly by the fraud of such partner, co-trustee, joint contractor, or surety."—(Mr. Edward Clarke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 40 (Priority of debts).
    On the Motion of Mr. BROADHURST, the following Amendments made:—In page 22, line 17, after "workman," insert "not exceeding fifty pounds;" and in line 19, leave out "two," and insert "four."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 47 (Avoidance of voluntary settlements).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 25, line 39, to leave out the words "if the settlor becomes bankrupt within two years after the date of the settlement be void against the trustee in bankruptcy, and shall."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 55 (Disclaimer of onerous property).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 31, line 6, to leave out the words "as to the court may seem equitable," in order to insert the words "the amount of such damages to be estimated by the difference between the contract price and the price at which a similar contract could be entered into at the date of the act of bankruptcy,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 31, line 41, at end of Clause, to insert the words—"And provided further, That the court may, upon application made before the expiration of the periods hereinbefore allowed for disclaimer and, after hearing the persons interested in such property extend the said periods within which the trustee may disclaim property upon such terms and conditions, including the payment by the trustee of such costs and other sums as to the court may seem fit."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER, HERSCHELL)said, the point contained in the Amendment was receiving the attention of the Government.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he wished to point out an objection which had been raised to the provisions in the Bill relating to the liability of trustees; and though he did not then press the objection, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would see his way to take the matter into consideration.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought there was something in the objection of the hon. Baronet, and that it would, at all events, be desirable to limit the personal liability of trustees in the matter. The Government had had it in contemplation to insert words to provide for that, but had not at present come to any decision. All he could say at present was, that they were entirely at one

    539
    with his hon. Friend with regard to the objection; and probably in "another place" words would be inserted.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 66 (Appointment by Board of Trade of official receiver of debtors' estates).
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (for Mr. RAIKES)MR. R. N. FOWLER (for Mr. RAIKES) moved an Amendment with the object of placing a large portion of the patronage which would arise under the Bill in the hands of the Court of Bankruptcy and the County Court Judges, by giving them the appointment of Official Receivers.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 36, line 3, to leave out sub-section (1), and insert the words—"A proper person or persons shall be appointed for each district to act as official receiver or receivers of debtors' estates. Such persons shall be appointed, as regards the London Bankruptcy Court, by the judge of that court, and, as regards other districts, by the judge of the County Court having Bankruptcy jurisdiction within that district. One person only shall he appointed for each such district, unless the Board of Trade shall otherwise direct, and the same person shall not be appointed for more than two districts. The official receivers shall act under the directions of, and may he removed by, the Board of Trade, but shall also be officers of the courts to which they are respectively attached,"—(Mr. R. N. Fowler,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, which would create much confusion. The appointment would rest with one tribunal, and their dismissal with another—namely, the Board of Trade. The whole success of the Bill would depend on the control which Parliament and the country would have over the Board of Trade.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 70 (Duties of official receiver as to debtors' estate).
    On the Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, the following Amendment made:—In page 37, after line 42, insert—
    "That when the debtor cannot himself prepare a proper statement of affairs, the official receiver may, subject to any prescribed conditions, and at the expense of the estate, employ some person or persons to assist in the preparation of the statement of affairs."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 74 (Payment of money into the Bank of England).
    On the Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, the following Amendment made:—In page 40, after Sub-section (4), insert—
    "(5) Subject to any general rules relating to small bankruptcies under Part VII. of this Act, where the debtor at the date of the receiving order has an account at a bank, such account shall not be withdrawn until the expiration of seven days from the day appointed for the first meeting of creditors, unless the Board of Trade, for the safety of the account, or other sufficient cause, order the withdrawal of the account."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 82 (Release of trustee).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 42, line 15, to leave out the words "in his opinion," in order to insert the words "in the joint opinion of himself and of the committee of inspection,"—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 89 (Discretionary powers of trustee and control thereof).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 44, line 26, after the word "creditors," to insert the words "who have proved their debts."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 102 (General power of bankruptcy courts).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 48, line 41, after the word "fact," to insert the words "and whether involving or not involving issues of fraud or amounts exceeding fifty pounds."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 116 (Disabilities of officers).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 52, line 38, after the word "solicitor," to insert the words "in the court of which he is an officer."—(Mr. Waugh.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 122 (Power for county court to make administration order instead of order for payment by instalments).
    MR. WHITLEY (for Mr. BOURKE)moved an Amendment to omit the words "household goods" from the provision in the clause enacting that the household goods, wearing apparel, and bedding of the debtor or his family, and the tools and implements of his trade, to the value of £20, should to that extent be protected from seizure.
    Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 19, to leave out the words "household goods."—(Mr. Whitley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. BROADHURSThoped the Government would adhere firmly to the Bill as it stood. The subject had been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee, and no Division had been taken upon it.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he certainly thought it would be undesirable to alter the clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 127 (Power to make general rules).
    MR. LEWIS FRY, in moving, as an Amendment, to add to the clause the following sub-section:—
    "No general rule under the provisions of this section shall come into operation until the expiration of one calendar month after the same has been made and issued,"
    said, the clause provided for the making of general rules for carrying into effect the objects of the Act; and the aim of his Amendment was to secure that the rules should be in the hands of the public a reasonable time before they came into operation, in order that legal practitioners and the public might become acquainted with them before they had to act upon them.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 59, line 14, after the word "proceedings," to insert the words—"(5.) No general rule under the provisions of this section shall come into operation until the expiration of one
    542
    calendar month after the same has been made and issued."—(Mr. Lewis Fry.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it would be the object of the Board of Trade to give as long a notice as it could of the general rules which, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, it was authorized to make; but the Act was to come into operation on the 1st of January next, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to prepare a great body of rules before the end of November, as would have to be done if the proposed Amendment were accepted. He would, however, endeavour to take care that the first set of rules should be in the hands of all concerned a reasonable time before the Act came into force. Then, as regarded all future rules, he would not object to come under a statutory obligation to give a certain notice. He would, therefore, suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Lewis Fry) that he should accept an amended form of his Amendment in these terms:—
    "After the commencement of this Act no general rule under the provisions of this section shall come into operation until the expiration of 14 days."
    MR. LEWIS FRYsaid, after the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he was willing to accept his suggestion.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought it was rather a serious outlook if the first set of rules were to come into operation on the 1st of January, and if the right hon. Gentleman could not have them ready by the end of November. Either the commencement of the Act ought to be postponed, or pressure ought to be put on the Government Department to get the rules ready earlier. Besides, 14 days was too short a period for people to become acquainted with the provisions of the Act; and he saw no reason why a month's notice should not be given; and he, therefore, hoped that the Amendment would not be withdrawn.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he also thought 14 days too short.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he would suggest that the operation of the Act might be postponed by means of the rules.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought it

    543
    desirable the Act should commence on the 1st of January. He would promise, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, that the bulk of the rules should be ready by the end of November; but they would require to be supplemented by others.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 59, line 14, after the word "proceedings," to insert the words—"After the commencement of this Act no general rule under the provisions of this section shall come into operation until the expiration of fourteen days after the same has been made and issued."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "fourteen days," and insert the words "one month,"—(Mr. Edward Clarke,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'fourteen days' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the matter was not worth arguing about; but if the hon. and learned Member insisted on it, he would accept the Amendment as amended.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERhoped the President of the Board of Trade would not accept it.
    Question, "That the words 'one month' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Question,
    "That the words 'after the commencement of this Act no general Rule under the provisions of this section shall come into operation until the expiration of one month after the same has been made and issued,' be inserted after the word 'proceedings,' in page 59, line 14,"
    put, and agreed to.
    Clause 154 (Power to abolish existing offices).
    MR. GREGORY, in moving to add after Sub-section 2 a Proviso that any person who, at the passing of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, held his office during good behaviour, should, in the event of the office being abolished, be awarded the same compensation as if his office had been abolished under the said Act, said, that, in his opinion, it was hard that persons holding office under the former
    544
    Act should now lose their right to compensation.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 65, line 24, after the word "reasonable," to insert the words—"Provided, That any-such person who, at the passing of 'The Bankruptcy Act, 1869,' held his office during good behaviour, or during good behaviour subject only to removal by the Lord Chancellor by order, for some sufficient reason to be stated in such order, shall, in the event of the office being abolished, be awarded the same compensation as if his office had been abolished under the said Act."—(Mr. Gregory.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not see any great hardship in the matter. By the Act of 1869 lavish compensation was provided. The officers under that Act did not choose to take advantage of it then, and now they asked for the same lavish compensation in 1883. The principle of the Act of 1869 was one the Government did not desire to follow.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the right hon. Gentleman if he could give an estimate of the salaries of the offices abolished, and of those created by this Bill?
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, the matter was discussed on the Motion for the Consideration of the Bill, when the hon. Member was not in his place. He (Mr. Chamberlain) had estimated that the total salaries of the Official Receivers and the staff of the Board of Trade would be between £50,000 and £60,000 a-year, and new credits would have to be taken in the Audit and Control Departments. As to the salaries of the offices abolished, he could give no information; but the abolition would be trifling, as most of the persons holding those offices would perform the same or analogous duties.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 155 (Performance of new duties by persons whose offices are abolished).
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, it was provided by the clause that it should be obligatory on the Lord Chancellor to appoint any person whose office was abolished to some other office under the Act for which he was competent. He would propose, as more desirable, an

    545
    Amendment that the Lord Chancellor "may" do that.
    Amendment proposed, in page 65, line 28, to leave out "shall," and insert "may."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER, in opposing the Amendment, said, the intention of the clause was, that there should be no option to the Lord Chancellor in the matter.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he fully concurred with the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) in the desirability of inserting the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Word substituted.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 168 (Interpretation of terms).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 70, line 11, after the word "taken," to insert the words "or where the trustee resides or carries on business."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 169 (Repeal of enactments).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 71, line 6, to leave out the words "passing of this Act," in order to insert the words "thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three,"—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  THE FIRST SCHEDULE.
  Amendment proposed, in page 73, line 41, after the word "thereof," to leave out the word "or."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 74, line 1, after the word "any," to insert the word "improper."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'improper' be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SLAGG, in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out the 26th section, which, as it stood, provided that no person acting under a general or special proxy should vote in favour of any resolution which would directly or indirectly place himself, his partner, or employer in a position to receive any remuneration out of the estate of the debtor, otherwise than as a creditor rateably with the other creditors, said, that the reason why he did so was that, in his opinion, it would operate prejudicially on societies existing for the protection of trade. If it were intended to guard against improper voting by individuals, the object was already secured by Section 20 of the Schedule.
  Amendment proposed, in page 74, line 25, to leave out Section 26.—(Mr. Slagg.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it had been represented to him—and the justice of the representation he quite admitted—that the section, as it stood, would press hardly on the associations referred to, the custom with such bodies being to appoint agents, who attended and voted on their behalf. He was unwilling to see the section entirely struck out; and he would, therefore, point out that it might be met by the insertion of a Proviso to the effect that no person should vote for himself as trustee under a special proxy to that effect.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, in that case, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that he would take care and see that those words were inserted "elsewhere."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKERasked when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take the third reading?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Now, Sir.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he felt bound to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which the Grand Committee, whose discussions he had conducted, had worked. At first, he (Mr. Dillwyn) was not sanguine with respect to the system of Grand Committees; but as regarded the Bill under notice he would now admit his error. It had been a great success, and might be the precursor of a system of legislation which would be of much public service in the future.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 286.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Courtney.)
  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 286.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    MR. MAYNEsaid, that, in his opinion, the Tramway Clauses of the Bill would not be workable—the Grand Juries, on whom the responsibility of bringing them into operation would rest, not being the bodies to be entrusted with the working of such a measure. They did not enjoy the confidence of the public in Ireland, as was very well known; and although the construction of tramways, as provided by the Bill, might be all very well, and might be an essentially popular proceeding, the Grand Juries were certainly not the bodies to expect to carry out the work satisfactorily. The powers under the Bill were very extraordinary. The Grand Juries were to be entrusted with the appointment of certain persons on the Boards of Directors, whose power was apparently not to be limited in any way. They were to appoint as many Directors on the Boards of these Tramway Companies as appeared to them to be necessary; and he should like to know how many Companies would be likely to submit to an arrangement of that kind? In addition to having this extraordinary power of appointing as many Directors on the Boards as they chose, they were to have a still more extraordinary power—namely, the power of declaring what the salaries of the Directors
    548
    should be, and of fixing the salaries of all the officials of the Companies. It could not be seriously expected that these things would be bearable in the working of what, after all, must be commercial undertakings. In inviting Companies to undertake the construction of these tramways in Ireland, to hamper them with arrangements of this kind was surely not the way to bring about the construction of these works, notwithstanding the employment which such construction would give to the people. There was another portion of the Bill which fell very far short of what the necessities of the situation required. How was it proposed to deal with small towns? There were at present many small towns, from seven to 20 miles from a railway station, to which it did not pay to construct branch lines, and to which, probably, it would never pay to construct them; but yet to which, whether they were likely to pay or not, it would be an immense benefit to the people of the district to have communication with the nearest railway station. The inhabitants of these small towns, although their interests were so directly concerned, were to have no voice whatever in the promotion of these undertakings. He need only mention one of these places, one within his own constituency—namely, the town of Cashel, in Tipperary, which happened to be about seven miles from the nearest railway station. The town, at the present time, suffered immensely from the distance that intervened between it and the railway station. Well, if a Bill of this kind were to become the law of the land, so far as the inhabitants of Cashel were concerned, probably they would not allow a week to elapse before they made some stir to enable the town to avail itself of the provisions of the Act; but they would have no jurisdiction over the roads along which the tramways would run. That jurisdiction would rest with the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury would certainly not second the efforts of the town of Cashel to make this very important communication. What position would these Grand Juries be in? Why, the provisions of the Bill would put them in a most advantageous position, and would also enable them to do the dog in the manger. If they did not choose to make these lines there was no arrangement by which the provisions of the Act could be availed of

    549
    in any other way. For those reasons, he certainly should be strongly inclined to oppose the second reading, unless the right hon. Gentlemen who were responsible for the measure gave the House some idea as to how they would meet the difficulties which certainly existed in the Bill as it stood at present.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that, of course, this Tramway Bill could be met by several criticisms by those who objected to the present system of local government in Ireland. At present, the only constitution in Ireland was the Grand Juries; and if they were to have working bodies under the Bill they must look to these Grand Juries for them. He agreed with the criticism of the hon. Member for Tipperary as to the absence of any provision to enable the Bill to be put in motion in the event of the Grand Juries neglecting to do anything. There ought to be some provision of that kind. He must say that in the county he represented—Galway—they very much required something of the kind contemplated by the Bill. A Memorial had been lately sent up from there praying for light railways instead of tramways; but he would point out that the Government were offering tramways, and it would be a great mistake to throw obstacles in the way of the passing of the measure. Tramways were supposed to be constructed chiefly along the roads, and the general idea of them was gathered from what was seen in largo towns and cities. Tramways with their rails raised, such as were largely used in Italy, rougher ways requiring no pavement, and the construction of which was much cheaper than the ordinary tramway, were scarcely ever contemplated. Such tramways as these, which approached very closely to light railways, were what were required in the West of Ireland. If they introduced into the Bill provisions for increased speed on the road—to enable the Board of Trade to allow any rate of speed where the tramways did not run along the roads—they would be practically converting these steam tramways into light railways. In the neighbourhood of Oughterard, for instance, where the land alongside the road was practically valueless, there was no reason why the tramways should not run off the road, and in that way become practically light railways. He had once moved for a
    550
    Committee to inquire into the subject, and had brought in a Bill on the subject of tramways, his attention having been directed towards it by having served on a Tramway Committee, and by the fact that an improved means of communication was very much required in the county he represented. There was some doubt as to a broad gauge railway paying; and yet it was a great pity to see a whole district with no means of communication whatever, save the long cars which ran through it several times a day. He did not know whether the Government could not be persuaded to include in the Bill powers to enable the existing railway system to be supplemented wherever there was a gap—as between Mayo and Tuam, for instance—by a small connecting line. There was a large district in Loughrea left out of communication for want of a small line of this kind; and, no doubt, there were many districts of Ireland suffering similar inconvenience. He believed the Government could do what was required. They were prepared to guarantee a sum of money for tramways; and probably they thought that if they had included in the Bill powers for the construction of railways extensive lines would be made which would never pay. Surely, a danger of that kind could be avoided whilst they allowed these gaps to be filled up. He believed the Bill would be a great advantage to the West of Ireland. He had received several communications and Petitions from the districts he had mentioned; and, so far as he was concerned, he sincerely hoped that if any hon. Members objected to any parts of the Bill, they would not, in the interests of the county of Galway, attempt to unduly delay its progress. He saw an hon. Friend opposite smiling at this. He had often come into conflict with the hon. Gentleman; but that, he hoped, would be allowed to pass.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that unless all sections of the House agreed to make this Bill a non-contentious measure there was very little chance of its passing into law, this Session, at all events. But, at the same time, there were certain provisions at present in the Bill which rendered it very difficult for some of them to square their ideas with those of the Government in every particular. The matters of detail which his

    551
    hon. Friend (Mr. Mayne) brought before the House, he thought, were matters which were very well worthy of attention, and, conjoined with other points, might make the Bill of a more workable character. He had no doubt some arrangement might be come to in the discussion in Committee with regard to them. But the more important questions to which he wished more particularly to direct the attention of the House were of such a ragged character that it was difficult for them, off-hand, to see their way fairly to help the Government in the way or course in which it would be necessary for all sides of the House to approach the question, so as to insure that the Bill should pass into law this Session. Take up the first part of the Bill—the part dealing with tramways. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), in 1880, introduced certain clauses into the Belief of Distress Act for the purpose of enabling baronial authorities to give grants of money for the construction of tramways in certain scheduled districts of Ireland; and the right hon. Gentleman proposed in the measure that the rates in aid should he shared or divided between the owner and the occupier of the land. And yet, notwithstanding that provision, many of them had sometimes felt, in the absence of any Government assistance, that the clauses were extremely objectionable in the principle of giving to non-elective bodies, like the Grand Juries, the power of levying rates, and the right to say where tramways should or should not be constructed, that they offered a strenuous opposition to the passing of those clauses, although, as he had said on the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, his objections to the powers which it was proposed by the Bill to give to Grand Juries were considerably removed by the offer of the Government to share one-half of the expenses. But he was not at that time aware that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to pass from the precedent which was set by his Predecessor in Office, and that he intended to impose the whole onus of paying the rates on the occupiers of the land. In other words, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was this—he intended to give the Grand Juries, which were composed, as everybody knew, in Ireland of the owners of the land, power to levy
    552
    rates at their discretion, to be paid by the occupier; and, practically, the persons who had to pay the taxation would not have the slightest control over the expenditure of their money, or over the property, after it had been expended. In this respect the proposal with regard to tramways contained in the Bill appeared to him to be utterly illusory. They included, it was true, some ostensible control by the cesspayer; but, in reality, it simply amounted to this—that the Grand Jury nominated certain persons who were called "associated cesspayers." These persons were simply nominees of the Grand Jury, and in no sense could they be considered to represent the people who paid the rates. They could not, in fact, be said to represent anybody but themselves. He admitted there were difficulties in connection with this matter; and he thought the Irish Members showed a very great desire to meet the Government, in urging them to go back to the provisions of the Belief of Distress Act adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, and to share the rates between the owner and the occupier. In consideration of the partial guarantee by the Government, and of the great difficulties in the absence of any representative system of local self-government in Ireland, he thought that would be a fair compromise to adopt with reference to this very much discussed question. Of course, if they had County Boards in Ireland, this matter would be quite easy, for the ratepayers would be able to elect their representatives, and they would have none but themselves to blame if those representatives put charges upon them of which they disapproved. But, as matters stood, it was exceedingly hard of the Government to ask them to throw the whole of this annual burden of £40,000 entirely upon the occupiers of the land, leaving, as they did, the direction of the expenditure of the money, the appointment of the officials, and, in some cases, the management of the works themselves, to the bodies which at present undertook the duties of local authorities in Ireland. He had no doubt many valuable suggestions would be made from different quarters, and that there would be co-operation and goodwill on the part of all sections of both English and Irish Members in making this scheme a practicable and workable

    553
    scheme, and in insuring that it should be carried on with as little jobbery as possible, and that the money would be used in such a way as to make those lines which were most to the advantage of the country, and most likely to be remunerative. It was not to the advantage of Ireland that this Bill should prove a dead letter, or be used for the purpose of private jobbery; and he was sure that everybody in the House, and all the Irishmen of every section, would approach the subject with a desire to do that which was just and right, and to secure that the intentions of the Government might have such a shape given to them as would lead to lasting benefit, or to the interest of those communities where it was proposed to make these tramways. He now came to another portion of the Bill, on which he desired to offer a very few brief remarks—he meant the portion in which it was proposed to make a grant of £100,000 for the purpose of emigration. He had promised, on the introduction of the measure, to prove certain statements which he then took the liberty of making with reference to the results of the emigration attempts which had been made in Ireland during the last 12 months; and if he did not go too minutely into details—in fact, if he rather glided over this causus belli at present—he must not be understood as departing in any sense from the attitude he then took up, nor as departing from the statements he then made. But it was obvious that at that time of the Session, and at that hour of the night, it was not possible to go into lengthy remarks on these matters. He believed, however, and he felt convinced, that if permitted on the present occasion, it would be possible for him to show to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had taken such a great interest in, and who had devoted such true energy, ability, and patience to this question of emigration, that in many respects their attempts, although they had been attended with as beneficial and as remarkable results as would have been expected under the circumstances, yet had not been attended with such results as would justify them in persevering in a course of what they considered to be the forcible emigration of the Irish people. He had said he would be able to show that in many parts of the country the farmers, as a
    554
    rule, were not taking advantage of the emigration facilities conferred by the Arrears Act; and since then he had, in reply to a request he had made, received a letter from the Most Rev. Dr. M'Cormack, Bishop of Achonry, whoso diocese embraced one of the most congested districts of Ireland, containing a population of nearly 120,000 people in places such as Swineford and Ballaghadreen, including, amongst other estates, that of Lord Dillon—which probably presented the best example of a congested estate in the whole of the West of Ireland. The Bishop, in his letter, referring to a belief entertained by some of the members of Mr. Tuke's Committee that the effect of their scheme was the consolidation of holdings and the removal of congestion in the districts, said that after having communicated with all the priests in his diocese, and obtained detailed information from them, he found that out of the 120,000 population, only 40 occupiers of land—of any kind whatever, small or great—were emigrated; and that, so far from being consolidated, their holdings were mostly in the hands of friends. Some of the people, indeed, had gone away, locking the doors of their houses, and retaining the keys, evidently intending to come back again. The hope, therefore, of Mr. Tuke's Committee, so far as consolidation was concerned, had not been realized. He did not mean to say that this had been the case in every instance; for he found, on referring to a pamphlet which had been issued by Mr. Tuke's Committee, that in some districts, for instance, on the sea coast, a considerable number of occupiers of land had been emigrated. But he noticed that fully a third of the occupiers of land who were pointed to as favourable examples of the successful effect of voluntary emigration were, in reality, forced emigrants, since they were evicted tenants, and had no other resources before them but emigration. However, be that as it might, the Irish Members were willing to put this matter to the test of practical experiment; and they said that since the Government insisted upon devoting a sum of money to purposes of emigration, would they not give them the opportunity of proving what he believed they would have no difficulty in proving, even during the next few months, that it was possible to emigrate and re-settle families for the

    555
    congested districts in such a way as to enable them to live and thrive at home at least equally as well as they were likely to do in America under the Emigration Clauses? The sum of about £100,000 was proposed to be allocated to the purpose of emigration. He did not know anything which had excited so much feeling against the Government as this question of emigration in Ireland. It was believed by many people that the Government either did not wish or did not intend to give a fair trial to the people at home—that their policy was a policy of emigration, at all events at present, and little or nothing besides; and that they would not adopt the reasonable propositions or suggestions which had been made with a view of practically proving that it was possible for these people to live and to get on well, and become prosperous subjects of the Queen in their own country. After fully considering the Bill, and more particularly the Purchase Clauses, he was inclined to agree to a considerable extent with the remarks which were made on the evening of the introduction of the Bill by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). The right hon. and learned Gentleman, with that extraordinary acuteness and ability which had so distinguished him in that House—with almost preternatural acuteness—at once saw that the Purchase Clauses contained in Part II of the measure might be made use of for the purpose of testing the proposal to re-settle the tenants for the congested districts at home. He (Mr. Parnell) certainly agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman to a considerable extent, inasmuch as he thought the Purchase Clauses, with some Amendments, might be made the basis of a proposal for the re-settlement of some of these families in question. The clauses provided that Companies might be formed, and that the Land Commission might advance to them the purchase money of estates—subject, of course, to the consent and the supervision of that Commission, and subject, also, to the further provision that the holdings of occupying tenants should be re-sold to those tenants, where they were willing to buy, under such conditions as the Land Commission might approve. It so happened that on almost every estate in the West of Ire-
    556
    land now in the market, there was a quantity of light land which was not adapted for grazing purposes, and which was not in the occupation of tenants. This land, as a rule, was let to grazing tenants in six monthly periods or 12 monthly periods, the tenants changing almost every year. The tenures were not such as came within the provisions of the Land Act in any way. As to this land in the county of Mayo, speaking from an agricultural point of view, it was undoubtedly ill-suited to grazing purposes. It was not of that rich and fattening description that one found in Roscommon, Meath, Louth, and County Dublin. It was of a light, warm character, admirably suited for tillage purposes, and to be left in grass for a short time. Having been laid down for the 30 years which had elapsed since the Famine, it was rapidly running back into a state of waste and wilderness. He did not wish to enlarge upon this matter, which was one closely connected with practical agriculture; but he was informed, by those well acquainted with these matters, that what he had stated was the fact—that there were estates in Mayo to be purchased in the open market at present on which small tenants were living with holdings which were too small, estates on which there was plenty of land for the re-settlement of those tenants living on congested portions of the same estates. What he would suggest was that the Government should see their way to devoting a portion of the emigration money to grants in aid of emigration, for instance to the Company or Companies that might be formed under Part II. of the Bill for the purchase of estates. The Government should consider the desirability of inserting clauses in the Bill to enable the Land Commissioners to grant to any such Company so much per family, just in the same way as money was granted for emigration purposes, in order that each family might be suitably re-settled on a holding of sufficient size, and to the satisfaction of the Commissioners. This would enable them to carry to a practical test this much-vexed question of migration versus emigration, and would enable them to decide, to the satisfaction of the Irish and English public, whether a scheme of re-settlement or migration was possible, and would remove much—very much—of the feeling which now

    557
    existed, that the Government did not wish to give a fair chance to the people at home. He did not know whether he had made his points sufficiently clear; but what he would propose to do when the Bill reached the Committee stage would be to place certain Amendments on the Paper having regard to the provisions of Part II., which could be worked in connection with those provisions, so as to provide a plan for resettlement of tenants from congested districts, such as would serve as a conclusive test of the practicability of the system. He did not think they made in this any very unreasonable request. The money, after all, was Irish money. It might be argued that the sum to be devoted to the purposes of emigration was not a very large one, and would scarcely bear division; but, after all, whether £100,000 or £50,000 were devoted to emigration could not make very much practical difference. He believed the gentlemen on Mr. Tuke's Committee had devoted very great pains and time and trouble to their scheme of emigration, and also believed that so far as it was possible out of the materials at their disposal for them to satisfactorily settle the emigrants in America they had done so; but, after all that had been said and done, emigration had not been attended with results such as to entitle them to support any proposal for emigration in Ireland. However, as the Session was late, and as the Irish Members did not desire to offer any factious opposition to the emigration proposal of the Government, he would only ask that the money should be shared between the two ideas. Some part of it for the purposes of migration ought to be given to a Company, the directorate of which would be composed of men of ail sections of politics, and other parties in England and Ireland, and the Government ought to carry out these views to the limited extent he had suggested.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that, in his opinion, it was impossible for any Irishman, possessing the ordinary views which every man might be supposed to possess in regard to his own country, to approach this subject without the intention, in some part or other of his mind, of supporting the Bill. It was next to impossible for a man not to see that when he was offered, in substance, £2,000,000 from the Imperial funds it
    558
    required an effort of terrific virtue not to receive the proposal in a spirit of modified resignation. He (Mr. Gibson) felt like an Irishman on this point, and should find tremendous difficulty, even if the Government proposed to double the operation, in summoning up even a spark of that virtue necessary to resist it. It might therefore, he thought, be expected that, in the present and future stages of the Bill, whatever form the protest might take, and whatever suggestion might be made as to the modification of the clauses, the main and essential proposals of the Bill would be accepted with substantial unanimity by the Irish Members. He did not himself at all understand the time and circumstances under which these proposals were made. There was no suggestion of urgency on the subject; and why the Bill was not brought in months ago, even if it was not proceeded with, he could not understand. It was not a Distress Bill, or an Emergency Bill, to meet a position of a pressing character that the experience of the last couple of months had developed; but it was a considered effort of statesmanship on the part of the Executive charged with the administration of the country without the slightest thing to indicate that this was the special time at which it was desirable to bring it in, so that he was at a loss to understand why in this month of August they were, for the first time, asked to consider the very remarkable proposals connected with this measure—for they were remarkable proposals. Irish Members, as he had already pointed out, would readily—though with, of course, the usual protests—accept the great offers which were made to them; but from the point of view of English and Scotch Members it must challenge a certain amount of observation to find that proposals which had never yet been made to England or Scotland—namely, to assist them with a guarantee of this kind, were made to Ireland, and that without the suggestion of the excuse of the relief of distress. The proposals were without any geographical limitation whatever within the limits of Ireland; and it might very well be that the richest counties, and those with exceptional advantages, owing to population, and labour, and capital, would be those which would get the lion's share of this money. Of course,

    559
    that was a matter which it was not for him to object to. He would, however, make one objection in passing, or allude to one objection, without discussing it, for he was positive it might, if not looked to, lead to a great deal of discussion hereafter, and would modify, if not shipwreck, the Bill. In the observations he had made at half-past 3 o'clock on the morning the Bill was introduced he had expressed a hope that it would be found that no clause in the Bill would run counter to the settled and vested interests of Railway and other Companies, which had already spent largo sums of money on the faith of Parliamentary powers. He did not belong to what was called the Railway interest of the country. He had some Railway shares, but was not a Railway Director, or anything of that kind, and, therefore, took an independent view of the matter. He was confident, from communications he had received from persons of high authority on the matter, that if Sub-section 1 of the clause dealing with this matter were retained, all sections of the House would not be prepared to do that which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) said was necessary to the passing of the Bill—namely, agree not to make it contentious. If this sub-section, which was dangerous to the existence of the Railway interest, was retained in its present shape, it was plain that either the clause was introduced for committing the suicide of the Bill, or else it would have to be abandoned or modified. He would not do more than point out one matter. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, in the course of his very short speech, had pointed out the circumstances under which the rate would have to be raised. Of course, everything connected with rating and with a rate which was to carry out a particular object was always of importance, and in no place more than in Ireland. It was worthy of note that the hon. Member had pointed out—he was not very dogmatic on the subject, but he had pointed out—a precedent which the Government might follow in providing for the relief of distress. The rate was to be levied rather as a poor rate than as a county cess. He strongly suspected that the Government had adopted, on the whole, a wise view in reference to this measure. The hon. Member for the City of Cork knew
    560
    what the incidence of this county cess was in Ireland. In holdings held up to 1870 the rates were paid by the occupier, and after 1870 they were paid, he believed, as a poor rate.
    COLONEL NOLANinterrupted the right hon. and learned Gentleman with an observation which was imperfectly heard.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that if he were wrong he should look into the matter. The point was one which had been considered by the Government with care; and he was disposed to think, from conversations he had had upon it with persons well acquainted with the subject, that the Government would again very carefully consider it before they made any change which was calculated to excite considerable criticism. Having regard to the fact that the Government had proposed to give £2,000,000 for emigration, this £100,000 was paltry. Bearing in mind the way in which the question was regarded by many people who had an anxious desire to do what was best, and to consider how they best could give the poorer people a chance of starting in the New World, surrounded by their families and sometimes attended by their priests on the journey, he thought the House must look on the emigration proposals without any hostility and without any prejudice. He would take the case of the Tuke Fund. He had never seen, and had no acquaintance with, Mr. Tuke. He was only dealing with him as a public man, and he had perfect confidence in him. However Irish Members might differ from him, he was prepared to believe that Mr. Tuke was as high-minded and honourable a gentleman as was ever known, and that his motives were of the worthiest kind. Every fair and rational man would admit that the Tuke Fund, and Mr. Tuke's efforts, were entitled to be placed in the highest possible position. ["No, no!"] In saying that, he believed he was expressing public opinion in Ireland as well as in England; and he ventured to think that he had as good means of knowing what the public opinion in Ireland was as any hon. Member had. [An Irish MEMBER: Of Anglo-Ireland.] The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said that the policy of emigration was the policy of the Government, and was to be deplored. He himself was not in favour of a

    561
    policy of mere emigration; but it was one thing to say that, and another thing to say that they would not, under sound conditions, give facilities for emigration to those who desired to emigrate. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had been very moderate in pressing his views on this subject; but really the amount was so small, and the effort made by the Government was so utterly petty, that the idea of dividing £100,000 into two parts, for migration and for emigration, was not dealing with the matter in a worthy way. Emigration by £100,000 taken from the Church Fund was a very little thing to got, unless the proposal was to be made a mere sham. If there was anything in migration, which was a big proposal, it should be submitted on broad lines as a great practical question. It was so broad a question that the idea of working it with £50,000 was pre-eminently absurd; and he would, therefore, suggest to those who had their own strong views in reference to emigration, if they were prepared to accept the £50,000, that it was not a worthy way of approaching it, as was too often done in regard to Irish affairs, by splitting the difference. As to migration, however, this was not the time to discuss it. There had been an interesting debate early in the Session on a Motion by the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), and probably there would be another next Session; but what was wanted in regard to migration was some soundly-formulated practical proposal. It would not do to throw down the word "migration," and to talk about people living in Ireland, and to say there were moans not fully utilized. Those were mere platitudes, and not practical legislation. What was needed were practical proposals, calmly and soberly submitted to Parliament; and he was sure that if they were so submitted they would be carefully weighed. He did not think it necessary to occupy more time in reference to the Bill. He was as anxious as any Irishman that the Bill should not meet with any opposition which would imperil it; and, of course, it was desirable that all points of friction should, as far as possible, be put aside. He hoped that when the Committee stage was reached the Bill would not be overwhelmed with Amendments; because it was obvious if everybody put
    562
    down his own particular crotchet and panacea, this being the 14th of August, there would not be time to discuss them, as there might be early in the Session. He did not intend, so far as he knew at present, to put down any Amendment of a substantial character; but he hoped the Government would consider the important matter he had mentioned in connection with railways in Ireland, because that was one of the things which, if not attended to, would excite an agitation which would wreck the Bill.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the rate should be divided between the owner and the occupier. It was decided unanimously, he believed, by the Irish Committee which sat last Parliament, consisting half of landlords and half of tenants, that that ought to be done; and certainly the effect of the Bill would be largely to the advantage of the landlords. He would take a single case. He believed there were plantations made in the West of Ireland in 1847 which would now be available for good timber; but there were no means of using it at a moderate cost. To open out country like the West of Ireland by supplying good roads would be to confer an inestimable benefit upon landlords as well as upon tenants. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Member, that the Government should devote a considerable sum to what was commonly called migration—in other words, to the reclamation of certain lands—he could not say that he had sufficient knowledge to speak with any confidence; but when practical men like the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) stated that he had carried out such improvements by means of the Celtic tenants of mountain land similar to that in Ireland, he certainly thought the experiment ought to be made, whether successfully or not, so that the question should be settled. He could not quite agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) as to this amount being petty, for it must be remembered that in all these matters there must be a beginning, and it was not always these things which were begun upon a large scale that were successful. What was very important was that the experiment should be tried on a real and well-considered and well-devised plan, with practical

    563
    men at the back of it—men who, above all things, believed in the ultimate success of the experiment. It must be in the knowledge of all that experiments very often failed when they were made in a half-hearted way; and that the only chance was that they should be made by those who really believed in them. He would not now attempt a defence of the operations under Mr. Tuke; but he knew that a triumphant answer would be given by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Sydney Buxton) as to those operations. He had merely risen to say that he and those agreeing with him were no mere specialists. They did not believe in emigration as the sole cure. They believed that in certain limited districts emigration was one of those cures which were necessary to lift the people from the depths of distress, and that there were a number of men who would not be available for migration, but must be placed in happier circumstances, and in circumstances which would prevent them from feeling that hopelessness that now prevented success. But they would all be delighted to find that men could be provided for suitably in the country itself, for they had no wish to see a man or a woman sent out of Ireland who could be placed in circumstances that would enable them to live in comfort and respectability. There had been no stronger advocates of these tramways than Mr. Tuke and his Committee, for they had pressed it on the Government vigorously; and he now wished to urge the Government to give every advantage to any well-conceived scheme for the reclamation of land.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, there were one or two remarkable points in connection with this matter. The Bill, as a whole, had his most hearty support; and if he found fault with it, or disagreed with any sentiments here or there enunciated by hon. Members, that was only a matter of detail, and not an objection to the general principle of the Bill. He could not but join issue with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Rath-bone) as to the division of the rate, and he joined issue on the grounds advanced by the hon. Member. The hon. Member said the landlords would be the persons benefited if the country was opened up by means of tramways. If the hon. Member had said that four or
    564
    five years ago he should have agreed with him; but, the Land Act of 1881 having been passed, it was impossible that the landlords should be benefited. The landlords could no longer raise their rents. Some people might say—"So much the better;" but he merely stated that as a fact. The landlords could not raise their rents through the country being opened up; and if any were benefited they must be the occupiers. Therefore, the persons who were to be benefited, and who should be therefore responsible for any loss, should be the occupiers. He did not object to the occupiers being benefited; but he did object to the owners, who could not be benefited, being made responsible. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was not, he thought, so accurate as usual in one of his remarks. The hon. Member drew attention to the clause which safeguarded cesspayers against the presumed vice or virtue of the Grand Juries—over-liberality of the Grand Juries by the Proviso which permitted six cesspayers to lodge an objection to a Provisional Order. He had understood the hon. Member to touch upon the point of cesspayers, and then to call attention to the fact that the cesspayers were elected by the Grand Juries, called associated cesspayers, and to bring this matter before the House in a way to lead to the supposition that the cesspayers provided for in the Act would be associated cesspayers. That was his impression of what the hon. Member had said, and he thought that would be the impression of other Members, and that he was justified in pointing out that the hon. Member was wrong if he said that the cesspayers by whose protest the interest of the cesspayers would be guarded would not probably be associated cesspayers, but any persons paying cess in the district. He thought it would be a perfect safeguard if, when wild schemes were proposed by Gentlemen who were known to have highly philanthropic views, the protest of six cesspayers would be sufficient to bring the matter before a tribunal competent to weigh the project, and to decide whether the road or the tramway proposed would be a benefit, and would be likely to pay or not. With regard to migration, he had very carefully, and to the utmost of his ability, thought over that subject for the last two or

    565
    three years. He had had many conversations with men who had made that question the subject of study; and he had earnestly wished that if it were possible some scheme of that nature should be carried out. He had heard many schemes propounded by many Gentlemen; but on putting those schemes to the test of sober conversation for two or three years, and after asking the promotors of those schemes to put their ideas fairly down in figures, and to specify particular localities, he was bound to say that he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that migration was not possible in Ireland. He had come to that conclusion with the greatest regret, for no man in Ireland would be more glad to be proved wrong than he would upon this point; and he should not have opposed the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork if the Government had seen their way to deal with the small sum—the very small sum—set apart for emigration, and to devote it to migration in the way suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The hon. Member had specified certain counties and localities, and had said—and he trusted the hon. Member was right—that there were certain localities in Mayo which were better suited for tillage than for grazing purposes, to which they were at present adapted, because they were now getting back to their normal state before the Famine. If the hon. Gentleman had really carefully considered this, as he, no doubt, had, and if there really were such lands, and a number of people could be taken from the congested districts and settled upon those lands, and if the experiment could be made for so paltry a sum as £50,000, in Heaven's name let it be tried! If it failed, they would be no worse off; on the contrary, they would be better off, for they would have set the question at rest. If it succeeded, a great panacea for many of Ireland's evils would have been found. He was alluding to special lands which the hon. Member had specified; to lands which the hon. Member said were not now in the occupation of particular individuals, and not of lands elsewhere. He was entirely with the hon. Member on the proposition the hon. Member had made that evening; and he should be exceedingly glad if the Government could, to the moderate extent which had been proposed, try the ex-
    566
    periment. He must, however, warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that even that might not, perhaps, be so easy as they imagined, because his experience of the Irish peasant was that he was not only exceedingly attached to his country, but was attached to his home, and he had himself had great difficulty in persuading his tenants to move from their small holdings to better holdings in the same townland, and not 500 yards off. Although they at first accepted his offer, though doubtfully, when it came to moving from under the old roof-tree they felt such a strong objection that they would not go.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, the reception which had been given to the Bill must be very gratifying to the Chief Secretary. According to the information he had received from the North of Ireland, the passing of the Bill was awaited with the deepest anxiety; and already extensive preparations were being made to take full advantage of the Bill when it had become law. But he wished to point out that if it was to be a success, and the success which the right hon. Gentleman intended and hoped, there must, in his opinion, be several alterations and Amendments; and his object in rising was to point out what, in his view, were the defects of the measure. In the first place, it did not empower Railway Companies to subscribe to the capital for tramways. He knew of several cases in which Railway Companies had subscribed; and if powers were given to enable them to subscribe, the burden on the ratepayers would be lightened to a considerable extent. He was surprised to hear the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) pointing out that the Railway Companies of Ireland would be jealous of an extension of the tramways. He hoped and believed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fears were groundless, because he regarded tramways as most important feeders to the general railway system of Ireland; and he had no other expectation than that, when the matter came to be discussed, the Railway Companies, instead of being jealous, would give all the assistance in their power by subscribing capital, if they were allowed to do so, first getting the sanction of their shareholders. A further

    567
    suggestion he wished to make was that the powers of the Railway Commission should extend to the tramways, in order that any difference between the tramways and the railways might be settled by them. There was one very important point upon which he had received numerous communications. It was urged that under the Provisional Orders to be issued by the Privy Council there should be compulsory powers for taking land; and he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether this Bill provided for taking land compulsorily? Under the old Tramways Act of 1860 the limits of deviation were 30 feet from the road. This Bill provided for an increase of speed up to 12 miles an hour; but there were no compulsory powers provided for taking land, so as to avoid bad gradients which it might be impossible to work.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going into details which are only appropriate to the Committee stage of the Bill.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, his apology for mentioning this point was that it was a matter of vital importance, and he wished to direct the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to it. There was another point which he thought should be provided for, and that was that the Tramway Acts which had been passed this Session should be brought within the scope of the Bill. Already the Royal Assent had been given to one Tramway Act in connection with his own county. The barony had subscribed £15,000, at 5 per cent. for 35 years; and he thought it would be hard if the Bill did not include Tramway Acts passed this Session. These tramways, to be successful, must go through the country, in order to avoid the difficulties he had pointed out; and they would, therefore, really become railways. To prevent any misunderstanding or disappointment, he strongly advised that narrow-gauge railways should be included in the provisions of the Bill. In Donegal, he was quite satisfied that there would be the greatest disappointment if narrow-gauge railways were excluded from the Bill. On the question of migration, he agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that now was the time to try a scheme of migration; and he agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for
    568
    the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) that there was little use in commencing such a scheme with £50,000. Why should not £100,000 be given for the purpose of emigration, and another £100,000 be devoted to testing a scheme of migration? He had no faith in emigration as a permanent cure for the ills of Ireland. He looked at it as a mere temporary expedient, and one which should only be applied to districts exposed to poverty. He should very much like to see a scheme of migration tried upon a broad and comprehensive scale. The Grand Juries formed a most unsatisfactory tribunal for dealing with such matters; and it was now evident the advantage which would be reaped in Ireland from a system of County Boards. If they introduced into the Bill an Amendment providing that the landlords of Ireland were to subscribe half the county cess, did the House think that the Grand Juries would pass tramway schemes? They would do nothing of the kind. He was extremely anxious that the Bill should be a great success, because he believed that it would do more towards developing the resources of Ireland than any measure which had been passed during the present Parliament.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he did not think that any discussion on this stage of the Bill would be likely to lead to any practical result, and therefore his observations would be very few indeed. He thought that, with the Amendments which had been suggested from various quarters of the House, the measure was one which ought to be warmly supported by Irish Members; and, as far as he was concerned, he should be glad to give it his support. With reference, however, to the provisions for the formation of tramways in Ireland, he regretted to find that the poorer and the richer districts were to be put on an equal footing. He believed the effect of this would be, if it were persisted in throughout the various stages of the Bill, to render the measure inoperative in most of the districts that stood most in need of railway and tramway communication. Since the Bill was printed he had had communications from various parts of the county he represented, and this view was very much pressed on his attention. Districts like those of Newport, Belmullet, and Swineford were

    569
    willing to give even a modified guarantee of 2 per cent on the capital of the Company; and he should hope that, on further consideration of this part of the Bill, the Government would see their way to make a Schedule of what might be called the permanently distressed districts of the West of Ireland, and to provide that in the case of all baronies included in that Schedule the Treasury should itself guarantee a dividend of 4 per cent; and that the baronies in the more prosperous parts of Ireland should be called upon to guarantee a dividend of 2 per cent. The Purchase Clauses under this Act were to be extended through the agency of public Companies; and he thought that would, to some extent, promote the object which had found support in all quarters of the House—namely, the creation of a peasant proprietary in Ireland. He did not know why the view which hon. Members took on the subject of migration should bear any relation at all to the sum of £100,000, which the Bill proposed to expend on emigration. He was sure that it could not be seriously contended for a moment that a sum of £50,000 would demonstrate successfully the advantages of any scheme of migration. Such a sum would be entirely inadequate. He would be disposed to leave that sum as it stood, for two reasons—first of all, because no portion of it would be sufficient to give a scheme of migration a fair chance; and, secondly, because he believed that if the sum of £100,000, which it was proposed to spend on emigration, were diminished, the only effect would be that the assistance afforded to families to emigrate would be much less than if the larger amount were sanctioned. He believed that the operations of Mr. Tuke's Committee had been very much fettered and restrained by the fact that the amount at their disposal was of so limited a character; and his opinion was that if Parliament assisted people to emigrate at all they ought to assist them well. Therefore, it was better that, if they were reluctantly obliged to carry out a scheme of emigration at all, they should have ample means of doing so. He should think that under the Purchase Clauses a scheme of migration might be very fairly tried, and for the reason that the money advanced under the Purchase Clauses was of no specified amount. The
    570
    Land Act said that the Treasury should be empowered to advance money in aid of the purchase of farms by tenants, provided that the sum should not exceed the amount annually voted by Parliament for that purpose. If they tried to develop a migration scheme under these clauses, the matter would work in this manner. It would be done either under the authority of the Commissioners of Public Works, or under the authority of the Land Commission; and the money would be advanced from time to time without any necessity whatever for subsequent legislation, assuming that the experiment in the first instance proved successful. If in this Bill, or in any other Bill, they limited or specified the exact amount of money to be devoted to the carrying out of the scheme in any one year, it would be necessary to have further legislation, even although the scheme proved successful. He desired to call attention to these points, not at all in the hope that they could be adequately discussed, but rather with the object of indicating the line which he proposed himself to take with the view of amending this Bill when it reached the Committee stage. Just one word with regard to the operations of Mr. Tuke's Committee in reference to emigration. When he had occasion to occupy the time of the House on this subject before, he complained that Mr. Tuke and those connected with him had not given them any data on which to form a judgment as to the value of their operations in the West of Ireland; and he particularly asked for some evidence to show that the evil of congested populations had been remedied, not merely by transferring a certain number of people from their homes to emigrant ships, and ultimately to the other side of the Atlantic, but that something had been done to consolidate the holdings where they had been found to be too small to enable any tenant to gain a decent livelihood on them. Recently the Committee had prepared a Report on this subject, and that Report had been to him a very agreeable surprise. If the figures set forth were correct—and he had no doubt they were—he was bound to say that the operations of Mr. Tuke's Committee in reference to that scheme of emigration had been more successful than he had hitherto had reason to believe. He was glad to find

    571
    that great progress had been made in what he might call the opinion of the House, both on the subject of emigration and on that of migration, since they talked of this matter before. It seemed now to be admitted on both sides of the House that emigration was not a panacea for the misery of Ireland, but only a temporary expedient. ["No!"] Well, the admission had come from those who had advocated emigration; and, therefore, he was inclined to regard it as a very satisfactory admission, while, in his own judgment, it was a very fair expression of the state of the case. There was some progress of opinion on the subject of migration also. It was the fate of every new proposal that it should be for a long time misunderstood, and that in some quarters it should be misrepresented. After a while, however, men of sense were apt to say—"Well, we will give the new proposal a trial." The Government were now prepared to try migration; and the House was entitled to infer, with all its experience of public matters, that a scheme of migration was consequently in a fair way of succeeding, because men would never think of subjecting it to a serious experiment if they had not some faith in the probability of its success. He should conclude by congratulating the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and those who had brought in this Bill, on having made so decided a step towards carrying out recommendations which had been made by Irish Members. He believed that if the Government would agree to some of the recommendations and suggestions which had been thrown out in the course of the debate, the Bill would become one which would be received by the people of Ireland with great satisfaction.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that every hon. Member who had addressed the House had, he thought, without exception, expressed some satisfaction at the substantial unanimity of the debate up to that point. He was glad to hear it acknowledged that the Bill was brought forward with a genuine desire to do something for the prosperity of Ireland. As to the remarks which had been made on this subject, he would merely pass in review the points of the speakers who had preceded him. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne), in opening the debate, objected to the Grand Juries
    572
    as the means of setting the Bill in motion. He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not know that the hon. Member objected to the Grand Juries with any hope of the Government being able, with any reasonable prospect of success, to substitute another system; but the hon. Gentleman hoped that some means would be found to make Grand Juries do their duty. On the other hand, he (Mr. Trevelyan) found that other Members had remarked upon the great danger there was lest the Grand Juries should do their duty only too actively, and should embark the credit of the ratepayers in schemes which the ratepayers, if they were more popularly represented, would not engage in. He could not but think that the Government, who on this point had expended a great deal of care and attention, had positively hit upon something like the mean between meeting the ratepayers' interests on the one hand, and the prosperity of the country on the other. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) suggested that ratepayers should be able to oppose in Parliament the construction of one of these tramways. Now, in ail other respects, the Government had followed the lines of the existing Tramways Act; but this proposal would involve a new provision. In the case of the present Tramways Act the only persons who had a locus standi against a Tramways Bill were the owners or occupiers of land which was going to be taken away, and rival Companies who were likely to have their interests damaged by the construction of another line of tramways. In this case the promoters of the Bill would be quite willing to encourage the principle which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) had given expression to; because they considered that the ratepayers should, in some way or other, have the power of making representations against any scheme which they deemed likely to endanger their interests. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) made a proposal, perhaps, of a somewhat wider nature. The hon. Member referred to the Bill for making tramways put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) at a time when various schemes were being suggested for the relief of distress in Ireland; and he (Mr. Parnell) said that in that Bill the lia-

    573
    bility to pay cess was placed half upon the owner and half on the occupier. But it was pointed out—and he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought with great force—that this was done some years ago, before the rents were in many cases fixed judicially, and at a time when the landlord, if he found that half the cess was an unexpected burden upon him, had the power to raise the rent. That power had now been taken from the landlord; and if any re-arrangement of cess was undertaken, they might find themselves under the necessity of engaging in the very complicated operation of interfering with the judicial rents. He did not see that it was a convincing reason in favour of the hon. Gentleman's proposal that there was at present no representative self-government in Ireland. It seemed to him (Mr. Trevelyan) that the question of distributing local burdens could not be treated incidentally in a Tramways Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) spoke with great animation and heartiness in welcoming what he regarded as a grant of £2,000,000 from the Imperial finances. Now, he (Mr. Trevelyan) was extremely anxious, both with regard to those who gave and those who received, not to make themselves out more generous than they were. The utmost responsibility which the Exchequer took upon itself, in case circumstances occurred which could not possibly happen, would be to guarantee the interest, not upon £2,000,000, but upon £1,000,000; but the effect of this Bill, as they hoped and believed, would be to raise £2,000,000 to be expended for the benefit of Ireland. On this £2,000,000 the Government only undertook to guarantee 2 per cent. He trusted that the provisions of the Bill were so framed that very little, indeed, of this guarantee would ultimately have to be paid. He owned that tramways which did not pay their way were extremely doubtful elements in the prosperity of a country. He owned, also, that Parliament had lately, both in England and in Ireland, gone far too deeply into the system of State loans; and one reason why he had considerable satisfaction in introducing this Bill was that it encouraged a principle which he considered to be, at any rate, as an alternative principle, a very satisfactory one—the principle under
    574
    which not a single penny of public money would be laid out on any undertaking upon which the local authorities were not willing to expend an equal amount of their own money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) wondered why the Bill was not brought in mouths ago, and said he did not understand what the occasion for it was now. The occasion for it was that, some months ago, a large body of the Members of the House—the most respectable Members, who thoroughly understood Ireland—made representations to the Government to have something done to further the prosperity of Ireland; and, as he explained in introducing the measure, the Government came to the conclusion that something had better be done with the object of improving the means of communication. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Bill was brought forward without the excuse of the relief of distress. This was, however, in his (Mr. Trevelyan's) opinion, a desirable feature of the measure. The Government had, over and over again, expressed through his mouth their disbelief in the efficiency of relief works. What they wanted to do was something for the permanent benefit of Ireland, and something that was not mixed up with the temporary relief of distress. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) started an idea which was taken up very warmly in all quarters of the House. There was only one hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House who did not, at any rate, sympathize with the hon. Member's proposal. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell), speaking of the proposed Vote for emigration, paid a just compliment to the operations of, and the motives which actuated Mr. Tuke; and he appealed to the Government to let something be done, out of what he described as Irish money, in a direction which, as he (Mr. Parnell) said, Irishmen would welcome more cordially than they did the system of emigration. On the question of emigration, he (Mr. Trevelyan) had expressed his opinions pretty often, and he would not repeat them now. His own belief was that facilities for emigration were very deeply valued by a class of people who had not the opportunity, and who were not in the habit, of

    575
    making their voices heard. Those people who did very ill in Ireland, the very poorest people, had, for the most part, no votes in the counties; and, moreover, they were people who were not accustomed to make their voices heard by politicians; but whenever they had an opportunity of emigrating to countries where they might live under happier circumstances, they showed themselves very eager to take advantage of such opportunity. The hon. Member for the City of Cork incidentally said that in many cases assistance for emigration had been extended to people who were not the proper objects of it. He (Mr. Trevelyan) would not attempt at any length to refute that statement of the hon. Member, because at this moment it was not very much to his purpose to do so; but one statement he would make which was to his purpose—namely, that, as far as he could gather, where these cases had occurred—and there might be a certain number, and he dared say that in some districts there were a good many—they occurred in instances where the emigration was left to Boards of Guardians. The temptation to Boards of Guardians to send away the people who would eventually come to the workhouse, he had no doubt, in some eases, proved irresistible; but he maintained that such was not the case with the voluntary labours of the gentlemen attached to what was generally called Mr. Tuke's Committee. The hon. Member for the City of Cork quoted the Union of Swineford, which was a Union presided over by a Board of Guardians. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had a Return from Belmullet Union, in which the emigration operations were conducted by Mr. Tuke's Committee through the agency of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. S. Buxton). He was informed that the people who were emigrated were very small holders, and that, out of 293 holdings vacated, 149 were taken over by the neighbours of the emigrants, so that the holdings of the neighbours were increased. Only 20 were taken over by new tenants, and 106 reverted to the landlords, while the small balance was for the present laying waste. The result was that out of the 293 holdings a little more than 1–20th had been disposed of in such a manner as to carry on the system of congestion which existed before. Now, the hon. Member's
    576
    proposal was to divide the sum which the Government proposed to allot for emigration, and that proposal seemed to meet with a pretty warm approval on all sides. One hon. Gentleman who had supported it was a prominent and active member of Mr. Tuke's Committee. That hon. Member—the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone)—had not gone into the operations of Mr. Tuke's Committee, or given statistics in support of his view; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) had found it his duty to examine very carefully what those operations were, and had come to the conclusion that £50,000 would go very far indeed, if spent in the manner in which money had been spent by Mr. Tuke's Committee hitherto. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who was not now present, being, no doubt, engaged on business of a more agreeable character, had asked for information as to the manner in which the money had been spent. On making inquiries, he (Mr. Trevelyan) had found that £26,400 was what had been spent in the course of the year by Mr. Tuke's Committee; and that, he took it, was the very outside sum which these gentlemen could possibly spend in any given year. Well, a matter of some £80,000 had been granted to the Unions. He observed, on looking through the list of Unions, that the districts from which people were emigrated by means of the agency of those Unions were the districts from which emigration had gone on steadily for a long time; while, as a rule, the districts from which people were emigrated by Mr. Tuke's Committee were those districts which were so poor that the emigration which had been normal in the rest of Ireland had hardly been going on since the Government took the matter in hand. If this assistance were given, it should be given to assist those comparatively few districts which were quite unable to assist themselves. Therefore, under these circumstances, after consulting very carefully with the members of the Committee, he could not doubt that the £50,000 would go a long way if properly spent. The hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) told them that if emigration were done at all it should be done well. Well, after consulting with Lord Spencer and his advisers, he had come to the conclusion to make this amendment of the Arrears Act—namely, to raise the

    577
    sum which, under certain circumstances, could be given per head to emigrants from £5 to £8. He did not imagine that this sum would very often be drawn upon. They found that people could be emigrated to New York, Boston, or Toronto, for £5 per head, and for such other aid as Mr. Tuke's Committee, for instance, was perfectly able and willing to afford; but that was not the case when they came to send people to Manitoba and more distant places, where they could settle down as agriculturists. In these cases the fares alone came to to £4 per head. But, of course, as the larger number of the emigrants consisted of children, the extra £3 which would be granted in those cases in which the Lord Lieutenant was satisfied the money was wanted, and would be well spent, would be sufficient to make a great advance in the distance which could be covered, and in the comfort in which the poor people could travel. Before he left this subject, which was the last he should touch on, he might say that from first to last there had been no one more earnest or urgent in pressing on the Government the desirability of doing something to open up Ireland by means of tramways than Mr. Tuke. He was inclined to think that the matter was one which Mr. Tuke had quite as much at heart as emigration. He was perfectly aware that the hon. Member for Mayo seemed to have some doubt as to the desirability of dealing with emigration in the manner which it had been suggested they should adopt. The hon. Member thought it might be dealt with more largely and liberally by means of the Purchase Clauses. He (Mr. Trevelyan) almost doubted whether that was the case. Under the Purchase Clauses the money would be lent for the purpose of buying the laud, and the margin that would be left to borrow from—and he would not outer too deeply into that—in some cases would be certainly very meagre. Money would be wanted for the purpose of stocking and fencing the land; and as this money was to be given a great deal by way of experiment, he should be glad if the grants could be made in sufficiently large proportions to give that experiment every chance of success. He did not think they had any right to take these poor people from one part of Ireland and put them down in another without giving them the very fairest possible chance of
    578
    being able to make a livelihood. The theory of emigration was that they should send people to places where it had been ascertained they would be likely to thrive, and there leave them. It was obvious, however, that in the matter of migration they must do more than that—that they must follow the people up a little further, and make more certain of their condition in their new homes. For that reason he would far rather himself see this £50,000 spent on a small number of families in such sums as would give them a real chance, than spent on a more ambitious scheme which, through stinting the individuals, could only fail. He earnestly hoped and trusted that some good would come of these Land Clauses. Speaking on a Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) some time ago, he had said that there were two things the Government were determined on in arranging for the purchase of land by tenants. They were determined to stick to two principles—namely, that a substantial part of the purchase money should be paid down, and that the instalments should be paid over in a comparatively limited period, so that the person who bought the property might feel, as years went on, that he was really becoming the proprietor, and could go forward in the knowledge that his liability was decreasing year by year. Those principles had been adhered to in the Purchase Clauses. Whatever was done would all be in a healthy direction. He confidently hoped that the effect of the clauses would be, to some extent, to transfer laud from people who felt it was not to their interest to let it to people who were only anxious to get hold of it, and thus extend the landlord system in Ireland without bringing about that alarming drain on the country, and those political difficulties, which a wholesale system of State landlordism would entail. The suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), who had taken such deep interest in this question from the very first, would be most carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government. He could assure his hon. Friend that the Bill did provide for taking land compulsorily. If it did not do so—if any hon. Member doubted that the provision proposed at the end of the Bill referring to the 48th section of the Tramways Act would not secure that

    579
    object, he trusted he would communicate with him or his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland on the subject as early as possible. He would not enter further upon the details of the Bill. He could only reiterate the appeal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), that hon. Members would think twice and thrice before putting down Amendments which would have the effect of starting some question which they felt of interest at this moment—would think whether the Amendments they put down were certain to secure the object at which they aimed. He felt sure, from the spirit which had been exhibited on the second reading, that the Bill had now a very fair prospect of meeting with success.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he wished to make one remark as to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), because it was of great importance to the county of Cork—the suggestion, namely, that Railway Companies should have power to undertake the promotion of these tramways. There were several districts in which the people who would be the most natural to construct the tramways would be the Railway Companies. The works, if carried out by them, would be, probably, no expense to the ratepayers. He hoped, therefore, the Government would consider the suggestion.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid, that, as a Member representing a constituency (Liverpool) containing a large number of Irish inhabitants, he wished to say a word or two on the second reading of the Bill. He would express to the Government his thanks for their important Tramway and Emigration scheme, which was drawn upon lines similar to those he had advocated on previous occasions; and he would express a hope that the action of the Government in taking this new departure would be attended with most valuable consequences for the benefit of the Sister Island. There was no possible hope of being able to develop the resources of the South-West of Ireland save by Government aid in a measure such as this. There was no hope of private enterprize carrying on the works which were so much to be desired. If the present scheme turned out the success he trusted it would be, it would be the herald of future and larger experiments in the same direction; but, whe-
    580
    ther it was a success or not, he hoped this Bill would be regarded as evidencing the sincere interest taken in the welfare of Ireland by the richer and stronger Island. He was very desirous—and he was sure many others who sat on those (the Ministerial) Benches were desirous—of convincing the Irish people that they were their true friends. At any rate, he was expressing the feelings of his own heart in what he said, and he hoped, also, he was expressing the feelings of a great many people. Many of them were ready to take a great deal of pains, and incur a great deal of expense, in order to make Ireland a more prosperous country, and he hoped that this Bill would be viewed in that light by the people of Ireland. He would urge Irish Members, when addressing their constituents, to speak of this as a sincere attempt on the part of the British Parliament to make Ireland a more prosperous country, for he was sure if such a view were taken of it it would pave the way for much more legislation of a beneficial kind. And, besides that, in this way the encouragement of a better feeling between the two countries would lead to the formation of closer relations, and the investment of a larger portion of the capital of Great Britain in the Sister Country. The annual savings of Great Britain amounted to an enormous sum. Much of this was spent upon developing foreign countries; and there was no reason why, at any rate for a time, some of that golden stream could not be diverted into Ireland, so as to lead to the development of its resources and the great benefit of its inhabitants. Looking forward, as he did, to a more happy future for Ireland, which had given us so much annoyance and anxiety of late, he hailed this Bill with hope. He was glad the Government had seen their way to a conjoint scheme of emigration and migration, as he felt they ought to consult the feelings of the Irish people in matters of this kind as far as possible. If the Government conceded a good scheme of migration, such was the love of the Irish people for their native soil, that he had good hope the scheme would prove a success. At all events, he thought they ought to try it, to show the people of Ireland that the British Parliament was anxious to meet them in every possible way to make their country more prosperous and

    581
    happy. He trusted this Bill would be looked upon in some sense as a peace offering from England to Ireland—at all events, he wished to look on it in that way himself. He could not resume his seat without heartily wishing the scheme success, and without thanking the Government for a scheme which he believed would conduce to the welfare of Ireland.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he was bound to say he did not think the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had at all improved the tone of the debate by his speech. The patronizing air which the hon. Member had assumed was certainly not calculated to win for him any expression of gratitude from him (Mr. Harrington), and he should hardly think it would win expressions of gratitude from hon. Gentlemen near him. A stranger who was not familiar with the facts of the case, hearing the hon. Member's speech, would suppose that some real boon was being conferred on Ireland, for which Ireland had a right to be grateful; whereas, as a matter of fact, all that was given was a miserable measure of three parts, two of which, on the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, were unworkable, and the third of which would merely develop a process at present in operation for the transportation of the people of Ireland from their native country. The Government in this Bill were only giving them the right to spend their own fund, and to refer to that in a patronizing manner was most objectionable—indeed, the tone of the hon. Member was insolent. He was not disposed to give the hon. Member credit for that sincerity for which he gave himself such elaborate credit. Whenever he (Mr. Harrington) saw an hon. Member get up and have to read his expression of sincerity from a paper before him, he at once doubted that sincerity. As one representing an Irish county, and as being to some extent mixed up with the Irish people, he could not allow the second reading of the Bill to pass without entering his protest against the miserable policy of emigration, to which Her Majesty's Government seemed so closely wedded, that even in this Bill granting a small concession to the poor, starved peasantry in Ireland, they still must introduce the subject. They had hoard a good deal from the Chief Secretary as to the happy
    582
    condition of the people who had been sent out of Ireland by the Emigration Committee; but it must be remembered that those people had not yet had experience of one of those severe winters which occurred in Manitoba. There had not yet been a fair opportunity of placing before the House statistics of the number the summer had killed in the South of America; and they could only speculate as to what he severe winter would do to those who were not accustomed to it, and who had been driven away by this miserable policy of the Government. Had the Government taken up the subject at the proper time, and extended to the people of the West of Ireland that outdoor relief which the public opinion of Ireland had pointed to as the only means of meeting the distress, they would not have to face the difficulties which were before them at this late period of the Session. In qualification of the policy of emigration, the cases of the emigrants sent out from the district of Belmullet had been cited. A number of figures relating to the families who had been emigrated had been given, and it had been shown that these people who had been the occupiers of very small holdings at home had had their condition improved, whilst the holdings they had left had been consolidated. Why, the right hon. Gentleman had given the most severe condemnation of the policy of the Emigration Committee which he had been endeavouring to defend. Everyone knew—except, perhaps, some young sprig of a politician who, from some motive of English patriotism, found himself in the West of Ireland for a few days' tour—that the people who were really suffering, and on whom the severity of the past few days had fallen most heavily, were not the men who had the smallest holdings, but those who held larger ones and were not able to pay for them—on whom the rent pressed so heavily that they were merely eking out a miserable existence. The men who had small holdings came over to England and Scotland, and were able to earn part of their livings in these countries. In regard to what the right hon. Gentleman had stated as to the difficulty of meeting the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) by throwing the incidence of taxation of these baronial guarantees on the landowners as well as upon the rated occupiers, he

    583
    failed to see how any difficulty whatever lay in the way of the adoption of that proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman, or those who had advised him in the preparation of this Bill, knew anything of the working of these baronial guarantees in Ireland, they would have known that at this moment baronial guarantees similar to those proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Court were in operation, and that the landlords had to bear the weight of several of the guarantees to railways now working. If that was the fact, and the owners of property had to pay half the baronial guarantees in the case of railways, why should they not do the same in the case of tramways? In his (Mr. Harrington's) view the principle which regulated the one should regulate the other. If the right hon. Gentleman left to the tenants the expense of these tramways, and left to the Grand Juries the opening up of these estates, he imposed upon the very people he said he was anxious to relieve an additional tax from which they would derive no benefit whatever. He did not wish to be understood as offering factious opposition to the Bill. He wished to say that he accepted it, because the trusted Leader of the Party to which he had the honour to belong had thought it wise to accept it; but even though the hon. Member for the City of Cork had accepted the principle of the measure, he (Mr. Harrington) could not, and would not, sit idle in the House when it was proposed to continue the miserable policy of counting out of Ireland its national population, when that population was brought down to 5,000,000, by fostering the wretched system of starving the people out.
    MR. SMALLsaid, this measure had received such an amount of qualified and unqualified approval that, perhaps, it would be presumptuous in him to speak on the subject. But, humble Member of the House as he was, he could not sit still on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill without saying a few words upon it. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Irish people ought to feel grateful because the Liberal Party were sacrificing so much of their economical principles in what they were doing for Ireland. That of itself would excite suspicion in the hearts of the Irish people. Why were the Government doing this? Because by it they were
    584
    enabled to carry out the principle of driving the population from Ireland. This Bill consisted of three parts; but only one part could be worked, as the others were surrounded with too many "safeguards." There were three processes to which the Tramway Clauses had to be subjected before they could be carried into effect; and every one of those processes was in the power of a body hostile to the people of Ireland. First of all, they had the Grand Jury, which was a body condemned by the opinion of the people and by that House—a body which was the stronghold of jobbery, and every principle hostile to the people. Then, they had the approval of the Privy Council, which meant the Lord Lieutenant and his Castle retainers; and it was not likely that they would be favourable to the people of Ireland. Then, the third process was in the hands of the Treasury. He did not think that when any project had passed the triple ordeal of the jobbery of the Grand Jury, the anti-popular instincts of the Privy Council, and the penuriousness of the Treasury, much good would come of it. Moreover, he could not view with complacency any Bill which contained a clause which would have the effect of helping to drive a single man from the already too diminished population of Ireland. He had read the Bill through very carefully, to see whether there was any substantial advantage offered sufficient to induce the people of Ireland to accept it; and he had come to the conclusion that they were offered nothing, and that they ought not to accept it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) [ADVANCES].

    RESOLUTION.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to make contributions, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, towards the construction of Tramways in Ireland, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for promoting the extension of Tramway communication in Ireland.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the two subjects—this Committee and the Bill—were so closely connected, that he thought he was justified in asking the Government when they intended to take the Committee on the Bill?
    MR. COURTNEY: It will be put down for to-morrow.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Will it be taken to-morrow?
    MR. COURTNEY: It is impossible to say, at this period of the Session, when it will be taken.

  REVENUE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.— [BILL 269.]
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  REVENUE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.— [BILL 269.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 6th August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 15 (Representation in the United Kingdom to constitute the title to assets therein situate).
    MR. COURTNEYmoved the omission of the clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 16 agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Reduction of interest on investments on friendly societies with the National Debt Commissioners).
    MR. WARTONproposed, in page 8, line 28, to leave out "two and a-half per centum," and insert "sevenpence in the pound." He said he was extremely anxious to know on what ground the Bill was really to proceed. The first question was, whether it was really advisable to bring the measure forward at all? Men of all classes and parties were convinced of the advisableness of thrift; and, therefore, he was surprised to find that through this Bill the Treasury should come forward and do all they could to discourage thrift amongst the poor. He thought that at a time when the Government were willing to lend a speculative Company £8,000,000 at 3½ per cent. they might be willing to give a fair and decent interest upon the savings of the poor people of the country. It was a strange thing that the Secretary to the Treasury could not say what the loss was upon the savings of Friendly Societies; but he (Mr. Warton) thought it was a hard and cruel thing, unless there was an overwhelming necessity for it, to reduce the interest by
    586
    one-half per cent upon the savings of the thrifty poor, and he had the utmost confidence in moving the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 28, to leave out "two and a-half per centum," and insert "sevenpence in the pound."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that at that time of the night (20 minutes past 2), and at that period of the Session, it would not be expected that he should enter at any length into this question. The rate of interest allowed to these Friendly Societies was originally 3d. per diem. It was then reduced to 2½d., and again to 2d., so that this was the fourth reduction which had been proposed. He thought he should be trifling with the Committee if he now re-opened the question, which had been settled by both Parties in the State. As to the actual loss, they had had for the last four or five years, year after year, to vote £50,000 to make up the difference. The proposed reduction was a very limited matter, and it proceeded on a strict respect for what might be called vested interests. All deposits made by Societies when members had joined them on the basis of existing rates would receive 2d. per £100 per diem, and the new rate would only affect new deposits; so that the reduction was not on the vast scale imagined by the hon. and learned Member. Moreover, the deposits they were concerned with were only part of the deposits of the great Societies, who not only invested with the National Debt Commissioners, but invested large sums in the Post Office Savings Banks, Municipal Bonds, and many other investments. This was simply a suggestion to reduce the rate of interest allowed by the National Debt Commissioners to the same rate as, under the Act of 1875, Societies were entitled to receive. He would point out another point. The 2d per £100 per day was only allowed under the Act of 1875; and although new Societies might be started, they could not get that rate unless they were certified by the Treasury as able to receive that rate. The matter was one of very limited scope; it paid the strictest regard to vested inte-

    587
    rests; it would not disturb existing Societies, and it was absolutely necessary to the Treasury.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the Government were quite right to economize; but in saving this money in this way he thought they were economizing in the wrong way. If there was any case in which the Government would be justified in bearing loss it would be when the loss was caused to the working classes; but he did not admit that by adopting his Resolution the Government would sustain a loss, and on that point he would quote a high authority, the President of the Board of Trade.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair:—House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.