Commons Sitting of 14 May 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Motion for Leave—Crofters Holdings (Scotland), debate adjourned.
Ordered—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders٭; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)٭
Ordered—First Reading—Summary Jurisdiction (Term of Imprisonment)٭ [180]; Tithe Rent Charge Redemption٭[181].
Second Reading—Sporting Lands Rating (Scotland) [3]
Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No, 4)٭ [116].
Considered as amended—Re-comm.—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Registration of Voters (Ireland) [150], and passed.
Third Reading—East India Unclaimed Stocks٭ [125], and passed

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.

    THIRD READING POSTPONED.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that a Bill under a similar title was before the House last year; and he wished to know whether the present Bill gave further powers to the same Company? It would be remembered that last year there was considerable discussion with regard to certain questionable transactions in reference to this Company; and, unless an explanation could be given, he thought it would be desirable to postpone the final stage of the Bill.
    SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he was not able to explain the provisions of the Bill; but, as an objection had

    467
    been taken, he was prepared to postpone the further consideration of the question until to-morrow.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  QUESTIONS.

    LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND)—UNJUST CONVICTIONS—CASE OF JOSEPH AND CHARLES DICKSON.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is contemplated to give any indemnity to the two men, Joseph and Charles Dickson, who were respectively sentenced last November, at Bishops Stortford, to five years' penal servitude, and to eighteen months' hard labour, for an aggravated assault, on the evidence of a policeman, and who now have been released; and, whether it is intended to take any steps against the policeman?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that he had carefully examined into the circumstances of this case, and had come to the conclusion that they did not justify the steps indicated in his Question by the hon. Member being taken. It was simply a case of mistaken identity.

    NAVY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—NAVAL VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY.
    DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty has sanctioned any scheme for the organization of corps of Naval Volunteer Artillery; and, if so, whether there is any prospect of the movement being allowed to assume a practical shape within the present year?
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Admiral Vesey Hamilton has been directed by the Admiralty to organize a general scheme of coast defence by naval means. It will be part of his task to consider what duties should be assigned to the Naval Artillery Volunteers, and how far assistance may be necessary or desirable in the form of a capitation grant. Admiral Hamilton will report on the subject, and a decision will be given by the Admiralty as soon as we have his recommendations before us.

    EGYPT (THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN) MILITARY OPERATIONS—THE HOSPITAL AT SUAKIN.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will ascertain if it is true that the Auxiliary Hospital on Quarantine Island at Suakin stands on an old burial ground, and that great sickness prevails there just now in consequence of the un-healthiness of the situation; and, if so, whether he will at once take steps to have it removed to a more suitable position?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There is a hospital on Quarantine Island. The site has been selected by the authorities on the spot; but when it was first suggested I had doubts as to the salubrity of an island which had contained a burial ground. I therefore telegraphed an inquiry to Suakin, and received in reply a telegram, to the effect that the position on the island was most healthy. For six years scarcely an interment has taken place on the island; and it does not appear from the Reports received that, as compared with the rest of the station, the island is exceptionally unhealthy.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILasked, if it was not true that great sickness prevailed there recently, and that it was increasing?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, no. The last medical Report received showed that there was not an exceptional amount of sickness. He thought the sick rate was from 4 to 7 per cent; but, no doubt, owing to the heat of the weather, the sickness had been increasing. From the Reports he had received he had no reason to think that sickness was exceptional. He was constantly making inquiries on the subject.

    ARMY—ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT—STEEL-WIRE GUNS.
    MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, If the experiment at Woolwich, of making guns on the steel-wire system, has been tested; whether it has been made under the direction of the inventor, or by men unacquainted with its first principles; whether a 21-ton gun made at Elswick on this principle, though not in the best form, has proved to be more

    469
    powerful, by 30 per cent., than the 25-ton gun; and, whether it is intended to continue the manufacture of steel-wire guns by the Department?
    MR. BRAND: A howitzer of 10-inch calibre and a gun of 9·2-inch calibre, both partly constructed of steel wire, have been ordered for trial on the recommendation of the Ordnance Committee. The guns are being made under the orders of the responsible officers of the Department, who are thoroughly acquainted with the principles involved. The gun apparently referred to by the hon. Member in the third part of his inquiry, as having been made at Elswick, is about of equal power with the 25-ton gun of the Service. As regards future manufacture, this must entirely depend upon the results obtained in the experimental trials.

    IRELAND—PORT OF BALLYSHANNON—WRECK OF THE "ROCKABILL."
    MR. SEXTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, with regard to the impediment and danger to navigation caused by the wreck of the steamship Rockabill lying since the 25th of last July in the fair way of the river entrance to the port of Ballyshannon, "Whether he has been made aware that the Town Commissioners of Ballyshannon refrained from taking earlier action in the matter because a Company, having purchased the wreck, were making efforts to float it, and, after these efforts had failed, because time was occupied by the owners in clearing the wreck of what it contained, and because communications were proceeding between the owners and the Board of Irish Lights, with the view, on the part of the Board, that they should get control of the wreck; whether, having obtained control, the Board did nothing further; whether, there being no indication on the part of the Board of Lights of any intention to remove the wreck, the Town Commissioners, on the 8th of April, urged the Board to proceed, and, on the 10th of April, memorialised the Board of Trade to the like effect; whether it is a fact that the Board of Lights gave no reply to the letter of the Town Commissioners; whether, in reference to the statement of the Board of Lights, that they intend to await a report from their Inspecting Committee, after the ordinary annual tour, upon the ground
    470
    that they "have been given to understand that steps were being taken to constitute a local harbour authority for the port," the Town Commissioners have informed the Board of Trade, by letter of the 7th instant, that "there is no likelihood of such an authority being formed," and that "any further delay in the removal of the wreck would be highly detrimental to the interests of the port;" whether the wreck will now be removed; and, whether, with regard to the statement of the Board of Lights that they" have no knowledge "of the wreck off Mount Charles," it having never been reported to them," they will treat the question put in this House on the 4th instant as information upon which they should proceed?
    MR. J. HOLMS (for Mr. CHAMBERLAIN),in reply, said, a letter was received by the Board of Trade on the 11th instant from the Town Commissioners of Ballyshannon on the subject, informing them that, the wreck of the Rockabill having been abandoned by the owners, tenders had been invited for effecting its removal. As there was no prospect of the harbour works being proceeded with, it was purposed by the Local Authorities to apply to the Board of Trade for a moiety of the cost of removing the obstruction. He was informed by the Irish Lights Commissioners that boné fide tenders had been given to the Company referred to for the work.

    LUNACY COMMISSIONERS (GREAT BRITAIN)—THE REPORT FOR 1884.
    MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he could facilitate the preparation of the English and Scotch Lunacy Reports, which last year were not delivered until the 9th and 29th August respectively?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he would do all in his power to facilitate the production of the information; but he was afraid that it would take some time, and that they could not be delivered before July.

    LUNACY COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND)—THE REPORT FOR 1884;
    MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If anything can be done to expedite the preparation of the Irish Lunacy

    471
    Report, which last year was not delivered till the 20th September?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Inspectors inform me that the printing of the usual tables is now in hand, and that they will expedite the publication of their Report as much as possible.

    PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—GREYSTONES HARBOUR WORKS.
    MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any steps can be taken to proceed with the Greystones Harbour Works before the season gets further advanced?
    MR. HIBBERT: The hon. Member is probably aware of the formalities required by the Statute before these works can be actually commenced. Those formalities cannot be completed until the end of June. Meanwhile, however, the contract plans are in progress, and tenders will be called for at the end of this month.

    POOR LAW (IRELAND)—UNION OF OMAGH—MR. ROBERT S. CLEMENTS.
    MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Robert S. Clements, of Curr, Beragh, in the county of Tyrone, is an ex-officio guardian of the poor for the union of Omagh; whether he is also an elected guardian for Dervaghroy electoral division of the same union; in which capacity (whether as ex-officio or elected guardian) does he vote at the meetings of the board; and, if in the capacity of an ex-officio, why the electoral division of Dervaghroy is obliged to remain disfranchised; whether the clerk of the union in making his return of the guardians elected on the 25th March last was aware that Mr. Clements was returned on the ex-officio list in September previous; and, if so, why he returned him as elected guardian for the Dervaghroy division; and, did he (the clerk) notify the Local Government Board that Mr. Clements was on the ex-officio list?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is quite lawful for a person to act in the dual capacity of elected and ex officio Guardian, provided he does not give two votes. The Clerk to the Union fulfilled his duty in this case by returning the person elected. The choice of the individual rests with the electors.

    IRELAND—COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION—APPOINTMENT OF MR. WILLIAM ROBERTSON AS ASSISTANT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What experience in teaching had Mr. William Robertson before being appointed Assistant Inspector of Schools; whether the Commissioners of Irish National Education are aware of the dissatisfaction felt by the teachers of the Londonderry group of districts at the unnecessary severity of his examinations; whether he is in the habit of telling high-classed teachers, in the presence of their pupils, that they do not know how to teach the subjects of the school programme; and, have the District Inspectors frequently cancelled his markings at Results Examinations, and passed whole classes that he has marked as failed?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that Mr. Robertson had 15 years' experience as a monitor and teacher, and was a first class teacher at the time of his appointment as Assistant Inspector. As regards the rest of the Question, the Commissioners have no knowledge of any such circumstances. If any specific case is reported to them they are quite ready to institute inquiry.

    LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—COUNTY DOWN LUNATIC ASYLUM—SURCHARGE ON GOVERNORS.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If in March last year the Local Government Board Auditor, Major Studdert, surcharged five governors of the County Down Lunatic Asylum in the sum of £100 sterling; and, whether such surcharge has yet been paid; and, if not, can the Local Government Board give any reason, after the lapse of more than one year, for not enforcing the payment of the said surcharge of £ 100 sterling?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It appears that the Auditor surcharged seven Governors of this Asylum in the sum mentioned, which they had paid to the County Surveyor for services as an architect. He did so believing that the County Surveyor was not entitled to payment for his work; but he now informs the Local Government Board that

    473
    he did not proceed for recovery of the amount surcharged, as he found he could not enforce the payment.

    LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—COUNTY DOWN LUNATIC ASYLUM—RESIDENCE AND ATTENDANCE OF GOVERNORS.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be a fact that some governors of the County Down Lunatic Asylum do not reside in the county Down, but live in remote counties; if some governors have never attended the asylum since they have been appointed governors, while other governors have not attended on an average twice yearly; whether such non-attending governors will be removed; and, will he produce the number of times the various governors attended the Board meetings at the asylum for the five years previous to and ending the 31st day of December 1884?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe that some of the Governors of this Asylum do not actually reside in the county, although they are connected with it, and that some never attend the Board meetings, and others rarely. The appointment is an honorary one, and the non-fulfilment of the duty of attending would not be a sufficient reason for resorting to the extreme course suggested by the hon. Member. The Lord Lieutenant can always strengthen a Board when that is considered necessary. The hon. Member will find details of the attendance of the Governors of these Boards in the annual Reports of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums.
    MR. W. J. CORBET: Suppose none of the Governors attend, what happens?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then there is no attendance.

    PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—PROSECUTION OF MR. DANIEL RYAN, OF DOON, COUNTY LIMERICK, FOR RE-ENTRY AFTER EVICTION.
    MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which Mr. Daniel Ryan, of Doon, county Limerick, and his wife have been prosecuted under the Crimes Act; is it the fact that Mr. Ryan's mother, Mrs. Mary Ryan, an
    474
    old woman of ninety years of age, was on 16th April evicted from her farm at Carrigbeg, on the property of Major Hare; was she carried out on a pallet, in a dying condition, by emergency bailiffs, after she had just received the last sacraments from the Rev. Patrick O'Donnell, and cast on the roadside, in a bitter wind, despite the entreaties and protest of the clergyman; did the dispensary medical officer of the district, who visited her shortly after the eviction, certify that she was unfit to be removed to hospital, and ordered a nurse to be provided for her; did the relieving officer, finding her in danger of death, order her removal to the adjoining house, and, acting on the recommendation of the doctor, appoint her daughter-in-law, Mrs. Daniel Ryan, to act as nurse; was the nurse so appointed, with her husband, prosecuted under the Crimes Act on a charge of forcible entry, for remaining in attendance upon the dying woman; at whose instance was the prosecution instituted, and what has been the result; and, will any steps be taken to prevent the Crimes Act from being put to such uses?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not yet received full Reports to enable me to answer this Question, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will defer putting it until Monday next.

    INLAND REVENUE—THE SPIRIT DUTIES—UNEQUAL INCIDENCE UPON IRISH AND SCOTCH TRADERS WITH RESPECT TO ENGLISH.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can state any reason why the anomalous and inequitable distinction is maintained in favour of English spirit merchants or dealers which permits a trader in England, who has taken out a ten guineas spirit licence, to obtain a further licence at a cost of three guineas, and under such second licence to sell spirits in bottles and smaller quantities than two gallons, not to be consumed on the premises, whilst this latter facility is denied to Irish and Scotch spirit merchants?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the seller of spirits (other than a licensed victualler) has, in one respect, advan-

    475
    tages in England over Ireland and Scotland; and, in another respect, he has advantages in Ireland and Scotland over England. On the one hand, a licence to retail spirits costs much less in Ireland and Scotland than in England. In Ireland, the minimum rate is £9 18 s. 5d.,and in Scotland £4 4s., whereas in England it is £13 13 s. On the other hand, the wholesale spirit dealer, wishing to be also a retail dealer, pays more in Ireland and Scotland than in England. In England he only pays the sum I have named—£13 13 s.—whereas in Ireland and Scotland he pays £10 10s., besides the retail licence, the minimum rates of which I have also mentioned. The wholesale dealer, who does not retail, pays the same—£10 10s.—in each part of the United Kingdom. I admit that the whole of these licences are anomalous; but I am indisposed to undertake their re-adjustment in the present Session.

    INLAND REVENUE—STAMP DUTIES UPON FOREIGN BONDS.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the definition of the term Foreign Security, in the Resolution with regard to Stamp Duties, includes a Colonial Government Security?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my right hon. Friend I have to say that British, Colonial, and Foreign Securities transferable to bearer will alike be liable to the new duty.

    LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—JUDICIAL ARRANGEMENTS AT LISBURN.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a proclamation has been posted constituting Lisburn a Quarter Sessions district, with jurisdiction many miles beyond the town of Belfast, and also very near to the Quarter Sessions of Antrim; and, whether he will have the boundaries of the proposed district reconsidered, with a view to have the proposed district made more in accordance with the convenience of the public?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Lisburn has merely been constituted an additional place for holding a Civil Bill
    476
    Court in the division in which it is situated. It is considered that this will be an additional convenience to the public, who have extensively memorialized in favour of the step. Suitors will now have a choice of three Courts instead of two, as before.

    NAVY—PROTECTION OF KINGSTOWN HARBOUR, IRELAND—THE GUARDSHIP "BELLEISLE."
    MR. ION HAMILTON asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to deprive Kingstown Harbour for any prolonged period of the presence of the guardship usually stationed there; and, if so, whether any additional provision would be made for af MR. ION HAMILTON asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to deprive Kingstown Harbour for any prolonged period of the presence of the guardship usually stationed there; and, if so, whether any additional provision would be made for affording, in the event of a war, further protection to that harbour and to the Port of Dublin?
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The Belleisle is at Devonport under repair. When completed for sea the ship will be again stationed at Kingstown. In the event of war, the necessary steps will be taken by the Government for the defence of Kingstown and Dublin.

    PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—THE SLIGO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS—MEMORIAL FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN.
    MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What decision has been come to by the Treasury with respect to the Memorial of January last from the Sligo Harbour Commissioners, for extension of time for repayment of loan, postponement of instalments of principal, and lowering of rate of interest?
    MR. HIBBERT: I have already explained to the hon. Member that interest on the existing loans to the Sligo Harbour Commissioners is fixed at the lowest rate legally possible, and therefore cannot be reduced. The decision as to postponing repayments of principal and prolonging the period for them must depend on the willingness of the Harbour Commissioners to improve the security they have to offer by their taking steps to effect a proper re-adjustment of their tolls. The Board of Works were authorized on the 9th instant to communicate with the Harbour Commissioners in this sense.

    LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT, 1883—ABANDONMENT OF SCHEMES BY BOARDS OF GUARDIANS.
    MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that several Boards of Guardians in Ireland have abandoned their schemes for the building of labourers' cottages in their Unions, owing to his reply regarding the reduced rate of interest on loans for that purpose; and, if so, whether he will get the Treasury to allow the new rate of interest to come into operation at once, so as not to stand in the way of the building of those cottages?
    MR. HTBBERT: I have made inquiries, but cannot learn that any Board of Guardians has recently abandoned a scheme for labourers' cottages; some, however, may have temporarily suspended operations. I regret the delay in proceeding with the Bill; but the opposition to it does not proceed from this side of the House.

    IRELAND—INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE—MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES.
    VISCOUNT CRICHTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the case, as appears in the correspondence published in the Irish newspapers of the 12th instant, that Mr. William Johnston, Inspector of Irish Fisheries, has been called upon by the Lord Lieutenant to resign his appointment on account of certain expressions used by him in a speech delivered at a sitting of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland; whether the undertaking required from Mr. Johnston last year to refrain from public discussion was not confined to meetings of a party and political character; whether meetings of the Synod of the Church of Ireland come under either of these designations; and, whether public servants, who are members of that Church, are to understand that participation in its proceedings will, for the future, render them liable to dismissal from office?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the best answer I can give to the Question of the noble Viscount is to say that if he will move for the correspondence which has taken place between the Government and Mr. Johnston I shall be happy to produce it.
    MR. LEWIS: Might I ask, will the letter and correspondence concerning his undertaking be included?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes Sir.
    MR. SEXTONasked, whether it was true that Mr. Johnston had declined to resign?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir.
    MR. SEXTONasked, would the Lord Lieutenant let the matter rest there?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir.

    POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—BRANCH OFFICE AT WHITBY'S CROSS, CO. WEXFORD.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Postmaster General, If he will state the reasons why the Post Office authorities in Dublin will not consent to the establishment of a branch office at Whitby's Cross, Blackwater, county Wexford?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The reason for refusing the branch post office mentioned was that it was ascertained not to be necessary.

    AFRICA (SOUTH)—ZULULAND—RUMOURED BRITISH PROTECTORATE.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there is any truth in the reports current in South Africa that Her Majesty's Government intend to take steps to establish a British Protectorate in Zululand, and that Sir Charles Warren, or some other representative of the Imperial Government, will shortly be employed in that special work?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: All I can say in reply to the right hon. Member is, that any reports of the character named in the Question are not based on any action taken by, or decision arrived at by, Her Majesty's Government.

    CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
    MR. R. H. PAGETasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will be good enough to lay upon the Table of the House an explanatory memorandum setting out, in familiar language, the financial effect of the several changes in the Law proposed in Parts II., III., and IV. of the Customs and Inland Re-

    479
    venue Bill, with a tabular statement exhibiting present and proposed Duties in these cases?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; I have directed a Memorandum to be prepared, and I will lay it upon the Table, as to the proposals in Parts II. and III. of the Bill. Part IV. is quite simple, and no such Memorandum is, in my opinion, necessary.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ALLEGED OVER-PRESSURE AT ADLINGTON NATIONAL SCHOOL, CHORLEY, LANCASHIRE—SUICIDE OF ELIZABETH FORSHAW.
    GENERAL FEILDENasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If there is any truth in a statement which lately appeared in a London newspaper to the effect that a young girl, named Elizabeth Forshaw, had committed suicide by drowning herself at Adlington, near Chorley, on account of over-work or harsh treatment at school?
    MR. MUNDELLA: The statement in The St. James's Gazette to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman calls my attention was one of a highly sensational character. It stated, among other things, that the child Elizabeth Emma Forshaw drowned herself "owing to a surfeit of the blessings of education;" that "the jury returned a verdict that the deceased committed suicide owing to over-pressure;" and it commented in indignant and highly coloured language on the supposed causes of the child's death. I sent the case to Her Majesty's Inspector for the district, who at once instituted a careful inquiry. He reports that the jury returned a verdict of "Suicide when in a state of unsound mind," and expressed an opinion "that the child had been overworked." It appears that she was the daughter of a small dairyman at Adlington, near Chorley; that she worked in a cotton mill, and, being just under 13 years of age, attended the national school of the parish half time. She was in a low standard, had no home lessons, and neither she nor her parents made any complaint of her school work. But her companions state that she had complained of the harsh treatment received from the woman who employed her at the factory, and that she had threatened to drown herself "rather than go on
    480
    working for that woman." In addition to her school work and factory work, it is alleged that she had a great deal of farmwork to do, carrying out milk, attending to the dairy, &c, and evidently was very hard worked and hard driven by those under whom she served. She was on her way to the mill, when she left her companions to drown herself. It is only just to the managers and teachers of Adlington National School to say that it is an excellent and well-conducted school, and that no blame whatever attaches to them in this sad case. I must add that this, apart from the harsh treatment referred to, is another illustration of the fact that more labour is exacted from English children of tender years than from almost any other children in Europe.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, whether the child lived with her parents?
    MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; and not only was the woman under whom she worked harsh to her, but her father was also harsh, and scolded her very severely, which preyed upon her mind. The child must have been very harshly treated to have made her commit suicide.
    MR. J. LOWTHERasked, if the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table a copy of the finding of the jury?
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had given the whole statement of the finding, and would be happy to show the newspaper report and the Inspector's Report to the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, what he wanted was the Coroner's verdict.
    MR. MUNDELLAthought it was hardly worth while troubling the House with that; but, if moved for, he would present it.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Then I will move for it.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Report of the Inspector would be produced at the same time.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had no objection; but had desired to spare the parents pain.

    WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE SPIRIT DUTIES.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government will, before the Debate on the proposed increase to the Duties on

    481
    Spirits, lay upon the Table a detailed statement of the calculations on which the estimate of a net produce of £900,000 from the addition is based, or will otherwise inform the House on the subject?
    MR. HIBBERT: I believe it is contrary to precedent to give the exact figures on which a Revenue Estimate is framed; but I may repeat that the Estimate of increased yield of the Spirit Duty was arrived at by comparing the revenue derived from the quantity which would have paid the duty at the old rate with that to be received on the reduced quantity expected to be chargeable at the increased rate, due regard being paid to the other circumstances of the present year.

    LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CONVICTION OF JAMES DANIEL, OF CLONEEN, CO. TIPPERARY, FOR ASSAULT ON HENRY MEAGHER.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that an emergency man named James Daniel, residing at Cloneen, county Tipperary, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment by the magistrates at Fethard for an assault of a most serious character in August on Henry Meagher, an evicted tenant, and that the police refused to take up the prosecution of Daniel, which Meagher was obliged to undertake himself; whether he is aware that Daniel appealed from the sentence, but that the County Court Judge held the appeal was not properly before him, and confirmed the sentence, whereupon Daniel obtained a mandamus from the Queen's Bench to compel a hearing of the appeal; that the appeal came on at Cashel on the 1st February, when Meagher stated he had not means to bring up the necessary witnesses; that the Crown solicitor then undertook that he would have this done; and that the appeal again came on at Tipperary on the 2 3rd April, when it was adjourned to the Sessions to be held at Clonmel in April; whether he can state why the constabulary refused to prosecute Daniel for an assault which involved grievous bodily injury to the person assaulted; why the Crown Solicitor did not take the usual steps to summon witnesses to support the decision of the court below; why
    482
    the case was again adjourned at last Tipperary Sessions; and, whether steps will be taken to compensate Meagher for the expenses of the prosecution at Fethard and of the first appeal, which he had to pay, and also for the loss occasioned to him by the frequent attendances at court and adjournments?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The police did not prosecute in this case because the injuries inflicted appeared to be trifling, and the assault was not committed in their presence. The hearing of the appeal in the case has been twice adjourned—on the first occasion in consequence of an application of Meagher that the Crown Solicitor would take up his case, which was complied with; and on the second occasion in consequence of the sudden and serious illness of the solicitor on the other side. It now stands for next month. It is not the practice to pay to a private prosecutor the expenses incurred by him either at the first hearing or at the appeal, and there are no grounds for doing so in the present case.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Will not the Crown Solicitor now prosecute?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; the Crown Solicitor has now taken up the case.

    VACCINATION—SMALL-POX STATISTICS AT WEST HAM.
    MR. HOP WOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that, by a house-to-house visitation of 15,000 houses in West Ham, instituted by Dr. Kennedy, the local officer of health, it has been ascertained that the inhabitants are vaccinated in number up to the average of the Metropolis, and to the extent of ninety-eight per cent.; whether the rate of mortality from small pox is, in the last Registrar General's Return—

    Per Million.

    For London (including its outer ring)

    1,320

    For West Ham alone (included in above.)

    5,132;

    whether small pox is usually most frequent in quarters of the town otherwise unhealthy; and, whether he will make inquiry in this case into the existence of insanitary defects in sewers, &c. of which the inhabitants complain, and apply effective remedies to this zymotic epidemic?
    COLONEL MAKINSasked whether the house-to-house visitation was not an informal one?
    MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I am not able to answer on that point. The answer to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's Question is in the affirmative; but the recent Returns of the number of children vaccinated have been comparatively unsatisfactory. During the past six months, 105 deaths from small-pox have occurred in the Guardians' Hospital at Plaistow; and out of this number 76 were found to be unvaccinated, 21 imperfectly vaccinated, eight vaccinated, and none re-vaccinated. According to the Return of the Registrar General for the week ended 2nd of May, there were 23 deaths in the West Ham district, 19 of which were local cases; and in London, including the Outer Ring, there were, inclusive of 16 deaths of London residents in hospital outside London, 78 deaths. Smallpox is not usually most frequent in quarters of a town otherwise unhealthy, except in so far as the unhealthiness may be synonymous with overcrowding and want of isolation. Dr. de Chaumont recently visited West Ham, and has reported to the Board as follows:—
    "The local system of sewers and drains is said to be well carried out as a whole; but the district appears to be increasing at a rate that will probably overtax the system as at present arranged."
    We will look into this matter.

    COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES—THE LOVAT PEERAGE—REMOVAL OF COFFIN PLATES FROM VAULT AT KIRKHALL.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the Lord Advocate, If he has received a letter from the Reverend Ewen M'Kenzie, giving an account of the removal of the coffin plates from the Lovat Vault at Kirkhill; and, if he will communicate that account to the House?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have received a letter from the minister, and also further information from other sources, in regard to this matter. It appears that there were not two keys for the vault, but for a chapel through which access was obtained to it; as also that the only key for the vault was kept at the estate office, and sent to the minister that it might be available when Sir William Eraser came to make his
    484
    visit. The minister states that he did not meet Sir William Fraser by appointment at the churchyard; but that Sir William called at the manse to obtain the key, as also that he did not accompany Sir William into the vault, and had no hand in taking the coffin plates to the manse, but only gave them house room there, as also that he had nothing to do with the replacing of the plates. The minister further states that in the whole matter he only extended to Sir William the common courtesy due to a man in his position and to a recognized friend of Lord Lovat.

    EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)—M. OLIVIER PAIN.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLYM'CARTHYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has made any further inquiries with respect to the alleged proclamation issued by the Commandant at Sarras, putting a price upon the head of Olivier Pain; and, whether, if the proclamation was really issued, the Government will follow the course adopted with regard to a similar proclamation issued about Osman Digna, and insist upon its immediate withdrawal?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE(who replied): Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that the report is true; but Sir Evelyn Baring will be instructed to make inquiries on the subject. All that is known at the Foreign Office is, that Sir Evelyn Baring reported, on May 5, that it was proposed to arrest Pain, and hand him over to the British Military Authorities as a prisoner of war. In reply, Sir Evelyn Baring was instructed on the same day that the arrest seemed unnecessary, and the police received orders accordingly. Sir Evelyn Baring requested Lord Wolseley to telegraph similar instructions to the Military Authorities. Pain is supposed to have left for Europe on May 10.

    CENTRAL ASIA—THE AMEER OF AFGHANISTAN.
    MR. WILLIAMSON (for Sir ALEXANDER GORDON)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Papers which he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House with respect to Central Asia will contain the terms of any Treaty or Agreement recently concluded with the Ameer of Afghanistan?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; the Papers will not contain anything of the kind.

    SUPPLY—MILITARY OPERATIONS IN UPPER EGYPT AND THE SOUDAN—THE VOTE OF CREDIT.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would state approximately how much of the Vote of Credit of £4,500,000, for Military operations in the Soudan and Upper Egypt, has been spent or absorbed by liabilities which will have to be met?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question for him. Out of the total sum estimated as the liability already incurred for Army Services, the sum of about £2,500,000 is estimated as due to the operations in the Soudan and Upper Egypt.
    MR. BRODRICK: Does that include any provision for the redemption of the paper money issued by General Gordon; and, if so, what is the amount?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am not aware that it includes anything for that purpose.
    MR. BRODRICK: I will ask on Monday, what steps the Government propose to take to redeem those liabilities?
    LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Can the noble Marquess say whether any further details are to be laid on the Table; and, when those further Estimates will be produced? I should like also to hear something about the expenses of the Navy.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am not aware that any request has been made for the production of further Estimates. If the noble Lord will inform me what further information he requires I will see whether it is to be obtained.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): With regard to the Question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brodriek), I have to say no such claim has been addressed to us. At any rate, I have heard nothing of it.

    EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE THANKS OF PARLIAMENT.
    SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is intended to propose a Vote of Thanks to the Home,
    486
    East Indian, and Colonial Forces of the Crown of the Navy and Army who have been serving, under such trying circumstances, in the Soudan and on the Nile, and have fought with such courage and devotion at El Teb and Tamai, and at Abu Klea, Gubat, and Kirbekan?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not had an opportunity of consulting my Colleagues on this subject; but, no doubt, the time is approaching when the matter must be completed, and it will be considered in connection with the rewards to be conferred on the officers and men who have taken part in the campaign.

    EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION UP THE NILE)—HEALTH OF THE TROOPS.
    SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the accounts, almost daily arriving in this Country from officers and others, as to the condition of some of our troops at Kurot and other places on the Upper Nile, he will ascertain the real facts of the case; whether his attention has been called to the letters published this week in the papers, both from officers, one of which described the men as dying off like rotten sheep; whether it is an unusually low Nile this year, and several weeks must elapse before the troops can be withdrawn; and, whether he will make a determined effort to send up, at any rate, the bare necessaries of life for the men?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have no reason to believe that such a state of things exists as the Question implies; but I have endeavoured, and shall continue to endeavour, to obtain all the information in my power on the subject. There are known to be ample supplies at Kurot and the neighbouring stations on the Upper Nile; and the troops will shortly be moving down the river upon still larger depôts.

    QUARANTINE ON SHIPPING—AN INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND SANITARY CONFERENCE AT ROME.
    MR. SUTHERLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have accepted an invitation for this Country to take part in an International Conference,

    487
    about to assemble in Rome, for the purpose of determining the principles or rules on which quarantine should in future be imposed on shipping; and, if so, whether he will state the names of the representatives deputed by this Country, and also lay upon the Table of this House a copy of the instructions furnished for their guidance in treating of a matter of such importance to British shipping?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have accepted an invitation to a Scientific and Sanitary Conference, which is about to meet at Rome, and will examine the best method of preventing the spread of cholera. Sir Guyer Hunter, who was employed in Egypt during the epidemic of 1883, and whose valuable Be-ports have been laid before Parliament, and Dr. Thorne, the assistant medical officer of the Local Government Board, will be the British delegates. The recommendations of the Conference will be, in the usual course, submitted to the Governments represented, but will not have any binding force until they have been adopted by those Governments. It would be contrary to practice to make public at present the instructions given to the British delegates.

    CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—RETURN OF AGRARIAN OUTRAGES.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there would be any difficulty in giving particulars in a Blue Book of the alleged agrarian outrages in Ireland, say for the last twelve months, as was done in January 1881, before the passing of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A quarterly Return of the outrages in Ireland is at present presented to Parliament. If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at these, be will probably find what he wants; but, if not, I shall be glad to consider whether any further information can be given.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that on the last occasion on which a Coercion Bill was brought in details of these outrages were given in the shape of a Blue Book.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that he should be glad to confer with his hon. Friend on the subject.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the Government would also, at the same time, give a similar Return of outrages in England during the same period?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,in reply, said, that the Question must be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

    LABOURERS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
    MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having in view the importance of rendering effective the Legislation passed by the present Parliament for the benefit of the Irish labourers, Her Majesty's Government will bring forward the Labourers (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill for Second Beading before the Whitsuntide Recess?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should be glad if an opportunity presented itself for taking the second reading of this Bill before Whitsuntide; but I confess I see at present little prospect of such an opportunity.

    PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Government to introduce the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Bill immediately after the Whitsuntide holidays?
    MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend will hardly expect me to make this Bill an exception amongst the other Bills. I shall be prepared to-morrow to state fully the intentions of the Government with regard to this Bill.

    EXTRA POLICE (IRELAND)—THE LIMERICK CORPORATION—ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT.
    MR. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in his promised statement of the intended further Government measures this Session, he will state when the Government proposes to introduce the promised measure relating to the enforcement of the claim of the Government on the Limerick Corporation in lieu of the ordinary process of existing Law?
    MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that this was a measure of importance as connected with the facts to which it referred; but he would refer the hon. Member to his right hon. Friend the

    489
    Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had it in charge, for further information.

    EGYPT (THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—THE FRIENDLY TRIBES AT SUAKIN.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will make arrangements to secure the friendly tribes around Suakin from destruction? In elucidation of the Question, he begged further to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether his attention had been called to a statement by The Times Correspondent at Suakin to the following effect:—
    "On receiving the telegram to hold the line on Saturday, permission was given to the political officers to receive those who offered to submit; 500 came in, and parties of 10 or 12 arrived daily. There was much consternation, therefore, on the receipt of yesterday's telegram as to the abandonment of the Soudan, for the position of these men is desperate. They will certainly be destroyed by Osman Digna, who, in fact, has sent an order to Saadoun to destroy Amarars, Mohammed Guilies, and Fadlabs, and to carry off their women."
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I am only able to say that I have been in communication with Lord Wolseley on the subject, and that he has promised to send a further Report.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTfurther asked, whether Lord Wolseley had not made a distinct recommendation to Her Majesty's Government that the Suakin-Berber line of railway should be continued at least as far as the hills, which are only 20 miles beyond the position now reached?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir.

    INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE SLUICES AT MEELICK.
    COLONEL NOLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What directions has the lock-keeper at Meelick as to the management of the sluices; if, last year, the Lower Callowss were flooded before the sluices were raised; and, are the Board of Works aware that, if the water rises to within one or two inches of the surface of these Callows, it rots the sheep and sours the grass?
    MR. HIBBERT: The directions are that the sluices at Meelick should be
    490
    kept open whenever the water rises above summer level. I am informed that in 18H4 the Callows were not flooded before the 3rd of November, and that on that day all the sluices at Meelick were opened. The Board of Works are aware of the bad effect of such flooding.

    CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHAN—ISTAN—THE NEGOTIATIONS.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, Whether he is able to inform us if any answer has yet been received from the Russian Government with regard to the proposed agreement of which he spoke on Monday last; and, if so, what is the nature of that answer, and whether it meets with the approval of Her Majesty's Government?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have no authentic information to give. Communications are still proceeding; but I am not aware that they have reached such a result as can be communicated to the House.
    MR. ACKERS: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Government have received any confirmatory information in regard to a further Russian advance which is reported in an evening newspaper to have taken place?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; the last telegram we received contained no mention of anything of the kind.

    NATIONAL DEBT BILL.
    In answer to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL and Mr. W. H. SMITH,
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, if it were the general feeling of the House that the Bill should be postponed, and if it were clearly understood that an indemnity clause would not be opposed holding the Government harmless for not applying to the redemption of Debt the sums coming to the Commissioners at the end of May, he had no objection to postpone the National Debt Bill until after Whitsuntide.

    TELEGRAPH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSasked, Whether the Postmaster General would give Notice before bringing on his Telegraph Acts Amendment Bill, which stood on to-day's Paper as third Order?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, he could not undertake to give Notice, but would promise not to bring it on after half-past 11.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEappealed to the right hon. Gentleman, on the ground that his noble Friend was suffering from indisposition, which rendered it inconvenient for him to remain in attendance at the House for an indefinite period.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, in that case he would take care to consult the noble Lord's convenience.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEgave Notice that on the second reading of the Bill he should move—
    "That, in order that 6d. telegrams may become a reality and a great boon to large classes of the community, now debarred from telegraphic communication by the heavy minimum charge of 2s. for a telegram and reply, it is absolutely necessary that if any charge is made for addresses it should be a fixed one, and not varying with the number of words, figures, or letters, and such charge should not exceed 3d."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsubsequently announced that he did not propose to bring on the Bill at a later hour than 10 o'clock.

    LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)—COLONEL KING-HARMAN AND HIS TENANTS.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that a Question affecting him personally stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). The hon. Gentleman was not in his place; but perhaps the Chief Secretary for Ireland would-answer it. The Question was—
    "To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Colonel King-Harman has deprived James Higgins, of Garrow, Boyle; and Michael Dowd, Deerpark, Boyle, of their bog holdings because they refused to prosecute persons hunting hares on their land; and, whether the Government will bring in an amendment to the Land Act to secure the tenants in their right to use the bogs?"
    MR. SEXTONwished to know, as a matter of Order, whether a Question could be put in the absence of the hon. Member in whose name it stood upon the Paper?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Question was a personal one, and put as a matter of courtesy to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Hannan).
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no truth in this statement. I have already stated that the Government have no present intention of legislating on the question of turf rights.

    CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, What course he proposes to take with regard to the Suspension of Evictions (Scotland) Bill; and, whether he intends to do to-night what he proposed to do yesterday—namely, to make a Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, and then adjourn the debate and make his statement to-morrow, so as to bring the matter on at a reasonable hour, and thus give an opportunity for discussion?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALEOUR),in reply, said, the Government proposed to do to-day what was intended to have been done yesterday—that was to make a Motion for leave to introduce the Bill, and then immediately adjourn the debate; but he could not say that the discussion would be taken to-morrow.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended to take the Bill to-morrow?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that he was afraid he could not take it to-morrow; but he would do so on as early a day as possible.
    MR. MACFARLANE: The statement will be on the second reading of the Bill, I understand?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Yes.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  H.R.H. PRINCESS BEATRICE.

    THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE.
    Message from Her Majesty [12th May],—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Message from Her Majesty read.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The duty, Sir, which I am now about to perform is one the discharge of which has more than once fallen to my lot; and I have always found that although I cannot absolutely say that no difference of opinion has, on

    493
    any of these occasions, prevailed, yet I can truly say that a vast majority of the House have always met any call of this kind, not only with willingness, but with warmth, and, I might almost say, with enthusiasm. At any rate, Sir, this case corresponds so closely with all former precedents, that I think even those hon. Gentlemen who, in the exercise of their private judgment, have found it necessary to make objections in order to satisfy the demands of their own consciences, may be, on the whole, of opinion that after a considerable course of precedents which has so distinctly laid down a line of action, it will be unnecessary for them, on the one side, to renew their opposition; or, at any rate, it will be unnecessary either for them, on the one side, or for me, on the other, to enter at any length into a discussion of the various important matters which may suggest themselves. For I must remind the Committee, first, that Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice is the youngest, and in that sense the last, of the children of the Queen—the last for whom a demand of this nature can be made; and, in the second place, no fewer than three of Her Royal sisters, senior to herself, have had a provision made for them by Parliament precisely the same in every particular as that which I am now about to ask. So, Sir, the case is a simple one, and, in truth, it is not only a case of form, but it is a case of substance. The marriage of the Princess Beatrice is one dictated, like the previous marriages of the Royal Family, in the first instance, and before all things, by genuine attachment—by that genuine attachment which forms the only solid foundation of future happiness in married life. That has been the disposition of Her Majesty and the disposition of Her Royal offspring; and, undoubtedly, it has greatly increased those feelings of loyalty and satisfaction and approval with which the country, from time to time, has contemplated these marriages one by one. Sir, I will not now argue, but I will only remind the House that the arrangements made for Her Majesty under the Civil List Act in no sense and in no degree either contemplated or presupposed an indefinite charge upon Her Majesty on account of Her Royal children. The early training and education of these children have, speaking generally, been defrayed by
    494
    Her Majesty. I do not speak of the Prince of Wales, whose case forms an exception on account of his having an independent provision secured by law; but during nonage, and in the case of daughters, until marriage, the whole charge connected with the Royal children has been borne by the Queen. But it is an understanding now, confirmed by a long course of precedents, that upon the coming of age of the Royal Dukes, and upon the marriage of the Princesses, the obligation of the Queen no longer subsists, either legally or morally. And, indeed, I may say that, if there be an obligation, it is the reverse of an obligation on the Queen, because Parliament expressly and advisedly made an arrangement which excluded any provision of the sort. This provision is a moderate provision, as I have formerly contended, though I will not now endeavour to show it in detail; but I may, perhaps, refresh the memory of the Committee by once more stating that going back to the daughters of George III., in the case of the Princess Augusta Sophia, a provision was made of £15,000 a-year, partly out of the Civil List—but a Civil List not regulated and organized like the present Civil List—and partly out of the Consolidated Fund; that the provision made for the Princess Elizabeth was £14,000 a-year; and that the provision made for the Princess Sophia was £13,000 a-year. I think, therefore, it will not be deemed surprising that we of the Government continue to be of opinion that a provision of £6,000 a-year out of the Consolidated Fund, which has been made on former occasions, and which we now ask once more, is a moderate, and a fair, and, certainly, net an extravagant amount. The life of the Princess Beatrice has been spent in filial duty, and there is every likelihood—I may say, more than likelihood, as far as we can look into futurity—that her life will continue in a great degree to be so spent, and that her husband will be associated with her as a resident in this country, making it their home. I may say, Sir, I am not here to give a highly-coloured statement; but I believe that everything connected with this youthful Prince and the promise of his future life is what the country could wish, and though not like his brother, Prince Louis, an officer of great promise in Her Majesty's Navy, he is already one

    495
    of whom the most favourable anticipations are formed in regard to his future career and his qualities of mind. So I think that, looking round this matter from every point of view, there is nothing which the Committee can contemplate except with satisfaction, and I will not therefore dwell further upon the particulars connected with the marriage, nor will I even suppose that it will be necessary to trouble the Committee again in regard to a matter of a class now so thoroughly understood in all its bearings, and in regard to a proposal which has been found on former occasions to meet so very largely and generally with the approval of the House. There is, however, one topic, Sir, extraneous to the proposal itself, and having no direct connection with it, and not to be touched upon in the Resolution which I shall submit to the Committee, or in the Bill by which it will be necessary to follow up that Resolution, and yet upon which, as it is a matter of interest, I wish to say one word to the Committee by way of announcement. The Committee is aware that there has grown up in recent times a salutary practice, although I am not aware that it is a very old one. At the commencement, particularly, of the Reign of William IV., and of the Reign of Her present Majesty, a careful investigation was made by a powerful and influential Committee of this House into the condition of the Civil List, the proper distribution of the expenditure, and the proper limits to be placed on the amount of that expenditure. This course of practice has been adopted as regards the Sovereign. As regards, not the Sovereign himself or herself, but those Members of the Royal Family who stand in sufficiently close proximity to the Sovereign to become, according to our usage, the customary subjects of Parliamentary provision, it has never yet been the practice to refer the consideration of the provision to be made for them to a Parliamentary Committee. I think, certainly, that in the Reign of George III. it may be shown that such was the case. In the time when Sir Robert Peel was Minister the first of these proposals within my recollection was made; and, undoubtedly, it was made, at the time, simply on a Resolution of the Cabinet. In the time of Lord Palmerston a step in advance was made. A Minute was drawn up with
    496
    care, and a scale of annuities, and, in certain cases, of dowry, was proposed and submitted, and pains were taken to ascertain that there should be such a concurrence of view among the leading men of the House of Commons who had been connected with Office, so that something like system might be introduced into the grant of those provisions; but no provision was made then, or has been attempted since, for the reference of this portion of what has been, for a century, one subject to a Committee of the House. Method and unity of proceeding were secured, but nothing was done. We have considered this matter, Sir, and we are of opinion that it would be decidedly a public advantage, and most consistent with the important considerations attaching to this subject, if henceforth Parliament were to apply to these secondary provisions, if I may so call them—as compared, of course, I mean, with the provision for the Crown and the Heir to the Throne—if Parliament were to apply the same principles as have been applied in the case of the Royal Civil List; and before the House of Commons hear of these proposals, a system on which they may well henceforward be founded should have been submitted by the Government to a Parliamentary Committee, and should have received the approval and sanction of that Committee. I have no doubt that the establishment of such a Committee will tend to secure even more perfect unity and uniformity of view in the House of Commons than has hitherto been found to exist. It is, therefore, the intention of the present Government, should they continue to hold their Offices, to propose that a Committee of this House should be appointed for the purpose of examining this important subject. The next remaining question that Gentlemen would put is—"When do you propose that that Committee should sit?" Sir, we have considered carefully whether we could hope to procure the appointment of such a Committee, and the sedulous and somewhat continued application, and certainly the very careful application, which the subject would require during the remainder of the present Session. If the question is referred to a Committee of this kind, it ought to be to an unusually strong Committee, and it ought to embrace every important class and shade of opi-

    497
    nion in the House, and it ought to be one which should be appointed under such circumstances that there could be a confident expectation of the close attendance of its Members. Such a Committee could hardly be appointed, excepting at the commencement, or very early in a Session. Undoubtedly, considering that the House met in the latter part of October to begin the present Session, and considering that it has already accomplished a legislative work equal, perhaps, to that which formed the whole employment of two great legislative years—namely, 1831 and 1832, we could hardly hope, at this period, to obtain the services of such a Committee as could alone satisfactorily deal with this question. It is an important inquiry, and one which ought to be conducted with the utmost care, and, of course, under the responsibility, if I may presume to say so, and with the advice and guidance, of the Executive Government. But still the duties of such a Committee would have an important Constitutional character; and we do not think, therefore, that we could properly ask the House to appoint a Committee for this purpose in the month of June, and in the June of a Session dating from October. But, at the same time, we likewise feel that the appointment of such a Committee ought not to be long-delayed; and what we hope is, as far as we may venture to speak for a future Session and Parliament, and having regard to the contingency that the present Government, or those representing the present Government, may not remain in Office, and as far as we are entitled in any manner to indicate an intention for the future, that the early part of next year will probably form the best period for bringing this important and weighty instrument to bear upon the settlement of a delicate question, closely associated with the honour and dignity both of the Throne and of the Royal Family—matters not only in which Parliament, but the entire country, feels bound to take a loyal and affectionate interest. I will not give any further explanation of this subject. Although, as I have said, it does not touch directly upon the provision now proposed, it is referable in its principles to former precedents and former arrangements; and I thought the Committee would not deem that this was an improper occasion to indicate the
    498
    views of the Government, as far as they have formed an intention, with regard to the future mode of providing for this important class of subjects. Of course, the fact that we have now arrived at a resting point, the whole subject of provision for the children of Her Majesty being now disposed of, seemed to mark this particular moment as a proper moment at which the arrangements of the future might, with propriety, be taken into view, at least as to the principle and method of procedure. I will now move, Sir, the Resolution standing on the Paper.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the annual sum of Six Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to be settled on Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice for Her life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the Marriage of Her Royal Highness with His Serene Highness Prince Henry of Battenberg."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir Arthur Otway, with regard to the Vote which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed, it is one for which the House has been thoroughly prepared ever since the commencement of the Session, or rather from the time when the announcement was made to us of the happy event which had been arranged in Her Majesty's Family. The House is accustomed to share in and to offer its congratulations to Her Majesty upon all occasions of joy, as well as to sympathize with Her Majesty on occasions of sorrow. It is not so very long since we had occasion to sympathize with Her Majesty on an occasion of deep sorrow; and now we have met for the purpose of expressing our satisfaction and our warm congratulations to Her Majesty upon this happy event of the marriage of Her daughter, and, at the same time, to make that provision which I trust will be made without any objection, and with the unanimous assent of the House. I feel sure, Sir, that the domestic virtues and quiet and unostentatious life which Her Royal Highness has passed among us have tended to endear her not only to those who have been more immediately honoured with her acquaintance, and who have had the privilege of enjoying her society, but to the whole nation at large. From time to time we have seen Her Royal High-

    499
    ness, whose life has been devoted, as the Prime Minister has truly said, to filial duty—from time to time we have seen Her Royal Highness come forward to promote good works, and works of charity and benevolence, by which she has endeared herself, as was to be expected, to the whole people of the Empire. Sir, I have no doubt that, whether any question be raised or not, it will be of a formal character, and that the House will assent, in the case of the youngest and last unmarried child of the Sovereign, with pleasure and satisfaction to the grant that is proposed. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has coupled this proposal with an intimation of a more general character. Of course, it was to be expected that if such a matter as this was in the mind of the Government, it might be mentioned at the present time. But it does seem to me to be open to question whether it was desirable to raise any question of this kind at a time when it could not be followed up, and was not ripe or convenient for action to be taken. I take note of that without disputing the reasons which may have induced the Prime Minister and the Government to take the course which they have adopted. All I can say is, that I deprecate now any discussion with regard to the questions which have been partially opened by the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. I feel with him that if this is a matter which we are to refer to a Select Committee—and I do not deny that there will be a good deal to say for such a course—the grounds for taking that step should be carefully and fully stated, as well as the circumstances under which the Royal Family is placed with regard to its claims upon the nation, and the claims which have from time to time been presented for assistance to the Civil List, and that the whole matter will have to be carefully considered and thoroughly discussed. I only take notice of this for the purpose of expressing an earnest hope that the House will not now be led into any premature discussion of that matter.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) that this is not the time for discussing the idea of appointing the Select Committee which the Prime Minister has thrown out. I will only point out that it is
    500
    somewhat curious that the Committee should be asked to vote a grant for a Member of the Royal Family, and, at the same time, be told, after that grant has been made, that the system of these grants would be taken into consideration by the next Parliament without going more fully into the matter. It seems to me very much like putting the cart before the horse. With respect to this particular grant, I fully agree with everything of a complimentary character which has been said of the Princess Beatrice by the two right hon. Gentlemen who have just addressed the Committee. But we are not asked to pay mere compliments to Her Royal Highness at the present moment, but to vote to her, out of the Consolidated Fund, a sum of £6,000 per annum. I have always asked myself, when the Prime Minister has spoken upon these matters before, whether he fully understood their real bearing. I used to think that the right hon. Gentleman knew almost everything. But I am inclined to think that, in respect of these matters, the right hon. Gentleman has not devoted so much time and attention to the Civil Lists preceding the present Civil List as he has to many other and perhaps more important subjects, because he has always founded his demands upon the House upon a series of pious legends. The right hon. Gentleman has said, when this question has been before the House on previous occasions, that the grant ought to be voted, because Her Majesty has given up a very large sum of money to the country, and made a bargain with the State on doing so. Now, it is a pure delusion to suppose that Her Majesty has ever given up a single shilling to which she was entitled, on that understanding and bargain, that her children should be provided for. It is a pure delusion based on erroneous ideas with respect to the Crown Lands. I presume it will be admitted that the Civil List, as it at present exists, dates from the Revolution. Before then there was no distinction between the Civil List and the other Revenues of the Crown—but all were taken and devoted to the general purposes of the country—to the Army and Navy, and the requirements of the Sovereign. When William III ascended the Throne he received £700,000 a-year. But then there were a great

    501
    many more charges on the Civil List than there are now. But there was not a single word, in the Civil List Act of William III., with respect to any renunciation on the part of William III. of the Crown Lands. Nor was there any such renunciation expressed in the Acts of Queen Anne, or George I., or George II. The first mention of the kind was in the Civil List Act of George III.; and the idea was first started, I presume, at the instance of Lord Bute. It then found its way into the annual Act in which it was stated that His Majesty gave up all his rights to the Revenues of the Crown Lands and certain other Revenues derived from duties on wine, ale, and beer, and other things of that sort. Before then no statement of the kind was ever put forward. Of course, George III. could only have inherited these Revenues from George II., George II. from George I., and so on; and there had been no renunciation, during the four previous Reigns, of the claim of the Crown to have possession of what were called the "hereditary Revenues" of the Sovereign. The claim since made, therefore, can scarcely be looked upon as a substantial one. This Preamble, however, was repeated, in the Civil List of William IV., and in that of Her Majesty. But the mere repetition of a statement contained in an Act, that the Sovereign or anyone else gave up a right to any specific property, is no evidence in favour of the accuracy of the statement, or any proof that the Sovereign ever had a right to the property renounced; and I shall contend, as everyone who has looked into this matter will also contend, that the Sovereign has no more right to what are called the "hereditary Revenues" of the Crown than the Sovereign has to the Mountains of the Moon. Upon this assertion has been founded a second legend, which is that, at the time the present Civil List was granted to Her Majesty, there was some sort of an understanding that the country should undertake to give dowries to any children which might be born of Her Majesty. There is no such undertaking. If there had been, there would have been an enactment. There is no such enactment to be found in connection with the Civil List Act, or any other Act. I could never understand whence this idea was derived. If hon. Members will look at the Act itself, it
    502
    will be seen that precisely the reverse was in the minds of those who prepared it. The Civil List assigned £385,000 out of the Consolidated Fund yearly to Her Majesty, and it divided this amount into different classes. The Lords of the Treasury can pay only a fourth of the annual amount assigned to all classes during a particular quarter. If, at the end of the year, there is an excess in one class and a deficit in another, the excess and deficit may balance each other. It must have been thoroughly understood that if there were an excess in any class and no deficit in any other class, then the excess came back to the Treasury. In the classes there were two to which I would call the attention of the Committee. There was £60,000 per annum for the Privy Purse, and £8,000 per annum was unappropriated. These are assigned especially to Her Majesty. In addition, Her Majesty was left in possession of the Revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, which at present produced £42,000 per annum. The provision, under the Civil List Act, was supposed to provide, out of the £385,000, for all the requirements of Her Majesty as Sovereign of the country. Consequently, the £60,000 and the £8,000 and the £42,000 per annum are left to Her Majesty to do what she pleased with. There is also, in the Civil List, another class by which provision is made for Her Majesty's charities, so that it may therefore be assumed that, for a considerable number of years, Her Majesty has received, putting aside the supposition that there has been any excess which has not been accounted for in excess of her requirements, £110,000 per annum; and we know perfectly well that that amount has not been expended. Nobody knows it better than the Prime Minister himself; for, in 1862 he brought in a Bill which gave Her Majesty the right to hold private property. I do not know whether it was previously supposed that the Sovereign could not hold private property; but unquestionably the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister came forward and asked the House to pass that Bill. There was a second Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman in 1869, which gave power to Her Majesty to leave any money she possessed to her children. There appears to have been some doubt as to whether

    503
    she could leave anything she possessed to anyone who stood in direct succession to the Throne. What I want to point out is, that the Prime Minister would not have come forward, as a servant of Her Majesty, to ask the House to pass these Acts to enable Her Majesty to hold property, and to leave property, if Her Majesty did not hold property and had property to leave. I believe the Civil List is far too high at the present time. At the lowest estimate, the Civil List and the allowances to Her Majesty and Members of the Royal Family exceed £700,000 per annual—perhaps £720,000—[Cries of "No!"]—I think that that is really a very low estimate; but I need not trouble the Committee by going into all of the details. The figure I have given is, I believe, a fair Estimate, and hon. Gentlemen know very well that it has often been put very much higher. Of course, I include the expense of keeping up the Royal Palaces, whether occupied in whole or in part by Her Majesty; and if I were called upon to substantiate my figures, I believe I should be able to show that the amount is a good deal higher than I have fixed it at, because it has been my wish to be within the mark, and therefore I have put down the annual sum at £700,000. If, however, it will please hon. Members opposite, I will take the Civil List and allowances to Her Majesty and to other Members of the Royal Family at £600,000; and I say that there is a very strong feeling in the country that that is quite sufficient for the maintenance of the Royal Family, and that is why—perhaps not in this House—there is, most unquestionably, a very strong feeling against increasing these grants. It is felt that if Her Majesty has this money—I say it with all respect—Her Majesty can provide for Her Family. It is felt that Her Majesty has not now such expenses as she had when she had all her children at home, and had to educate them. Her Majesty's last child is now going away, and we know besides that she has the £110,000 per annum which I have mentioned. I do not think, therefore, that anybody will deny that Her Majesty has already ample means, and that she is perfectly able to make provision for her children. Therefore, before any fresh demand is made upon the country the House ought to be assured that Her Majesty is un
    504
    able to provide for Her Family, and until such a statement is made Parliament ought not to vote another grant for any other Member of the Royal Family. No doubt, what has actuated many hon. Members in this House has been a sentimental feeling. Well, I am a man of sentiment myself, but I restrain my sentiment. I feel that we are all here as guardians of the public purse. It is not our business to take a sentimental view of these matters, and to say that, because previous Parliaments have voted grants to the children of Her Majesty, therefore this Parliament ought to do so. If such a doctrine is to be accepted, the first proposal ought to have bound us. It ought to have been enacted at first, not that one child should have £6,000 or £8,000 a-year, but that every child born of Her Majesty should have the same sum. That has not been done; but it has been left to each particular Parliament to decide, and we are at perfect liberty to consider, each claim on its own merits, and not accept the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that as there are so many precedents before us we are bound to accept them. Otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman would not have come down here and asked for this grant; but there would have been an Act to determine that Her Majesty should receive a certain amount of money annually upon the marriage of each of her children. It is not necessary that I should detain the Committee longer. I am perfectly aware, as I intend to challenge the Vote, that I shall be defeated; but if the feeling inside this House is not very strong against the Vote there is a very strong feeling—and many hon. Gentlemen know it—against the Vote outside the House. I believe that those who oppose this Vote are far stronger friends of the Monarchy than those who supportit. The real danger to the Monarchy at the present time is that many persons may come to the conclusion that the advantages derived from it are more than counter-balanced by the cost if these grants are to be continually voted.
    MR. LEWIS: I wish to draw attention to a question which suggests itself, and which is of some Constitutional importance. It is whether, underlying the acquiescence and the general unanimity of the House on these Votes, there is not an implied understanding that the hus-

    505
    band of a Royal daughter should not take a prominent part in the political contests of the day? If necessary, I am prepared to move an Amendment, to put myself right, to the Resolution which has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. If the House, upon the present occasion, or upon previous occasions, had been under the belief that the husband of a Royal daughter who was about to be married was likely to enter into political controversy and strife the same as any ordinary subject of the Queen, I do not believe these Votes would have been passed with the unanimity with which they have usually been passed. Recent circumstances have rendered it necessary that, at all events, a protest should be made on this occasion against what might possibly turn out to be the practice of husbands of Royal daughters presenting themselves as Parliamentary candidates, and taking an active part in the heated political controversies of the day. I think, in this respect, I may be allowed to make a protest on what I believe to be a fair Constitutional point. At least, I would ask, whether there is not really an understanding on which these Votes have been passed with unanimity by previous Houses of Commons that there should be absence from such activity? I need not say that with regard to the sons of the Monarch the question never arises. I am not prepared to say that the sons of the Monarch are legally disqualified from taking their seats in this House. I believe there is no legal disqualification; but, although I am led to the belief that they are not legally disqualified from sitting in this House, I believe there is no precedent for the husband of a Royal daughter taking part in the election contests which occur in this country, and long Constitutional usage has produced the belief that they are not qualified to sit in the House of Commons. I would venture to suggest that it is of the greatest importance that the Sovereign and Members of the Royal Family should be kept free from mixing in Parliamentary contests. I will suppose a case which would not be at all unlikely to occur. Suppose the husband of one of the Royal daughters were a candidate for a great popular constituency, and were called upon to take part in public entertainments and
    506
    proceedings in that capacity, surely it would be placing both the husband and the Princess in a position in which they might be gravely compromised.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is opening up a very wide question, which the Committee is not competent to decide. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue it, he must address himself to the full House and not to the Committee.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am very glad that we shall not be allowed to be led into the broad by-field of discussion about matters undoubtedly of very great importance, and doctrines which excite in some minds a considerable degree of astonishment, as involving interference with private and personal liberty. I shall not say one word upon that subject, because I think that if I did I should be transgressing the spirit of what you, Sir, have said from the Chair; but I am desirous to correct a slight error into which I fell when I said that the first Vote to a Member of the Royal Family, in my recollection, was in the Government of Sir Robert Peel. It was in the Government of Lord Melbourne, when a provision was proposed for the Prince Consort, upon his marriage with Her Majesty. Having made that correction, I will only say, with regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that I will not attempt to answer that speech, because there is much history in the matter, and in our endeavouring to set right that history from one side or the other we might be led into great length of discussion, which I cannot think is at all desirable that we should enter into. Therefore, if my hon. Friend will allow me, I will rather enter a general protest against his speech. I believe it is the general disposition of the House that we should now proceed to a vote.
    MR. O'BRIEN: I am more surprised at the observations which have been made by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) than by those which have fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in opposing this grant; because if the Irish people had the choice of their own Rulers, or were an ordinary Republic, I do not think they would split straws or be very churlish as to the expense of it. It is not to a few thousand pounds

    507
    here or there in the cost of Royalty that we particularly object. If Royalty is anything it must be expensive; but after what the hon. Member for Londonderry has said, certain recent events make it necessary for me also to protest against its being supposed that the Irish people entertain the same feelings as the English people, or participate in their enthusiasm about the Royal Family, or have, indeed, any feeling with regard to them except such loyalty as the strict letter of the law enforces. That, unquestionably, is my definition of the loyalty of the Irish people towards England. Some Members of the Royal Family in England appear to live hard-working and, in their way, useful lives; but, as far as Ireland is concerned, their lives are something worse than a blank. We never see them in Ireland at all—although I, for one, do not in the least object to that, for, as the hon. Member for Londonderry has remarked of another personage Connected with the Royal Family, Royal personages are brought over to that country on a political campaign in precisely the same way as the Prime Minister sometimes goes to Mid Lothian. After the Chairman's ruling, I suppose it would not be competent for me to make any detailed reference to the circumstances connected with the Prince of Wales's recent visit to Ireland. Probably there will be another opportunity of doing so. I only allude to it now as an illustration of the purposes to which the money granted by Parliament to the Royal Family may occasionally be devoted; and I must say that, up to this moment, no intelligible motive has ever been assigned for that Royal visit to Ireland. [Cries of" Order!"] The only conclusion which the Irish people can draw or have drawn—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remarks have no reference, and are, indeed, entirely irrelevant to the Resolution before the Committee.
    MR. O'BRIEN: I will not pursue my observations on the subject. I simply meant to point out that you cannot expect the Irish people, while things of this sort are going on, to exhibit the same enthusiasm for the functions of the Royal Family, whom they never see except in the character of political agents, and whom they can neither hold aloof from without being misrepresented,
    508
    or tell the truth to without having their heads broken. It was for this reason, and not from anything personal to the Royal Family, that I, for one, feel constrained to vote against any grant of this kind, which I am quite sure will not be used for the benefit of the Irish people, and may, possibly, be used to their detriment.
    COLONEL STEBLE: I will not detain the Committee for many moments. I may say that there is no Member of this House who has a stronger feeling than I have against the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; and I entered the House this afternoon with a full determination, if not to challenge the Vote, at any rate to enter a protest against it without recording my vote. But, Sir, permit me to say that I have considered the matter fully, and, on reflection, I cannot in my heart pursue the course I had intended to take. I will give two or three reasons why I do not pursue that course. When I consider that the request now made is for the last of all Her Majesty's unmarried children; when I consider, also, that all the other daughters of the Queen have received a similar grant; when I consider, further, that the Princess Beatrice is one of the noblest of England's daughters—I feel that it would be invidious, harsh, and even cruel to refuse the grant proposed on this occasion. I therefore appeal to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) not to press his opposition to a division. The hon. Member has already entered his protest; he may now let us, for once, have unanimity; and, as this is the last occasion, he will have a fair field and no favour open to him in the future.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND(who rose amid cries of "Divide!") said: I think, Sir Arthur Otway, that if any proof were required of the absolute unsoundness of the reasons which have been advanced in favour of the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman, it would be found in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, his Government, and his supporters are evincing this afternoon an unwillingness to hear any discussion of the question. I must say I am opinion that if a Motion like this were not discussed we should be setting an extremely bad precedent. If my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr.

    509
    O'Brien) had not uttered his protest against this grant, what should we have found in the newspapers to-morrow? We should have found every newspaper exultingly describing the extraordinary unanimity of the Committee, and pointing out, in a tone of triumph, that even the Irish Members were not able to stand up in the House and speak out against the Vote in the name of those whom they represent. It is, therefore, the duty of the Irish Members to tell the House plainly that we represent people who do not believe in English Royalty, and that the time has come when, on behalf of the people we represent, we should speak out; for if we did not do so we should be properly looked upon as hypocrites. In Ireland we have had very little experience of Royalty. But a very short time ago we had a visit from a Member of the Royal Family, and what was the impression we derived from that visit? [Cries of" Order!"] I am merely going to give a reason why I oppose this Vote. The impression of Royalty we have gathered from that visit—and as this is a grant for a Member of the Royal Family, this is an appropriate occasion for referring to the matter—the impression of Royalty received by the Irish people from that visit was simply this—that Royalty is something we must take off our hats to and cheer, whether we like or not, on pain of having our heads broken by a policeman and being turned out of our own railway stations. We are perfectly willing to be loyal, and even to support grants like that now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in support of Royalty, provided the result is something of benefit to ourselves, and provided we get something in return for the public money we are asked to vote; but we object to make provision for a Royalty which we are obliged to cheer, or else run the risk of getting our heads broken. Our recent experiences of Royalty have not been such as to encourage us in any demonstration of loyalty, and we certainly do not feel disposed to pay for the privilege of having our rights violated. I think that this debate will have done several good things. Among others, it will have had the effect of showing to the working people of England—who themselves, I believe, do not care the snuff of a candle about Eoyalty—that there
    510
    is only one English Member in this House calling himself a Radical who has the common honesty and the straightforwardness to stand up and speak his mind on this question. It will convey to the working classes the perfect uselessness and the hollowness of the Radical Party below the Ministerial Gangway. [Cries of" Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the remarks the hon. Member is now making are not relevant to the Question before the Committee.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I desire to make my remarks as relevant as I possibly can. I was about to point out some reasons why I think hon. Members opposite should not take exception to sentiments which cannot altogether be called Royal sentiments, and why they should oppose this Vote. Some of them profess to be Republicans, and certainly ought to oppose it. The Prime Minister himself has been unable to make out a case in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman came before the House this evening in a suppliant attitude, and he has not attempted to prove that his approval is in itself a sound and a just one, which should recommend itself to the minds of the thinking English people; but he simply said—"Oh, if you please, this is the last of the Queen's daughters; accept this proposal, because it is the last of its kind." He said nothing in support of past grants, or anything in favour of this; but, in effect, he said—"Let us have no more trouble about the matter; it is not worth raising a discussion, as this is the last proposal which can be made in the present Reign." Now, if this is a good proposal, it ought to be capable of being supported by argument; and if it is not, it ought not to be accepted simply because it is the last. I hope my hon. Friends around me will challenge a division, even if the Radical Members opposite do not remain in the House to vote against the grant. I believe the time is coming when hon. Members will speak out against this humbug and this superstition which makes you feed—[Loud cries of "Order," and interruption. Hon. Members may interrupt, but I am going to have my say. I maintain that it is time this superstition which prompts the English people to feed and to pamper Royal personages were got rid of, when you seethe streets

    511
    of your capital filled with unfortunate wretches who are starving. I maintain that such a proceeding is not worthy of a civilized nation, and a proposal of this character is especially objectionable, coming as it does from a man like the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who knows of the existence of stark and staring poverty in this country, of the large number of people who are out of work, and of the many poor households in which £1 at the present moment would be much more acceptable to them than the £6,000 which it is proposed the Committee should give to this Royal Princess. The Committee may be able to give this money now; but certainly a day will come in England when the people will assemble in their thousands, as they assembled last night, to consider the proposals of the Budget. Whenever the people do assemble, it will not be merely to protest, against the impositions of a Budget; but it will be to protest against the existence of that machinery of Government which robs the people of their money and keeps them in starvation. It will be to tear down this building upon the heads of the House of Commons, and to march into Downing Street in a way which the right hon. Gentleman has been little accustomed to. [Cries of "Divide!"] I shall not be deterred by interruptions of this kind from entering my protest against the Vote. No persons like to be told they are robbers, and no wonder the Committee are crying "Divide!" But I maintain that you are robbing the people, and I protest against such robbery, believing that the day will come when the people will make themselves heard in a manner stronger and more effective than my voice has been able to accomplish.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 337; Noes 38: Majority 299.—(Div. List, No. 188.)
    Resolved, That the annual sum of Six Thousand Pounds he granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to be settled on Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice for her life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the Marriage of Her Royal Highness with His Serene Highness Prince Henry of Battenberg.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 150.]
    (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

    CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [13th May], on Consideration of Bill, as amended.
    New Clause:—
    (Technical breach of tenancy shall not disqualify.)
    "Where any person claiming to occupy or to have occupied a dwelling-house, lands, or tenements, was evicted from such premises for non-payment of rent during the qualifying period of occupation, but was subsequently reinstated in the possession of same, such person shall be deemed, notwithstanding such eviction, to have been in occupation of said premises during the whole of the qualifying period if he can show that he has paid the poor rates for such qualifying period,"—(Mr. Healy,)
    —brought up, and read the first and second time, and amended.
    Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "reinstated," to insert the words "by writ of restitution."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Debate resumed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANmoved, in page 2, after Clause 5, the insertion of a new clause providing that Section 3 of 13 & 14 Viet., c. 69, should apply to freemen, and that they should thus be disqualified for voting if they received parochial relief.
    Clause (Disqualification as to freemen,)—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said. Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, there was no machinery by which freemen who had received parochial relief could be removed from the list of voters. He would, therefore, suggest the following addition to the clause:—
    "That the town clerk shall supply to the clerk of the union a copy of the roll of freemen, and the clerk of the union shall return

    513
    such copy with the names marked of the freemen who have received poor law relief within the period for the purpose of disqualifying them."
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, a clause to the effect of the present proposal of the hon. Member had been withdrawn in favour of the Amendment he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) proposed.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the clause proposed was a monstrosity, inasmuch as every person who received parochial relief was disqualified from exercising the franchise, including freemen, and therefore it was not necessary to incorporate it in the present Bill. The proposal was nothing but a mere waste of time on the part of the Government, and if the clause was persisted in he should divide the House against it.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that those of them who happened to be really acquainted with the structure of the Act of Parliament were bound to resist the clause; because, if they did not, they would be committing the House to a piece of legislative folly. All the clause did was to say that a disqualification which applied to every man without distinction should apply to freemen. If the clause did anything at all, it rather threw doubt on the existing law. By the law as it at present stood all who received parochial relief, freemen included, were thereby disqualified. If this Amendment were passed, on the principle of expressio unius exclusio alterius, pauper relief, except in the case of freemen, would not disqualify. Such specific enactments were only an encumbrance on legislation, and had no justification.
    MR. SMALLsaid, he did not often agree with the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis); but, in this case, he was bound to agree that the disqualification in question applied to all classes of electors, and the clause was, therefore, unnecessary. Clerks of Unions wore always conversant with the names of freemen who had received parochial relief. This Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was another instance of the fact that when Irish Members asked for one thing from the Government, they got another. What they asked for was machinery to apply the existing law to freemen. The clause simply said that the general law included freemen, without providing machinery
    514
    for applying the general law to that particular class.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Walker)said, he would be happy to consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 28: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 189.)
    On the Motion of Mr. SEXTOX, Clause amended, by inserting, at end, the following words:—
    "The town clerk shall supply to the clerk of the union a copy of the roll of freemen, and the clerk of the union shall return such copy with the names marked of the freemen who have received poor law relief within the period for the purpose of disqualifying them."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANmoved the following new clause:—
    "Every revising barrister acting for a borough shall hold at least one evening sitting of his court in such borough.
    "An evening sitting shall commence not later than seven nor earlier than six o'clock in the evening, and shall be of such duration as shall be, in the opinion of the revising barrister, reasonable.
    "Special notice or notices of each evening sitting shall be published by the town clerk in such manner as the revising barrister may direct."
    Clause (Evening sittings of revision court,)—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. SEXTONproposed to insert, after the word "borough," "or in a town of 3,000 inhabitants." He also failed to see why the counties should be separated from the boroughs in Ireland in this matter, for that was an anomaly, and did not exist in England, inasmuch as it had been duly provided for in the English Bill. Surely it was of as much importance to residents in county divisions to be accurately described as it was to those living in boroughs.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that it had been generally agreed that the same course should be adopted in Ireland as in England.
    MR. GORSTsuggested that there should be a limit of population of towns

    515
    in Irish counties in which evening sittings should be held. According to the English law, such evening sittings were to be held only in towns of over 10,000 inhabitants.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, if that were the case, he would be willing to assimilate the law.
    MR. BIGGARpointed out that the towns in Ireland were, for the most part, small in comparison with those of England. If the law of Ireland were assimilated with that of England, he maintained that an Irish town containing 3,000 inhabitants was of as much importance as an English town containing 10,000 inhabitants. This alteration in the law would be quite as advantageous to the Conservatives as to the Liberals.
    MR. LEWISsaid, there were 34 counties in Ireland.
    MR. SEXTON: Thirty-two. [Laughter.]
    MR. SMALL: The hon. Member for Londonderry does not even know the number of counties in Ireland.
    MR. LEWIS,continuing, said, there were 32 counties in Ireland; but he did not believe that in more than five or six cases evening sittings would be rendered necessary. If the Motion applied to counties as well as to boroughs, there would be Revision Courts opened at night at which there would not be business to transact.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the Government wished to give the same facilities to Ireland for registration purposes as were enjoyed in England. He was not aware that evening sittings had been extended to counties in England until that moment. That being so, and as he thought the limit of a population of 10,000, as in England, was too high, he would suggest that, after borough," the following words should be inserted:—
    "Or hold his court in towns containing, according to the last published Census, more than 6,000 inhabitants."
    MR. SMALLsaid, he thought that even the limit now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was too high a number. There were 14 counties in Ireland which had no town with a population exceeding 5,000.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied, that, in those cases, there would be no need for evening sittings.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he could not agree with the statement that in many counties there would be no contest in the Revision Courts. From his experience of the action of those holding the opinions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, he believed they would contest every vote in Kinsale, Mallow, Bandon, and Youghal.
    Question put, and agreed to; Clause read a second time accordingly.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought 3,000 too low a limit of population, and while he thought 5,000 would be a very good limit, he was prepared to agree to something less—say, 4,000.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he would accept 4,000.
    On the Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Clause amended, by inserting, in line 3, after "borough"—
    "Or hold his court in towns containing, according to the last published Census, more than 4,000 inhabitants."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to,and added to the Bill.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)moved the following clause:—"The lists of voters may be made out alphabetically or by streets."
    Clause (List of voters,)—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
    Amendment proposed, by inserting, before the first word "The," the words "On all."—(Mr. Small.)
    Question, "That the words 'On all' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Clause amended, and added to the Bill.
    Clause 3 (Power of the Lord Lieutenant in Council to prescribe forms.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, by leaving out the word "may," and inserting the word "shall,"—(Mr. Sexton,)—instead thereof.
    Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Amendments made.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Polling districts).
    MR. SEXTONmoved to amend the clause by inserting a new sub-section,

    517
    the effect of which would be that in every Parliamentary borough in Ireland, except Dublin and Belfast, Municipal Corporation Town Commissioners and Boards of Guardians should be at liberty to appear by counsel and give evidence before Justices in the case of making or altering polling districts. It was also proposed by the sub-section, that the same bodies should be empowered to appeal to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council against any order of Justices as to polling districts. The hon. Member explained that he omitted Dublin and Belfast from the provision, because the Municipal Corporations in those cases fixed the polling districts.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 6, by inserting, after subsection (1), the words,—"In every Parliamentary borough in Ireland, except the city of Dublin and the town of Belfast, and in every Parliamentary county in Ireland, any municipal corporation or board of town commissioners, or any board of poor law guardians, shall be entitled to appear by counsel or otherwise, and to make representations and offer evidence, before the chairman of quarter sessions and justices of the county, with reference to the constitution of any polling district or districts lying wholly or partly within the area of any such municipality or poor law union, or in opposition to any order made, or intended to be made, by such chairman and justices constituting or altering such polling district, and such chairman and justices shall give such public notice of their intention to make an order constituting or altering a polling district so as to enable any municipal corporation or board of town commissioners or poor law guardians concerned as aforesaid to appear and give evidence before them, and any such board, so concerned, shall be entitled to appeal to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council against any order of the chairman and justices affecting them as aforesaid, and to appear by counsel and give evidence in support of such an appeal."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. LEWISsaid, he did not think that it would serve any useful purpose to provide such elaborate machinery for disputing and appealing matters of this kind.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he wished to point out that the adoption of the proposal, would seriously delay the preliminary arrangements for the General Election. At present, all parties interested had a right to be heard before
    518
    Justices on questions of this kind, and there was a regular mode of appealing from an order of Justices as to polling districts.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that he would be l0th to introduce any change in the present procedure, which had been adopted from the Ballot Act, and which had been found to work smoothly and well. It would be inexpedient, in the present urgent state of affairs, to run a risk of causing delay, seeing that they did not know what might happen if they made the alteration proposed.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that if it could be shown him that the adoption of the Amendment would retard the procedure in any way he would vote against it. His own opinion was that it would accelerate it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 52: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 190.)
    On the Motion of Mr. SMALL, the following Amendments agreed to:—In page 3, after line 22, insert—
    "Not later than one month after the passing of this Act the town councils or town commissioners of the other boroughs in Ireland shall respectively take into consideration the divisions of such boroughs into polling districts, and shall respectively divide such boroughs into polling districts in such manner as may be most convenient for taking the votes of electors, and so that as nearly as possible an equal number of electors may be allotted to poll in each, district;"
    in line 23, after "councils," insert "and town commissioners;" and after line 26, insert—
    "The register of voters shall be made up in separate lists for each polling district."
    Clause, as amended agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Power to appoint additional revising barristers).
    MR. SEXTON,in moving an Amendment to part of the clause enacting that Revising Barristers dealing with the Act should be of "not less than six years' standing," said, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to put in such a limitation as that. He believed that the new Act, which would allow barristers to take out their degrees in Dublin, would make the Bar more popular, and he believed that some of these young barristers might be far more capable of

    519
    dealing with the Act than some of the old and stupid men who had been for years hanging about the Four Courts.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 35, by leaving out the words "of not less than six years' standing at the bar."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Member had anticipated a great addition to the number of barristers in Ireland, and that, therefore, the restriction should be removed. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought that that was an argument which would apply the opposite way. He believed that this was the usual period required for persons who performed such duties to have been called to the Bar.
    MR. KENNYsupported the Amendment, and urged that, in many eases, the young barristers would be very much more capable of dealing with the scheme, which, after all, did not require a great amount of knowledge to carry out, than the older men. He believed that for some appointments to the India Civil Service—even the Bench—three years only were required.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was bound to say that he did not agree with the hon. Member for Sligo. He would admit that there were a number of very intelligent young men, and some very stupid old men; but, at the same time, experience was an advantage in all the transactions of mankind, and more especially so in the men who were to deal with these matters of electoral law.
    MR. MOLLOYsupported the Amendment.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he could state, from experience, that some of the old Revising Barristers were absolutely lading in intelligence. He, on one occasion, had to appear before two old fogies—Messrs. Lefroy and Gamble—who were acting in that capacity, and he assured the House that two men more lamentably ignorant, it had never been his misfortune to be brought into contact with. Very young men fresh from the Inns of Court made better judges of electoral law than those who had for years been hanging about the Courts losing whatever acumen they might ever have possessed.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he believed that, if the door were opened to all the young barristers of two or three years' standing, the Lord Lieutenant would be actually pestered with the great number of applications, both of the young barristers and their friends.
    MR. SMALLsaid, in his opinion, some of the banisters described as "briefless" would he of 36 or even 46 years' standing. He, for his part, preferred to consult young barristers, who were always better acquainted with recent enactments than those who merely went through their day's work without troubling themselves to ascertain the latest changes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SMALL,in moving an Amendment, to the effect that the appointment of additional Revising Barristers might not be confined to the year 1885, but that such appointments might be made in any year, said, that in most counties of Ireland additional Revising Barristers would not be necessary, but they would in some, such as Antrim, where the County Court Judge had a great deal of work to do both in the County Courts and Revision Courts.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 38, by leaving out the words "the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five," and inserting the words "any year,"—(MR. Small,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five,' stand part of the Bill."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman refused to accept the Amendment.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Informalities in registration shall not affect validity of register).
    On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, Amendment made, by inserting in page 4, line 9, after "purpose," the words "neither shall any informality in the filling up of forms or lists disfranchise the voter."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Collectors shall give assistance in serving notices).
    On the Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 27, leave out from "assist" to "in," in line 28.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 11, 12, and 13 verbally amended, and agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Costs of appeal).
    COLONEL NOLANmoved, as an Amendment, the omission of the part of the clause relating to the payment of costs when Clerks of the Peace are made respondents in appeals from the decisions of Revising Barristers. He objected to making a Clerk of the Peace a party in these cases and then paying his costs out of the rates, unless the ratepayers had some control over him.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 19, by leaving out from the words, "the costs," to the word "decision," in line 23.—(Colonel Nolan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that, the clause had been inserted in the Bill at the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), who pointed out that there was an analogous provision in the English Bill. The clause enabled an appellant to require the Revising Barrister to name the Clerk of the Peace or the Town Clerk as respondent, even against his will, in an appeal; and, under those circumstances, it was only right that his expenses should come out of a public fund. They might now strike out the clause altogether; but, if it were retained at all, its whole purpose would be defeated by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he objected to the Clerk of the Peace, a semi-judicial officer, being made a respondent; and he would like to know whether his expenses would be paid out of the poor rates, or out of the Consolidated Fund? In the former case, he should object to the arrangement; in the latter case, he should not.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the matter could be easily settled. This provision was not originally in the Government Bill, it having been introduced at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), who pointed
    522
    out that a similar clause was in the English Act. He (Mr. Gibson) maintained that hon. Members must take the clause as a whole or not at all. If hon. Members wished, for the clause, they must take it as it stood; if they did not wish for it, then it should be struck out. It seemed to him that the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was unanswerable, and, speaking for himself, he was quite satisfied to retain the clause, on the argument that it was founded on a provision in the English Act.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the Bill proceeded on the principle that those persons who did not perform their duties should be subjected to penalties. He maintained, therefore, if the Town Clerk or the Clerk of the Peace was guilty of any irregularity, nothing could be more just or necessary than that the official should be bound to pay for his misconduct. He thought that the clause must be struck out, or some provision introduced with the object of securing a borough or a county against the costs of appeal arising out of frivolous objections.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would call the attention of hon. Members to the 59th section of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, and argued against depriving the Town Clerk or the Clerk of the Peace of his costs.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he was of opinion that not only was the clause an objectionable one, but that it embodied an unsound and unfair principle. He recommended the omission of the whole clause.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that as far as (he Government were concerned, they were willing enough that the clause should be omitted. It did not originate with them, it having, as he had said, been accepted at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), who took it from the English law. The Government thought that the clause, as it stood, could do no harm, although, at the same time, they had no particular love for it. He wished to point out, however, that the clause having been amended on Report, it could not now be struck out of the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 36, by leaving out from the word "expenses," to the word "relates," in line 40.—(Colonel Nolan.)
    Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    COLONEL NOLAN,in moving a further Amendment to add to the clause the words—"Provided the court rules that these costs have not been incurred by his own fault or negligence," said, the object of the Amendment was to prevent Clerks of the Peace or other registration officers from incurring needless legal expenses, and to make the ruling of the Court necessary, in order to the exemption of these officials from the payment of costs in unsuccessful applications made by them.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 40, by inserting, after the word "relates," the words "Provided the court rules that these costs have not been incurred through his own fault or negligence."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided;—Ayes 28; Noes 68: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 191.)
    Clause amended, and agreed to.
    Clause 18 (Duties and powers of court of revision).
    MR. SEXTON,in moving an Amendment to provide that a man whose name had been passed over in his absence should have his claim heard if he appeared, and gave a good reason for his absence before the Court concluded its sitting, said, the arrangement contained in his Amendment would prove of great convenience to electors when they were called upon to attend at the Revision Courts.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 15, by leaving out after the word "founded," to the words "objected to," in line 18.—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. KENNYsupported the Amendment, on the ground of its fairness to constituencies.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 32: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No, 192.) Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 22, by inserting, after the word "behalf," the words "before the conclusion of the sittings of the court."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)opposed the Amendment, as being unnecessary.
    MR. DEASYsaid, that unless the Amendment were carried, thousands of voters would be unjustly disfranchised; and he would therefore move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give the Government time to reconsider the Amendments of which Notice had been given.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Deasy.)
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he trusted that the hon. Member would not persevere with the Motion, as the necessity for passing the Bill at once was urgent, and it was quite a mistake to suppose that an adjournment could produce any change in the views of the Government as to the necessity for the Amendment. The Government might be right, or they might be wrong, but they entertained a very clear opinion in their own minds about the Amendment; and it was quite a mistake to suppose that their present view had been arrived at owing to want of time for considering the matter. He was of opinion that the principle involved in the Amendment, if it were inserted in the Bill, might be adopted in regard to every matter that came before a Court. The reason which would make it right to extend this provision so as to give an opportunity for a man whose name had been passed over in his absence to have his claim heard, if he subsequently appeared, would apply to

    525
    the procedure in every Court throughout the country.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he believed that the principle now contended for was virtually adopted in every Court of Justice. All that was asked for was that there should be no adverse decision against a voter who claimed to have his name upon the Register, until it was proved by positive evidence that the name was not entitled to be there.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the Main Question, and not the Question before the House, which is, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that he was only referring to what the Prime Minister had said upon the question.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must repeat that the hon. Member is not entitled to debate the Main Question on the Motion, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Deasy) would not persist with the Motion for Adjournment, and for this reason—there were grounds for believing that the Government might be induced to amend the provisions of the Bill, so as to establish the plain principle adopted in every Court of Law, that there should not be an adverse decision against any person who was entitled to appear before the Court until clear evidence had been given.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he regretted that the Rules of Order prevented him from making a reference to the Main Question, as it would have been convenient that he should reply to the remarks of the Prime Minister. In confining himself to the question of the adjournment of the debate, he would only state the impression which had been produced on the minds of the Irish Members. They had laid case after case before the Chief Secretary for Ireland in a manner which they considered fair and calm. There was not a man on those Benches who desired to keep a capable citizen off the Register. They felt the urgency of the state of things; and, personally, he (Mr. Sexton) yielded to no man in his wish to see the Bill pass with the utmost rapidity. At the same time, he was anxious, before it passed into law, to see that no capable citizen was deprived of the franchise in consequence of any impediment which
    526
    was unnecessarily thrown in his way-He felt a strong conviction, that if the Prime Minister had been present during the whole of the evening, several of the claims which the Irish Members had made would have commended themselves to the right hon. Gentleman's mind as plainly as they did to his (Mr. Sexton's). He regretted that he was compelled to believe that the passing of the Bill would not be facilitated, but impeded, by the stolid and set determination of the Government to reject every Amendment made by the Irish Members, not upon its merits, but because it was proposed from that quarter of the House. The Irish Members were quite as anxious as the Government were to pass the Bill in a workable shape.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Deasy) would go to a division upon the adjournment of the debate. He thought the Government had treated the Irish Members throughout the discussion of the Bill in a way which was very much to be regretted. In supporting the Motion for Adjournment, he hoped he might be allowed to say that if the Government would treat the Irish Members with the same amount of consideration as that which they exhibited towards the Scotch Members, there would be no necessity for his hon. Friend to move the adjournment, or for any of the adjournments which, from time to time, the Irish Members found themselves compelled to move in that House. In this case, they had before them a matter which affected Ireland and the Irish Members alone; and on one side of the House the Irish Members, in a united body, had expressed their feeling in favour of the proposal which had been made. On the other side of the House there was one Irish Gentleman (the hon. and learned Solicitor General) and one Scotch Gentleman (the Chief Secretary for Ireland) who desired to override the opinions of the great bulk of the Irish Members present. Such a state of things was intolerable to hon. Members who represented the people of Ireland. It was plain to see that their opinions had not the slightest weight with Her Majesty's Government, and that the opposition of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was sufficient to nullify everything they attempted to do. He hoped, therefore,

    527
    that his hon. Friend would persist with the Motion for Adjournment; because, if the Irish Members got sat upon time after time in that House, it was only natural that they should resent the treatment they received, and the only way in which they could do so was to move Motions for Adjournment now and then. If the Government still refused to give way, he trusted that a few more adjournments would be moved.
    MR. SMALLsaid, he did not think the Government would lose much time if they consented now to the adjournment of the debate; because, if not, they would find that they would have to consent to it before they made much more progress with the Bill. There were a large number of Amendments which must be introduced into the forms contained in the Schedules; and it appeared to him that, if the Government did not consent to an adjournment, then it would be necessary to do so later on, in order that fresh clauses might be introduced into the Bill. It would, therefore, be better to adjourn then in order that they might have the forms in the Schedule submitted in a manner which would insure correspondence with the clauses of the Bill. The Bill itself had been drawn hastily and imperfectly, and would still require careful amendment.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not know what object hon. Members opposite could have; but he was sure they could not be aware of the extreme urgency of the measure. The greater part of the Bill consisted of Amendments which had been suggested by hon. Members opposite themselves. The very clause they were now discussing was a clause which had been put into the Bill at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), and yet the Government were told by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that they were sitting silent, with a stolid determination to resist every suggestion that came from the Irish Members. A considerable part of the Bill had been suggested by Irish Members; but it so happened that the last two or three Amendments the Government had not accepted. They were, as he had said, Amendments moved upon clauses taken from the English law, and put into the present Bill, on the recommendation and at the
    528
    suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan. They were also Amendments which had been moved without Notice, although the clauses had been on the Paper ever since the Bill passed through Committee. As to the urgency of the measure, it was absolutely necessary that this stage of the Bill should be got through that night, and when that was done, it would be his duty to ask the House even to read the Bill a third time at once; because, unless it went to the House of Lords to-morrow, it would fall behind the Scotch and English Bills, and would literally have no chance of being passed into law before the Whitsuntide Recess. If that happened, the whole matter would be thrown into confusion. None of the new clauses were really new, or had been sprung upon the House, and abundant opportunity had been afforded for considering them in all their details. The Schedules to which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small) referred had been before the House in Committee, and plenty of opportunity had been given for considering them. If they required correcting now, let them go on at once with the work of amendment; but do not let them waste more time over it. If the work of registration was to be carried out in Ireland at all with anything like efficiency this year, and with any idea of a General Election taking place somewhat sooner than was first contemplated, it was absolutely necessary that the Bill should be read in the House of Lords a first time to-morrow night.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that after what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said as to the General Election, he should feel inclined to support the Motion for Adjournment, as he was particular anxious that the General Election should take place on the old Register.
    Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, that as different views had been expressed respecting the Amendment, he would throw out a suggestion. He was well acquainted with the practice in the Revision Courts, and his experience enabled him to say that the ists were

    529
    always sub-divided. For instance, there was the freeman's list, the householder's list, and the lodger's list, and the Revising Barrister, when all the objections had been gone through in their alphabetical order, signed the list, and that act was considered to conclude the matter. What he would suggest was, that if a man was not in attendance when his name was called, but appeared before the signing of the list, the Revising Barrister might hear him. Of course, a difficulty would arise, especially in the case of large towns, if the lists were required to be kept open for a number of days, and if a provision were inserted in the Bill binding the Revising Barrister to keep open the list until the whole of his inquiry was completed, considerable inconvenience would be entailed. He thought that a rule, requiring the Revising Barrister to sign each list when he came to the end of it, but to hear any objected person who might attend before such signature was made, would meet the objection which had been raised. No doubt it would be a great hardship to strike out a name, simply because the man named had left the Court for a few minutes to get his lunch, or his dinner, or a glass of beer. It would be hard if such a person, on returning into Court, were to find that there had been a rush, and that his name had been struck out in his absence. The usual practice in Registration Courts was that an advocate represented each side—one represented the objectors, and another supported the voter. If the advocate who supported the voter were in a position to say that the claimant had been about the Court, and was only absent temporarily, and were to request the Revising Barrister to pass over the name, it would be certainly very hard for the Revising Barrister to refuse to hear his case on the simple ground that the name had been reached; and he himself had never adopted so strict a course. If the Revising Barrister took that course, he might easily disfranchise, hastily and without consideration, a considerable number of persons. He would not require the Revising Barrister to postpone the hearing of a particular case, until the man came back into Court; but a particular hour, say, the dinner hour, or the close of a particular list, might be fixed for hearing such cases,
    530
    without resorting to the extreme course of striking out the name, before the voter had had an opportunity of being heard. He threw this out as a suggestion which he hoped might be accepted. He was sorry to hear that cases of this kind did occur on the other side of the water.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen) was a great authority on these matters. He (Colonel Nolan) thought the hon. Member put the ease very favourably for the Irish Members, and he trusted that the Government would feel inclined to accept the suggestion he had made. Unfortunately, cases of this kind did occur in Ireland. It might be that there was no advocate inside at the moment; and in regard to his own county, he had been told more than once that an advocate in the Revision Courts was generally conspicuous by his absence.
    MR. P. J. POWERsaid, he was afraid that, in all probability, the difficulty would increase considerably with the increase of voters. Exception had been taken to the rules which were now laid down by the Revising Barristers. He must say that the Revising Barristers in Ireland, with very few exceptions, did their business in a most unsatisfactory way—at any rate, in a manner unsatisfactory to the majority of the people. He felt bound to mention, as an exception, the County Court Judge of the county of Waterford, who always discharged his duty in this, as in all other respects, to the satisfaction of the majority of the people. He hoped the Government would bear in mind that the coming Revisional Session was one of the most important they had had for generations, and upon it would, in all probability, hinge the nature of the coming General Election. He submitted that, from a variety of circumstances, the new voters would not be conversant with the rules of the Registration Court, and the formalities which should be gone through so as to enable them to get their names on the lists. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would seriously entertain the moderate proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was quite willing to accept, as a com-

    531
    promise, the suggestion which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen). He confessed that he was astonished at the manner in which the Government held out on a point of this kind—even upon matters of arrangement and compromise. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said, a few minutes ago, that some of the principal Amendments which had been introduced into the Bill had been made upon the suggestion of the Irish Members. In other words, having inserted in the Bill a variety of Amendments, at the instance of the Irish Members, they had virtually changed the Bill from the character it originally presented. Then why should the Government oppose a further suggestion which certainly had received the support of every English Member who understood the question? He trusted that the Government would not pursue this obstinate course any further, but would come to a compromise upon the matter.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he should like to see his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen) put the suggestion he made into words; because be (the Solicitor General) fancied that it would be a very difficult matter. Suppose that somebody appeared before the Revising Barrister and asked to have a name postponed. That was a very simple matter; but how was the other work to go on? If the Revising Barrister was to be idle, while people, who ought to be in attendance, were engaged upon other business, and if he was to sit in Court, and wait for them, it would be impossible to carry on the work of revision at all. The Revising Barrister, no doubt, would, and ought, to show every possible consideration, as a Judge would do, in trying a case where a witness was away accidentally. Before he could assent to adopt the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend, he would ask his hon. and learned Friend to put his proposal in black and white, so that he might be able to deal with it. It would be necessary to meet more than one consideration. For instance, it was not only the Revising Barrister who would have to waste his time, but there were many other people who would be put to inconvenienc. If the Revising Barrister
    532
    passed over one man's name, the next man's name would be brought on sooner, and he would probably be unprepared. If, in that way, 20 or 30 names were passed over, all the rest would be misled, and would be placed in a position of considerable difficulty. Therefore, it was not only the Revising Barrister who would be inconvenienced by having to postpone cases out of their regular order, but other claimants who were lower down on the list would be enormously inconvenienced also. There were, consequently, two sides to the case. He was sure that no one could desire more than he did that the convenience of everyone should be consulted if possible; but he did not see how the House could adopt the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pembroke, and how they were to make such a provision, unless they were prepared to postpone the revision altogether. He was, as he had said, unable to see how the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend was to be put into words.
    MR. SEXTONsaid he thought he would be able to make a suggestion which would meet the difficulty.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he would wait until he saw what the suggestion was; but he could not help thinking that the adoption of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Pembroke would create more inconvenience than it would prevent. It was quite certain that in attempting in this way to meet the convenience of certain persons, they would run the danger of inconveniencing a great many more.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would make a suggestion in reference to what the hon. and learned Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen) had proposed. The objection to his (Mr. Sexton's) proposal was that it would interfere with the business of the Court, and that the Revising Barrister would be stopped in his inquiry, if persons who were not in attendance when their names were called were allowed to appear at a subsequent period. He would suggest that such persons should be required to appear at a time fixed by the Revising Barrister, who would make provision that on a certain day, and at a certain hour, he would take the cases of persons whose names had been passed over. He trusted that the Government would

    533
    evince some desire to meet the objections which had been urged.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that if the proposal of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) were carried out, nobody would attend the Court on the day fixed for the general inquiry, but all of the claimants would postpone their cases until the day to be fixed by the Revising Barrister for the hearing of cases which had been passed over.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 99: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. Clause agreed to.
    Clause 21 (Interpretation).
    On the Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, the following Amendment made:—In page 8, line 38, after "being," insert,—
    "The expression 'The Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1850,' means the Act of the Session of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine; the expression 'Revising Barrister' includes a county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions."
    MR. SMALL,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 40, at end, insert—
    "The expression 'deputy' of a clerk of the peace in the said Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 18.50, shall mean the principal assistant of a clerk of the peace,"
    said, that by Section 13 of the County Court Officers Act of 1877, Clerks of the Peace were entitled to have assistance; but there was no such officer in Ireland as a Deputy Clerk of the Peace. All were Clerks of the Peace, and great confusion might arise unless an interpretation were inserted to explain that the expression "deputy" in the Act of 1850 should mean the principal assistant of the Clerk of the Peace. The Clerks of the Peace were authorized by another provision in the Bill to name the persons who were to represent them in these Courts, if there were more than one Court held at the same time; and, no doubt, they would nominate efficient assistants to represent them. That fact afforded a further reason why this interpretation should be placed on the word "deputy."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 40. at end, insert,—" The expression 'deputy' of a clerk of the peace in the
    534
    said Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1850, shall mean the principal assistant of a clerk of the peace."—(Mr. Small.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)opposed the Amendment, on the ground that every contingency was provided for, and that any alteration might create confusion.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

THE FIRST SCHEDULE.
  PART I.—COUNTIES.

    FORMS IN COUNTIES.
    MR. SEXTONmoved an Amendment, in page 9, line 32, at end of note, add—
    "The precept for the present year is to he sent immediately after the passing of this Act."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he did not object to the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. SEXTONmoved an Amendment, in page 10, line 13, at end, add—
    "To aid you in the performance of this duty, the registrars of births and deaths are required to send you, from time to time at your request, returns of the names and residences of all male persons of full age dying within your union, and you must examine these returns to see whether anyone who otherwise would appear in the list of voters is dead."
    The hon. Member explained that the provision was taken from the English Act.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that he had adopted nearly all the Amendments which had been taken from the English form. No doubt, this was taken from the English form, and was English law, but it was not Irish law. He was, therefore, unable to accept the Amendment.
    MR. SEXTONasked how these facts were to be found out, unless some such provision were made?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, they

    535
    would be found out, as they were at the present moment. Of course, the Clerk of the Union would know very well whether the man was dead or not. He objected to the Amendment, on the ground that, in these Schedules, it was impossible to make new law.
    MR. DAWSONasked why it should be impossible to make new law in the House of Commons? If they passed this provision, and directed it to be inserted in the precept, surely it would become law.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, it was most undesirable that the name of any dead man should appear on the list.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, it would be the duty of the Clerk of the Union to strike off the names of all persons who were dead.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the objection which had been urged was one of the most extraordinary he had ever heard. It was all very well to say that the Clerk of a Poor Law Union would probably know whether a particular man was dead, if he happened to be a large ratepayer, whose name had appeared regularly in the list of persons entitled to pay rates; but it would be perfectly impossible for him to know, under the new law, which of the voters might be dead, unless some such provision as that proposed by his hon. Friend were inserted in the Bill. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) that it was most undesirable for the names of persons who were dead to appear on the lists of voters.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the objection which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland was conclusive. They could not put anything in a precept, prescribed in a Schedule, which was not supported by a legislative enactment of some kind, and there was no legislative enactment to this effect entitling this to be done. He quite admitted the difficulty, and perhaps it might be dealt with in "another place." It would not be met by the present Amendment; but he would consider in what way the object could best be achieved.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that some interpretation should be
    536
    given to the existing law, so as to prevent the overseers from falling into arrear. He would suggest that it might be possible, when the Bill was re-committed, to re-commit it in respect of a clause dealing with this matter.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it would not be convenient to draw up a clause upon this subject to be inserted in the Bill on re-committal. The Bill was only to be re-committed in reference to a special money clause.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendments made:—In page 10, line 16, after "me," insert "on or before the eighth day of July;" and in page 11, line 12, after "me," insert on or before the eighth day of July."
    MR. SEXTON,in moving, in page 11, line 20, to insert, after the word "house," the words "rated in the last rate made for the relief of the poor at an annual value not exceeding four pounds," said, that as the Schedule at present stood it struck out from the list the occupier of a house, no matter how small the value might be, if the rates due on the 1st of January had not been paid before the 1st of July. In Ireland, if a man occupied a house of the value of £4 or under, rated for the relief of the poor, the landlord was liable to pay the rates. As the landlord was usually a person of substance, if the rates were not paid, they were easily recoverable. Therefore, there was no danger that they would not be paid, and it was unjust that a large class of small occupiers should be thrown out of the franchise on account of the delay of some other person over whom they had no control. They could not compel the landlord to pay the rates, and all he would have to do would be to delay payment until after the 1st of July in order to deprive them of the franchise. It might be said that the tenants themselves could pay the rates. So they could if they happened to be persons of substance; but it would be absurd, and even cruelty, to ask them at this time to pay a single 1d. in addition to that for which they were legally liable. The evil in this case was that the tenant would be disfranchised, not on account of any fault of his own, but on account of the fault of someone else.

    537
    He had received a letter from a gentleman who was well informed upon this subject in reference to the question of how far the tenant would be able to pay the rates and afterwards deduct them from the rent. This gentleman asked how it could be supposed that the tenants around the Donegal Coast, and in some of the inland places, could pay the rates? It would be altogether impossible for the majority to find the money. They were poor people who could hardly afford to buy a stone's weight of Indian meal, and if the Government could not see their way to the amendment of this provision, the offer of the franchise to these persons was a pure legislative farce. He maintained that if the provision was to include the occupiers of houses of £4 annual rent and under, the result would be to disfranchise nearly the whole of these poor men. He submitted that justice and common sense required that such a result should be prevented.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 11, line 20, by inserting, after the the word "house," the words "rated in the last rate made for the relief of the poor at an annual value not exceeding four pounds."—(Mr, Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. The law provided that the rates should be paid on a certain date, either by the owner or the occupier, and that being so, they could not alter it in the Schedule.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the Government might take the same course as that which they proposed to take in regard to another question which had been raised earlier—namely, insert the Amendment in "another place." If the only objection was that they could not make new law in a precept, the difficulty would be obviated by introducing a clause in the House of Lords which would cover the point.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the difficulty he felt in the matter was that this Amendment would have the effect of altering the franchise, and placing it on a different basis in Ireland from that on which it would stand in England and
    538
    Scotland. It would not be possible, therefore, to accept the Amendment.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would point out that in the town of Belfast it was an invariable rule in regard to all houses under a certain rent for the landlord to pay the rates, charging them to the tenant in the form of an addition to the rent, the tenant paying a lump sum which included taxes. It was perfectly certain that if this Amendment were not made, an agent or an owner would be able to disfranchise one class of tenants, and allow another class to obtain the franchise, or he might be enabled to bring about a wholesale disfranchisement of the people. The principal reason why this custom prevailed in Belfast was this—when local rates to the extent of £20 were paid, the Warrant Commissioner gave a reduction of 25 per cent to the landlord, provided the rates were paid in advance. Therefore, in these cases, the local rates were paid in advance; but the amount paid in each instance by the landlord was added to the rent, which included not only the local rates, but also the poor rates. The usual custom adopted in Belfast was to collect the rates in the month of April for the whole year. That would give a very short time within which the rates must be paid, or the tenant would find himself disfranchised. He would strongly urge upon the Government the propriety of accepting the Amendment.
    MR. LALORsaid, he would also point out to the Government that by this Bill they would cause a delay in the payment of rates, for they would give to the landlords who were accustomed to pay the poor rates, an incentive not to pay the rates. Under the present system, there were no better paid rates in Ireland than the rates paid by landlords for the small holdings; but in the future, it would be to their own interest for the landlords to defer the payment of these rates.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) must know that in England there was a great inducement to landlords to pay the rates in time. The large bonus of 25 per cent was given to landlords provided they paid the rates in time to secure their tenants the franchise, so jealous was the law of England that no sub-

    539
    tenant should lose his vote for the nonpayment of rates. It had been shown that no such inducement prevailed in Ireland; indeed, there was every inducement to delay the payment of rates. Under such circumstances, he thought it was only right that the Amendment should be accepted.
    MR. SMALLsaid, that in the case of a man who was required to pay the rates of his house, the knowledge that he would be disfranchised if he did not pay his rates would induce him to pay them. Surely it was unreasonable that men should be disfranchised because the man on whose land they lived neglected to pay the rates in the time he was required to pay them. Besides, the tenants had no means of ascertaining whether the rates were paid or not. If right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench would only look into this matter seriously, they must see how utterly absurd and illogical the present state of the law was. There was no chance of getting an Amendment like this adopted in "another place," because the landlords of Ireland belonged to one political Party. It might be argued that any landlord who neglected to pay the rates ran a great risk of legal proceedings. There was no force whatever in such an argument. Legal proceedings to enforce payment of rates were seldom taken until a very long time after the rates were due; the Guardians never thought of proceeding legally to recover the rates until long after the time had passed for the registration of voters. He thought it was very probable it would be be found that in many parts of Ireland a number of sub-tenants or labourers were temporarily disfranchised because their landlord did not pay the rates in the specified time. A landlord might pay the rates of the house in which he lived, and thus secure the enfranchisement of himself; but by neglecting the payment of other rates for which he was responsible bring about the disfranchisement of a large number of men living in his houses. It was very true, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that the tenants paid increased rent where the landlord paid the rates, and, as a rule, paid the rent in advance of the time for the payment of rates. Whether, therefore, the landlord paid the rates to the Guardians or not, he himself had long
    540
    ago received the rates in the shape of increased rents.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. DAWSONproposed an Amendment, in page 11, line 21, after "due," to leave out "on," and insert "up to." He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would accept this Amendment, for it was obviously an error to have different phraseology relating to the same subject. In one page, there was "prior to the 1st of January;" in another page, "rents due previous to the 1st of January;" and in the line in which he wished to make the Amendment, there was "rates due on the 1st of January."
    Amendment agreed to; words substituted.
    Amendment proposed,
    "In page 11, line 25, after "rated," add nor by reason of its being held by a weekly, monthly, or quarterly tenure."—(Mr. Campbell-Mannennan.)
    MR. WARTONsuggested, that, for greater clearness, it would be well to substitute "or which is" for "nor by reason of its being."
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Warton) for taking the trouble to furnish these words. As they would make the matter clearer, he would accept them.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 12, line 16, by leaving out from the word "You," to the word "statute," in line 18, and inserting the words,—"You are required to allow any person on the list of voters to inspect at any time between the hours of ten of the clock in the forenoon and four of the clock in the afternoon of any day, except Sunday, without payment or demand of any fee, and to make a copy of or to take an extract from:—

    (a.) The rate books in your charge;

    (b.) The Returns of deaths sent to you by the registrars of births and deaths,—(Mr. Sexton,)

    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL For IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)opposed the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 12, after line 18, to insert,—"You are required to allow a copy of every register dealt with by you, and of every supplemental list made out by you, in conformity with this precept, to be open to public inspection, and to be perused by every person desirous of perusing it, at any hour between the hours of ten of the clock in the forenoon and four of the clock in the afternoon of any day, except Sunday, during a period of not less than fourteen days from the date of the completion of your function with respect to each such register or list, without payment or demand of any fee."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he was perfectly willing to accept the Amendment if there were added to it—"Provided such document be in your power, procurement or control."
    Question, "That the proposed words be added to the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Original Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add, at the end of the foregoing Amendment:—"You are required to deliver to every person applying for the same, at any time between the hours of ten of the clock in the forenoon and four of the clock in the afternoon of any day, except Sunday, during a period of not less than fourteen days after the completion by you, as directed by this precept, of any register, list, or other document, or written or printed copy of such register, list, or other document or portion of the same, on payment of a price for such copy after the following rate.
    "For any copy of a register, list, or other document containing any number of persons names:—

    s.

    d.

    Not exceeding 100 names

    0

    3

    Exceeding 100 and not exceeding 200

    0

    6

    Exceeding 200 and not exceeding 300

    0

    9

    Exceeding 300 and not exceeding 400

    1

    0

    Exceeding 400 and not exceeding 500

    1

    3

    Exceeding 500

    1

    6"

    —(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would not object to the clause, if certain Amendments in it were made. For instance, the words "or written" should be struck out, otherwise there would be a written copy of the Register required, and that would be very inconvenient.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to omit the words "or written."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    Question, "That the words 'or written' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)proposed that there should be added after "copy," in the last line of the first paragraph, the words "supplied by him."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)proposed to omit the words "after the following rate," and insert "after the scale mentioned in the Schedule of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)proposed to omit the rest of the Amendment from "for any."
    Question, "That the words 'for any' to the end of the Amendment be omitted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, after line 5, by inserting the words "[Note.—This notice is to be published on or before the 10th day of July]."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that under the present law the official had until the 20th to make up his list. He did not think it would be well to alter the law in this respect.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment made.
    Amendment proposed, in page 18, by leaving out "Form 8," and inserting "Third Schedule, on page 36,"—(Mr. Sexton,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That 'Form 8' stand part of the Bill."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he

    543
    thought that the form was a very proper one, especially if amended as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland intended to propose.
    MR. SEXTONconsidered it was a most absurd form, as it gave no particulars whatever.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 2, after "parties," to insert "named in any list of claimants."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman)
    Question, "That those wards be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 21, line 15, by leaving out the words "fifth day of June," and inserting the words "twentieth day of May,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the words 'fifth day of June' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Amendments made.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)proposed, in page 32, line 6, to insert the following Eorms:—
    "Part III.—Forms applicable to both Counties and Boroughs.
    "Form No. 29.
    "Table of Bates of Payment to be demanded and paid for any list or copy of a list (other than a register), where a payment is required and authorised by the Registration Acts.
    "For any list or copy of a list containing any number of persons' names:—

    s.

    d.

    Not exceeding 100 names

    0

    6

    Exceeding 100 and not exceeding 200

    1

    0

    Exceeding 200 and not exceeding 300

    1

    6

    Exceeding 300 and not exceeding 400

    2

    0

    Exceeding 400

    2

    6

    "Form No. 30.
    "Table of Rates of Payment to be demanded and paid for any Copy of a Register, or part of any Register, where a payment is required and authorised by the Registration Acts.
    "For every copy of any register, or any part of any register, containing any number of persons' names:—

    s.

    d.

    Not exceeding 1,000 names

    1

    0

    Exceeding 1,000 and not exceeding 3,000

    2

    6

    Exceeding 3,000 and not exceeding 6,000

    5

    0

    Exceeding 6,000 and not exceeding 9,000

    7

    6

    Exceeding 9,000

    10

    0"

    By this Amendment he proposed to add a Schedule containing a list of prices.
    The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) purposed by an Amendment, which appeared on the Paper later on, to reduce the prices by exactly one-half. As a matter of fact, the prices were fixed by a Schedule to the Act of 1850, and therefore they could not be altered. In any case, he should object to the alteration suggested by the hon. Member.
    Question proposed, "That the proposed 'Forms' be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he considered that the prices named in the lists were very excessive, and if it be a fact, as he believed it was, that they could put what prices they pleased in the Schedule, they should receive some assurance that these prices would be reconsidered before the Bill passed through "another place." He could not understand on what principle the prices were arranged. The demand for the lists was sure to be very largely increased, owing to the fact that now a much larger number of persons would take an interest in the franchise. There were two lists, and they certainly were very extraordinary. In the one 2s. 6d. was charged for upwards of 400 names, and in the other only 1s. was charged for 1,000 names. What was the explanation for such a variation in the charges?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)pointed out that one was a register and the other a list.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, they both contained names; and he did not see why, in the one case, a larger charge should be made than in the other. It was perfectly obvious that the prices could be cheapened, and he invited the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the list of prices which he (Mr. Sexton), after close inquiries, had put upon the Paper.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 34, line 14, by leaving out all the words after the word "note" between the brackets, and inserting the words "this notice must be served upon every occupier who would, if the rate were paid on or before the first of July, be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of the occupation thereof. Service of the notice is to be personal, if practicable, and if not, the notice may be left at the last or usual place of abode of the occupier, or with some

    545
    person on the premises in respect of which the rate is payable, or, if no person can be found, it may be affixed upon some conspicuous part of the premises,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that this matter was regulated by the Act of 1867.
    MR. SEXTONcontended that the "note" was absolutely essential, particularly as the failure of the landlord to pay rates would disfranchise the tenant. He wished that the tenant should be able, by some means or other, to know whether the landlord had paid the rates or not. Surely, there could be no objection to the words—
    "This notice must he served upon every occupier who would, if the rate were paid on or before the first of July, be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of the occupation thereof."
    He could not assent to fall back upon any old Act. He hoped there would be no opposition to the Amendment.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the matter would be looked into in "another place."
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, these promises were vague, and amounted to nothing at all. The Irish Members asked that the law might be carried out in accordance with the intention of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman said it should be done "elsewhere." It was to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would correct the phrase, and see that the necessary Amendment was inserted in the House of Lords.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, there was a demand note served on occupiers in Ireland; but it was considered waste paper, and not as a substitute for notice of non-payment of rates. He wished to know if there was a similar note appended to the form in the English Act?
    MR. SMALLsaid, that of all the cool things he had ever heard of, this statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the matter would be put right in the House of Lords was about the coolest. The House of Lords was not a place where Amendments beneficial to the people of Ireland were likely to be inserted. In
    546
    every part of this note there was a trap for the people of Ireland, and it was ridiculous to leave anything to the mercy of the House of Lords, who had never done anything yet for Ireland.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): We should be prepared to leave out the note altogether, and be governed by the ordinary law.
    MR. SMALL: No; we should not agree to that.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): We cannot alter the law in the Schedule.
    MR. SMALLsaid, it was a trap. The disqualification they anticipated was in the case of men whose rates were to be paid, not by themselves, but by others on whose land they lived. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland knew that demand notes for rates were not served on sub-tenants at all, yet it was said that if the landlord had got a demand note, all the tenants would not be able to vote unless their rates were paid. The rates were struck in September or October, and the disqualifying time was July. Let the Guardians strike the rate in September or October, and let them serve all occupiers with a demand note in November or December, and servo no notice whatever further on anyone, and the result would be satisfactory. Let them consider how the proposed plan would work on a large property. The rate collector came round, and was only bound to serve a notice on one person on the premises. He would go to a landlord, who would have, perhaps, a number of houses rated together, or the landlord's agent. That person would be served with the notice; but none of the newly enfranchised persons would receive one. The agent might have announced his intention of not paying the rate at all. Lord Bantry was a man who would be likely to take that course—hon. Members could imagine for what reason. He had a largo amount of money, and he would be likely to take upon himself the responsibility of refusing payment, because, before he could be proceeded against, his sub-tenants would be disqualified from voting. He (Mr. Small) trusted his hon. Friends would press this Amendment to the utmost, and would take care that the matter was not left to the mercy of the House of Lords.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the precept required something to be done—that a notice should be served, unless the rate had been properly paid or duly demanded by a demand note, and that a notice should be given or delivered to the occupier. All that was now done was to see that the law was properly complied with. The law might be good or not. They could not now do anything to alter it, or do anything beyond what the law required a man to do. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small) would allow him to call attention to this—the hon. Member threw all the blame on hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial Bench; but if he desired an amendment in the law, he might have moved it where, though it might not have been applicable, it would have been, at any rate, more applicable than it was now. He should not have held over the matter until they came to a form which was to carry out the law, and not to alter it.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Where would it have been more applicable?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): In the Representation of the People Act, we cannot tell the local officials to do more than the law requires. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Small) was insisting on the Government doing something which they could not do.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, there was in the Schedule, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), an Amendment containing an extremely long instruction, embracing a lot of matters which were not in any law that was ever passed. No doubt they were reasonable. In the English Bill there was an instruction to the effect that on or before the 20th of June they were to give to every occupier a notice by delivering it on him, or leaving it with some person on the property in respect of which the rate was payable. They need not have received the rate if it had been demanded of such occupier. In the English Bill, therefore, a notice would be served on every occupier who would be entitled to be placed on the Register. If the demand of the Irish Members was not yielded to in this matter, they would have to resort to the Forms of the House—that was to say, to move the adjourn-
    548
    ment of the debate and of the House alternately. They were met by empty and delusive arguments which were not named; and unless the same notice were allowed in the case of Ireland as was given in the case of England the progress of the Schedule would be resisted.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, there would be no objection to putting the English form in the Bill.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the 28th section of the Act of 1867 said distinctly and clearly that this notice had only to be given when there had not been a demand note. As had been pointed out, it was not now proposed to alter the law, but to make a form to carry it out. The House should have more time to consider the enormous number of questions that these Bills involved; at any rate, an effort must be made to render the measure satisfactory. In 1867 the word "house" was not so comprehensive as it had since become, and the "occupier" spoken of in the clause of the Act of that year was no doubt supposed to be the only person inhabiting the house. Now, however, they had men inhabiting bits of houses; and the question was whether the law should not be altered so as to render it necessary to serve a demand note on every person occupying rooms in a house, or who might otherwise be disqualified from voting. Some years ago a house meant a house in the ordinary sense of the word; but now it only meant a little bit of a house.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We are willing to put in the Schedule the exact English form; but we cannot do it now as the dates will have to be altered. I will undertake that the necessary Amendment shall be carried out in "another place."
    MR. SEXTON: The exact provisions in the Act of 1878?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes; altering the dates.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of assimilating the English and Irish law, and of giving the Irish landlords a reduction of 25 per cent if they pay the rates within a reasonable time? That would very much facilitate matters.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he desired to add the following note, after the Form of Return, in page 84, line 36:—
    "A copy of this Form shall be served in respect of every separate rating, and the clerk to the Board of Guardians and the respective collector or collectors of poor rates are required to fill in Column No. 1, according to the rate hook, before the Form is served.
    "When a Form has been mislaid or spoiled, or erroneously filled up, another Form shall he supplied by the clerk to the Board of Guardians, or the rate collector, on application by or on behalf of the person required to fill up the Form.
    "The Form, when returned through the post, is to be received, and duly dealt with by the clerk and all other officials, even though the postage be not prepaid."
    The first and second paragraphs would be found a matter of considerable convenience, whilst the third paragraph would prevent the disqualification of persons who omitted, through ignorance, to use a stamp.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he thought it would be reasonable to send a stamped envelope.
    MR. SEXTONasked that a provision to that effect should be inserted in the Bill. All he desired was to prevent the voter from losing his vote, and that would be guarded against if there were a direction to the clerk to send a stamped envelope.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the question had been raised before, and the Postmaster General had been kind enough to promise that he would consider it. He thought it would be a monstrous thing that the voter should lose his vote on account of any misadventure with regard to the return of the form to the Clerk of the Board of Guardians. Did he understand the Chief Secretary for Ireland to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton).
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was prepared to accept the first two paragraphs of the Amendment; but the third raised a question as to unpaid postage, and it would be necessary to consult the Postmaster General. He was sorry that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was not present; but at that moment he was not aware of the view of his right hon. Friend upon the subject.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsuggested that the Amendment should be accepted in the form in which it had been proposed by his hon. Friend; and, if necessary, a change might be effected in "another place."
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANdeclared his willingness to accept that suggestion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 34, line 38, at the end, to insert—
    "Note.—The description of the property in the first column should be a copy from the rate hook, and should be filled in by the clerk of the union, and if it is a house numbered in a street should specify the street and number.
    "The following instructions should be annexed to the form, with such alterations, if any, as the clerk thinks necessary for adapting them to the circumstances of the union or of the property to which the notice refers.
    Instructions for filling up the Form.
    "The dwelling house in the second column may be either—

    (a.) A separate house—for example, a cottage, or a schoolmaster's house;

    (b.) A part of a dwelling house separately occupied as a dwelling—for example, a room or rooms over a stable, caretaker's rooms in an office;

    (c.) A room or rooms in a house let out in separate tenements.

    "If it is a cottage, insert in second column, 'cottage in road,' or otherwise specify its locality.
    "If it is a part of a dwelling house, insert in the second column 'rooms over stable,' 'basement of office,' 'rooms over shop,' or otherwise specify the locality of the room or rooms.
    "If it is a house let out in separate tenements, insert in the second column the position of the room or rooms occupied; for example, 'First floor, front room.'
    "In the third column insert, opposite to the description of the dwelling house in the second column, the name of the man who now inhabits it, and has inhabited it since the twentieth day of July last.
    "If it has not been so inhabited state so, or omit the dwelling house from the second column.
    "In filling up the return it must be recollected that, under the Representation of the People Acts—

    (a.) A man may occupy part of a house separately, although he is entitled to the joint use of some other part of the dwelling house; for example, a man occupying the first floor front rooms, and having joint use of a wash-house, may occupy a part of a house separately;

    (b.) In the case of what is commonly called the service franchise, namely, a person who occupies by reason of any office, service, or employment, if his superior officer or employer inhabits the same

    551
    house, he is not considered a separate inhabitant occupier; for example, a butler occupying rooms in his master's house is not such an occupier;

    (c.) If the landlord of a house let out in separate tenements lives in the house, he need not return the names of the occupiers of tenements in that house;

    (d.) The head of the family alone is considered to be the occupier."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)

    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONpointed out that the first paragraph (a), which directed that "a separate house" might be "a schoolmaster's house," might be misleading. He moved that the word "labourers" should be substituted for "schoolmasters."
    Question, "That the word 'schoolmasters' stand part of the Note," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'labourers' stand part of the Note," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That the Note, as amended, stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.
    ENACTMENTS relative to new Polling Districts and Polling Places and the Lists of Voters therein.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 35, line 17, at end, to insert the following sub-section:—"(2.) So much of section eighteen, sub-section two, as relates to the publication in two newspapers, and in the "Dublin Gazette," of the notice herein mentioned, shall be and is hereby repealed."—(Campbell-Bannerman.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONasked for an explanation of the Amendment.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the Amendment dealt with a point in the Ballot Act which required the publication in certain newspapers of notices relating to polling places. Ample provision would be made in other ways for due notice being given to all persons concerned.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    THIRD SCHEDULE.
    On the Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, the following Amendments made:—In page 36, line 2, after "parties," insert "not being persons named in any list of claimants;" and in line 10, leave out from "on," to "dated," in line 21, and insert—
    "Here the objector shall specifically state the ground or grounds of his objection. He shall be deemed to have satisfied this provision by naming the column or columns of the register on which he grounds his objection, as thus:—
    "And I ground my objection on the column of the register headed—
    [Here specify column by reference to its heading]."
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had now to move that the Bill be re-committed with respect to the two money clauses.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Bill be re-committed with respect to new Clauses regarding temporary provision for remuneration of local officials, and contribution to cost of registration in borough of Dublin by townships of Pembroke and Black-rock."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
    MR. SMALL,in moving to add at the end of the Motion the words "and contribution to cost of registration in borough of Newry by counties of Down and Armagh," said, he inferred from the proposal just made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he intended to exclude the case of Newry; and his (Mr. Small's) object in moving this addition to the question was to extend the terms of the re-committal of the Bill so that the Committee should have the opportunity of considering the propriety of requiring a contribution from the counties of Down and Armagh towards the costs of registration in the borough of Newry. If the right hon. Gentleman would indicate that he would accept this proposal he (Mr. Small) would be satisfied, and would defer the discussion of the question until the Bill was in Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman made no motion of assent, he had no alternative but to enter upon the discussion at once. Formerly the Grand Juries were the persons who paid the Town Clerks for the revision of the lists of voters; but by a local Act of Parliament the cost in this case was transferred from the counties, and was made a special charge upon the borough of Newry. The Newry Im-

    553
    provement Act was passed in 1871, and one of the provisions of that Act, by an omission, transferred the cost of the revision from the counties of Down and Armagh to the town of Newry. At the time the change was made, it was not taken into consideration that the Parliamentary borough of Newry extended beyond the town of Newry into the two counties mentioned; and the consequence was that the people of Newry were now required to pay out of the local rates for the expense of registering voters who did not reside within the municipality, or contribute one farthing towards the municipal rates. That was considered to be a very great hardship, and it did not exist in any other Irish borough which would survive the passing of the Redistribution Bill. Most of the Irish boroughs had become parts of county divisions. In the cases of Belfast and Londonderry, the Parliamentary and municipal limits were conterminous. The case of Newry stood by itself, because the Parliamentary limits extended far beyond the municipal boundary; and it was unreasonable and unfair that the municipality should be compelled to pay the costs of registration of those who resided outside the municipal limits, seeing that the people of Newry had also to contribute their quota towards the expense of revising the lists for the counties of Down and Armagh. When he had brought forward the question in Committee, the Chief Secretary for Ireland was ready with a great many arguments in opposition to it; but they only proved how very little the right hon. Gentleman knew about local registration in Ireland. Until the Act of 1871 was passed, the entire expenses of the revision of the borough lists for Newry was paid out of the general county funds; and all that he (Mr. Small) asked now was that the counties of Down and Armagh should resume their original liability for the registration of such voters as resided outside the municipal limits of Newry. The Chief Secretary for Ireland offered, as one argument against the proposal, that if the area of the Parliamentary and municipal limits was not in identity, as he called it, it might be changed; but throughout the whole of Ireland the rule was not to charge any special portion of a county, but the entire county at large, and it was for that reason that he proposed to
    554
    spread the charge over the counties of Down and Armagh. The right hon. Gentleman further complained that no specification had been made of the particular local rates upon which the charge was to be imposed; but he might inform the right hon. Gentleman that all the rates chargeable by the Grand Juries were payable in one way, and that was out of money in the County Treasurer's hands. There was one general fund in the hands of the County Treasurer, and out of that fund all the charges which fell upon the county were defrayed. Therefore, the omission to state from what particular source this charge was to be paid was of no consequence whatever, because it would necessarily have to be paid out of the funds in the Treasurer's hands. The right hon. Gentleman further objected that no notice had been given to the persons chiefly interested of the intention to propose this change. All these matters were reported at length in the Irish newspapers; and, therefore, there had been ample notice given. It was a great hardship indeed that the people of the town of Newry should have to pay the entire cost of revising the lists of voters for a Parliamentary borough which extended far beyond the limits of the municipality into two Irish counties. If his Amendment, extending the terms of the re-committal of the Bill, were agreed to, he proposed to move the following clauses in Committee:—
    "The treasurer of the county of Down shall repay to the town commissioners of Newry such sum each year as shall bear, to the entire expenses of the revision of the voters' lists for the borough of Newry, the same proportion as the number of electors of the said borough qualifying out of premises in the County Down portion of the said borough outside the municipal boundary bear to the entire number of electors of the borough, and the treasurer of the county of Armagh shall in like manner repay to the said town commissioners such sum each year as shall bear to the said entire expenses of revision the same proportion as the number of electors of the said borough qualifying out of premises in the County Armagh portion of the said borough outside the municipal boundary bear to the entire number of electors of the said borough.
    "The town commissioners of Newry shall not be liable to contribute any sum towards the expenses of the revision of the voters' lists for the counties of Down and Armagh."
    He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for

    555
    Ireland should object to this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have been fully impressed with the justice of the claim made on behalf of Dublin, in the case of the parishes of Pembroke and Blackrock; and be could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman was not similarly impressed with the justice and equity of the claim of Newry. The two cases were exactly similar. The only difference was that in the case of Dublin the outside area, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, was under a separate and distinct municipality; whereas in the case of the Parliamentary borough of Newry that was not so; but the outside area formed part of the large rural district of two counties. That fact, however, did not, in any respect, alter the injustice of the case. In the one case, by transferring a portion of the charge, it was handed over from one municipal body to another; and in the other, the change suggested would simply transfer the charge from a borough to the rural area of a county. At present, the entire charge of registering the voters in the counties of Down and Armagh was paid by the town of Newry; and no one would contend for a moment that the counties of Down and Armagh were not just as well able to pay their own share of the expenses. He begged, therefore, in order to bring the matter fully before the House, to move the addition to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Question, to add the words "and contribution to cost of registration in borough of Newry by counties of Down and Armagh."—(Mr. Small.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER),in opposing the Amendment, said, there was really no ground for extending the reference to the Committee for the purpose stated by the hon. Member. Section 18 of the Newry Improvement Act of 1871 expressly provided that the borough of Newry should pay the whole of these charges, and that the counties of Down and Armagh should pay no portion of them. That was a clear and distinct Parliamentary bargain, and it would be
    556
    unfair to alter it in the present Bill. As a matter of fact, the town of Newry simply paid a fair price for the privileges they had obtained. He could not, therefore, consent to extend the Motion for the purpose of inserting the clauses which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. Member.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORgathered that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) did not dispute the justice of the claim of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small). He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he would not argue against the justice of the claim now put forward, but that he opposed it on the ground that it was barred by the clause in the Act of 1871. Now, that clause, as the hon. Member (Mr. Small) pointed out, was not passed in accordance with the wishes of the people of Newry. The Town Clerk of Newry was distinctly of opinion that that clause was put into the Act, not with the consent, but without the knowledge, of the people of Newry. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) maintained, therefore, that the present Amendment was not barred by the clause in question. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had the section of the Act before him. If the right hon. Gentleman read the section over a hundred times he would never be able to cause the Irish Members to change their opinion in the matter. They must have this subject discussed on its merits, and its merits were exactly similar to those of the case of Pembroke and Blackrock. If Pembroke and Blackrock, being outside the municipal boundaries and inside the Parliamentary boundaries of Dublin, were compelled to pay their share towards registration, why should the places outside the municipal boundaries and inside the Parliamentary boundaries of the borough of Newry be exempted from the payment of their share of the cost of registration? Was there any process of reasoning by which it could be shown that one-seventh of the electorate should be put on the Register without contributing one farthing towards the expenses? His hon. Friend (Mr. Small) was quite justified in bringing forward this Amendment; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) awaited, with

    557
    some curiosity, the argument which could be advanced against it.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that, as the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had appealed to him, he would point out what appeared to him to be the difference between the case of Newry and Pembroke and Black-rock. He quite agreed it was an anomaly that certain persons outside the municipal boundaries of Newry should have their registration expenses paid by those who lived within the municipal boundaries. But it would be a still greater anomaly if the registration expenses of the electors of Newry were to be paid by people who were outside and had no connection with the borough. Precisely an analogous case would arise if they were to put the expenses of registration of Pembroke and Blackrock upon the county of Dublin. The hon. Member must see that if they did that they would create a greater anomaly than that they destroyed. At present, the voters of Newry had to pay the expenses of the registration of their fellow-voters who lived outside the municipal boundaries; but this Amendment would put the expenses upon persons in the county who had nothing whatever to do with the matter. In the case of Pembroke and Blackrock, it was not proposed to throw the registration expenses upon the county, but upon the borough of Dublin. By the consent of all parties, a perfectly just settlement in the matter could be made. He was afraid he could not support the present proposal, which was one which might with equal justice be made in very many cases. The clause in the Act of 1871 which related to Newry was framed after due consideration, and the House could not depart from it.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had advanced no reason to support his non possumus. One Act of Parliament was not more powerful than another, and in a case such as that made by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small) the Irish Members ought not to be met in the way suggested. The argument in favour of the Amendment was simply this—that the counties of Down and Armagh wore in receipt of the rates chargeable and payable in respect of
    558
    the voters who were outside the borough of Newry. Why the charge for registration should not follow the receipt of money was more than he could understand. Now, Acts of Parliament were not like the Acts of the Medes and Persians; one Act of Parliament could be altered by another; and he failed to see why the Act of 1871 could not be altered to the extent now suggested by the Act of 1885. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. Nothing could be clearer than the equity of the claim put forward by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small), who understood the case from beginning to end better, perhaps, than any other Member of the House.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) spoke of the difference between the townships of Pembroke and Blackrock, and the places which were situated outside the municipal boundaries, but inside the Parliamentary boundaries of Newry. The cases were very much more similar than the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the borough of Newry paid what was called county cess to Armagh and Down for the main roads, bridges, and all affairs connected with the counties at largs. In addition to that, it was within the power of the Grand Juries of those counties, if they felt so disposed, to lay a specific tax on the part of the borough, which laid within the two counties, to cover the sum which they had to pay to the borough of Newry towards registration. Now, it was impossible for the municipal borough of Newry to charge the rate upon the outlying districts; but it was perfectly competent for the Grand Jury to do so, so that if the Amendment were adopted perfect justice would be clone—that was to say, the Parliamentary electors who lived outside the municipal boundaries would pay, not directly to the municipality of Newry, but directly to the Grand Jury, the amount of rate which it was apportioned they should pay towards the expenses of registration. Under the circumstances, he held that the Government ought to agree to this Amendment, seeing that the cases of Pembroke and Blackrock, in which they had agreed to make the necessary alteration, and Newry were,

    559
    in point of fact, for all practical purposes, perfectly identical.
    MR. DEASYsaid, he trusted that after the argument addressed to them by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) the Government would see their way to accede to the demand of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small). It did not follow that if the Bill were re-committed for the purpose of taking this subject into consideration the clause would be inserted. All the Irish Members desired was that they should have an opportunity of discussing this question, which was certainly a very important one for the people of Newry. He did not see any justice at all in compelling the electors within the municipal boundaries of Newry to bear the cost of the registration of those outside the municipal boundaries, but within the Parliamentary boundaries. It seemed an extraordinary thing that people should be allowed to vote for Members of Parliament, and yet not be called upon to pay a share towards the expenses of registration. The argument of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was conclusive upon the point, for he distinctly stated that the Grand Juries of the counties of Down and Armagh had it in their power to put a special rate upon the electors who lived outside the municipality of Newry, but within the Parliamentary limits of the borough, towards the cost of registration. Under such circumstances, he (Mr. Deasy) felt that no valid objection could be raised by the Government against the Amendment. He could not understand why they should accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) with respect to Pembroke and Blackrock, if they were not prepared to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small). The fact that an Act of Parliament passed in 1871 bound the people of Newry to pay the expenses of registration was no argument against the proposal now made. Although the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) and the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had stated that the people of Newry were parties to the agreement, there was the evidence of the Town Clerk of Newry, who was then Town Clerk of the borough, that the particular clause in question was inserted in the Act without the know-
    560
    ledge of the people. They were no parties whatever to the agreement, and he (Mr. Deasy) saw no reason why a clause should not be inserted in this Act which would do common justice to the people of the borough. He might point out that the people of the counties of Down and Armagh had received notice that this Motion would be made, and that neither the Grand Jury nor any person in those counties had raised the slightest objection. No letter had appeared in the newspapers concerning the matter; and, indeed, there was no evidence at all that anyone in the counties interested objected to the Motion of the hon. Member for Wexford. He trusted that, even at the last moment, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would see his way to extend the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill so as to embrace the views which were entertained by the hon. Member for Wexford.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he supported the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Small) apart from the merits of the proposition which that hon. Gentleman might have to make in Committee. He did not think this was the moment for discussing the merits of the proposal by which his hon. Friend proposed to divide the cost of registration between the municipality of Newry and the Grand Juries of Armagh and Down. But what he thought was very objectionable was, that the Government should propose to re-commit the Bill in respect to a settlement between the Corporation of Dublin and the townships of Pembroke and Blackrock, and refuse to re-commit the Bill in order to bring about a settlement with respect to the Corporation of Newry and the counties of Armagh and Down. It was extraordinary that the Government should allow the people in one part of the country to settle their differences, and refuse to allow the people of another part of the country to come to a settlement. The cases were analogous, and, therefore, why were they treated differently? There might be, in the opinion of the Government, a better case in Dublin; but, in his opinion, the nature of the cases was precisely similar. His hon. Friend (Mr. Small) had striven, on various occasions, to have this clause considered. He was put off, or coaxed off, until the state of Report. He was told that if he deferred the matter until

    561
    Report it should receive attention. Now, when the Bill was to pass out of the House he made a last attempt. The tactics which had been resorted to by the Government were clever, but they were not right.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, if his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Small) was correct in saying it was within the power of the Grand Juries to levy a rate upon these outlying districts to cover the expenses of registration?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): There is no such power.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had said that very clever tactics had been pursued by the Government. Whatever was done was in accordance with the Rules. Were they to alter the Rules of the House to meet every case that arose? The reason why this clause was put off until Report was, that the authorities of the House said it could not be considered, because it was a money clause. The Government had a money clause with reference to Pembroke and Blackrock; but they found it was necessary to re-commit the Bill in order that it might be considered. It was open to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small) to move that the Bill be re-committed for the purpose he desired.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, they had not yet received a definite answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) as to why the districts outside the municipal, but inside the Parliamentary, boundaries of Newry could not be separately taxed for the purposes of registration. He would like to know what legal objection there was to the Grand Juries levying a rate upon the districts in question for this specific purpose? He had had some experience of the work of Grand Juries, and he failed to see why arrangements could not be made to order these distinct townlands to pay their proper share of the registration expenses of the borough of Newry.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had moved to re-commit the Bill in respect of his own clause. He did not consider it proper to move to re-commit the Bill to meet the case of Newry. All the
    562
    Irish Members asked the right hon. Gentleman to do was to support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford (Mr. Small), because he knew quite well that it could not be carried unless he did support it.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not support the Motion, because he could not support the clause.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 58: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 194.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill re-committed; considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANmoved the insertion of the following clause:—
    "There shall he paid to every clerk of the peace who is not in receipt of a salary out of a Vote of Parliament, and to every town clerk, and to the clerk of a union, and to the several collectors of poor rates of a union, and to the Collector General of Rates in Dublin, such sum, by way of remuneration for additional duties, if any, required to he discharged by them in carrying out the registration of voters in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty five, as the Local Government Board, having regard to the circumstances of each case, may award.
    "Such sum shall be paid out of moneys to he provided by Parliament."
    New Clause (Temporary provision for the remuneration of local officials,)—(Mr Campbell-Bannerman,—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    Amendment proposed, to amend the Clause, by inserting, after the words "having regard to," the words "the number of voters placed on the register in each county or borough, and to."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, to insert "other" before the word "circumstances."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question, "That that word be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    DR. LYONSsaid, that in connection with this subject he wished to call attention to the fact that no provision whatever was made for the rate collectors, on whom a very considerable amount of additional duty was thrown. The position of these officers was one of considerable grievance.
    THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. Member intended to move an Amendment?
    DR. LYONSsaid, he meant to propose the addition of certain words; but, in the first place, he might be allowed to say that the rate collectors throughout the country represented to him that for the duties they were required to perform they were very inadequately remunerated. For instance, one collector informed him that he was put to the expense of 18 s. per day for car hire.
    MR. SEXTONrose to Order. This clause provided for the remuneration of collectors of poor rates.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) has not yet stated the words he proposes to add.
    DR. LYONSsaid, he was proceeding to say that the remuneration provided under the Bill for poor rate collectors was totally inadequate. He was told that in County Dublin collectors were put to the expense of 18 s. per day for car hire, and the rate at which they were remunerated was 6s. 10 d. for 41 tenements, which was about the average served in the course of a day. An absolute loss, therefore, was entailed on these men by these extra duties. He proposed to add at the end of the new clause these words—
    "All reasonable provision shall be made to defray the legitimate claims of the officials concerned in carrying out this Act, according to a scale to be approved by the Lord Lieutenant."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANpointed out that the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Dr. Lyons) was merely a repetition of other words. Poor rate collectors were amongst those for whom remuneration was provided by the clause. He really thought the Amendment was unnecessary.
    COLONEL NOLANreminded the Committee that if the poor rate collectors were remunerated as the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) desired, all the
    564
    money allowed for registration purposes would be paid to these men alone.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    New Clause:—
    (Contribution to cost of registration in borough of Dublin.)
    "The Commissioners of the townships of Pembroke and Blackrock shall repay to the Treasurer of the Corporation of Dublin so much of the expense incurred by the Corporation in carrying the Parliamentary Registration Acts into effect, in any year, as is properly chargeable to those townships respectively, having regard to the number of electors registered in that year for the borough of Dublin in respect of qualifying premises situated in such townships respectively.
    "Such payments shall be made by the Commissioners of the said townships out of the rates applicable by them respectively for the general purposes of the township.
    "In case any dispute arises as to the amount properly chargeable to either township in any year, it shall be referred to the arbitration of the Local Government Board for Ireland, who may inquire into the matter, and may make an award which shall be binding upon the Corporation of Dublin, and upon the Commissioners of such township,"—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And now, in accordance with what I stated before, I would ask the House to give its consent to the third reading of the Bill. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything in support of the proposal.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
    MR. SEXTON: I make no objection to the third reading; but I emphatically repeat, so that there can be no mistake about it, that it is understood there will be a note appended in "another place" to include all the provisions embraced by Clause 28 of the English Bill.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that if the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland would look at the bottom of page 10, he would find that the Clerks of the

    565
    Peace would have to carry out the most difficult sections of the Representation of the People Act. These officials would actually be required to go into questions of title, and to find out whether property had been derived from descent, succession, marriage, marriage settlement, and so on. It was true these qualifications were contained in the Act; but he contended that if there were any grounds of objection, and if a vote were objected to, it would be impossible to prove the qualification without requiring the Clerks of the Peace to go into these matters of title. There would not be time for them to do it; only such persons as election agents could undertake such work. He pointed this out in the interests of the Bill, and of its proper working; and he should like some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who objected to his statement, to have to perform the multifarious duties which the Clerks of the Peace had to discharge, and then to have added to those duties the duty of finding out whether a person got his title to the property, giving him a qualification by descent, succession, marriage, or marriage settlement. He should like to know what they would think of the addition? He hoped that in "another place" this objectionable feature of the Bill would be removed. Generally speaking, the directions given to the Clerks of the Peace in the Bill were far too full, and dealt far too much with questions of law. These officials ought to have their duties laid down as simply as possible. He had felt it his duty to say these few words; and now, having said them, he felt content.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill passed.

    SPORTING LANDS RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 3.]
    (Dr. Cameron, Mr. Cochran-Patrick, Mr. Munro-Ferguson, Mr. Mackintosh, Dr. Farquharson.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. CAMERON: The object of this Bill, Sir, is to carry out the recommendations of a Select Committee, of which you yourself were a Member.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MOTIONS.
  CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the tenure of land by Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and for other purposes relating thereto."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Debate arising.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.

    LOWER THAMES VALLEY MAIN SEWERAGE BILL.
    Sir "WILLIAM DYKE, Colonel WALROND, Mr. RUSTON, and Dr. FARQUHARSON, nominated Members of the Select Committee.—(Mr. George Russell.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to confirm two Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland, relating to the Dublin Corporation Waterworks, and to "The Dublin Corporation "Waterworks and Fire Brigade Provisional Order, 1874," ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL (BILL NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland concerning Mallow and Midleton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.

    SUMMARY JURISDICTION (TERM OF IMPRISONMENT) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Bill to amend the Law respecting the mode of reckoning a term of imprisonment under a warrant of commitment of a Justice of the Peace, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 180.]

    TITHE RENT CHARGE REDEMPTION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Bill to amend and extend the Acts relating to the Redemption of Tithe Rent Charge in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. CURITT, Mr. MONK, and Mr. VIVIAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 181.]
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.