Commons Sitting of 20 May 1885

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Postal Service (Great Britain and North America), nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Loans (Sinking Funds)٭ [189]; Rivers Purification٭ [190]; Valuation of Lands (Scotland) (Appeals) ٭ [191],
First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 3)٭ [188].
Second Reading—Sites for Places of Religious Worship [58], debate adjourned.
Second Readinq—Referred to Select Committee—Pluralities [22]; River Thames (No. 2)٭ [90.]
Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 2)٭ [155].
Lords Amendments considered—Registration (Occupation Voters) [163]; Registration of Voters (Scotland) [150]; Registration of Voters (Ireland)٭ [151]; Barristers Admission (Ireland) ٭ [144].

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS).

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he observed there was a Motion on
    952
    the Paper in the name of the Prime Minister with reference to the adjournment of the House for the Whitsun Recess. It had been understood that this Motion would be made on Thursday, and of course a great number of hon. Gentlemen who would then have been present were not at this moment in the House. He wished to ask whether the Motion was set down simply as a matter of form, so that it might be moved and adjourned, and thus become an Order of the Day for to-morrow? If that were so it was quite right; but he should otherwise strongly object to proceeding with that Motion now.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had correctly interpreted the object of the Government in putting down the Motion to-day. As soon as the Motion was made it would be proposed to adjourn the debate till to-morrow, so that the Motion would come first among the Orders of the Day. He therefore begged to make the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Motion made, and Qustion proposed, "That the House at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Thursday the 4th of June."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Debate arising;
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  REGISTRATION (OCCUPATION VOTERS) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    Lords' Amendments considered.
    First Amendment, page 7, line 10, leave out ("eight") and insert ("twelve") agreed to.
    Second Amendment, page 13, leave out from ("districts") to the end of sub-section (2).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in moving that the House agree to the following Amendment:—
    "Page 9, line 35, after sub-section (2), insert,—(3.) Where a Parliamentary county extends into more county quarter sessional areas than one, the local authority having power to divide the said county into polling districts shall have power to agree with any other court of quarter sessions having jurisdiction in that area for the constitution of a joint committee, to take into consideration the division of such county into polling districts and

    953
    assigning of polling places to such districts, and shall, after receiving the report of the said committee, make such order thereon as they may think fit,"
    said, that since the sub-section in question was inserted on the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage) representations had been made to the Local Government Board to the effect that it would increase the difficulty of making the necessary arrangements in time, and on that ground the sub-section had been struck out in the other House. Under these circumstances he appealed to his hon. Friend to consider whether they could possibly enter into a conflict with the Lords on this question, the effect of which would be to delay the Bill till after Whitsuntide, and almost render it useless. He hoped his hon. Friend would be patriotic enough to allow the House to agree with this Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, after the appeal of his hon. and learned Friend he would not press the matter, although had there been a few more days before the Recess he should have divided the House upon the question. He had as yet heard no argument why his provision should not be maintained. He did not wish to take away the power of the Courts of Quarter Sessions, but to require them, instead of appointing one committee without local knowledge, to appoint one for each district which would have the local knowledge. However, the Clerks of the Peace had triumphed over the public convenience, and he would not further press the matter.
    MR. E. STANHOPEdefended the Peers in their action, and said, that they had had a difficult duty thrust upon them, and he believed their only object was to carry out the intentions of Parliament with the least delay possible. He thought the hon. Member's remark as to the Clerks of the Peace altogether unwarranted. The Clerks of the Peace had shown every desire to facilitate this new registration, and he was sure were only actuated by a desire to do their duty to the public.
    MR. W. GURDONexpressed his pleasure at finding the provision re-
    954
    I moved in "another place." There might be some convenience about it in one or two counties; but he was convinced that in the great majority of them it would have led to considerable inconvenience.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in moving, in page 11, line 5, leave out ("entitled to be") and insert ("prevented by any other Act from being"); page 11, line 8, leave out from ("Cambridge") to the end of the clause, said, that this Amendment introduced by the House of Lords raised the question of the right of undergraduates to vote at elections. The House had, by a very small majority, determined that the undergraduates at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge occupying rooms in the Colleges should not be entitled to be placed upon the Register of Parliamentary Voters. I Subsequently, however, a different view I had been taken of the principle involved in the question, and, by a large majority, I it had been decided that the undergraduates of Dublin University should be allowed to be placed on the Register. He thought, therefore, that the fairest course to adopt now would be to agree with the Lords in their Amendment, by which the franchise would be conferred upon the English undergraduates. He therefore moved that the House do agree to the Lords' Amendment. At the same time, he reiterated the view he had already expressed, that this was simply an abstract question, and that unless there was an entire change in the authority and discipline of the Universities, no undergraduate could or would obtain the right to vote.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do agree to the said Amendment."—(The Attorney General.)
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that he congratulated the Government upon their late conversion to Liberal principles in this matter. He was anxious that the House of Lords should obtain the credit, which it deserved, of being more zealous for the extension of the franchise than the Party opposite.
    MR. SHELLsaid, he was afraid that the Lords had acted under a complete misconception of the effect which this Amendment would have. The Amendment provided that nothing in any Act

    955
    of Parliament was to prevent the occupier of any College rooms from being placed upon the Register. This would have the effect of sweeping away all considerations of age and even of sex, and the duration or quality of occupation. The Amendment, moreover, while it did not open the door to undergraduates, closed it to graduates.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was glad that the Government had at last recognized the fact that undergraduates might be "capable citizens," and that education was no longer to be regarded as a disqualification for the exercise of political rights.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he was opposed to the Lords' Amendment on the ground that the undergraduates were sent to the Universities for a temporary and distinct purpose—namely, education, and were, therefore, in a very different position from graduates. If the Bill passed as it stood, undergraduates would be at liberty to vote at municipal as well as at Parliamentary elections, and he appealed to hon. Members whether that was desirable in the interests of undergraduates themselves.
    COLONEL MAKINSexpressed his warm approval of this Amendment which the Lords had introduced into the Bill. He took an entirely different view from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. Taking part in municipal and Parliamentary elections was a better occupation for these young men than some of the amusements in which they at present engaged. In his opinion, it would be found that the exercise of the franchise by these young men would be not the least valuable part of their education.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he did not happen to be present when this matter was discussed before, and he was very much surprised when he read the report of what had taken place to find that the Liberal Party should have expressed any alarm at the prospect of these young men at College exercising the Parliamentary franchise. Here were a number of young men who had received a good amount of education, and yet he found, to his astonishment, that not only on the Conservative, but also on Liberal side of the House, a large number of hon. Gentlemen were so alarmed lest those young men should be drawn into political strife that they were prepared
    956
    to refuse to them political rights to which they were clearly entitled.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYcongratulated his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) on his manly and straightforward utterances, and his adherence to Liberal principles. He trusted the House would not be led away by the bugbear of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Horace Davey) that undergraduates were necessarily to take part in municipal elections. Even if they were, he should not regard it as a calamity. He hoped some of the undergraduates might become Town Councillors, or even Mayors of the University towns.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was entirely in favour of undergraduates having votes. If, however, anyone divided the House on the question that the Lords' Amendment should not be agreed to, he would support him by his vote, because this was a Bill to regulate the sending of Representatives to the House of Commons; and he did not consider that hereditary and irresponsible persons had anything to do in the matter.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was of opinion that the Lords had adopted a reasonable and sensible course. When the question was before the House of Commons, three courses were open, two of which had some show of reason, and the other entirely unreasonable. The House could either have refused the franchise to the undergraduates in both countries, or have granted the franchise to the undergraduates in both countries. The House took the unreasonable course of granting the franchise to the undergraduates in Dublin, and refusing it to those in Oxford and Cambridge. The House of Lords had taken a reasonable course in establishing uniformity.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in moving to leave out Clause 16, said, they now came to an Amendment which, of course, was one of substance. He had refrained from making any statement in regard to the position of the Bill before they reached this Amendment; but now it became necessary that he should make an appeal to those who probably at that moment constituted the majority in the House in reference to this subject. Every hon.

    957
    Member was aware that by the Franchise Act a new class of voters was created—namely, the county household voters. An additional class of service voters was likewise created. For the registration of the household voters in counties there really was no adequate provision in existence. Provision had been made by the Act of 1878 for the registration of household voters in boroughs; but there was no provision for the registration of such voters in counties. The Government, therefore, had to introduce a Bill for the special purpose of registering those householders, and also the service voters. They imposed on the local officers the duty of registering 2,000,000 persons under entirely new conditions. It was necessary, therefore, to define their duties clearly, and to give them as much information as possible. No time had been lost in introducing the Bill or in passing it through the House, and the Members of the Select Committee did their very best to bring back the Bill to the House at an early date. But questions of franchise were introduced into the Bill, including that which related to the receipt of medical parochial relief. It was ultimately decided that the receipt of such relief should not disqualify a voter; but the final decision of that House upon Report had now been reversed by the decision of the House of Lords. The Government had therefore had to consider what course they should take in relation to this Amendment in order that the Bill might speedily become law. Those who had charge of the Bill in the Lords had been willing to accept the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) and accept the clause; but the majority of the Lords had not taken that view. So far as he was concerned, and on the part of many of his Colleagues, he felt that this question on its merits had passed beyond discussion. This was a social as well as a political question affecting the community generally; but, whatever the merits of the question might be, at this stage it was impossible for the House to enter upon them, because, while aware that many Members of the House acquiesced in the view that it would have been well had the Lords not made this Amendment, yet the result of refusing to accept it would be that the Bill would be-
    958
    come practically useless, and that they would wreck the registration of the country for one year, for if the Amendment were now refused there could be no further dealing with the Bill until the House of Lords met again. If this House persisted in the view adopted by the majority in the last division, and the House of Lords persisted in their view, the Bill fell to the ground, and they substantially would leave the local officials without power to register the householders in the counties, who represented about 2,000,000. It was the duty of Parliament to give them this assistance, and not to take up the absurd position of telling them to register these voters without providing them with the machinery for doing so. That was a position which he did not think anyone would desire, and he would ask his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Horace Davey) to consider what advantage it would be, for the mere purpose of a protest, to send this Bill back to the House of Lords. It could not be taken there till after Whitsuntide, and the discussion would carry them to a date when the Bill would become practically useless. He therefore appealed to his hon. and learned Friend and his supporters and to the House to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, "To leave out Clause 16," read a first and second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he extremely regretted the course taken in "another place" in regard to this Bill lie was not going to trouble the House with another speech on the merits of this subject; but he would content himself with saying that nothing he had heard or read had in any degree altered his opinion as to the justice on which the Amendment introduced into the Bill in that House was based. He objected to the course pursued in "another place," because great disappointment would be caused to a number of persons who, after being told that they were to exercise the franchise, would find that they would not be enabled to do so. If that clause was rejected now he trusted that they might look forward with hope that at some not very distant period a

    959
    Bill would he brought in having the same effect as the clause that was struck out. Having carefully considered the matter, he did not personally feel justified in now inviting the House to divide again on that subject. He was aware of the very great importance of that Bill being passed at once; and the Government having, as it were, got them in a corner, they must submit with the best grace they could. If any other Member moved that the House should disagree with the Lords Amendment, he should not vote against him; hut, speaking for himself, he could not undertake the responsibility of making such a Motion.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEthought that the House should take notice of the observation of the Attorney General, that that clause had not only a political but also a social aspect. No doubt, the clause did raise questions of a very important social character which required to be carefully considered. But the point was whether that was the most convenient or the only mode in which those questions could be raised. That clause introduced to a certain extent new matter into a Bill brought in for a particular purpose, without reference to that question, in order to effect an important object which everybody desired to see accomplished as speedily as possible; and whatever might be their opinions on the merits of the clause they must feel that if they reinstated the clause it would necessarily prolong the discussions on the Bill. Undoubtedly the main object they all had in view was to pass the Bill as rapidly as was consistent with the attention that was due to the Bill itself. They ought, he thought, to allow the larger and more pressing considerations, which required the Bill to be passed as quickly as possible, to have precedence over any consideration of the merits of that clause itself. He would not, therefore, now enter into the merits of the clause, on which a good deal might be said upon both sides, and which were open to a good deal of argument.
    MR. COURTNEYentertained a strong opinion that that clause ought not to have been introduced into the Bill at all. That Bill was merely a Bill dealing with registration, with the formalities to be observed in registration, and with the safeguards that only those who
    960
    were qualified should be registered. The antecedent question of the qualification for registration did not lie within the scope of the Bill; but that clause raised the question whether the receipt of medical poor relief should operate as a disqualification where a man was otherwise qualified to vote. On that ground he thought the clause, when first proposed in Committee as an Amendment, was an impertinent Amendment, and, as Chairman, he should have ruled it out of Order, if he had not felt himself precluded from doing so by the course which had been taken previously in regard to the Irish Registration Bill; but he still entertained the opinion that it was an improper Amendment. When it was discussed in Committee it was rejected by a considerable majority; and when it was brought on again afterwards in a thin House it was inserted by a comparatively small majority. Since the House of Commons itself, therefore, had shown such uncertainty in dealing with a question which ought not, in his view, to have been dealt with at all in the Bill, he thought that with all their jealousy of the other House they might allow that the House of Lords had some right to object to the introduction of that clause, and should not now insist on its re-insertion. But, especially after what had just fallen from the right hon. Member for North Devon, who appeared to waver somewhat in his opinion on that matter, he felt that he should be wanting in frankness if he did not say that his own opinion was strongly against that Amendment in principle. However plausible or benevolent the object of the clause might seem, he held that the proposal to allow a man to vote who had received medical poor relief was one of considerable moral effect, and that it would have a most pernicious tendency. It was the thin edge of the wedge of the corruption and degradation of the character of the constituency; nothing could be of more importance than that they should insist on absolute independence of parochial relief as a condition to the exercise of the elective franchise. The most mischievous things were often done on the ground of benevolence; and they should be most careful not to undermine the independence of the people whom they were admitting in increased numbers to the suffrage, by enacting that the re-

    961
    ceipt of medical relief from the rates was not to interfere with the full enjoyment of political rights. It was said that that had been done in the case of Ireland. He regretted that necessity; but he asked them not to apply it any further, and thus bring down the whole Kingdom to the same level. He looked with great jealousy on any proposal to reduce the independence or the moral level of the constituency of this country, and he held that they ought to guard most scrupulously against its degradation. On all these grounds, he thought the House might well give way and accede to the Lords' Amendment, even if the case had not been so pressing as the Attorney General had stated.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that it was rather too late to say that the Amendment was not relevant to the Bill. Having put a similar clause in the Irish Bill, the House had the right to put one in the English Bill. The question was whether the conclusion which the House had come to deliberately was to be overruled without protest. If it was, this House would be placed in a humiliating position. The Attorney General said they must either give up their right to express their opinion on this Amendment, or they must agree to an indefinite postponement of the General Election. It seemed to him not to be a matter of much concern whether or not the General Election was postponed for a few days or a few weeks.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was not a question of weeks or days. It was a question whether the new voters could be placed on the Register for the next year at all or not.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he did not think it would necessarily follow. As to the time argument, the Bill could go back to the House of Lords that day, and receive the Royal Assent on Thursday. He would not support the clause if it interfered with the sound principle that persons ought not to be electors who were not able in ordinary circumstances to maintain themselves and their families without aid from the public rates; but that principle was not violated by having recourse to such aid in cases of illness or accident. It was to be regretted that what had been called a social question had been raised in the
    962
    other House, for the Members of which he had great admiration; but they were persons whose position placed them above want, and most of them owed that position to the accident of birth rather than to their own exertions. The Members of the House of Commons were brought more into contact with the people, sympathized with their wants, and understood their necessities hotter than the Peers. In the constituencies there were thousands who were able to maintain their families in modest comfort, who, in case of accident or serious disease, must have recourse to the Poor Law medical officer. The clause, as it stood, was severely restrictive, and did not carry exemption from disqualification as far as it ought to do. He especially regretted the rejection of it by the House of Lords, because he wished to maintain the legislative powers of that House, and the maintenance of them was not likely to be assisted by their action on this occasion. But as the clause was rejected by the House of Commons before it was finally accepted, the House of Lords ought to have an opportunity of completing their imitation of this House by accepting the clause they had rejected.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not consider that the Attorney General had proved his point that if the House disagreed with the Lords' Amendment there would be no time to pass the Bill before Whitsuntide. The precepts to the registration officials did not need to be issued till the 2nd or 3rd of June, and in that case they had surely time to send back the Bill to the House of Lords. If they did send it back, they could rely on it that the House of Lords would not throw out the Bill or seek to detain it, for it had been urged by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that the House of Lords were most anxious to consult the country, as they said they wore convinced the country would not approve of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The argument of want of time had, therefore, nothing to do with the question. Let the House of Commons disagree with this Amendment, and let them see what came of that. On the merits of the question, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) that the receipt of medical relief was either corrupting or degrading. Let them take

    963
    the case of a poor man in the country getting 12 s. a-week. That man had a child, and the child fell ill. Was it corrupting or degrading, or destructive of independence, for him to take the child to the parish doctor and obtain some medicine for it? He contended that it was not. It was in the public interest that he should do so, rather than that lie should neglect his child or obtain unskilled advice. They were really calling upon the poor man to choose between sacrificing his child and sacrificing his political, rights. He considered that it was highly important that there should be a system of public medical relief throughout the country. In his opinion, it was quite as necessary—in fact far more necessary—to have Government officers to give medical aid gratis than officers to give spiritual aid gratis. If he had to choose between the two kinds of aid, he should certainly prefer the medical aid. Education was paid for out of the rates, and surely physical well-being must come first. The recognition of that fact led to the discussion of the expediency of giving penny dinners. With regard to the action of the House of Lords, they ought to let the country know what its real meaning was. Its object was practically to disfranchise with one hand a large number of persons to whom they had given the franchise with the other. [Cries of "No!"] He was told that in North Somersetshire one-quarter of the whole of the new constituency would be disfranchised by the rejection of the clause. Let the country thoroughly understand the tactics of the Conservative Party in that matter. They did not say very much in the House of Commons because they had a majority in the other House. When the Bill went up there, the Lords threw out such clauses as they thought would tend to enlarge the constituencies, and then the Leaders of the Party came down to the House of Commons and said that this was not the time to discuss the principle of the matter. Well, the country should understand that the House of Commons had given them votes, and the Conservative Party in the House of Lords had taken them away. The Conservatives even were ashamed of their own action, for they put up a Scotch Nobleman to oppose the clause. Why, the Bill did not affect Scotland, so he could not see what possible interest the
    964
    Scotch Nobleman (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) could have in it. Let them fix the responsibility upon those who had really rejected that Amendment, and then see if they would stand to their guns.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEobserved that not only would the whole registration of the country be thrown into confusion unless this Bill were passed before Whitsuntide, but in order to produce even the postponed General Election, about which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) spoke, special legislation would be necessary; and, as a matter of fact, it was very doubtful whether they could get a Register of voters for the next Election constituted at all. Although many Members might be glad to shorten the Whitsuntide holidays in order to obtain a full settlement of the question, he was not so hopeful as they might be with respect to the possibility or probability of obtaining the Royal Assent before Whitsuntide. The re-discussion of the question on the merits was to be deprecated. It had already been discussed fully on four occasions—once on the Franchise Bill, twice on this Bill, and once on the Irish Registration Bill. The discussion on the Irish Bill might, perhaps, not be reckoned, because it involved side issues. But in Committee, and on the Report of this Bill, the clause had received fuller consideration than could be given to it on this occasion, when nothing had been said about provident dispensaries, clubs, friendly societies, and the like. There were a fuller discussion and a larger majority in Committee when the clause was rejected than there was on the Report, when the clause was inserted; and, therefore, the Government, desiring to pass the Bill as quickly as possible, concurred in what was done in Committee rather than incur any risk of delay. The Government had gone as far as they could in making this a Government question in the House of Lords, and they were taking that action now not so much on the merits of the question, but because of the necessity that this Bill should pass as rapidly as possible, and with as little amendment as possible. Was it wise that they should jeopardize the Bill by pressing this clause, especially in view of the difference of opinion which had been shown in this House on the subject, and in view of the smallness

    965
    of the division with which the proposal had on the last occasion been carried? He hoped the Bill would not be jeopardized by insistance on this proposal.
    MR. GREGORYurged the House to appreciate the importance of passing the Bill without delay.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, they were asked to agree to the Lords' Amendment on some ground of convenience; but he did not know the ground of convenience, and he did not see the necessity of the convenience. Supposing the House were to disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, ho was not aware of any reason why the Amendment should not go back to that Chamber either this afternoon or to-morrow. He could not admit the necessity of acquiescing in the disfranchisement of many men merely because the House of Lords did not want to meet on Thursday. It was humiliating to the House of Commons to be placed in the position of being asked to agree to the Amendment merely to consult the convenience of the other House.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it was unfair to the other House to hold it responsible for the situation. This House had sent the Bill to the other House at the last moment, and required that it should be passed within a week. He objected to the hon. Member for Northampton attempting to make political capital out of their action. On two occasions some of the Conservative Party supported the Government in resisting this Amendment, some on principle, and some because the Amendment was foreign matter. He should feel very deeply the responsibility which would rest upon the House if, by their vote that afternoon, they should upset all the arrangements by which alone the newly enfranchised voters could exercise their privilege at the next General Election. As a Member of the Select Committee on the Bill, he believed that the re-insertion of the clause would jeopardize the carrying through of the Bill in time for the Election; and on that ground he hoped the Government would now be supported.
    MR. CROPPERsaid, that the clause would not relieve all the grievances of disqualification which was complained of. A man would still be disqualified, if he accepted the smallest medical com-
    966
    fort, such as beef tea or gruel. He thought it a little hard to throw the whole responsibility in this matter upon the House of Lords, and to blame them respecting it, considering the action of the House of Commons in dealing with it, and that the Committee had decided against it. He, therefore, supported the Lords' Amendment, not merely as a matter of convenience, but because the change in the law ought not, in his opinion, to be made without further consideration, and which consideration must be given to something more than medical relief. Therefore, it was not worth while raising the question again on this Bill, for it ought to be decided on a much broader issue than that raised by the Amendment.
    MR. MACFARLANEobserved that if a working man were run over by a vehicle in the street and taken to a public hospital ho would not be disqualified, although he would be attended to by the surgeons gratuitously and would pay nothing for his food and physic. If, however, a man to whom such an accident occurred were visited at his own home by the parish doctor ho would be deprived of his right to vote. He could not see the justice of this distinction, and trusted that the Lords' Amendment would be rejected. Why should not the House of Lords sit to-morrow, or Friday or Saturday if necessary, to consider this matter? He held that the responsibility would lie upon the Lords if they did not do so.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he hoped the country would understand that the House had been "cornered" by the action of the House of Lords. That branch of the Legislature had inserted in the Bill a most important Amendment, which would have the effect of disfranchising large numbers of the people; and they had done it in circumstances which, according to the occupants of the Ministerial Bench, rendered it quite impossible for the House of Commons to reverse the decision of the other House. He objected to the mutilation by an irresponsible body of an important Bill passed by the Representatives of the people.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHargued that if the decision of the House of Lords were reversed and the clause re-inserted in the Bill the result would be to create great confusion in the registration ar-

    967
    rangements. The clause contained no provision determining what kind of medical relief should act as a disqualification and what should not so act. The result would be that the overseers, in the first instance, and then the revising barristers, would take different views of the question and pronounce varying decisions.
    MR. HENEAGEhoped that the House would refuse to be "jockeyed" by the House of Lords. The difficulty in which they were was attributable to an unnecessary desire to consult the convenience of the other Chamber.
    COLONEL MAKINScontended that the House of Lords did not deserve the blame which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and others had cast upon it.
    MR. CAUSTONsaid, that he should certainly vote in opposition to the views expressed by the Attorney General. The Lords' Amendment did a great act of injustice to those who had been looking forward to receiving the franchise, and it was also a bad precedent to say that because the House of Commons happened to send a Bill to the House of Lords at a comparatively late period the House of Lords might turn the Bill inside out, and the Government then say—"Really it puts the House and the country to so much inconvenience that we must at once submit to the action of the House of Lords."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that the hon. Member had spoken as if the Lords had acted all through to suit their own convenience; but the fact was that the Lords acted on the representation of urgency made to them by the Government. They read the Bill a first time on Friday, a second time on Monday, without debate, passed it through Committee yesterday, waiving the Report stage, and read it a third time to-day, meeting for the purpose not only on Wednesday, but at the exceptionally early hour of half-past 11, in order to enable the House of Commons to consider the question without delay. He would not now discuss the merits of the question, about which there might be differences of opinion; but he would remind the House that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member which the House of Lords had rejected had been also rejected in the House of Commons by a large majority when proposed in Committee, and that it was only
    968
    accepted on Report by a small majority in a thin House.
    MR. SEXTONdenied that the Lords had been "cornered" or that they were entitled to special deference because they sat at half-past 11 that morning, for in that case they must be considered as superior to all duties and obligations. The question was between the holidays of a few score men and the enfranchisement of thousands of voters. The original plan of the Government was that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent on Friday. That plan could be still carried out if the Amendment of the Lords was rejected, because the Lords could reconsider the matter that evening or to-morrow, and the Royal Assent could be given on Friday as originally proposed. This matter was so grave, and concerned the rights of so many thousand Englishmen, that the House would show a grievous lack of moral courage if it did not insist that the responsibility should be fixed where it was incurred. When the Bill left that House it did not contain that disfranchising clause, and the House would be guilty of the grossest cowardice and dereliction of duty if it submitted to this change. He hoped the Motion would be carried to a division, and he should then be curious to see whether the Amendment would be supported by the Conservative Party, who were going to confront the working men of the country at a General Election.
    MR. PICTONopposed the Amendment of the Lords on the ground that the question involved interests for which the Representatives of the people were specially responsible, and that carried practical consequences, particularly in country places, where there were not the same opportunities of obtaining medical aid as in towns.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAurged the House to abide by its own decision, as the question was one which did not affect the House of Lords, while it did affect the House of Commons.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it would be a pity if they were forced to divide without receiving a plain answer to the question whether there was any real practical difficulty in giving the House of Lords an opportunity of reconsidering this matter, and of getting their answer and receiving the Royal Assent to the Bill before the end of the

    969
    week. He believed the House of Lords had not adjourned, and that there was no practical difficulty in adopting this course. He did not believe that in an important matter of this kind anyone would put a little personal inconvenience against the public interest; and he, for one, did not believe the House of Lords would do so.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he was sure that members of his own profession, who had seen much of the poor, would hold that there was an essential difference between ordinary poor relief and medical relief. They knew that sickness came unexpectedly, and laid a heavy strain on the narrow resources of families with incomes of from 10 s. to 12 s. a week; and it was intolerable that poor persons in that position, who had perhaps taken relief of this kind for a short time, should be disqualified. He would also remind the House that there was in country districts no bridge, so to speak, between medical pauperism and the payment of medical attendance. In large towns they had great hospitals which wore always open to receive all comers on easy terms; and, therefore, in London, for instance, they knew that a large number of people on the verge of pauperism were able to go to these hospitals and get medical relief without disqualifying themselves. But in the country there was nothing of that sort. The poor man must either pay his country doctor's fee, which was necessarily heavy because of the distances they had to go, or go on the parish for relief. Therefore, there was no bridge for the humble and industrious man to obtain such relief as would not put this heavy disqualification against him. In spite, he thought, of the dangers which they had been told would arise from the possible rejection of this Amendment of the Lords, ho would feel it his duty, if the opposition were pressed, to support it.
    MR. WARTONsupported the Amendment of the Lords on the ground that it was in accordance with the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons, as in Committee by a large majority it rejected the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch, which was accepted on Report only by a small majority.
    MR. PELLsaid, he understood the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to rest his argument on the
    970
    injustice which would be done to the labouring classes if the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Christ-church did not become law. But, how was it, if the hon. Member for Northampton had the interests of the working classes so much at heart, that he was absent on both occasions when the question was before discussed? He (Mr. Pell) appealed to the House not to reject the Amendment on account of the difficulty in their way with regard to time. He would remind the House that the only effect of the Lords' Amendment would be to keep off the Register for one year a person who received medical, relief. In the name of the provident working men of England, he protested against their being put upon the same footing with those who were infinitely below them in the social scale. The difficulty that had been referred to in country districts should be got over by the establishment of medical village clubs, which would come within the reach of the class to whom the provision applied.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 66: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 199.)

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS
    Lords Amendments considered.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B BALFOUR)moved to agree with th Amendment which deleted Clause 1 from the Bill. The clause which it was thus proposed to leave out was, he explained, directed to introduce an Amendment universally admitted to be a useful one. It had relation to the Valuation Acts in Scotland, which, by the Franchise Act of 1884, were interpreted to be Registration Acts. But the criticism had been made in the House of Lords that this particular Amendment had not direct relation to the subject of registration, and that was true. It was pointed out that some persons interested in the clause might not expect to find it in this Bill; and while he could not but regret that they had not an opportunity of making this Amendment, he felt the force of the criticism that it had not direct relation to the registration of voters, although technically within the meaning of the Registration Acts. He

    971
    therefore proposed that the Lords Amendment be agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he very much regretted that the other House should have thought it nécessary to strike out the clause, which he thought would have been of great convenience in the administration of the law; and he trusted his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate would take another opportunity of introducing the clause, either as a separate measure, or in any other Bill in which he could properly do so.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked whether the Government would cause the Franchise, Redistribution, and Registration Bills to be circulated as soon as the Royal Assent should have been obtained? Acts of Parliament passed in a Session were not usually circulated until after the Session, when they appeared bound altogether in one volume. He thought it would be more convenient if the circulation could be expedited in the case of this Reform legislation.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he agreed that the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would be a desirable one to follow, and he undertook to communicate with the Speaker with reference to the subject.

  LEGISLATION FOR IRELAND—LAND BILL AND LABOURERS' BILL.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Before the Clerk proceeds to read the Orders of the Day, I wish to make a modification of a statement which I made last week with respect to the Bills which the Government propose to introduce during the present Session. I then said that we did not think it was likely to be in our power to deal effectually this Session with the question of land purchase in Ireland, and that, therefore, we did not intend to introduce a Bill upon the subject. But, upon reconsideration of the matter, and after communications made I with Members since that announcement, I have considerable hope that a judiciously-constructed amendment of the present law might meet with such ac-
    972
    ceptance as not to make a serious demand upon the time of the House. That is the point which is really material. We have a plan of a Bill prepared, and we shall be ready to introduce it on an early day after Whitsuntide. The facts that have come to my knowledge seem to justify our entertaining the hope that the measure might make no serious demand upon the time of the House; and if that hope were fulfilled we should be very desirous to pass that Bill and also the Labourers' Bill into law during the present Session. As regards the Labourers' Bill, we shall do everything we can in that sense, though I should wish to put the Land Bill on the same footing. I hope that with both of those measures we may make progress and pass them through the House; but it is the prospect that we have before us that leads me to think it is worth while that we should make the effort.
    MR. ONSLOWasked whether the Motion for the Adjournment would take precedence of the East India Loan Bill to-morrow?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The East India Loan Bill stands first.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    PLURALITIES BILL.— [BILL 22.]
    (Mr. Acland, Mr. Edward Howard, Sir John Kennaway, Lord Edward Cavendish.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ACLAND,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the object of the Bill was very simple. Under the present law, when a Bishop had, on account of inadequate performance of duty, or non-residence, or any other cause, to appoint a curate for a benefice, the salary or stipend which he might assign from the living to the curate was often inadequate to enable him to secure the services of a clergyman for that purpose; and the main object of that Bill was to empower the Bishop to assign, within the value of the benefice, such a sum as might enable him to find a curate to do the work which had to be done. The measure was called the Pluralities Acts Amendment Bill chiefly because it was desired to draw the attention of those who would have to deal with it to the Acts which it was intended to amend. Those Acts were 1 & 2 Vict., c. 106, and 13 & 14

    973
    Vict., c. 98. Those Acts dealt with several other points besides pluralities, and their general purpose was to define the relation between endowment and work. The main question in regard to the appointment of a curate by the Bishop was whether the ecclesiastical duty of the benefice was adequately or inadequately performed. The 2nd clause of the Bill defined what ecclesiastical duty was, the definition being taken from the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordination Vow, and the 59th. Canon. It was also provided that in the case of benefices within the dioceses of St. Asaph, Bangor, Llandaff, and St. David, and of any benefice having a population of not less than 500 Welsh-speaking persons in England, the term "ecclesiastical duties" should include such ministrations in the Welsh language as the Bishop of the diocese should direct to be performed on Sundays and holidays. By the 3rd clause it was proposed to change the constitution of the Commission for inquiring into the inadequate performance of the duties of a benefice, by providing that the Commission should be issued to four Commissioners, one of whom should be an Archdeacon or Rural Dean, another a member of a Cathedral Chapter, another a beneficed clergyman of the Archdeaconry in which the benefice was situated, and the fourth to be appointed by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions for the county ad hoc. Deans and Chapters would elect one of their body to act for three years as one of those Commissioners; and the beneficed clergy of every Archdeaconry would also elect one of their body for a similar period. That would give more satisfaction than if the Commission were appointed, as now, simply by the Bishop. It was not proposed to interfere with the amount of stipend which any rector or incumbent might give to his curate if he could got one; but in cases where there was a difficulty in getting a curate to take the charge where the living was exceedingly small, it was desirable to empower the Bishop, when the incumbent failed to get a curate, to appoint one and assign such a salary as he thought necessary. The 8th clause would enable the Bishop to assign an extra stipend of £70 to a curate appointed by him under Sections 75 and 77 of 1 & 2 Vict., c. 106. That clause was the vital clause of the Bill. The 14th clause of
    974
    the Bill, the only clause which dealt with pluralities, proposed that two benefices might be held together by dispensation if the churches were within five miles of one another, and the annual value of one benefice did not exceed £200. At present the limit of distance was three miles, and the amount £100; and it was now proposed, as the result of experience, to increase them to the extent mentioned. If it was desired by the House to send the Bill before a Select Committee in order that its clauses might be carefully looked into, he should be ready to accede to that course; but he might add that the provisions of the Bill had been thoroughly discussed in both Houses of Convocation, and also by the House of Lords. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Acland.)
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYexpressed his thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member who had just sat down for having undertaken the conduct of that Bill. The title of the measure, however, was, ho thought, very confusing and even misleading, and the explanation of its provisions which had been given was certainly necessary. He thought it most desirable that the existing Acts should be amended in regard to smaller livings, certainly as to distance and income. The Bill possessed great recommendations, both on account of the way in which it had been prepared, and of the high authority on which it came before them; and it deserved very careful consideration. The 2nd clause would require exceedingly careful handling. The Bill partook, to a very considerable extent, of the character of a Church Discipline Act; and he remarked that while in the statement of ecclesiastical duties the visitation of the sick and the instruction of the young were specifically alluded to, there was no mention of the Burial Service. He referred to that point merely as indicating how very careful they should be if they were to have that definition of ecclesiastical duties introduced for the first time into an Act of Parliament of that kind. He thought that the Commission of Inquiry proposed under the Bill was a very great improvement upon the Commission under the existing Acts. He

    975
    was glad that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill was willing to have it referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would not detain the House further than he felt it his duty to do, in the relation in which he had long stood to his hon. Friend and those who had preceded him, to echo the congratulations which had been so freely given to the hon. Member who had moved the second reading by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Mowbray). He was very glad to see that the House was disposed to encourage what he might well describe as an effort at self-reform on the part of the clerical profession, because this was an attempt to develop and insure the application of greater vitality and efficiency to the provisions of the Pluralities Act. Undoubtedly he was glad that the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee, because the House would bear in mind that the pluralities were in former times a scandal and a shame in the Church of England, to a greater degree, probably, than in any other religious body; and, therefore, he thought it most proper and becoming that even in the reforming provisions of his hon. Friend a jealous eye should be directed, lest in any case there should be the possibility of facilitating the re-introduction of that gross abuse. But undoubtedly the main fact recognized by the Bill was one of obvious necessity—namely, that as the value of labour had increased generally during the last 40 or nearly 50 years since the first Pluralities Act was passed—and he well recollected taking part in the discussions upon that Bill when it was in the House of Commons—they should therefore enlarge the provisions relating to the labour of curates so as to restore to efficiency provisions which had lost their efficiency in consequence of the increase of that value. He could only echo what had been said with respect to the difficulty of filling small benefices in certain cases. There happened to be a rather curious instance of a benefice of only £80 a-year, which, when he came into Office in 1880, had lapsed from the patron to the Bishop, and then from the Bishop to the Crown. The Crown was not able to fill it. Every effort was made, but he thought it was about three years before they succeeded. Now, a stipend of £80 a-year seemed very small indeed, but it was with a house, and with a
    976
    population of only 40 persons; so that although the allowance relative to the amount of duty was by no means inconsiderable, it was a matter of the extremest difficulty to find a person to fill that benefice, and they thought themselves very fortunate when it was filled. He thought the best service he could render to his hon. Friend was to be brief in touching upon this matter, and in expressing his satisfaction on finding that the intelligence and ability which the hon. Gentleman had on different occasions exhibited in debate was now being addressed to the work of legislation, and he could only hope that they would be successful.
    MR. PICTONsaid, he had no doubt the object of the Bill was good; but he questioned very much the means by which it was proposed to be accomplished. The Prime Minister appeared to be pleased with that Bill, because it was a token on the part of the clerical profession of its desire to reform itself. He thought, however, that the clerical profession might reform itself without coming to that House for an Act of Parliament. He thought it highly improper that legislation should be brought to bear on an object which could be much better effected by the clergy in their own way. The Bill was based on strong denominational lines, which he thought very objectionable. The Commission of Inquiry into lapse of duty in a benefice was to be composed of three magistrates, members of the Church of England. He did not suppose that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill meant that the term "members of the Church of England" should be used in the Bill in its wide legal sense; but, if so, he should have restricted it by some qualifying words. All such legislative reforms of the Church, however, had invariably been futile, and would continue to be so. To be successful they must be voluntary, and not brought about by law. The only possible reform of the Church was by disestablishment and disendowment; and he protested against the time of the House being occupied by such a Bill as was now before it. He would not challenge a division, however, and it would probably be hopeless if he did; but the Bill would, no doubt, be referred to a Select Committee, and then they would not hear of it again.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think that was a suitable occasion for discussing the relations of Church and State. As to the point referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), he would suggest that, as in the Act establishing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the requirement should be not that the member "shall be a member of the Church of England," but that he "shall state that he is a member of the Church of England." This would avoid certain legal difficulties. On behalf of the Church he had to tender to the hon. Member thanks for introducing this Bill, and also to thank the Prime Minister for having given it his support. It was a proposal with which the clergy were in full accord, although some people might possibly think it was an interference with their rights.
    MR. R. H. PAGETjoined in thanking the hon. Member for having introduced this Bill. As to the objection that the lay Member of the Commission was to be "a member of the Church of of England," he desired to point out that in the Benefices Resignation Act, 1871, there was an exactly similar provision. He regarded the Bill as an honest attempt on the part of the leaders of the Church to remove certain defects and to add to its efficiency. It should, in his opinion, be welcomed as an instalment of the legislation required to remove certain blots which now existed in the Church, and the removal of which would make it more efficient and more thoroughly able to discharge its duties and responsibilities to the great mass of the people of this country.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he should not like it to be supposed, as it might be if the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) were allowed to pass unsupported, that there did not exist a strong feeling against this Bill. He objected to it, and he thought the mass of the Members on the Ministerial side of the House objected to it, on principle; but he did not suppose they would vote against it after the speech of the Prime Minister, although, when they were in Opposition, and sat on the other side of the House, they voted against all such legislation as this. There was a Bill introduced in the last Parliament for the reform of the Church of Scotland, for the abolition
    978
    of patronage. That, in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, was a most laudable attempt to increase the efficiency and impartiality of the Church of Scotland; but it so happened that the Liberal Party sat on the other side of the House, and they voted en masse against the Abolition of Patronage Bill, and hon. Gentlemen who voted in that manner were not merely those who went in for Disestablishment, but the whole mass of the Liberal Party, which comprised in its ranks many friends of the Establishment. They had another example of the same sort—the Ritualist Act passed in the last Parliament. The Bill was brought in by the late Prime Minister for the purpose of dealing with what many people considered to be evils in the Church of England. A great number of Liberals admitted that the evils complained of existed; but, viewing the matter from the point of view inculcated by his hon. Friend, the whole Liberal Party went against the proposed Ritualistic legislation. It was not much use appealing to the Treasury Bench at this moment—the only occupant being his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour)—and he did not know whether his hon. and gallant Friend had been left in possession of plenary powers; but if he had been, he hoped he would rise up and repudiate such retrogression from Liberal principles as that they had seen on the part of the Prime Minister to-day, viewed in the light of the spirit in which the Liberal Party had always approached these matters when they sat on the other side of the House.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsupported the Bill. He could not, however, approve of the exceptional power placed in the hands of the Welsh Bishops; and he thought that they ought not to act without the sanction of the Commission, which was established to strengthen Episcopal hands. There was no reason why a Welsh Bishop should have more power with regard to requiring certain services than an English Bishop. In the hope that an Amendment would be introduced in that respect, he should not object if it were thought best to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
    MR. WARTONobserved that every line of the Bill bristled with unconsidered points and crude suggestions,

    979
    and involved innumerable difficulties. It was also wide enough to include all ecclesiastical duties, after having mentioned only a few, and placed too much power in the hands of the Bishops to the disadvantage of the clergy. This was not a time in which additional pecuniary burdens should be thrown upon the poorer incumbents. For the reasons which he had given he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. TOMLINSONsupported the second reading of the Bill, in view of the proposal of the hon. Member in charge of the measure that it should be sent before a Select Committee. He then proceeded to make some detailed criticism upon the Bill, and suggested various Amendments which ought to be introduced into the measure in Committee.
    MR. J. C. HUBBARDsupported the Bill, but thought Clause 14 would require consideration in Committee, because there was at present no limitation in' regard to the population.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he was glad that the Bill had met with so much approval on both sides of the House; but as it contained some provisions which might prove dangerous he could only support it on the understanding that it was to be referred to a Select Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill committed to a Select Committee.

    SITES FOR PLACES OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP BILL.— [BILL 58.]
    (Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Borlase, Mr. Burt, Mr. Alexander M'Arthur, Mr. Webster.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. BROADHURST,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to facilitate the acquisition by Nonconformist bodies of land whereon to build places of worship. He would not go
    980
    through the Bill; but one of the clauses provided that a memorial must be presented by a certain number of residents for a site, and that a deposit of £100 must accompany the memorial in order to show that the application was made boná fide. The object of Clause 7 was to prevent land from being selected for the purpose of causing a nuisance or an inconvenience to any residents in the neighbourhood. It was proposed that these powers should be exercised in the County Courts. The Bill would remove a very general hardship, which had existed for a great number of years. Experience showed that there were a number of landowners who exercised great despotism towards the Nonconformist bodies in rural districts. Many looked upon the erection of a chapel as a great nuisance, and mapped out the land as though they were granting pieces of land for the erection of a small-pox hospital. By the action of such landowners Nonconformists had been driven to worship in barns.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Nonsense.
    MR. BROADHURSTpresumed that the right hon. Gentleman who said this was nonsense did not often attend Nonconformist places of worship in rural districts.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I do.
    MR. BROADHURSTwas very glad to hear this, because he should begin to have a higher opinion of the right hon. Gentleman than he had entertained hitherto, and he looked forward with confidence to improvements in him in many directions. He repeated that Dissenters had been driven to worship in barns, in cottages, and even on the roadside. He knew of an instance where a congregation of 70 adults, with 90 children, attending the Sunday school were exposed to the greatest hardship, because the landlord denied them a site for a place of worship. With the new state of things that was coming it was not likely that such a denial could be long persisted in. The difficulties in the way of such congregation were great enough without aggravating them by the obstinacy of landlords. In some cases, when they had granted sites, they had fixed unreasonable prices or imposed vexatious conditions. A Methodist clergyman had instanced to him a

    981
    case where, after long negotiation, the landowner granted the sale of a piece of land for the erection of a chapel, and the people, being inexperienced and enthusiastic at the grant, began the work without thorough examination of the site. But they had not gone far up with the walls before they discovered that the arm of a large tree grew in a direction exactly across the site of the chapel, and would prevent them carrying the walls to their full height. The landlord said it must not be cut off. Like good citizens and good Methodists, they held prayer meetings, and after one or two of those meetings, fortunately, there arose a great storm of wind, and the rev. gentleman did not make it plain as to whether the branch of the tree came oil by the action of the wind or a hand-saw; but, at any rate, next morning the arm of the tree was removed, and thus Providence came in and did for them that which had been denied to them by the landowner. The exercise of despotism of this nature had been for years in progress; and he sincerely hoped that the House, which had shown itself so liberally inclined in many directions this Session, would agree to the second reading. If it was thought desirable for the improvement of the Bill to refer it to a Select Committee he should assent-to that proposal. The measure was a moderate one, and he sincerely trusted the House would read it a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. His objection to the Bill was that it was, however unintentionally, brought in under false pretences, inasmuch as it misquoted Acts of Parliament to which it referred. It recited the Places of Worship Sites Act of 1873 and 1882; but they only enabled persons with limited interests in land to grant sites, and did not say a word about the acquisition of sites; and as the object of this Bill was the acquisition of sites, the recited Acts had nothing to do with it. The Bill would enable 20 inhabitants, belonging to the some religious body, to make application for a site. It did not even say the body was to be registered; and if it did, there were in 1880 161 registered bodies, and
    982
    in 1884 there were 194, and the cry was "still they come." Any of these would be entitled to send a requisition to a landowner, with a plan showing a desirable piece of land for a place of worship. There was one of these bodies which had become very prominent. He referred to the Salvation Army. He did not wish to say one word against the method pursued by any religious society, provided it did not interfere with the proper enjoyment of property. No doubt the eccentricities of the Salvation Army were to be regretted; but if this Bill passed, facilities would be given to the Salvation Army and similar bodies to plant themselves wherever it suited their purpose. He did not approve of liberality with other people's land and other people's money. All religious bodies had at present a full and ample right to acquire land for their own purposes in an ordinary way; but this Bill would give the right to acquire them compulsorily, and that without any of the safeguards which usually surrounded the compulsory acquisition of property for objects of public utility. If a measure of this character was to be passed at all, it would, at least, be necessary to define the religious bodies which were to come within the benefit of its scope, and it would also be necessary to surround the compulsory powers of purchase with certain safeguards. The hon. Member said this Bill was intended to do away with a great hardship; but he had carefully abstained from going into details, and the only case of hardship to which he alluded was that of the tree which overhung the wall of the chapel about to be erected. But the hon. Member's references to that case were very cloudy, for he left the House in a state of uncertainty as to whether the disappearance of the obnoxious bough was due to the efficacy of prayer or to a hand saw. The hon. Member appeared to think that it was a great grievance that certain persons should have to meet for worship in barns and in cottages. There was no great hardship in having to worship in a barn. The early Christians worshipped in much worse places; and as to worshipping in cottages, this was only family worship slightly extended. Ho had no desire to limit the free toleration of religious worship of every kind; but the Bill was in principle most dangerous to the rights

    983
    of property, and he therefore begged to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE,in seconding the Amendment, said, he thought this was one of the most extraordinary Bills ever presented to Parliament. It violated the recognized rights of property, on which the whole fabric of society rested. The Bill set forth that 20 members signing the requisition, belonging, it might be, to that one, or, it might be, to a neighbouring parish, might sign the requisition which was to have so great an effect. What was meant by that? Did "neighbouring parish" mean five miles off? He complained of this laxity of language, which he was sure would lead to any amount of annoyance to landlords. Unless the promoters of the Bill were prepared to bring in a measure conferring similar compulsory powers upon all other bodies in addition to religious communities, the Bill must fall to the ground. It was incongruous to see the House of Commons asked, in the interest of public worship, to stir up all the strife of compulsory acquisition. While respecting and valuing to the utmost, and tolerating and smoothing the way for the privileges of religious worship, he did not think that there was such a peculiar character attaching to it as to make it desirable to break down on its behalf the well-recognized principles of private property. This Bill was simply an attempt, in the sacred name of religious liberty, to root up the established foundations of property.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Colonel Makins.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope) to base his objection to the Bill on the ground that the claims of public worship did not justify an interference with property. Would he explain how it was that under the Church Building Act there was such interference with property for the benefit of the Church of England? In the case of the Church of England these compulsory powers did exist; and the right hon. Gentleman was therefore
    984
    driven to argue that such powers should exist for the benefit of the Church of England, but for the benefit of no other denomination. Was it a wise or Conservative proposition that the Church of England should enjoy and maintain a monopoly of this kind, and that it should be in the power of a landowner who might own a whole parish, as many landowners did—though he believed, there would be few of them who would do such a thing—to say to the community that it should only have one place of worship to go to, and that the place to which he belonged? That was a proposition which could not be for a moment sustained. He had the authority of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Osborne Morgan) for saying that in Wales, where the whole land practically belonged to owners who were members of a religion which was not that of the people, and also in Cornwall, cases of great hardship occurred. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the rejection of this Bill had said—"The early Christians worshipped in catacombs; why should not the English Dissenters do the same?"
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he did not use such an argument. He was answering an argument of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), that it was a great hardship for people to have to conduct worship in barns and cottages.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. and gallant Member nevertheless said the early Christians worshipped in the catacombs; but the early Christians had not the advantage of a House of Commons, or else they would not have worshipped in catacombs. Then the hon. and gallant Member argued that it was no hardship having to worship in a cottage, as this was merely family worship. But what the Dissenters asked for was public worship, and why should they not have it as well as anybody else? He did not say that the provisions of the Bill were all that they ought to be; but their consideration was a question for Committee. The question was—taking it on the broad principle of his right hon. Friend opposite—was it right that persons should be excluded simply by the accident of the possession of the land of a whole parish vesting in a proprietor of a different religious faith? He thought it was not. There were many matters of detail which would require amendment;

    985
    the landowner, for instance, might require greater consideration; but looking at the principle of the Bill he thought it was a right principle, and he should certainly vote for the second reading.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, there were only a few minutes left before the debate must be suspended; and as he could not within that time state his objections to the Bill, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)—put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Debate arising;
    And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

  QUESTION.

    EGYPT—THE MILITARY EXPEDITION—THE GUARDS.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHER: I wish to ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Department a Question of which I have given him private Notice. The Question is to the effect, Whether the report is correct that the Brigade of Guards which was on its passage from Suakin to England has been ordered to stop at Alexandria; and if the reasons for its detention can be stated?
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: Yes, Sir. The Brigade of Guards have received orders to stop at Alexandria in case circumstances should render it desirable further to detain them; but they have not received orders to disembark men.

  MOTIONS.

    LOCAL LOANS (SINKING FUNDS) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to amend "The Local Loans Act, 1875," as regards the establishment of Sinking Funds, ordered to he brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Sir RICHARD CROSS, and Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 189.]

    POSTAL SERVICE (GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTH AMERICA).
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on Postal Service (Great Britain and North America) do consist of Seventeen Members:—
    Committee nominated of,—Mr. HENRY LEE, Mr. NORTHCOTE, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. WILLIAM LOWTHER, Mr. SEXTON, Mr. BRODRICK, Mr. DEASY, Mr. WILLIAMSON, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Mr. R. B. MARTIN, Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Mr. THOMAS LEA, Viscount EMLYN, Mr. WILLIAM FOWLER, Mr. SLAGG, Mr. GILES, and Mr. BAXTER; with power to send for persons, papers, and records:
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.

    RIVERS PURIFICATION BILL
    On Motion of Mr. HASTINGS, Bill for the Purification of Rivers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HASTINGS, Earl PERCY, and Colonel WALROND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 190.]

    VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) (APPEALS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HENDERSON, Bill to make further provision as to Appealing under the Acts relating to the Valuation of Lands and Heritages in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENDERSON, Mr. BUCHANAN, Dr. CAMERON, and Mr. STEWART CLARK.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 191.]
    House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.