Commons Sitting of 24 June 1886

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Town Holdings [No. 213]; Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) [No. 243].
PRIVATE BILL [by Order)—Third Reading—Shanklin and Chale Railway (Extension to Freshwater) put off.
Public BILLS—Second Reading—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) [292], and passed.
Third Reading—Municipal Franchise (Ireland) [9] [House counted out].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (No. 8) * [262]; Local Government (No. 9) * [263]; Local Government (No. 10) * [269]; Local Government (No. 11) * [277].

MOTIONS.
  BELFAST MAIN DRAINAGE BILL.

    RESOLUTION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the case of the Belfast Main Drainage Bill, Standing Orders 243 and 247 be suspended."—(Mr. Dodds) (for Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. SEXTON: This is a Motion to suspend the Standing Orders in order to enable the Bill to be read a third time. Before we consent to that course, I think we have a right to learn from hon. Members who are responsible for the introduction of the Bill what course they intend to take hereafter in regard to the important clause which was inserted in this Bill on Monday last, and which assimilates the Municipal to the Parliamentary franchise in Belfast. We, in this part of the House, regard that course as essential to the proper administration of the scheme embodied in this Bill; and, therefore, before the measure is read a third time, I feel it is my duty to ask the promoters of the Bill whether they intend to use their influence to strike out the clause in question in "another place," or whether they are prepared to accept the decision at which the House arrived on Monday in good faith? If I receive an assurance to that effect I shall be glad to assent to the third reading of the Bill; but if not, I shall most certainly feel it my duty to divide the House against the suspension of the Standing Orders.
    [No one rose to answer the question.]
    COLONEL NOLAN: May I ask whether the Question before the House is not a Question of the suspending of the Standing Orders?
    MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Has Notice been given to the promoters of the Bill that it was intended to move the suspension of the Standing Orders?
    MR. DODDS: Yes.
    COLONEL NOLAN. Then, is there no one here to answer the question which
    204
    has been asked by my hon. Friend? It is quite evident that the Bill ought to be postponed.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the Bill is opposed it will stand over necessarily until the next day of the sitting of the House.
    MR. SEXTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat that, if the general sense of the House is in favour of the understanding that the clause which was inserted in the Bill on Monday last shall not be got rid of in "another place," I should not feel disposed to insist upon my opposition to the third reading of the Bill.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I do not think that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has any right to make a proposal of that kind in the absence of the hon. Members for Belfast.
    MR. BIGGAR: I think the most simple way of dealing with the question would be to allow the third reading to stand over until the commencement of the new Parliament, so as to allow the new Parliament to express its opinion whether the Bill ought to be read a third time or not. Nothing whatever would be lost by taking that course, and it would prevent any difficulty being raised with regard to this new clause in the other House of Parliament.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I think that hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side of the House have a right to claim that there should be a specific understanding in regard to this measure. I cannot forget that when the understanding, which was supposed to have existed in regard to the postponement of the Bill from the 31st of May, was before the House on Monday last there was an absolute disagreement as to what the nature of that understanding was. Indeed, it was questioned by certain hon. Members whether there had been any understanding at all. I think, therefore, that in what we decide upon to-day there should be no repetition of the misunderstanding which occurred on Monday.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question now before the House is the suspension of the Standing Orders. A subsequent Question will be "That the Bill be now read a third time."
    MR. SEXTON: In the absence of those who are entitled to

    205
    enter into an undertaking I shall certainly persist in my objection to the suspension of the Standing Orders.
    Question put.
    MR. SPEAKERinquired who were the Tellers for the Ayes?
    [No answer.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: If there are no Tellers there can be no division.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I will tell for one.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE: And I for another.
    MR. SPEAKER: Then I name as the Tellers for the Ayes, Viscount Folkestone and Sir James M'Garel-Hogg, and as the Tellers for the Noes, Mr. Sexton and Mr. Howard Spensley.
    The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 63: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 142.)

    PRIVATE BILLS.
    Order of June 21st, "That as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords, with Amendments, such Amendments be considered on the next sitting of the House after the day on which the Bill shall have returned from the Lords," read, and discharged.
    Ordered, That as regards Private Bills already returned (or to be returned this day), with Amendments, such Amendments be considered forthwith.—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].

    RESOLUTION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Order of the House of the 21st June, referring the Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) Bill [Lords] to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills be read, and discharged."—(Mr. John Morley.)
    MR. BIGGAR,: I wish to know, Sir, whether this Bill is a Private or a Public Bill, and whether or not, if nothing further is done with it now, it will be taken in the new Parliament at the stage which it has reached at present, or whether it will lapse with the termination of the Session? I entertain strong objections with regard to some of the provisions of this measure, and I think it is desirable, if possible, that some of the persons who are interested in the matter should have an opportunity of being heard, so that they may give their reasons for opposing this tramway line. On the other, hand it is also desirable that the promoters of the Bill should have an opportunity of giving their reasons in favour of the
    206
    scheme. My own opinion is that the landlords in the localities which are affected by the measure should be made liable for one-half of the guarantee as well as the tenants. By this Private Bill, as it now stands, the occupiers will be called upon to pay the whole amount of the guarantee payable under this measure. I think it is only fair that the landlords should pay their fair proportion. If it is decided that this Bill is a Public Bill, and that it will lose the position it now occupies in the event of a Dissolution, I think it will be an exceeding awkward thing to prevent it from having an opportunity of going before a Select Committee. On the other hand, if it is simply in the position of other Private Bills, I think there would be a general agreement to allow it to be read a second time now, on the understanding that no further stage shall be taken, but that it will come before the now Parliament, so that an opportunity should be afforded to all persons who are interested in the locality to show whether the provisions of the measure are of a nature which will justify the House in passing them into law or not. If the Government will afford me an opportunity of moving an Instruction to the Committee to-morrow, or of opposing the clause to which I particularly object, I shall raise no further objection to the proposal now made. All that I want is that a fair opportunity should be afforded to the House for saying whether or not it will insist that all the guarantees in connection with this proposed tramway shall be paid by the tenants, and no portion whatever by the landlords. What I wish now to ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this—Whether or not this is to be treated as a Private Bill, or as a Public Bill; whether, in the event of its being held to be a Private Bill, it will come before the new Parliament in the position it now occupies; and whether, in the event of its being held to be a Public Bill, it will lapse entirely with the Dissolution about to take place in the same way as other Public Bills?
    MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the question of the hon. Member, I have to say that this is essentially a Public Bill, and, therefore, that it will lapse entirely with the Prorogation. If it had been simply a Provisional Order Bill, it would necessarily partake of the nature of a Public Bill; but, in my judgment, it is

    207
    something more than a Provisional Order Bill, and the character of its provisions is such that it is essentially a Public Bill.
    DR. TANNER: Perhaps the House will allow me to say fiat I have presented a considerable number of Petitions from my constituents in favour of this Bill. The measure itself runs through the heart of my constituency. [A laugh.] Hon. Members may laugh; but this is the first attempt I have ever made to carry any Bill through this House, and if, in doing so, I am guilty of any mistake, I hope the House will pardon me. This scheme has been under (he consideration both of this House and of the House of Lords for a very considerable time—I believe something like two years—and during that time the persons who first of all drew up the scheme—people who have been called upon to furnish the guarantees for carrying forward the measure, and the majority of whom are certainly the very reverse of wealthy—have subscribed upwards of £7,000; and, out of that sum, up to the present time from £3,000 to £4,000 still remains at this moment in the hands of the trustees, and is, at any rate, the money of the persons who have to furnish this guarantee. It certainly appears to be extremely hard that a scheme of this sort, which was brought forward four years ago, and for which the people of the county of Cork were begged to subscribe their money, should be treated in this way, and that the scheme should be hung up from time to time to suit the pleasure of the opponents of the measure. I may inform the House that the principal opponents of the scheme are the Cork and Macroom Railway Company. That Company have done their utmost on every occasion, and by every means, to oppose the scheme on the ground that if it were carried out it would injure their own material interests. Perhaps I may be allowed to give the simple history of the scheme, which has had to fulfil many conditions. In the first place, it had to pass the Cork Grand Jury. It passed that ordeal satisfactorily, not only once, but twice. It had also to pass the Cork Board of Guardians and the Cork Town Council, and it was successful in each instance. Now, the Cork Grand Jury, we all know, contains within itself gentlemen of the aristocratic type
    208
    and order; nevertheless, this scheme has been twice passed by that Body, and also by the Cork Town Council, which is an essentially democratic Body, and by the Cork Board of Guardians. It then went before the Privy Council of Ireland, who also passed it. It has, consequently, fulfilled all the conditions that are necessary. When I was asked to take up the scheme, I must confess that I did not decide upon doing so hastily. Although I felt that the scheme might be of material advantage to my constituents, I determined that I would not have anything to say to it until I had ascertained what the feeling of those persons who were most materially affected by it was. I consulted the gentlemen who were asked to guarantee the scheme, and I received from a large majority assurances in favour of the measure. When I last happened to be in Cork, I took a bind of plébiscite of the guarantors in every district; and perhaps the House will allow me to state what the result of that plébiscite was. In the district of Blarney there are 98 rated occupiers who would be required to furnish the guarantee, with a total rateable qualification of £7,097. Out of that number I find that 65 were in favour of the Bill, and 33 against it. The 65 in favour of it possess a rating qualification of £5,748; whereas the 33 occupiers and freeholders who were either neutral or against the Bill, or whose opinions are unknown, only represent a rating qualification of £1,349. In Ballincollig there is only one gentleman who would be called upon to furnish a guarantee, hardly any of the ratepayers being within the area of taxation in the district, and that gentleman is in favour of the scheme. In Coachford there are 167 in favour of the Bill, with a rateable qualification of £8,232 6s. 9d., as compared with 47 against it, and a rateable qualification of £1,737 6s. In Farsan and Mac-room, through which districts it is proposed that the tramway shall actually run, it is found that the people who may be called upon to guarantee it are naturally not so favourable to the scheme. That is easily explained. We know perfectly well that in all schemes of this nature, where it is proposed to run a tramway line, or a light railway, through a particular district, there are a certain number of people who would

    209
    be called upon to furnish the guarantee who would not be so materially helped by the scheme as those who live in other areas. In this case, the consequence is that in Farsan there are only five rated occupiers in favour of the Bill, with a rated qualification of £249 10 s.; whereas there are six, or a majority of one against the Bill, who command a rating qualification of £404 in the district of Farsan. There already exists a railway running direct to Cork, and it cannot be expected that the people of Macroom would be so much in favour of the construction of this railway as other persons who would derive very material benefit from it. In Macroom there is a majority of 11 against the scheme. There are 12 rated occupiers, representing a rating qualification of £630 7s., in favour of the Bill; whereas there are against it 23, with a rateable qualification of £1,164 10 s. In the district of Shandangan, which lies to the North, the population would be equally benefited, although not in the same way, as the districts which lie on the coach road to Blarney. In Shandangan, 26 rated occupiers, with a rateable qualification to the extent of £1,424 7s., are in favour of the scheme, as against two rated occupiers, with a rateable qualification of £85, who are against it. The total result is this. There are 276 rated occupiers, with a rateable qualification amounting to £16,313 6s. 9d., in favour of the Bill, and 111, with a rateable qualification of £4,739, against it. Consequently, there is a majority of 165 rated occupiers in favour of the Bill, and an excess of rateable qualification to the extent of £11,573 10 s. 9d. That is the result of the plébiscite which I have taken. I think those facts speak for themselves. The measure has been taken up as a Public Bill. If it had been introduced as a Private Bill, I could easily understand the objections which might be raised to it by private individuals. They would object for many and various reasons, and probably to a large extent from motives of a purely private character, because, undoubtedly, private reasons do frequently influence individuals in regard to measures from which they are not likely to derive any particular material benefit. But I feel bound to maintain that, taking this Bill as it stands, and considering the benefit it is likely to confer upon the district which will be
    210
    served by it, remembering also the depressed times through which we are passing, and considering further that a large class of unfortunate labouring people are at the present moment driven to the verge of starvation—taking all these things into consideration, I cannot help feeling that hon. Members who are taking upon themselves to oppose the Bill, supported as it is by the vast majority of the people of the district through which it is to pass, and who are alone to furnish the guarantee, are entailing upon themselves a serious responsibility. I know this district thoroughly, and I am convinced that this light line of railway, if its construction be sanctioned by Parliament, will not only pay interest upon the capital expended upon it, but will be of vast benefit, not only to the population generally, but especially to the labouring classes, in this time of deep and general distress.
    MR. O'HEA: I am very much inclined to support the view of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) respecting this and cognate measures—namely, that the guarantee and the burden of taxation is allowed to rest unduly upon the tenants, and that the landlords entirely escape. But, after having heard the figures which have been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), and being quite satisfied that the people of this district earnestly desire that this scheme should be carried out, I feel bound to give the measure my support. I am informed that all the Representatives of the county of Cork are in favour of the scheme; and when we find that the people of the district, who are certainly the best judges of their own affairs, desire the Bill; when the Representatives of the locality share the views entertained by their constituents, who, they believe, will be benefited by the construction of the line, we have before us strong reasons which ought to be quite sufficient to induce hon. Members to pause before they do anything that may impair the progress of the Bill or prevent the scheme from being carried out with as little delay as possible. There was another fact mentioned by my hon. Friend which ought not to be lost sight of. In addition to the ultimate benefit which the district will receive from the construction of this line, there is also the fact that the

    211
    labouring classes at this moment are sadly in need of employment. By carrying out this work employment will be given in the coming winter. Instead of the labouring classes having to pass through an exceptional gloomy winter, employment will be found for them; and not only will they be able to provide for their own wants by honest industry, but the bulk of them will be prevented from becoming the recipients of outdoor relief. Having regard to the arguments which have been adduced by my hon. Friend in favonr of the Bill, much as I desire to see the landlords compelled to pay their due proportion of taxation, I am quite satisfied that it will be of advantage to the locality if the Bill is passed as rapidly as possible.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who is not able to be in his place this afternoon, I have been requested to communicate to the House what the views of the Irish Government are in reference to this Bill. It is not necessary that I should go into the details of the case, which are well known to many hon. Members. But the circumstances of the case entail peculiar hardships upon the locality in which this line runs, and form a strong argument in favour of some alteration in our mode of doing business so far as Ireland is concerned. This measure has passed through various stages both as a Private and a Public Bill, and it has now become undoubtedly a Public Bill. I may state shortly that the scheme has been twice sanctioned under the provisions of the Tramways Act by the Grand Jury of the county of Cork, and it was then submitted to the Irish Privy Council, according to the provisions of the law. The Privy Council unanimously approved of the Order, and the matter was very fully discussed. It was next brought before the House of Lords, and the officials of that House made the mistake, last year, of treating it as a Private instead of a Public Bill. It was referred to a Private Bill Committee, and the parties were put to the enormous expense of bringing over witnesses from Ireland. Ultimately the Select Committee rejected the Bill. Shortly afterwards the change of Government took place,
    212
    and representations were made to the authorities of the House of Lords, and the matter was considered by both sides of the House. The late Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury), and his Predecessor (the Earl of Selborne), were satisfied that a great error had been committed, and that it was a Public and not a Private Bill. It was therefore decided to re-commit the Bill, and to treat it as a public measure. It was passed without a division, and sent down to this House late in the Session. The consequence was that it was blocked, and finally lost. The Dissolution took place, and the thousands of pounds which the unfortunate promoters had expended were thrown away. It has now been brought forward again this year as a Public Bill, and it has received the support of Earl Spencer, Lord Fitzgerald, of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and of Lord Ashbourne, the late Lord Chancellor. I am sure the House will not agree with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that this is a measure upon which to raise the question of requiring the landlords to join in the guarantee in reference to future taxation. I think it is only just to the promoters that the Bill should be allowed to pass after the tremendously expensive ordeal to which it has been subjected; and it must not be forgotten that it comes down to us with the united support of the Noblemen whose names I have mentioned, of the present Government of Ireland, and of the late Government. Those who are now responsible for the government of that country ask the House to pass the second reading and to suspend the Standing Orders in order that that course may be taken.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I think there is a great deal of reason in what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and there was also a good deal in what was said by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), as to the want of employment for the labouring classes in the county of Cork at the present moment; but, at the same time, I think there can be no argument more dangerous for advocating a scheme of this kind than that of the existence of distress and the impossibility of finding employment for persons now out of work. I do not think that the House

    213
    ought to be called upon to entertain any scheme upon that ground; but it ought to be considered entirely upon its own merits, altogether irrespective of any distress that may exist. In regard to the Bill itself I have this remark to make—that it is one of a character which ought to be jealously watched, because the authorities have had no opportunity of making themselves heard. The measure is not one which has achieved such an amount of success which renders it desirable that it should be hurried through Parliament, as it is now proposed to hurry it, without detailed examination. My hon. Friend below me—the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner)—made a great deal of certain figures which he quoted in reference to the districts in the county of Cork which will be affected by the construction of this tramway; but those who are not as intimately acquainted with the county of Cork as he and I may not be able to appreciate the significance of this question. If, however, hon. Members will refer to a map, and examine the figures by the light of that reference, they will find that about the city of Cork there is much support to the scheme; in Blarney also there is a considerable amount of support; the people of Coachford also, whose doors the line is proposed to run past, are also in favour of it. But when you get further off, and approach Macroom and other parts, it will be found that the scheme receives nothing like the same amount of support. Nevertheless, it is proposed to charge a large district with a heavy amount of liability with regard to this financial project, although in its entirety it is scarcely benefited at all. Places which are remote from this line of tramway will receive no benefit whatever from it, but will be saddled, notwithstanding, with a serious financial burden. I think that is altogether unfair. If we suspend the Standing Orders in the way in which it is proposed to suspend them now, what will be the effect? The Bill will go before the Examiners of Private Bills, who will be able to call the promoters before them. [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: No; that is not so.] I understand that the Examiners would hear individual proprietors of property along the proposed tramway line, and also some of the shareholders of the Company. If it is to be treated
    214
    as a Private Bill, as I understand it is—[Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: NO.]—it will be necessary to refer it to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. If it is not to be treated as a Private Bill, the case is made worse, because not only would the promoters have an opportunity of being heard before the Examiners of Private Bills, but it would be open for other persons to complain of non-compliance with the Standing Orders, and, in some form or other, to ventilate the merits and demerits of the scheme. If that were done now, I have no doubt the result would be the same in this House as it was after the careful scrutiny which was made by the House of Lords, and which resulted in the decision that the Bill ought not to pass. We are asked now to do a very singular thing. The Government informed the House that it was intended to bring the Session to a close as rapidly as possible, and that in the meantime no contentious Business would be taken. Now, this Bill has been opposed over and over again. It admittedly contains matter of a contentious character, and we find the Government deliberately departing from their promise, and themselves pushing contentious Business through the House at a moment when they had given hon. Members to understand that no contentious Business would be taken. They are even asking us to dispense with our own Standing Orders, which require that the Bill should go before the Examiners, and proposing that the Bill should be committed, in the Whole House, at once. I maintain that this is an extreme course to take; and unless the necessity were very great—a good deal stronger than it is on the present occasion—I am of opinion that Her Majesty's Government are not justified in what they are doing. I assume, however, that it will be useless to divide the House on the matter; but I am glad to have an opportunity of recording my protest against the course which the Government propose to take.
    DR. COMMINS: This Bill is not now for the first time before the House, and its merits are not required to be gone into now, seeing that they have been amply discussed before. Indeed, the measure has been before the House on its merits since 1884, and upon those merits there have been two decisions in its favour by the

    215
    Grand Jury of the county of Cork. The House are, therefore, aware that the persons who are intrusted with the care of the interests of the particular locality affected by the Bill have already twice decided that the Bill ought to be passed. The Town Council of the city of Cork and the Cork Board of Guardians, who are perfectly well acquainted with the wants of the locality, have also decided in its favour. In addition, it has received the approval of the Privy Council of Ireland. After all these decisions, and after all the occasions in which those who object to the scheme have had an opportunity of being heard against it, my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) asks now that some particular individuals who have already had an opportunity of being heard shall be heard again, and be able to re-state their case in such a manner as to throw an enormous expense upon the promoters of the scheme. This Bill, which to some extent is a Private Bill, has now become a Public Bill; but, through a mistake on the part of the officials in "another place," it was relegated back as a Private Bill, and the promoters were compelled to incur an expense of £2,000, seeing that they had to bring over 14 or 15 witnesses to London, and to go into the merits of the Bill over again before a tribunal which I maintain, with all due respect, was not nearly so well qualified to come to a decision upon the scheme as the Grand Jury of the county of Cork or the Privy Council of Ireland. The expense of bringing witnesses from Ireland to this country is so great that the promoters were unable to call some of their most valuable witnesses. Then I say that those who are opposed to the Bill have had an ample opportunity of being heard twice already, and that the matter has been decided against them, except in the single instance when the Bill was sent back to a Private Bill Committee by the House of Lords. On that occasion the promoters, almost without notice, were called upon to re-state their case, and to endeavour to prove it by witnesses who could only be brought from Ireland at an enormous expense. I think it would not only be a great hardship, but an act of great injustice, to the promoters, who are only acting in the public interests, to impose upon them a repetition of the large expenditure already incurred. I
    216
    therefore think the best course is to accept the proposal of Her Majesty's Government and take the measure as a Public Bill.
    MR. FLYNN: As one of the Representatives of the county of Cork and a resident in the district which is proposed to be served by the construction of this tramway, I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and I hope the House will assent to it. Of course, one must naturally expect opposition to a measure of this kind; but I take it that if the House were to adopt the course recommended by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), it would have the effect of requiring the merits of this Bill to be discussed for a third or fourth time, whereas the opponents of the scheme have already had an opportunity on several occasions of stating their case, and the decision has been against them. The Board of Guardians of the district through which the tramway is to pass have unanimously passed resolutions in support of it. It is also strongly supported by the Corporation of the city of Cork, who are well acquainted with the locality and the local requirements. I therefore think that a strong case in favour of it has been made out. The opposition to the Bill comes principally from the Cork and Macroom Railway Company, as has already been explained by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). That hon. Member is a Representative of the district, and he would certainly not have supported it if he did not believe that it would be for the benefit of the locality, that it is a scheme which will eventually pay, and that it will serve the material interests of his constituents. I have very great pleasure in supporting the Motion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. John Morley.)
    MR. BIGGAR: I gather from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (the Secretary to the Treasury) that he objects to two propositions which have been made—namely, that he declines to agree to afford me an opportunity to-morrow of discussing the propriety of throwing half the expense of

    217
    the guarantee upon the landlords, instead of throwing the whole of it upon the occupoing tenants. He also objects, and perhaps not unfairly, to allow the Bill to be entirely lost, because he knows that it is practically impossible to have its merits considered at this period of the Session by a Select Committee. My appeal to the hon. Gentleman was that he should give us an opportuity tomorrow of considering whether it was not desirable to insert a clause in the measure which would allow part of the responsibility of the guarantee to be laid, where it ought to be laid, upon the landowners as well as the tenants. It is notorious that this Bill was originally promoted by a large landowner in the county of Cork. Not only is that the case, but it is somewhat singular that so much stress should have been laid upon the fact that the Grand Jury of the county of Cork decided in favour of the scheme. I am credibly informed that the late High Sheriff laid the Bill before a Grand Jury altogether friendly to his views, and, in fact, that they came to a decision upon the representations made to them by that gentleman. Sir George Colthurst, a former Representative of the county, was the High Sheriff by whom the measure was brought before the Grand Jury. Coachford, one of the points to which it is proposed to carry this railway, is a village about 15 miles from Cork. I would ask hon. Members to consider seriously whether it is desirable to encourage projects for making light railways to the villages in all parts of Ireland?—and yet that is really the gist of the proposal now before the House. I would further ask whether it is deemed advisable to encourage the construction of tramways to distant villages in competition with regular lines of railway already in existence and paying very small dividends? In regard to this projected line, it runs almost parallel with the Cork and Macroom Railway; it is not more than five miles away from any part of it, and, consequently, it cannot be alleged that the district proposed to be served is very badly off for railway accommodation. Persons residing within a mile of Macroom would naturally continue to use the Macroom Railway as a mode of conveyance to Cork in preference to the proposed line, and yet they are to be made liable to find the guarantee for
    218
    this Bill. I would ask the Government if that is a proposal in support of which there can be any fair argument? As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), the Government, when they announced a Dissolution, gave a promise that no contentious Business should be taken. Now, this Bill certainly contains provisions of a highly contentious nature, and if they were allowed to be fairly fought out on their merits, I am satisfied that they would be thrown out. My hon. Friend the Member for West Donegal (Mr. O'Hea) talked about the construction of the line providing employment for the labourer. But are hon. Members prepared, in order to find employment for the labouring classes to the extent of some £10,000, to tax the ratepayers permanently to the extent of £70,000? The serious part of the expense of a railway is incurred in providing rolling stock, rails, and other materials, whereas the cost of labour is only a small fraction of the entire expense. I maintain that the reasons which have been given in support of the Bill are altogether untenable, and I think Her Majesty's Government ought to agree to my proposal, and afford an opportunity of considering the propriety of throwing the responsibility of supplying the guarantee upon the persons who are the real promoters of the scheme, and not of confining the burden of taxation solely upon the unfortunate occupying tenants. The landowners should undoubtedly bear their fair share of the expense, and perhaps it would teach them not to go in for these expensive railway schemes. At any rate, their views in that direction would probably be more moderate if they knew that they would be liable to incur their proper share of the expense.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The answer I have to give to the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government is simply this—that if we were to afford him the opportunity he asks for, the result would be merely to throw out the Bill. The House will only meet to-morrow for the purpose of being prorogued, and neither House will meet for the purpose of going on with Business. Therefore, to postpone the second reading of the Bill until tomorrow, would amount to the practical

    219
    throwing out of the Bill. I do not propose to go into the merits of the case again. The local people are in favour of it; the Local Authorities have twice over decided upon it; the Irish Privy Council has given its sanction to it; and the House of Lords, including two Lord Lieutenants, both the late and previous and present Lord Chancellor, and the Chief Secretaries past and present, in addition to the Members in this House who represent the district, have decided in favour of it. I hope, therefore, the House will not listen to the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member, but will do in this matter what I consider to be justice to Ireland.
    MR. SEXTON: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in the conclusion to which he has arrived, and I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) not to persist with his opposition to the Bill.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is somewhat mistaken in the statement he has made, that this Bill commands the universal assent of the locality through which it is to pass. The House has been familiar with the Bill since last year, and hon. Members who belong to the Party who sit on these Benches have reason to be familiar with it by reason of the fact that they were waited upon by two deputations of local ratepayers who came over from Ireland to make representations in regard to the Bill. One was a deputation from the tenants of Sir George Colthurst, who were naturally in favour of it, because it suited their personal convenience, and because this line of tramway—which I believe is really a bogus line—is to run past their houses, and will, of course, be of some benefit to them. It was supported also by the local landlord party, and by the Grand Jury, specially packed by Sir George Colthurst, who, in 1884, was High Sheriff of the county of Cork, because the line is intended to benefit his own property, and will be of advantage to his tenants. He sent a deputation of tenant farmers to us, all of whom lived in the immediate vicinity of the proposed line, and, of course, they were in favour of it; but immediately afterwards a large deputation of tenant farmers came across who do not live in the immediate vicinity of the line, but
    220
    who are supposed to derive benefit from it. They distinctly told us that the Cork and Macroom Railway affords ample accommodation to the district already; they, therefore, objected to be burdened with taxation for it; they maintained the line, if constructed, would never pay; and I think it is perfectly obvious that a narrow gauge line of railway of this nature, instead of being able to pay, will be a dead loss. The consequence will be that it will have to be taken up by the Grand Jury as soon as it ceases to pay, and the community will be taxed to the extent, probably, of 1s. in the pound, simply for the purpose of gratifying the interests of Sir George Colthurst, who, at that time, was Member for the city of Cork, and his tenants. The hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy), who is intimately connected with the county, is altogether opposed to the scheme.
    DR. TANNER: Will my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt him? I only wish to say that the hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy) did oppose the Bill at the outset, but he has since withdrawn all objection and opposition.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: My hon. Friend the Member for West Mayo has ceased to be a Member for the city of Cork, and he does not trouble himself now about the affairs of that city. Probably it would have been different if he had remained one of the Representatives of that city. Not only did the hon. Member for West Mayo oppose the construction of this line, but the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane), who was not then a Member of this House, was also strongly opposed to it.
    DR. TANNER: I must again interrupt my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for East Cork is one of the strongest aiders and abettors of this Bill.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I remember that the hon. Member who now represents East Cork (Mr. Lane) distinctly stated last year that he had been led by error into supporting the Bill; but as soon as he found out the real nature of the measure, and the real intentions of the promoters, he at once communicated with my hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell), who was then the junior Member for the city of Cork, with a view of inducing him to oppose the measure, on the ground that it proposed to

    221
    burden the locality with an enormous annual charge. Already the local ratepayers are petitioning against the Bill. Persons living in the locality, rated at £1,500 per annum, have petitioned against it, and are altogether opposed to it. Their contention is that this scheme, which is brought in under the provisions of the Tramways Act of 1883, is open to great objection, on the ground that there is no prospect of the line being able to maintain its way. The only thing that has been said in its favour is that its construction would involve the expenditure of money for the benefit of the labouring classes; but I contend that that is one of the greatest possible delusions from an economic standpoint. Suppose there are £20,000 or £30,000 spent in the payment of wages among the navvies and other persons engaged in these works. The money may benefit the men who receive it, but the locality will be very little benefited. There may be a small temporary benefit, but in the end there would be a permanent charge on the rates. Thus the locality is to be taxed in perpetuity for the benefit of a small gang of navvies; and the navvies who construct lines of railways in Ireland are not local navvies, but persons who come from a distance and go about in gangs from one public work to another. The idea that the construction of this tramway line will benefit the locality seems to my mind to be all moonshine. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has supported the scheme, for I am perfectly certain that if he had had the opportunity of inquiring into the question he would have taken the opposite attitude.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) excited some laughter when he said that this question was one which ran through the heart of his constituency; but I maintain that it runs through the heart of Irish property generally. I would ask hon. Members on both sides of the House whether there can be any doubt whatever as to the Irish feeling on this matter, or of those who represent the locality principally affected by the measure? If the Bill were decided by the vote of the Irish Members alone, I am satisfied that it would be carried by a very large majority.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I would make an appeal to hon. Members who are supporting the Bill to agree to the very reasonable proposal that that burden should be restricted to those who are to enjoy the benefit. There are certain districts which are already within reach of a railway. Such districts will derive no benefit at all from the proposed line. They have signed a Petition against it, and they have moved against it not only this year, but in previous years. It is perfectly absurd that persons living within a mile of Macroom Railway Station, which is in direct communication with Cork, should be taxed in order that another line, of doubtful benefit, should be run in a district which is not theirs. If those who are in charge of the Bill will agree to exclude from the area of the measure Farsan and Macroom, I am perfectly ready to withdraw the opposition to the Bill; but I cannot see how the House can in fairness insist in throwing the charge upon Macroom for a scheme which can in no way benefit it, and in respect of a railway service which they regard as no supplement whatever to their own line. These are the only two districts in regard to which there is any substantial ground of objection; but in respect of these two it seems to me unreasonable that the promoters should refuse to modify their scheme. I would ask my hon. Friend below (Dr. Tanner) to say whether, if this Bill goes into Committee this afternoon, he will be willing to submit a limitation of the area of charge so as to exclude the districts I have mentioned?
    DR. TANNER: So far as the proposal which my hon. Friend has made is concerned, I should have no objection to it; but I must remind him that the matter is entirely in the hands of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and, as far as I can see, if the proposition were entertained the Bill would be hung up and practically destroyed for the present Session, and would have to be introduced again. If the House will bear in mind the figures which I have already read in reference to the two districts which my hon. Friend desires to omit, they will recollect that in one of them—Farsan—there were five rated occupiers in favour of the Bill, and only six against, while in the dis-

    223
    trict of Macroom there were 12 in favour and 23 against; so that there were altogether, in the two districts, 17 in favour of the scheme and 29 against it. Accordingly, you are to hang up the Bill for another year, and put the unfortunate promoters to an immense amount of expense, in order to gratify the wishes of 12 persons who may be called on to give a guarantee. I certainly think that it is a ridiculous proposal, and I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will not give it his serious consideration. The House may rest satisfied that all classes and sections in the locality are united in supporting the measure, and the sooner it is passed into law the better it will be for all parties concerned.
    MR. O'HEA: If the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) were carried out, this Bill, which is framed on the basis of certain areas of taxation, would be entirely changed in its character, and the entire fabric which has been built up would crumble away. I cannot see how the suggestion of my hon. Friend could be carried out compatibly with the retention of the remaining provisions of the measure.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(The Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    MR. BIGGAR: Before you leave the Chair, Sir, I must again protest against the way in which this Bill has been dealt with. It came down from the House of Lords on Tuesday last, and no Notice of it was given to any Member of the House until the Papers were issued next morning. Yet we are now asked to push the Bill through all of its stages. What is the result? The result is that we have had no opportunity of drafting any Amendments which might be considered fair and reasonable; we have been prevented either from giving Notice of Amendments, or from having any opportunity to block the Bill. I think, Sir, that that is a mode of conducting the Business of the House which we have a right to protest against in the strongest terms we can use. Further than that, we were told when the Dissolution was announced that Her Majesty's Government would
    224
    proceed with no contentious Business, but would simply wind up the ordinary Business of the Session. Yet they have introduced, almost on the last day of the Session, a measure of a highly contentious character, and they propose to force it through all of its stages in a single Sitting. It is notorious that there has been no debate in this House on the merits of this scheme, and that however desirable it may be to introduce Amendments into the Bill it would be impossible to have them properly considered unless previous Notice of them had been placed upon the Paper. If the Government had taken measures to have the Bill brought down from the House of Lords on Monday, so that we might have been afforded an opportunity of giving Notice of Amendments on Tuesday, there might have been some slight justification for the course which has been pursued; but, under the circumstances, it certainly seems to me that the Government have been guilty of sharp practice in regard to the Bill. We have been told by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) that the opponents of the Bill are very few; but there have been Petitions against the Bill signed by ratepayers who are rated as occupiers to the amount of £4,700 per annum. No doubt, a certain class of persons will get some convenience from the construction of this line and will reap advantage from it. Of course, they are in favour of the measure; but, on the other hand, there are a considerable number of large ratepayers who will be taxed by the Bill and will derive no benefit at all from it. I think that, under the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government ought to withdraw the Bill altogether.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR in the Chair.)
    Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to move, in the Schedule which confirms the presentment of the Grand Jury of the county of Cork, to insert, after the word "Barretts," "with the exception of the parish of Aghina." This is a clause—Section 8 of the Schedule—which reads in this way—

    225
    "The presentment of the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, which is set out in the first Schedule to this Order, is hereby confirmed so far as it relates to the charge to be defrayed by the portions of the baronies of East Muskerry and Cork and Barretts as particularized in the said presentment for the payment of dividends at the rate of five pounds per centum per annum upon the paid-up capital of the undertaking as limited by this Order, and so far as it relates to the liability of the same portion of the said baronies to provide for the completing, working, and maintaining of the undertaking."
    I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), who, although not in charge of the Bill, represents the interests of the promoters, that he is not, in principle at any rate, opposed to the modification of the limitation which I suggested a short time ago. He only appeared to be afraid that any alteration of the Bill in Committee would involve delay and imperil the passing of the measure. But I understand that there are other Amendments which it will be necessary to insert in Committee, so that the acceptance of the Amendment which I propose would not involve any delay at all, seeing that I propose no further alteration of the Bill than will be effected by the other Amendments to which I allude. I simply propose by this Amendment to limit the area of charge by inserting in line 13, after the word "Barretts," the words "with the exception of the parish of Aghina." That parish is the parish which is most hardly dealt with by the scheme as it is now drawn. There is no portion of the parish of Aghina of which it can be said that it will derive any benefit whatever from the Bill. It is the parish from which the loudest and best grounded objections to the scheme proceed, and there is certainly considerable cause for the complaint the ratepayers make. In order to effect a compromise in the matter, I simply limit the Amendment to this particular parish. I beg to move that in Section 8 of the Schedule, page 4, line 13, after the word "Barretts," to insert the words "with the exception of the parish of Aghina."
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 13, after the word "Barretts," to insert the words "with the exception of the parish of Aghina."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. FLYNN: I would ask the hon. Member how he thinks it is possible that a revaluation can be now made for the purpose of this Bill? A large portion of this very district which the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) wishes to exclude, and a considerable portion of this very parish of Aghina, will be served by this tramway line. No doubt, there is some portion of it which is conveniently situated so far as the Cork and Macroom Railway is concerned; but there are other parts which will be directly served by the construction of this light tramway. In addition, it will have the advantage of competition, and we all know that in case of the transport of goods either by sea or land there is nothing so advantageous to the general public as competition. The entire district to which the Amendment refers will be served by the Bill; and the promoters, therefore, strongly object to the proposed alteration.
    MR. BIGGAR: The position which the opponents of the Bill occupy is a most unsatisfactory one. The unfortunate people who live at the terminus of the railway will be called upon to pay part of the guarantee, but can by no possibility derive benefit from the construction of a new line. I do not see how Her Majesty's Government can defend a proposition of this sort. As I have already said, part of the property which it is proposed to tax is within one mile of the town of Macroom, and four miles distant from the terminus of the proposed line. Nevertheless, the occupiers of that property will be taxed if the Bill is allowed to pass in its present shape. I do not see how the Government can defend such a proposition, and I fail to see what objection they can urge to the reasonable proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Flynn) says that if the Amendment is assented to, the property affected by the Bill will have to be revalued. That is not at all necessary, because under the Government valuation every holder holds separately, and there will not be the slightest difficulty in striking out a whole parish if it is thought desirable to do so.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The Government are anxious to see this Bill passed in the form in which it has been introduced by the promoters, and that as little change should be made in it as possible. It has already gone through the House of Lords, and it is desirable that the form in which it left that House shall be adhered to. The Government, at all events, have shown that they are not enamoured of the principle of revising questions which have been settled by the Irish authorities. In this case the Bill has been approved by the Irish Privy Council, the Board of Guardians of the county of Cork, and by all the Local Authorities; and the course I ask the Committee to take now is to accept the decision of the Local Authorities, the Privy Council, and the House of Lords. If not, the effect of altering the measure in the way suggested would be, I am satisfied, to destroy the Bill. I trust that the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will not throw on this House the responsibility of amending the provisions of the Bill on a question we do not understand.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I think it is a great pity that the Bill cannot be referred to a Select Committee, because, as a matter of fact, this House is altogether incompetent to deal with the question involved in it. The Committee have no evidence before them, or, at any rate, only conflicting evidence, as to the feeling of the local ratepayers on the matter. What is proposed is to construct a light line of railway within a mile of the area at present occupied by the Cork and Macroom Railway, and to compel the ratepayers, who are already more than amply provided with railway accommodation, to pay the cost of the new tramway, although it will only benefit a few persons who live on the route of the proposed narrow-gauge railway. I believe that, under any circumstances, it would be impossible to induce any body of sane men to subscribe to the construction of this line. I certainly consider it unfair to expose persons living in the parish of Aghina even to the risk of being called upon to pay for the railway. They do not want the line, and it is not only unfair but unjust to require them to run the risk of being liable to pay for a scheme which is
    228
    bound to collapse, eventually leaving the entire district responsible for the payment of a rate in perpetuity. I trust that the Committee will see their way to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because, although not all that could be desired, it would save the inhabitants of this parish from the risk they are asked to incur, of guaranteeing a railway from which, they can by no possibility derive the smallest amount of benefit.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:— Ayes 3; Noes 115: Majority 112.—(Div. List, No. 143.)
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)moved to insert in the Schedule the following sub-section relating to the limit of guarantee:—
    "(9.) The capital to which the guarantee set out in the said presentment shall apply is hereby limited to the sum of seventy-five thousand pounds. The guarantee shall apply to so much of the capital so limited as is for the time actually paid up. The aforesaid capital of seventy-five thousand pounds shall not he issued as fully paid up, or he called up, save as said capital may from time to time be required for the actual construction and carrying out of the said undertaking: Provided always, that the entire of said capital shall not be issued until the expiration of a period of two years from the confirmation of this Order by Act of Parliament, unless the said undertaking shall be sooner completed."
    Sub-section agreed to.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERmoved to insert Sub-section 11—
    (Guarantee by Treasury.)
    "(11.) When in any half-year after the opening for traffic of the light railways the said baronies have paid to the Promoters any sums in respect of guaranteed dividend, exclusive of any sum paid in respect of the completing, working, or maintaining of the undertaking, the Treasury shall, if and so long as the light railways are maintained in working order and carry traffic, authorise the Board of Works, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to pay to the treasurer of the county, to be put to the account of the said baronies in the proportion of the sums paid by them, a sum amounting to one half of the sums so paid by them in respect of guaranteed dividend, exclusive as aforesaid, during such half-year, but so nevertheless that the sum so authorised to be paid shall not exceed a sum equal to interest at the rate of 2 per centum per annum on the paid up capital limited as aforesaid."
    Sub-section agreed to.
    Preamble.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERmoved, in line 2, to strike out the word "provisional."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the third time and passed, with Amendments.

  SHANKLIN AND CHALE RAILWAY (EXTENSION TO FRESHWATER) BILL [Lords] (by Order).

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Beading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
    MR. R. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise for the purpose of moving the Amendment of which I have given Notice, and to ask the House to reject this Bill, because I believe that the railway it is proposed to construct is not required by any present, or possible, or probable traffic along the line, and because it will involve the unnecessary and wanton destruction of some of the natural beauty of the Isle of Wight, and, in particular, would destroy some Downs over which the public at the present moment enjoy, and from time immemorial have enjoyed, the right of wandering, and which right they still claim. In addition, the line itself will be inconvenient and dangerous in its plan and construction; and, further, it was promoted in the interests, not of the public, but of one or two land speculators, who, while benefiting themselves, confer no corresponding benefit upon the public. The principle upon which Parliament consents to confer privileges and grant compulsory powers upon a private Company is that the promoters of a Private Bill shall, in return, confer the greatest possible benefit upon the public, and injure the public in the smallest possible degree. Now, the present Bill is one which proposes to inflict upon the public the maximum of loss and the minimum of gain. Last Session Parliament granted powers for the construction of a line from Shanklin to Chale—a point about five miles from Shanklin—and now it is sought to ex-
    230
    tend that line from Chale to Freshwater. But, while the promoters ask powers to extend the Shanklin and Chale line, that line does not exist at the present moment, because, so far, no advantage has been taken of the power to construct the line granted by Parliament last year. Such traffic as there is in the district along the least frequented sea board of the Island is taken by two coaches; and, in order to secure a sufficient amount of patronage, the proprietors of these coaches find it necessary to charge fares less than railway fares for the same distance would come to. I have visited the locality personally, as I felt it my duty to do so before taking the course I am about to take. I found that neither of the two coaches was paying, and that both wore running with lees than half-loads of passengers. Then, again, with regard to the other railways which the Isle of Wight possesses, I would ask what probability their history presents of a new line proving to be a profitable speculation? It is a very thinly populated Island, and yet there are at present five railways running in it. One of them—the Isle of Wight Railway— pays, I believe, a good dividend; but the Cowes and Newport pays neither dividend nor interest upon the capital expended; the Ryde and Newport Railway pays no dividend; the Newport Junction Railway from Newport to Sandown is in the hands of receivers appointed by the Court of Chancery, and the Newport and Freshwater Railway is an alternative line to Freshwater which has just been commenced. The Company obtained power to construct the line eight years ago; but it is only now that they have commenced to carry their powers out. There is, further, a Brading Harbour and Works Railway; but I have not been able to obtain any information whatever about it. With regard to the proposed line, I understand it is intended that the Isle of Wight Company shall work it. But does that make the case better? Not in the slightest degree, because, if it were likely to be a paying railway, calculated to confer benefit upon the promoters and contractors, the Isle of Wight Company would themselves have come to Parliament for powers to make the line. It is only because it is a scheme not worth their while as a Company to execute themselves that the Isle of Wight

    231
    Company have taken it up in this way. With regard to the country through which the proposed line is to run, it will pass along the sea board, cutting through the tops of some of the most beautiful chines, and eventually it is to end by a steep incline at Freshwater, passing over Afton Downs, which shut in Freshwater Bay and form one of the most charming spots in the Island. The incline is not only dangerous from its steepness, but it turns round with a sharp and dangerous curve; and altogether the line will, if sanctioned, utterly and irretrievably ruin the scenery of this part of the Island. A question has been raised as to whether common rights do not exist in the Downs which it is proposed to intersect. The Company say that there are no common rights whatever, and that the Downs are the property of individual landlords. In their own statement they say that they put it down in the first instance as common-able land because there was so much difficulty in ascertaining whether there were common rights; but they say they have now ascertained that there are no common rights. From the inquiry which I made on the spot, I find that, although there are no common rights in regard to the cutting of turf or the grazing of cattle, yet that the public have from time immemorial had the privilege of straying over and enjoying these beautiful Downs. I myself wandered over them without let or hindrance, and I therefore ask the House not to decide any dispute which may exist as to common rights between ths public and the landowners. The matter is in dispute, and until the question can be legally decided I would ask the House not to take sides on a question of this kind. The promoters go on to say that the opposition to the scheme is simply the result of a sentimental objection. Well, I think there is something even in a sentimental objection, and I have heard of a Railway Bill being thrown out three times simply on account of a sentimental objection. There can be no doubt that if this line is sanctioned it will entirely destroy a very interesting and charming spot. I have said that this railway is a dangerous railway. It goes down an incline of one in 50 at one point, and then for a considerable distance down an incline of one in 40, and then it works round the Down
    232
    at Freshwater by an extremely sharp curve—a curve of 10 chains which I am advised is exceedingly dangerous from an engineering point of view, and very likely to be objected to even by the Board of Trade. The reason why it is proposed to make the line in such a way is that in the interests of the promoters it may be made as cheaply as possible without regard to the advantage or safety of the public. As I have said, if such a line were wanted the Isle of Wight Company would have taken it up, and there would have been open competition for the construction of the line. But as it is simply a speculation the work of construction is to be given to a particular contractor. As a matter of fact, it is a line which has been got up by a syndicate of promoters; and I need not tell the House that it is not the interests of the general public which, as a rule, are attended to under such circumstances. Not a single shilling of money has been subscribed on behalf of the public, and if the railway receives the sanction of Parliament it will have to be financed, and eventually the public will come into possession of the line at something like double the cost of constructing a good and sound railway. The promoters in their statement say they have satisfied the objections of the Commons Preservation Society. I cannot help regarding that as a startling statement, because it is at the instance of the Commons Preservation Society that I have taken up this case. That, I think, is a sufficient answer to this portion of their statement. While on this subject, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that I am altogether free from any kind of private interest. I have no personal interest in any railway on the Island, or in any landed property there, nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, any friend who has a pecuniary interest in property in the Isle of Wight. I have simply taken up the case at the request of the Commons Preservation Society, and having examined the locality myself I feel that I am justified in asking the House to reject the Bill. I have only one other word to say. From something I heard in the Lobby I am given to understand that the promoters consider themselves hardly used in this objection being made on the third reading of the Bill. No doubt it would have been more advisable to make it at an earlier stage

    233
    of the measure. But when it was sought to oppose it in Committee the question of locus standi was raised, and the opponents were not allowed to be heard. The result has been that the promoters have not been put to any expense in promoting the Bill; there has been no examination of the details of the scheme in which the public have had an opportunity of taking part; and nothing whatever has been done to satisfy the objections which have been raised. We have, therefore, been forced to oppose the Bill upon the third reading. The proposed line is simply an alternative scheme. Eight years ago Parliament granted powers to construct a line running from Newport to Freshwater, and onto Yarmouth, through the centre of the Island; but it has not yet been constructed. I will not occupy the time of the House further. A good deal more might be said, but I think I have said enough about the merits of the line; and I appeal to the House not to grant powers and concessions of this kind, from which the public will derive no benefit, but from which, on the contrary, they will suffer serious injury.
    MR. WESTLAKE: I have much pleasure in seconding the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. I have no personal interest in the matter, but I am well acquainted with the locality, and I know that it is perfectly impossible for a line of railway to be carried out as proposed without inflicting serious damage upon one of the prettiest parts of the Isle of Wight. The contemplated injury would be avoided by making a cutting and turning the line round by the back of the Downs, and to do so would not be a very expensive undertaking. In the reasons which have been circulated by the promoters in support of the Bill some extraordinary statements are made. I know the place well, and I say that Freshwater Bay is not a so-called bay, but a real bay, and a very charming bay too; and it will be very seriously damaged by the cutting proposed to be made through Afton Downs. But the promoters appear to have let the cat out of the bag. They say that there are no commonable rights; but that question is in dispute. They say that the opposition is purely sentimental, and that the rejection of the Bill will deprive the landlords
    234
    of the opportunity which ought to be afforded to them for the development of their property. Now, the last assertion is the real gist of the matter. They want to cover the Downs with buildings, and they want a railway in order to give access to them. If there are no commonable rights they could do that without an Act of Parliament, and would be absolute masters of the Downs, and they could do all they desire without corning here at all. The very essence of an application to Parliament is that Parliament should look to the interests of the public, and not assist a Railway Company in destroying one of the most beautiful spots in the Isle of Wight, or in determining a question which we are told is sub judice—namely, whether there exist commonable rights over these Downs or not. I beg to second the Amendment.
    MR. LIONEL COHEN: It has been said that a railway ought only to be made for one of two objects. First, to serve the interests of the inhabitants of the locality through which it is to pass, and, next, to serve the public generally. But I am afraid that in this case the great majority of the inhabitants of Freshwater are opposed to the Bill, and that they desire its rejection. And, so far as the public are concerned, there are certainly no necessities on their part which render it desirable that Downs of this nature should be crossed and intersected by a line of railway for the purpose of affording facilities which are really not required. There are other points which render it undesirable that this Bill should receive the sanction of the House. I do not see why, in regard to Private Business, the same principle should not be adopted as that which has been adopted in reference to public measures—namely, that all contentious Business shall be hung up for another Parliament. This agreement ought the more to be observed with respect to Private Bills, as they can be taken up in the new Parliament where they leave off in this. Therefore, I hope that the House will not consent to pass a Bill against the interests of the inhabitants, which is not required in the interests of the public, especially as the measure is one which would utterly destroy one of the most beautiful Downs which exist in the Isle of Wight.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: If it were not for the fact that I happen to be well acquainted with the locality in which it is proposed to construct this railway, and that I take great interest in all questions which affect it, I should not desire to take part in this discussion. But I do not wish the House to be led away upon a wrong scent, and therefore I am anxious to explain why I give a cordial assent to the second reading of the Bill. I am able to say without the slightest hesitation that there do not exist in any shape or form any common rights over these Downs. No doubt the Commons Preservation Society is a very useful Body; but the value of its contributions to the maintenance of the ancient common land of the country has been, I am bound to say, very little indeed. The Commons Preservation Society, represented by the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. E. Chamberlain) in the first instance opposed the Bill because they were of opinion that it interfered with common rights, but finding that that was a mistake they withdrew their opposition to it. They are now, at the last moment, renewing their opposition upon entirely different grounds—grounds of a purely sentimental character. As the hon. Member for Islington has been induced to come forward and oppose the third reading of the Bill, I should like to refer to one or two of the objections which have been raised. The hon. Member has stated from some vague rumour that that is a question in dispute, and that in all probability more will be heard of it hereafter. Now, I tell the hon. Member, as a lawyer, that if this railway be laid down over common land, and Parliament finds hereafter that it has been induced to pass it through this representation, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the commoners would be reinstated in the rights they now possess. ["Oh!"] I believe I am stating what is absolutely true. Then it is said that it is not for the interest of the public that this railway should be made, and an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lionel Cohen) has said that it was petitioned against. There has also been a Petition in favour of it, and I think it would be found on inquiry that the great mass of the people in Freshwater are strongly in favour of it. Some allusion has been made to the existing
    236
    coach traffic, and to the fact that the two coaches which now carry on the traffic are not more than half filled. That may be so; but it is perfectly well known to everybody that the formation of a railway has the effect of developing traffic, and it is anticipated that if this line is constructed from Chale to Freshwater it will considerably develop the trade and traffic of the locality. The real reason for the opposition to the Bill is to be found in the exclusiveness of certain landed proprietors and resident gentlemen who desire not to be invaded by that dreadful thing—a railway. It is entirely from motives of that character that this opposition has been set up. ["No!"] Hon. Members say "No;" but although I have listened attentively to the discussion I have not heard a single sound objection raised to the Bill. It has been said that powers have already been obtained from Parliament for the construction of a line from Newport to Freshwater and Yarmouth, but that the undertaking has not been carried out. At the same time it must be remembered that the line from Newport to Freshwater will cost £l6,000 a-mile, whereas this line will only cost £6,000 a-mile. As we all know, the railway traffic in the Isle of Wight is limited to a particular season of the year; and, of course, it is impossible to construct an expensive line with any hope of making it remunerative. The Newport line has been abandoned, but this line can be made cheaply, and with the general consent, I believe, of the inhabitants. Therefore, as it is a line which does not in the slightest degree affect common rights, as it is for the interests of the inhabitants that it should be constructed, and as I believe the opposition to it is purely fictitious and in the interests of a few residential proprietors who are actuated by a spirit of exclusiveness, I feel bound to give a hearty support to the third reading.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: There appears to be some doubt, Sir, whether the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. E. Chamberlain) moved that the Bill be read a third time on this day three months.
    MR. SPEAKER: No Motion has yet been made to that effect.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: Then I will supply the omission by moving that the Bill be read a third time on this day

    237
    three months. I am surprised at the speech, which has just been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones), who says that he is a friend of the preservation of commons, and yet wants to cast doubts as to the existence of common rights in connection with the beautiful Downs through which this railway is to go, and consents to the Downs themselves being destroyed by this Bill. My hon. and learned Friend also went on to argue in favour of the rights of the landowners as against the rights of the commoners. It seemed to me that the speech of my hon. and learned Friend was altogether an inconsequential speech, and I am certainly surprised that it should have been delivered by a gentleman of his logical acumen and general consistency. I should certainly like to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman who represents the Isle of Wight (Sir Richard Webster) may have to say on the subject. I can scarcely suppose that he will be prepared to advocate this scheme, which will injure one of the most beautiful portions of the Island he represents. The scheme is promoted by interested persons—persons interested in it as the makers of the proposed railway, and as the owners of property in the locality. Their desire is to promote a speculative building scheme without regard to the beauty of the scenery or the interests of the inhabitants. I think that no satisfactory case has been made out for the passing of the Bill; and, therefore, I will adopt the usual course of moving that it be read a third time on this day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. GILES: I gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. R. Chamberlain) that there are two objections to this Bill—the first of which is from an engineering point of view. Now, this line was designed and planned by an engineer of great experience and ability who has been employed in the construction of many railways, and who is not likely to have undertaken to lay
    238
    down a railway which would be difficult to work. The next objection has reference to the question of sentiment. Now, we have all heard of the sentiment of a certain noble Lord who lives on the Island, and who objects to the intrusion of any railway into his neighbourhood; but we must remember that the same sort of sentimental feeling was manifested in many directions when railways were first proposed for the Isle of Wight. It was said that it would spoil the Island to construct any railway in it at all. But the same sentiment was used in order to stop the water supply of Manchester being brought from Thirl-mere Lake; and if we were to listen to all the sentimental objections which are raised by a certain class of people we should never have any public works carried out at all. I certainly hope the House will think twice before it rejects a useful Bill of this nature on the ground of a sentimental objection of that kind. Another objection which has been urged against the construction of this line is that it will probably have no traffic. Now, I maintain that that is a question for the promoters—["Oh!"]—and I submit that when a railway is designed and is only to cost £6,000 per mile the very thinnest traffic would pay on that basis. The next objection is that a railway has already been sanctioned from Newport to Yarmouth, and because the powers conferred by that Bill have not been carried out, and the Bill is now practically dead—which is, however, by no means certain—that this measure ought to be refused. Now, the construction of that line would have cost £15,000 per mile; but as the Bill itself does not expire until August next it cannot be made use of as a ground of objection to this Bill. With regard to the present line, it will pass for eight and a-half miles out of ten and a-half along a military road with the consent of the War Office; and I think it ought to be a sufficient inducement to the House to grant a Bill that an important Department of the Government believe to be useful. The last reason I would urge in favour of the Bill is that those who are opposed to it have had an opportunity of showing their opposition to it by Petitions which might have been presented against it.
    An hon. MEMBER: It has never been I considered by a Select Committee.
    MR. GILES: Nevertheless, all opponents have had a full opportunity of presenting Petitions against it.
    MR. CREMER: I feel called upon to oppose the Bill, because I do not think that it will confer any public benefit or convenience. I have had the pleasure of walking over these beautiful Downs several times in the course of my life, and I very much doubt whether, in the first instance, a railway is wanted at all. There are very few people who travel in this district, and I doubt whether, if a railway were constructed, such as is proposed by the Bill now before the House, the number of people who visit that part of the Island would be greatly increased. I do not believe that the public convenience depends upon the construction of a railway in the Isle of Wight. On the contrary, I believe that the carrying of this undertaking would mutilate, if not entirely destroy, one of the most beautiful spots in the Island. Those who are acquainted with this part of the Island know perfectly well that the Downs affected by the Bill are Downs over which the public are free to roam without let or hindrance; and on the ground that the construction of this line would undoubtedly mutilate and destroy the character of that lovely part of the Island I shall certainly oppose the Bill. We have already had some practical experience in connection with railways in the Isle of Wight. I know of no district in which railway travelling is more expensive. Visitors, I am sorry to say, get the minimum of convenience for the maximum of charge. Only last week I desired to go from Shanklin to Ryde, and from Ryde to Brading; but, to my astonishment, I found that there was no train after 5 o'clock in the evening, and if you do manage to succeed in catching a train you have to pay five times the price you would have to pay in any other part of the United Kingdom. My experience of travelling by railway in the Isle of Wight is not at this moment by any means invigorating. I think, therefore, that the House of Commons ought to pause before it consents to grant new concessions either to the existing Companies, or to any others for the construction of railways under similar conditions. Nor do I believe that this particular railway, however cheaply it may be constructed, could by any possibility ever pay. No doubt it
    240
    is a pure speculation, with full knowledge on the part of the promoters that when Parliament has sanctioned the construction of a railway there are always a number of people who believe it will pay, and who are ready to subscribe the capital. In the first instance, it appears to me that the line is promoted by a handful of men for purposes widely distinct from that of public convenience. I think that by the rejection of the Bill we should be really doing the public a service, and would prevent them from investing their money in an unprofitable speculation.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I think it is difficult to decide upon the merits of this Bill in the absence of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees. The Chairman of Committees is the only person who could have given us authoritative information as to the examination which the Bill has received upstairs. It seems, however, to be absolutely certain that, under some technicality or other, such as the Rules which regulate the question of locus standi, and which are extremely technical, the public have had no opportunity of bringing their case before the House of Commons, so that the grounds of their opposition to the scheme might be inquired into. It is quite obvious, from the statement which was made by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite (Mr. R. Chamberlain), that the public have not had an opportunity of making their wishes known, and that a very strong feeling does exist with regard to the question. Therefore, as the Chairman of Committees is absent, and consequently unable to give his reasons why the House of Commons should finally depart from all control or check in this matter, I think the House will do well to refuse to proceed further with the Bill at this stage. After all, the promoters will not be much damaged. The expenses which they have already incurred have not been very large, and the Bill can be introduced again next year. It must be borne in mind that the Isle of Wight has been without this railway for hundreds and probably thousands of years; and therefore, if the people of that Island have to wait for another 12 months, they will possibly not be injured very materially. It certainly does appear, on the first blush of the case, that this is a case of promoters

    241
    endeavouring to make a railway for speculative purposes on the so-called property of private individuals. It is not quite certain whether private individuals have full rights over the property through which the line is to run; but if we reject this Bill an opportunity will be afforded for deciding that question. Therefore, I hope the House will adopt the view of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), and postpone the Bill for another year, when it will be able to receive full examination. I trust that that proposition will receive the support of the hon. Gentleman opposite the Secretary to the Treasury.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I have no feeling in the matter one way or the other. I think there is great force in what the noble Lord has stated as to the absence of the Chairman of Committees. The Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington is to throw the Bill out; and if that Motion is adopted, of course the Bill will be gone for the whole of the year, and it will have to go through all its stages again. But if the House chooses to sanction the withdrawal of the Motion for the third reading, then it could stand over until the Autumn Session. It would be practically hung up until the new Parliament meets, and the House would then be in a position to re-commit it if it thought such a course desirable, and the whole question could then be fully gone into and fairly discussed. I wish, however, to express no feeling on the matter either one way or the other. I only wish to point out to the noble Lord and to the House that what he wants can be effected without absolutely throwing the Bill out.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I wish to say a word with regard to this Bill, because I think the House has forgotten one circumstance connected with it. We are told that the promoters last year obtained a Bill for the construction of a railway from Shanklin to Chale, which is to be worked in connection with the line proposed by the present Bill. Now, what have they done in order to carry out the powers which Parliament itself granted to them? Nothing at all. They do not appear to be in the slightest hurry to use the powers intrusted to
    242
    them. As a matter of fact, they have no capital at all; it is a pure speculation altogether, and they want to improve their speculation by tacking another line on to it. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Giles) spoke strongly in favour of the project; but the hon. Member did not inform the House that the engineer of the line was his own son.
    MR. GILES: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon. It is nothing of the sort. Mr. Cooper is the engineer of the line, and my son has nothing to do with it at all.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: It is very well known that the hon. Member's son is connected with Mr. Cooper.
    MR. GILES: Not at all.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: In any case, the promoters of the Bill have projected the line without having at their command any capital at all. In cases of this kind, Committees upstairs generally find that it is proposed to issue a large amount of Stock in excess of the actual cost of the line. This is a method adopted to pay promoters, and is one which ought not to be encouraged. It only enables promoters to make large profits and to realize a considerable bonus at the expense, and often without the knowledge, of the shareholders. I am certainly of opinion that this system of bringing forward schemes which are purely promoters' lines ought to be discouraged. If the Bill is thrown out this year there will be nothing lost, and I hope the Motion for the rejection of the Bill will be persevered in.
    MR. MOLLOY: I think the House ought to be satisfied with the cordial support which the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) has given to his new hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. R. Chamberlain). That seems to me to be the only interesting feature in the whole of the debate; but I should not object to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if it can be carried out, not to destroy the Bill altogether this Session, but to give it a chance of being recommitted next year, so that we may be able to come to some better understanding as to the real merits of the case. The absence of the Chairman of Committees, who might be able to guide us, is very unfortunate; but, still, I think

    243
    that the course proposed by the Government is the fairest one, as it would give all parties a chance of being heard.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOEEIGN AFFAIBS (Mr. BRYCE): I only desire to say one word on the question whether the House should dispose of the matter now, or allow it to stand over until the new Parliament. I think it would be better to dispose of the matter at once. The objections which have been brought forward now are most of them objections which could not be taken in Committee. They are objections which have been taken on public grounds; but in Committee the public would have no locus standi. It would be difficult, even by a side wind, to bring up this case again, because there is no way of ascertaining whether the Bill would be more likely to be opposed in another Session than it has been in this. Moreover, the objections which have been urged are objections upon which the House is just as competent—indeed, more competent—to pronounce an opinion than any Committee would be; and, as the Bill cannot pass in the present Session, the best thing we can do is to put the promoters out of their pain at once by rejecting it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Third Reading put off for three months.

QUESTIONS.

  TURKEY—RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND(for Sir ROBERT FOWLER)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary has directed the attention of the British Embassy at Constantinople to certain orders lately issued to all the Governors General in the Ottoman Empire by the Turkish Minister of the Interior, Munir Pasha, in which orders the schools, churches, places of worship, and societies for benefiting the non-Moslem sects are referred to as "nefarious schemes", and the Governors General are directed, by means of many and scrutinizing investigations, to hinder their work; also that the same officials are directed not
  244
  to allow any such churches, places of worship, &c. to be built or repaired; and, whether, under such orders, about thirty schools of Protestants in Syria have been closed within the past few months?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): A letter has been received from the Evangelical Alliance within the last few days, forwarding a communication from their Committee at Constantinople on the subject of two regulations recently issued. Although the description given of them by the Evangelical Alliance does not bear out the terms of the Question, the regulations, if that description be accurate, appear objectionable in tone and tendency, and in contravention of the repeated engagements entered into by the Porte for securing religious liberty to its subjects. Sir Edward Thornton has been instructed to inquire if any such regulations have been authoritatively issued, and if necessary to remonstrate. He will, of course, continue his efforts to obtain redress in any cases of religious intolerance which may come to his knowledge, as well as to endeavour to prevent the recurrence of such cases.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—VOLUNTEERS AT ALDERSHOT.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY, (for Admiral Sir JOHN COMMERELL)asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true, as stated by The Army and Navy Gazette, that only 3,000 Volunteers (mostly from the home counties) are to be allowed to have a week's training at Aldershot; and, if so, taking into consideration the smallness of the Capitation Grant, which precludes on the ground of expense of the formation of a separate camp, he will reconsider his decision?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. WOODALL)(on behalf of the Secretary of State): No, Sir; it is not the case. Invitations for Aldershot have been sent for 6,975 Volunteers. Besides these, 1,172 men of the Artillery and Engineer Volunteers are to join camps at Devonport and Chatham.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS —KEW GARDENS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH(for Mr. HOWARD SPENSLEY)asked the honourable Member for North West Staffordshire, Whether the First Commissioner of Works has arrived at a decision as to the permanent opening of Queen's Gate, Kew Gardens, as necessary to the free use of Miss North's Gallery (a gift to the Nation) and to meet the large influx of visitors (Cumberland Gate and the Lion Gate being too distant)?
  MR. LEVESON GOWER (A LORD of the TREASURY): The First Commissioner is not prepared to assent to the opening of the Temperate House Gate, inadvertently called the Queen's Gate, at Kew Gardens. When that gate was erected it was expected that the railway station would be placed close to it. That, however, was not done; and the First Commissioner is of opinion that when the Lichfield Road is extended to the station, a new gate at the end of that road, and immediately opposite the station, will best meet the wants of the public.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPEALS —CASE OF CHARLES KELLY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that an appeal from the decision of the Sub-Commissioners of the Irish Land Court, given on the 11th April, 1883, in the case of Charles Kelly, of Ballintoy, county Antrim, tenant, is still pending; and, whether, considering the great loss that is being sustained by the tenant in consequence of the delay, he will give instructions to have the case disposed of at once?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD)(who replied) said, the appeal in this case was by the landlord. It was lodged on Tuesday last and listed forbearing yesterday, and therefore there had been no delay whatever.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT BELFAST.
  MR. BIGGAR(for Mr. O'KELLY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the inquiry into the origin of the late riots in Belfast and the action of the magistrates and police for their suppression will be made on oath?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANS- FELD)(who replied) said: The Irish Government are advised that there is no power to take evidence on oath, in cases such as that of the late riots in Belfast, without special authority from Parliament. They believe that the matters before the Belfast Commission can be adequately investigated by means of unsworn testimony.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the Commission have power to compel the attendance of witnesses?
  MR. STANSFELD: I cannot undertake to answer that Question; but I will make inquiry upon the subject.

  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— HEMMING'S ROW.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If steps will be at once taken to re-open the thoroughfare of Hemming's Row, which has been closed for some weeks, to the great inconvenience of the public, while the buildings on either side of the Row have been in course of demolition?
  THE CHAIRMAN (Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG)said, that on inquiry he found that there was almost a certainty that the thoroughfare of Hemming's Row would be open on Monday next.

  WAR DEPARTMENT—THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION.
  MR. SEAGER HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Military authorities have decided that the reorganization of the Royal Artillery as regards its distribution into separate branches of Horse, Field, and Garrison, is not a suitable subject for the prize essay of the Royal Artillery Institution; whether on two or three occasions they have not allowed it to be the subject when proposed; whether the Military authorities can give any satisfactory reason for this; and, whether he will take steps to cause the Military authorities to reconsider their decision, and give them instructions to afford every facility for the free discussion of this subject?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. WOODALL)(in the absence of the Secretary of State): I must remind the hon. Member that, unlike the Royal United Service Insti-

  247
  tution, the Royal Artillery Institution is altogether regimental in its character and formation. As such it is not considered desirable that questions should be discussed which might give rise to criticism on points of existing military organization; and as the subjects for the prize essay are always submitted for approval that approval was withheld when the subject in question was brought forward.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS—CYCLISTS IN HYDE PARK AND KENSINGTON GARDENS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH(for Mr. KIMBER)asked the honourable Member for North West Staffordshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the facilities which have been accorded to cyclists as regards Richmond Park can be also accorded as regards Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens; and, if not, what are the causes or reasons which stand in the way?
  MR. LEVESON GOWER (A LORD of the TREASURY): The First Commissioner cannot admit that the circumstances of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens are similar to those of Richmond Park; and, looking to the crowded state of the roads in Hyde Park, he is of opinion that velocipedes safely cannot be admitted.

  VENEZUELA—PROTECTION TO BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY(for Mr. KIMBER)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any, and what, representations have been made by the British Vice Consul at Cuidad Bolivar, Venezuela, in reference to the treatment of British interests in Venezuela; whether it is the fact that he has obtained in reply no effectual assistance in his efforts to protect British interests; whether there is a very large community of Englishmen and English Negroes living in the mining district of Venezuela, from which the nearest English Consular authority is at Cuidad Bolivar, some 250 miles distant by road and river; and, whether, in view of the Dumber of English Commercial Companies employing a very large amount of British, capital and British labour, he
  248
  will consider the desirability of appointing a Consular Officer in that district?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): No representations have been made by the British Vice Consul at Cuidad Bolivar in the sense indicated by the hon. Member. We have reason to believe that a considerable number of British subjects are employed in the mining districts of Venezuela referred to; and Her Majesty's Government have, consequently, already decided to appoint a Consular Agent there.

  WEST INDIAN COLONIES—THE COMMERCIAL CONFERENCE AT WASHINGTON.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the United States, any arrangements have been suggested or arrived at as to the representation of the British West Indian Colonies at the Conference on Trade Arrangements among all American communities, about to be held at Washington; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take part in that Conference on behalf of British communities in America?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE (Mr. BRYCE): All that Her Majesty's Government know about the proposed Conference referred to in the Question is that a Bill is now pending in the United States Congress authorizing the President of the United States to invite delegates from each of the Republics of Mexico, of Central and South America, Hayti, San Domingo, and from the Emperor of Brazil, to meet delegates on the part of the United States to deliberate on questions and measures for the mutual interest and common welfare of the American States. The British West India Colonies are not mentioned, or is Her Majesty's Government included in the invitation suggested by the Bill; but as the project is still merely in the stage of a Bill, which may or may not pass, and on which, if it passes, the President of the United States may or may not take action, the matter is evidently too hypothetical to make it necessary for Her Majesty's Government to express any opinion upon the objects contem-

  249
  plated in the measure, or, indeed, to arrive at any decision whatever regarding it.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— RIOTS AT MONAGHAN.
  DR. COMMINS(for Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Commission of Inquiry, about to be issued by the Government to inquire into the recent riots at Belfast, will be empowered to investigate the deplorable occurrences of the 8th instant at Monaghan; and, whether the conduct of the magistrates, paid and unpaid, in the several places where riots recently occurred will be investigated by said Commission?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD)(who replied) said: The Irish Government do not think it necessary to have a sworn inquiry into the occurrence at Monaghan. The whole affair did not last more than half-an-hour. Not more than 30 or 40 persons were engaged in it. And there is every reason to suppose that it had its origin in a personal and not a party or political motive. As regards Belfast, the inquiry will extend, as already stated, to the action of the magistrates.
  MR. SEXTON: Can they compel the attendance of witnesses?
  MR. STANSFELD: I do not know. I will make inquiry.

  THE NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT— ALLEGED OPPRESSIVE PROCEEDINGS TOWARDS MR. GODDEN AT CURACAO.
  MR. BANISTER FLETCHERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, with reference to the acts of oppression to which Mr. Godden, a British merchant, has been subjected by the Dutch authorities in Curaçao, would he state whether the representation which has been addressed to the Netherlands Government on the subject was an official representation by Her Majesty's Government; whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that three of the grievances complained of are not affected by any question of law; and, if so, whether they will make a further representation to the Netherlands Govern-
  250
  ment respecting them, with the view of obtaining immediate protection for British trade with the Island, and without waiting for the decisions of courts of law upon matters connected with other grievances; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table Copies of the communications received in answer to the inquiries which have been made by Her Majesty's Government on the subjects referred to?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The only matter respecting which Mr. Godden has solicited the intervention of Her Majesty's Government is the alleged excessive assessment of ground tax on his property in Curaçao. Her Majesty's Minister at the Hague was instructed to represent this case unofficially to the Netherlands Government, and to ask if there were any remedy for Mr. Godden against the injustice of which he complains. The substance of the reply of the Netherlands Government was communicated to Mr. Godden on March 2 last. There would not be any public object to be gained in return for the expense involved in printing and distributing to Members of both Houses the Correspondence which has passed on the subject. Her Majesty's Government have no cognizance of the other grievances referred to in the hon. Member's Question; but they will be very willing to do what they properly can on Mr. Godden's behalf on learning from him the nature thereof.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)— SALE OF LAND AT ELTON, CO. LIMERICK.
  DR. COMMINS(for Mr. FINUCANE)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the interest in the farm of Mr. Edmond Davoren, of Elton, county Limerick, was advertised for sale on the 12th of June by his landlord; whether three days before sale the sheriff of county Limerick wrote to Mr. Davoren that the sale would not take place till the 19th instant; whether the sheriff, notwithstanding such notice, sold, in Mr. Davoren's absence, the interest in his farm on the 12th June, the date originally fixed; and, whether such sale is illegal; and, if so, will the Government take steps to prevent such sales for the future?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD)(who replied) said, the Irish Government were advised that this was a matter in which they could not properly intervene. If any illegality had taken place there was, of course, the legal remedy for the injured party.

  ARMS ACT (IRELAND)—SEIZURE OF ARMS AT LISNASKEA, CO. FERMANAGH.
  MR. HENRY CAMPBELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Dunne, ironmonger, &c. of Lisnaskea, county Fermanagh, purchased the arms which were seized by the police on the 2nd instant, for the purpose of selling them, not knowing that a licence for their sale was necessary nor that the county was proclaimed under the provisions of the Arms Act; whether Mr. Dunne is ready to make an affidavit to this effect; and, whether, therefore, the prosecution entered against him by the police will be discontinued, and permission given to him to return the arms to the senders?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVEENMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD)(who replied) said, the Chief Secretary gathered from, the statement which the hon. Member had sent him that Mr. Dunne made the case put forward in the Question; but, as the hon. Member was aware, ignorance of the law was not a sufficient plea for its violation. No doubt, the magistrates would take into consideration all the circumstances which might be brought before them before deciding the case. The question as to how the arms were to be disposed of could not be considered until the case was concluded. If, however, the arms were declared the property of the Crown the Chief Secretary would see that the hon. Member's suggestion was not lost sight of.

  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) ACT—THE SECRETARYSHIP OF THE COMMISSION.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH(for Dr. MACDONALD)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Crofter Commissioner, Mr. Macintyre, at various rural and urban telegraph offices in the counties of Ross, Inverness, and Sutherland, gave orders
  252
  that all telegrams in favour of Mr. Macintyre's appointment were to be despatched free of expense to the senders; whether Mr. William Duncan, solicitor, of Dingwall, is an applicant for the Secretaryship of the Crofters' Commission; and, whether, in his professional capacity, this gentleman has been repeatedly concerned in evictions, and is so at the present moment?
  THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. MARJORIBANKS)(who replied) said: I regret that the Lord Advocate is absent in Scotland. In his absence I have to say that this and the following Questions have very recently been put upon the Paper. The information required has been asked for, but has not yet reached the Scottish Office. With regard to Mr. William Duncan, there is no information at the Scottish Office that would lead to the inference suggested.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX IN TRALEE.
  MR. E. HARRINGTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If there has been in recent years (during a time of depression in trade) an increase in the impost of Income Tax in Tralee; and, whether it is true that surveyors of this tax are paid poundage on what they succeed in collecting over and above the ordinary revenue assessment?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): In Tralee, as in all other parts of the United Kingdom, the rate of Income Tax varies only as it is increased or reduced by Parliament. Surveyors are paid by salary, which does not in any way depend upon the amount of tax collected.
  MR. E. HARRINGTONasked whether complaints had not reached the Government that the present Surveyor of Income Tax had levied an enormous increase of Income Tax in Tralee?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he could not answer that Question without Notice.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND).
  MR. SEAGER HUNTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether

  253
  the Commissioners of Tithe Rent Charge are pressing the landowners in Ireland for payment of Tithes, even when no rent for the period claimed has been received; whether proceedings for the appointment of a receiver have been threatened in the case of Mr. Penn Gaskell, of Shanagarry, county Cork, for Tithes due up to May 1886, when the rents on his estate have only been paid up to March 1885, and those only upon a reduction of twenty-five per cent, upon the rents already reduced to the extent of fifteen per cent. making a total reduction of, say, forty per cent.; whether the Tithe Commissioners will be instructed to make a reduction corresponding to the reduction of rent; and, whether the Government will undertake to repeal the Act of 1872, 35 and 36 Vic. c. 90, so that a re-valuation fixed on the average price of corn for the previous seven years may be ready?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners state that they never press for the payment of tithe rent-charge if they are satisfied that no rent has been received, and that the reason for non-payment is not—what is often the case—that other claims ranking after theirs have been paid, leaving their prior claim unpaid. In the case of Mr. Penn Gaskell, of Shanagarry, county Cork, he owed in May last three half-years' rent-charge, and offered to pay one. The Commissioners asked for the payment of a year's charge, which was actually due on November 1, 1885. Mr. Penn Gaskell replied by asking for time until July 1 next, and his application was granted. The Commissioners have no power to make a reduction in the amount due to them.

  IRELAND—IMPORTATION OF NORDENFELT CARTRIDGES.
  MR. BIGGAR(for Mr. O'KELLY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in The Freeman's Journal of 12th June:—
  "Apropos of the 'Civil War' which the Orange leaders threaten to wage at some future date, we would like to know if it is a fact that 23 cases of Nordenfelt cartridges, containing 1,000 each, and consigned to an Irish Peer not unconnected with Orange politics, were detained for two days at Holyhead recently.
  254
  Furthermore, we would ask the authorities whether, in the absence of a detective who happened to be a Catholic, the cases were removed and forwarded to the consignee, viâ the North Wall;"
  and, whether he will take steps to inform himself what foundation there is for the statement?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD)(who replied) said: The Irish Government have seen the paragraph referred to. The cartridges were consigned legally to Lord Ardilaun, and the consignment and removal from Holyhead wore with the full knowledge of the authorities. The greater number of the cases contained only 96 cartridges each; the largest not more than 350. It is understood they are intended for private use at Lord Ardilaun's residence in the West of Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: Have the Government satisfied themselves that Lord Ardilaun intends to use all these 20,000 cartridges?
  MR. STANSFELD: I am afraid I cannot do more than read the answer sent to me; but, as I said to the hon. Member a while ago, I will make any inquiry he wishes.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— THE EXAMINATIONS.
  DR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have recently issued a rule to the effect that, at the examination commencing July 5th, in case the sum of the values given in any subject to the several answers be not equal to at least thirty-three per cent. of the maximum marks, no value will be assigned to the answering, and the teacher will be regarded as having failed on that subject; whether failure in any one subject involves failure in the whole examination; whether, in the past, twenty per cent. was the minimum required for a pass in each subject; what proportion of the successful candidates for promotion or classification at the examinations held in July 1885 obtained thirty-three, or more than thirty-three, per cent. (the now proposed minimum) in all the obligatory subjects; and, whether he can state on whose responsibility this rule was introduced?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD)(who replied) said: The Commissioners of National Education proposed to raise the minimum percentage of marks required for teachers' qualification in any subject from 20 to 33; but the change is not to take effect until July, 1887. It is the case that candidates must pass without failure in any subject in their respective programmes of examination. The information asked for regarding the examination held in July, 1885, cannot, I am informed, be made out without considerable trouble and expense.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— RIOT AT STEWARTSTOWN.
  DR. TANNER(for Mr. REYNOLDS)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, on Saturday evening the 22nd of May, about eight o'clock, an armed mob of Orangemen marched from Tullyhogue to Stewartstown, and proceeding to the Catholic Chapel, where a mission was being conducted by the Passionist Fathers, commenced playing party tunes, shouting "To—with the Pope," and throwing stones at the congregation; whether it is a fact that several women and children were seriously injured; whether, in consequence, a riot took place between the Catholics and the Orangemen; whether Mr. Robert Wood requested Messieurs Hunt and Chambre, the other magistrates present, to give instructions to the police to disarm and disperse the Orangemen, but they refused; whether it is a fact that Sergeant Price, of the Police Force, received information early in the afternoon of the expedition, but neglected to communicate it to Mr. Wood, who lives within three minutes' walk of the Police Barrack, or to procure an adequate force for the protection of the Catholic population; and, whether, in consequence of complaints against the said Sergeant Price in former cases of disturbance, an order was made for his removal from the district, and why such order has not been carried out?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD)(who replied) said: The information in the possession of the Irish
  256
  Government does not bear out all the allegations in this Question; but, as a number of prosecutions arising out of the occurrence are now pending, it is better not to enter into particulars at the present time. The hon. Member has privately asked to have the matter inquired into by the Resident Magistrate of the district; but, as that gentleman will probably take part in the adjudication of the case, the Irish Government consider that he should not be asked to prejudice himself by an ex parte inquiry beforehand. The order for transfer of Sergeant Price was not due to complaints against him in former cases of disturbance, and he was retained in consequence of strong representations of the value of his services to the locality.

  JAPAN—REVISION OF TREATIES.
  MR. BADEN-POWELL(for Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Convention is now sitting for the purpose of revising the Treaties of 1858 and 1866 between this Country and Japan; whether he is aware that Mr. John Hartley and other merchants, being British subjects, have claims against the Japanese Government (in consequence of the violation of those Treaties on the part of that Government) which have not yet been settled; and, whether the signing of a new Treaty will prejudice those claims; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will refuse to sign the Treaty until the Japanese Government have settled such claims?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): A Conference is now sitting at Tokio for the purpose of revising the existing Treaties between Japan and Foreign Powers. The case of Mr. Hartley is well known to Her Majesty's Government, and Questions in reference to it were asked in Parliament in February and March, 1884, and so recently as July last. My Predecessor stated that successive Secretaries of State had arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Hartley's case was not such as to justify diplomatic interference. I am not aware of any other claims by British merchants. The new Treaty, if concluded, will not prejudice the claims of British subjects.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. P. O'BEIRNE—THE NATIONAL LEAGUE.
  MR. BIGGAR(for Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Mr. Patrick O'Beirne, of Castlepollard, was, in 1884, recommended to the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Westmeath, by the Granard Board of Guardians, for the Commission of the Peace, and that the recommendation was refused on the ground that he was then a member of the National League, and had been a member of the Land League, and that the same recommendation was sent, about two months ago, to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and again refused; if the reason for the refusal was the same in the latter instance as in the former; and, if the Government are of opinion that no man is qualified for the Commission of the Peace in Ireland who is a member of the National League, or was a member of the Land League?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSEBLD)(who replied) said: It is the fact that Mr. O'Beirne was recommended in 1884 to the then Lord Chancellor (Sir Edward Sullivan) by the Granard Board of Guardians for the Commission of the Peace, and was not appointed. The Executive are not aware of the reasons for that result. The application is now before the present Chancellor, who has not yet come to a decision upon it. I understand there is no such rule of disqualification as is suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)— SMALL ARMS—THE MARTINI BREECH-BLOCK.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the statement, reported in The Times of the 17th instant to have been made the previous day, at the Royal United Service Institution, by Colonel Arbuthnot, Royal Artillery, Superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Factory, to the effect that the Martini breech-block is to be retained in the new Enfield Military Rifle, by the "express orders" of himself, when Secretary of State for War, is true; and, if so, on what grounds he took this action?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. WOODALL)who replied, said, the Martini breechblock was retained in the new Martini-Enfield rifle because, after inquiry, it was reported to the Secretary of State by his professional advisers that no sufficient grounds existed for re-opening the question as to the pattern of breech action. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief concurred in this recommendation, and it was finally approved by the Secretary of State.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—DEVON QUARTER SESSIONS —CASE OF CHARLES TOWILL.
  MR. HOWELL(for Mr. SEALE-HAYNE)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the case of Charles Towill, who was sentenced at the Devon Quarter Sessions, on the 7th of April last, to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for stealing a bundle of hay valued at 1s. 6d., and recommended to mercy by the jury on the ground "that there was no real evidence that he stole the hay;" and, whether, under these circumstances, he will take steps to revise or remit the sentence?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The attention of the Secretary of State was not called to this case until the Question of the hon. Member appeared on the Paper. He is now making careful inquiry into the circumstances, and when this is completed the hon. Member will be informed of the decision arrived at.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—VENTILATION OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. ISAACSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether a report has been received from an independent professional expert who has been consulted as to the drainage of the Palace of Westminster; whether such report approves the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Ventilation of the House as to the remedial measures to be undertaken in regard to such drainage; and, whether the works involved will be carried out during the forthcoming Recess?
  MR. LEVESON GOWER (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied) said: The First Commissioner of Works yesterday received a long Report from Mr. Shone on the manner in which his system of drainage, which was recommended by the Select Committee, could be applied to the Houses of Parliament. After a conference this morning, Mr. Shone has undertaken to supply further details, more especially on the point of the practicability of carrying out these works in a short time. Of course, the time that will be available will very much depend on whether the House meets next month or in October. The First Commissioner of Works sees reason to hope that plans may be prepared which would give effect to the main recommendations of the Committee—namely, that the sewage of the House should no longer be carried away by gravitation only. I may assure the House that every exertion will be made to carry out any works that can be completed at the earliest possible moment.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would like to have some assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that the works would for a certainty be commenced and carried out during the Recess. They had suffered very much during the present Session, and they should be anxious that the new House of Parliament should, at any rate, have to thank this House of Parliament for having, to the best of their power and ability, insisted on some proper drainage being carried out. He, therefore, asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would give an assurance that works would be carried out to effect the object which they had in view?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)said that, so far as the Treasury was concerned, there should be no lack of zeal in the matter. The Treasury only had to find the money, but the First Commissioner had to decide on the works; and when he had satisfied himself as to the proper course to be adopted in order to make the House sanitarily safe he could assure his hon. Friend that the authorities at the Treasury would do their best not to oppose any technical or financial obstacle to the carrying out of the works.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE ANGLOSPANISH CONVENTION.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could inform the House what steps had been taken by Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government respectively to carry out the terms of the Commercial Convention recently concluded with Spain; and, whether the Convention would come into force on July 1, as specified in Article 1?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend, I may inform him that, as the House is aware, by the Customs Bill, which passed the House of Lords yesterday and now awaits the Royal Assent, Her Majesty's Government are empowered, on a day hereafter to be fixed, to carry out the terms of the Convention as regards the alteration in the division of the alcoholic scale for the Wine Duties which is provided for therein. Her Majesty's Government will, therefore, be at once in a position to perform the part of the engagement undertaken by this country. With regard to the Spanish Government, it appears that some unavoidable delay has taken place, and I fear that the consent of the Spanish Cortes to the Convention will not be obtained in time to allow of its coming into force on the date fixed—namely, July 1. In accordance, therefore, with the terms of Article 1, it will become necessary to fix a later date; and Sir Clare Ford has been instructed to approach the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs with a view to securing that a date as early as possible—and, it is hoped, one falling in the month of July—shall be fixed for the full execution of the Convention. No time will be lost in giving the fullest publicity to whatever arrangements may be made on this subject.

  IRISH LAND ACT, 1870—SEC. 9— EVICTIONS.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering the extreme depression and the advantage being taken of it by evicting landlords in furthering evictions to promote exasperation and foment discontent, the Government will direct

  261
  the attention of the County Court and other Judges in Ireland to their powers to stay execution in all cases of evictions for arrears of exorbitant rent under Section 9 of the Irish Laud Act of 1870, where injustice or hardship may be inflicted upon the tenant by its immediate issue, as has been done recently by Mr. Waters, Q.C., the County Court Judge for the county of Waterford?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD)(who replied) said: The Executive Government have no control over the Judges, and no power to make any suggestion as to the mode in which they should exercise their judicial functions.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that the Government cannot practically give any recommendation to the County Court Judges or other Judges that they should act in the manner indicated under the circumstances?
  MR. STANSFELD: Clearly it does not require an Irish Secretary to say that such a proceeding would be entirely out of order. The first principle of our jurisprudence is that Judges are independent.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments forthwith read.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that in regard to the Irish Bill the Lords had gone about its consideration in a very thorough manner, for they had cut it all away except the 1st clause and a short title. They had cut out the clause providing for the payment of the Returning Officers' expenses out of therates; but the Schedule which dealt with the cheapening of expenses would have been very useful. He hoped the House would disagree with the Lords as regarded the clauses struck out.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid that, in the absence of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Labouchere), he should not resist any Motion to agree with the Lords' Amendments; but he must say that if it
    262
    were worth pressing the clause providing for the payment of the Returning Officers' expenses out of the rates at a late peried of the Session at all, he regretted that those who pressed it had not carried the fight to the fullest extent. He had placed on the Paper a clause making candidates, who did not poll one-fourth of the quota electing, responsible for a share of the election expenses; and though he withdrew this in deference to a generally expressed wish to avoid contentious discussion at that stage, he should certainly, if he had the opportunity, renew that, or a like restriction, on improvident candidatures.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERwished to know what course Her Majesty's Government proposed to take with regard to this Bill? For his own part, he did not think that the House had sufficient information before them to enable them to decide as to what were and what were not proper charges. In 1875 the Schedule was most carefully considered by a Select Committee, and he considered it a proper course that a Committee should inquire into the matter.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONcomplained of the want of uniformity in the Returning Officers' charges. He thought that the sums fixed by the Schedules were sufficient to enable the Returning Officers to discharge their duties; and, therefore, he hoped that the House would adhere to them.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he understood that the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry would be satisfied if the Bill were restored to the shape in which it was originally introduced into that House. He hoped that the House would agree to the Lords' Amendments.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the 2nd and 3rd clauses, throwing the expenses of Returning Officers upon the rates and reducing the maximum charges, had been thrown out by the House of Lords. When the questions were under discussion in the House of Commons an hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench got up and said the Bill was certain to be thrown out by the House of Lords, which was a monstrous assertion to make. He was present in the House of Lords, and saw on

    263
    one side a mass of Conservative Peers and very few on the other. Lord Salisbury got up and said he would only allow the Bill to pass if these clauses were struck out. It was making a perfect farce of representative government if the House of Commons was to be threatened that a Bill would be thrown out by the House of Lords, and when it was in that House a Peer was to rise and say it should not pass unless those two clauses were struck out. He was not going to argue that they should disagree with the House of Lords, because at this period that could not be done. The House of Commons were in the position of slaves to the Conservative Leader of the House of Lords, and he thought that a monstrous position. The mode of election concerned the Members of the House of Commons very vitally. They heard a great deal at the present time of long purses being subscribed for the defeat of certain candidates. [Cries of "Question!"]
    COLONEL KING-HARMANasked whether the hon. Member for Northampton was in Order?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he thought the hon. Member was not confining himself strictly to the Question.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was merely pointing out that it had been stated in the newspapers that large sums of money were being subscribed by the opponents of the present Government, and that, in the opinion of those gentlemen, it was most essential that they should have money on their side. This Bill, if those clauses had been retained, would have enabled poor men to send poor men to Parliament; it would have enabled electors to choose Representatives for themselves, instead of having Representatives chosen for them. The House of Lords had chosen to alter that, and he left the country to form an opinion as to their conduct.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)said, he sympathized with what had been stated, but pointed out that unless the Lords' Amendments were agreed to the Bill would be lost. That he thought was very hard.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he considered the action of the House of Lords with respect to the Schedule was perfectly justifiable. The country had never been consulted. He doubted whether the country would have ap-
    264
    proved of the expense of elections being thrown on the rates. He thought it a most questionable thing for hon. Members to transfer a charge amounting to £250,000 from its own shoulders on to those of their constituents on the eve of an election. Moreover, the principal clause in the Bill of which so much had been heard was introduced at the last moment, and that at a very late hour of the night, when the attendance of Members was small. He hoped the Government would adhere to the arrangement which had been arrived at, and take an early opportunity, if in Office next Session, of appointing a Committee to inquire into the charges of Returning Officers.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he regretted that the Schedule had been struck out, but trusted that the Bill, curtailed as it was, would be allowed to pass, because it was better to have half a Bill than none at all.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD)said that, so far as the Members of the Government in the House of Lords were concerned, in the action they had taken they had submitted to superior force. It was not a fair inference on the part of hon. Members to suppose that they were convinced by the arguments of those who excluded the Schedule from the Bill. But the real difficulty was that there was no time for conflict with the other House; and if the Bill was not accepted in its present state it would not pass into law at all this Session. As far as Great Britain was concerned, there was not a case to press against the House of Lords. The simple Bill originally introduced had been enlarged in its scope by the insertion of a clause; and he was not prepared to say that the House of Lords had exceeded their legislative rights in rejecting these particular provisions. He suggested to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, however, whether some compromise might not be arrived at as to the scale of Irish Returning Officers' charges being treated differently from those connected with England and Scotland.
    MR. ROUNDmaintained that the House of Lords was acting quite within their duty, and with the entire approval of the country, in

    265
    resisting the placing of Returning Officers' charges on the rates.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that any undue insistance on the restoration of this Bill to the condition in which it previously left the House of Commons would certainly imperil its passing into law this year. If the Bill was desired, therefore, it was necessary that they should not prove unduly obstinate on the present occasion. Much labour had been devoted to the drafting of the measure, and he appealed to hon. Members to assist in allowing so much of the Bill as referred to Ireland to pass.
    MB. W. H. SMITHsaid, that, speaking for his Friends on the Front Opposition Bench, he should have been glad if it were possible at that time to arrive at any compromise which would legitimately reduce the cost of elections; but, unfortunately, there was no time for any such compromise. In the House of Lords on Tuesday, it was, he believed, stated on the part of the Government there that if the Bill came back to the House of Lords consisting of anything more than the appeal for the taxation of charges the Members of the Government present pledged themselves not to press their Lordships to accept the Amendments. That engagement having been entered into in the other House by the Government, he thought it was hopeless to expect that any compromise could be arranged or settled now. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen whether it would not be better, in all the circumstances, to stand by the arrangement made in the House of Lords, and leave the Schedule as to rates to a future Parliament? It had been urged, with considerable force, that sufficient time had not been given for the consideration of the Schedule. Members of Parliament themselves had an interest in seeing that the scale should not be excessive, and no effort should be wanting on the part of those with whom he acted to secure that result in an early Session.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)said, he agreed entirely with the very sensible remarks made by the right hon. Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith). They were in a position in which time was absolutely their master. The House of Lords
    266
    said they would throw out the Bill altogether unless it was reduced to the Appeal Clause. He sympathized very much with his Irish Friends as to this Schedule, and if he might advise them it would be not to mix the Irish Schedule in future with the English scale of charges. The whole scale in Ireland ought to be at a much lower rate. They had better take the Bill as it came down from the Lords—half a loaf was better than no bread. Enormous injustice was done at the last Election in consequence of there being no appeal from the taxing master. He, therefore, thought they should secure the advantages of the appeal, and it would be the absolute duty of the next Parliament to have a Committee appointed at the very commencement to consider on proper evidence the whole question of the Returning Officers' charges.
    MR. MOLLOYobserved that the appeal was absolutely worthless. He thought the most dignified course would be to throw out the Lords' Amendments altogether.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend. The Appeal Clause would be worthless. In many cases the cost of the appeal would be more than the amount in dispute.
    MR. SEXTONhoped he might, by the indulgence of the House, be allowed to say he had been in communication with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy), and he was disposed to take the view that it was better to have the Appeal Clauses than nothing.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEdenied that the Bill had been sprung upon the country, as stated in the House of Lords, and as had just been stated from the Tory Benches by the hon. Member for the Guildford Division of Surrey (Mr. Brodrick). Night after night the debate on the Bill came on, but was adjourned to suit the convenience of the Tory Members opposite, and to allow of the question being thoroughly debated on both sides of the House; and it was monstrous now to declare that the House had been taken by surprise and the subject sprung on the country.
    Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  RETURNING OFFICERS' CHARGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments forthwith read.
    MR. J. WILSONobserved that it was distressing that such a good and valuable Bill should be thrown out at that stage. With, reference to the hints about money being collected in certain quarters to oppose the present Government—[Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member was out of Order in introducing matters which had nothing to do with the Question before the House.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, communications had taken place with the Sheriffs throughout Scotland; and these gentlemen had generally agreed, as far as possible, to make their charges conform to the Schedule of charges set down by the Lord Advocate, but which had been struck out of the Bill by the House of Lords.
    Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  MEDICAL ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments forthwith read.
    Lords' Amendments considered.
    DR. TANNERremarked, that when the Bill was under discussion in that House a division was taken on the point whether the Universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrew's should each have a Member, or whether they should have one Member between them. On that occasion the House came to the conclusion that it would be better to treat them collectively; and, therefore, he now moved that the House should disagree with the Amendment which had come down from the Lords, giving one Member to each University.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Dr. Tanner.)
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, that after giving to the Victoria University and the University of Durham each one representative on the Medical Council the House refused to do the same justice to
    268
    the Universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrew's, although their case, and especially the case of Aberdeen, was a much stronger one than that of Victoria University and the University of Durham. That mistake had been corrected in the other House, and he hoped the Lords' Amendments would be agreed to. Aberdeen University was a Medical School, and the University of St. Andrew's, although most efficient in other respects, was not a Medical School. It was an Examining Body in medicine; it had a large number of medical graduates, and therefore might be considered fit to be intrusted with the nomination of a member to the Medical Council; but there was an incongruity in linking it with the Medical School of Aberdeen in sending a joint representative to the Medical Council. It had been said that under the present Medical Act Universities were linked together in sending representatives to the Medical Council. At present the University of Glasgow and the University of St. Andrew's were linked together for that purpose. But the practice did not work satisfactorily. It was found to be exceedingly objectionable that a large Medical School such as the University of Glasgow should not have the power to nominate a member of the Medical Council without reference to the University of St. Andrew's, which was entirely on a different footing in regard to medical education. An objection was raised on the previous occasion that what was now proposed by the Amendment of the Lords would increase too much the representation of Universities on the Medical Council; but he would point out that the University of St. Andrew's might be regarded more as representing Medical Corporations than Universities, so that what the Lords had done kept the proportion as it was at present.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR)said, that though he considered the arrangement in the Bill as he introduced it the best, yet, the House of Commons having divided Victoria University and the University of Durham, and as these two Scottish Universities were the only Bodies of the kind united for this purpose, he voted for a proposal to separate them as a logical consequence of the other decision. He thought they should agree to the Lords' Amendment.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would urge his hon. Friend not to press his objection.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Remaining Amendments agreed to.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments to Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments forthwith read.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he objected to the Amendments on the ground that they were a breach of the understanding which had been arrived at. The House had accepted all the Lords' Amendments except three, and it was understood that with respect to those the Bill was to be restored to its original form. But the Lords had now introduced Amendments with respect to the definition of agricultural labourers, the home farm, and the compulsory purchase of land. He would not move to disagree with these Amendments, as it would be useless; but he protested against them.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he agreed with the objection of the hon. Member to the new definition of "agricultural labourer," and would suggest that the House disagree with that Amendment; and he had authority to say that, if the other Amendments were agreed to, the Lords would not be unwilling to restore the original definition made in that House.
    Lords' Amendments considered.
    Several Amendments disagreed to; several agreed to.
    Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed:"—Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. SEXTON, Mr. BRODRICK, Mr. LEVESON GOWER, Colonel KING-HARMAN, and Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.

  EAST INDIA (REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
    REPORT.
    Resolution [June 21] reported.
    CASE OF MR. MOORE.

      PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURHCHILLsaid, he wished to
      270
      take that opportunity of calling attention to some remarks made in his absence on Monday night by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) with reference to Mr. Moore. Those remarks, as reported, appeared to be in the nature of a personal attack upon himself, and also an attack upon the character of one of the very best public servants whom the country ever possessed. The hon. Gentleman was reported to have said, in the discussion on the Indian Budget on Monday, that—
      "He protested against the waste of money resulting from the re-arrangement of offices which enabled gentlemen in the prime of life to retire upon large pensions. He found that a Mr. Moore, who had retired on a pension of £800 per annum in consequence of so-called rearrangement of offices, had been acting as Private Secretary to the noble Lord the late Secretary for India. He did not know who was responsible for that matter, but he could not help regarding it as a monstrous and a gross job."
      The hon. Member was reported to have accused him (Lord Randolph Churchill) of having been guilty of a monstrous job in appointing Mr. Moore as his Private Secretary, and also, he supposed, of having been guilty of a gross job in regard to the re-arrangement of offices—
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to explain. I said nothing of the kind.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity of speaking afterwards. In the interests of the gentleman in question he was bound to take notice of the matter. The re-organization scheme under which Mr. Moore retired from service in India was approved by the Secretary of State (the Earl of Kimberley) in Council on January 6, 1885. Its author was Mr. Godley, now Permanent Under Secretary of State for India, and it was considered by the Finance Committee of the Council and by the Council itself. In accordance with that re-organization the number of appointments in the higher grades of the Service was reduced, and the salaries in the lower grades were increased. The result was a saving, prospective if not immediate, which was thought to be for the interests of the Public Service. In order that the scheme might be

      271
      brought into operation it was thought that such of the existing holders of the offices dealt with as were willing to retire should be allowed to do so. One of the provisions of the scheme authorized the Secretary of State to grant a pension for past services without the production of the usual certificate of incapacity for further service. In accordance with the provisions of this scheme Mr. Moore, having served 26 years in the India Office, and having been originally in the employ of the old East India Company, tendered his resignation on February 3, 1885, and the resignation took effect on the 24th of June, the latest possible date under the terms of the scheme. It was accepted by Lord Kimberley on May 15, a month before the Government went out of Office. Mr. Moore was granted £733 per annum, which was the pension he had earned; not £800, as the hon. Member said. These were the circumstances which the hon. Member apparently thought could justly be described as amounting to a gross and monstrous job. The transaction was no more in the nature of a job than was the retirement of the hon. Gentleman himself from the Indian Service. The hon. Member retired at the age of 50, in the prime of life—he might say, judging from the hon. Member's appearance, in the youth of life. Then the hon. Member retired on a pension of £1,000 a-year. But more than that. On the hon. Gentleman's retirement he was appointed to a seat on the Indian Council at a salary of £1,200 a-year. Yet the hon. Member objected to the retirement of Mr. Moore on a pension of £733 a-year, and his employment afterwards by himself (Lord Randolph Churchill) at the small and inadequate salary of £300 a-year. He supposed that his appointment of Mr. Moore as his Secretary was the gross political job of which the hon. Member complained.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: No, no; I deny that.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that on taking Office he learned by the greatest piece of good fortune that Mr. Moore's services were available, and the entire India Department told him that if he could secure Mr. Moore's services he should be exceptionally fortunate. Mr. Moore's experiences were conspicuously exceptional;
      272
      and certainly if during the time he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was at the India Office he had been able to discharge the duties with any degree of satisfaction, it was greatly owing to the assistance he received from Mr. Moore. He supposed he should not, in the opinion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, have been perpetrating a gross job if he had put a near relative of his own into this lucrative office, as the present Secretary of State had done. Instead of taking that course, he had endeavoured to secure the services of the best man that the Indian Service could produce. Until he became Secretary of State he was unacquainted with Mr. Moore. He had thought it right, in justice to Mr. Moore—about himself he did not care—to make these observations, in order that the public might not be misled by the accusations of the hon. Member.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the tone of the noble Lord's speech was somewhat hard upon him, because when the noble Lord informed him of his intention to bring the matter before the House he had told the noble Lord that he had entirely misapprehended the purport of his speech. He did not intend to make an attack on the noble Lord, or upon Mr. Moore. The report of his speech which appeared in The Times was condensed to about a fifth of what he really said, and he was not at all surprised that it should have conveyed a false impression to the noble Lord. What he denounced as a monstrous and gross job was not the appointment of Mr. Moore by the noble Lord as his Private Secretary, but those who shunted Mr. Moore while he was still in the prime of life, and gave him a pension. In that respect he thought the noble Lord had proved his (Sir George Campbell's) case to the very hilt. He still said that the system under which such a man was shunted by the re-organization of offices was a monstrous and gross job. Re-organization was popular in all offices, for it enabled efficient men to retire with three-fourths of their salaries and accelerated promotion. But such re-arrangements took place too often in many public offices. As regarded what had been said about himself, he wished to say that he did not enjoy a pension at all; he enjoyed an annuity—the result of a contract for

      273
      which he paid largely himself; and the noble Lord was greatly mistaken if he supposed he (Sir George Campbell) was associated with any re-organization, or that he received anything whatever he was not entitled to under the strict law of contract.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)said, that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, after having been face to face with the noble Lord opposite, now, in the absence of the Under Secretary for India, charged Lord Kimberley with having been guilty of a gross political job, and had repeated the statement over and over again without having brought forward a single bit of evidence—
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had made the statement originally in the presence of the Under Secretary for India, who had the opportunity of contradicting it.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, it had been contradicted already, and he would contradict it again. The Indian Council determined to re-organize this particular branch of the Indian Service, and Mr. Moore was perfectly within his right in retiring. The Secretary of State very much objected to Mr. Moore's retirement, and very much deplored the loss of his services. Mr. Moore's place had not been filled up, and there was consequently an actual saving in the office. He dared say Mr. Moore, if he were present, would characterize the amount he received, not as a pension, but as an annuity. The hon. Gentleman first charged the noble Lord opposite with being guilty of a monstrous political job, and, the noble Lord having completely pulverized the case, the hon. Gentleman then went on to make a similar charge against Lord Kimberley. He much regretted that the hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to make these serious charges, for which there was really not the slightest foundation.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thoroughly agreed with the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). He had often himself regarded re-organizations with considerable jealousy; but no greater mischief could be done by those who wished to watch these re-organizations than to speak of an economical, wise, and proper re-
      274
      organization in the way the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had spoken. It was part of the contract into which a public servant entered that if he was retired compulsorily he was to receive a pension, and Mr. Moore was perfectly within his own right in availing himself of the opportunity offered to him to withdraw from the Public Service. He protested against the language of the hon. Gentleman as calculated to do great injury to the Public Service as a whole, and to place great obstacles in the way of an economical re-organization.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH)said, that everyone in the India Office much regretted Mr. Moore's retirement. The unfortunate consequence of bringing these personal matters into debate was that one personality led to another; and he simply wished to say that he listened with extreme regret both to what the noble Lord opposite had said with regard to the present Private Secretary of the present Secretary of State, and also to the language used by the hon. Member behind him with regard to another appointment.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, all he had urged was that if his appointment of Mr. Moore, who was a stranger, as his Private Secretary was a gross political job, obviously the appointment by Lord Kimberley of his son to the same position was still more a job.
      SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he was glad to hear that the noble Lord did not imply that that appointment was a job.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Not at all.
      SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that nothing could be more excellent than the way in which that gentleman discharged his duties.
      Resolution agreed to.

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 9.]
  (Mr. James O'Brien, Mr. Timothy Harrington, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Mayne, Mr. Peter M'Donald.)
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 9.]

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at five minutes after Eight o'clock.