Commons Sitting of 20 May 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—London Corporation (Charges of Malversation) [No. 161]; Forestry, nominated.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Considered as amended—Great Eastern Railway (re-comm.)
Third Reading—Midland Great Western Rail-way of Ireland, and passed.
Lords Amendments—Belfast Main Drainage, Consideration deferred.
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—First Reading—Conveyancing (Scotland) Acts Amendment * [270].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee— Public Parks and Works (Metropolis) [136].
Committee—Criminal Law Amendment(Ireland) [217] [Eleventh Night]—R.P.; Deeds of Arrangement Registration [231]—R.F.
Committee—Report—First Offenders (recomm.) [189]; Municipal Corporations Acts (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2) [176].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Duke of Connaught's Leave [228]; Truro Bishopric and Chapter Acts Amendment * [205], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—East India Stock Conversion [267], and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (No. 4) * [269].
Considered as amended—Commons Regulation Ewer)* [237].
Third Reading—Commons Regulation (Lain-don)* [238], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL (by Order).

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
    MR. COX: I do not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the third reading of the Bill. I did not do so yesterday, and all that I wish now is to direct the attention of
    648
    the hon. Baronet the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) and the House to certain grave charges and serious imputations which have been made upon his character as Chairman of a Committee of this House, with which I was associated, in dealing with the Bill now before the House. I will not detain the House for many minutes; but it will be necessary for me to state, shortly, how these charges came to be made. This Bill, when it was before the Committee, was opposed by the Limerick and Waterford Railway Company, of which Mr. Spaight is Chairman, and the statements of which I complain are contained in a speech made by that gentleman at a meeting of the Limerick Harbour Board, over which he presided, and in a letter which Mr. Spaight wrote on the 9th of May. The importance of these accusations consists in the fact that Mr. Spaight occupies a very important position in the City of Limerick. As I have said, he is not only Chairman of the Limerick Harbour Board, but also Chairman of the Limerick and Waterford Railway Company, who opposed the Midland Great Western of Ireland Railway Bill. Speaking at Limerick, Mr. Spaight said—
    "Mr. Grierson, manager of the Great Western Railway, gave important evidence; but he was not listened to. The Chairman, Sir Julian Goldsmid, absolutely turned aside, put his arms over the back of his chair, and affected to go to sleep. From the very commencement of the inquiry the Chairman seemed to have made up his mind on the question. He knew from the start that they had no chance owing to the apparent bias of the Chairman."
    Speaking of the evidence, Mr. Spaight characterized it as laughable and absurd; but said that it seemed to have considerable weight with the Committee, or rather with the Chairman, who appeared to be the Committee. Later on he said—
    "It was the duty of Limerick men to make some final effort to get themselves heard before the House of Lords' Committee, where they would get a fair and impartial hearing;"
    implying, in so many words, that they had not received an impartial hearing at the hands of the Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet, and thereby casting a serious reflection upon the hon. Baronet and the Committee. I will now read an extract from a letter written on the 9th instant by Mr.

    649
    Spaight to The Daily Express, containing more serious charges against the character of the hon. Baronet—
    "We complain," says Mr. Spaight, "that the Chairman of the Committee held and expressed such a strong feeling in favour of the promoters and against the Petitioners from the opening of the case, that everyone who listened 'to the proceedings was quite satisfied, from the first day, what the decision would be. Our opponents will, I think, admit that such was the general impression,"
    thereby imputing that the hon. Baronet had made up his mind as a partizan of the Midland Company. Now, I was an opponent of Mr. Spaight on that occasion; but his evidence was attentively listened to. It is not for me to defend the character of the hon. Baronet; but, having attended the Committee, I am decidedly of opinion that the hon. Baronet's conduct was fair and impartial. He gave, I think, a very fair and a very attentive hearing to the whole case. In submitting the case to the House, I do not propose to suggest any particular line of action. I have considered it my duty, as my attention has been directed to the subject, to bring it before the House. I think it is a great hardship and a serious matter that any Committee of this House should be liable or open to an attack by the promoters or the opponents of any Bill that may come before the House simply because they have happened to be unsuccessful. I do not propose to make any Motion on the matter; but, having brought the question under the attention of the House and the hon. Baronet, I will leave the House to deal with it as it thinks best.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: Copies of the letters written by the gentleman referred to were sent to me from time to time; but I thought they were very little worthy of notice, and that the best plan I and the Committee could adopt was to ignore them altogether. The gentleman who wrote them was formerly a Member of this House, and, therefore, knows something of the duties of the House. I myself have served as Chairman of many Committees; but I have never maintained that Committees are infallible. I am free to admit that they sometimes make mistakes, and, as far as I am concerned, I may sometimes be right and sometimes be wrong. In this case, however, I con-
    650
    sider that the Committee arrived at a right decision. This gentleman, Mr. Spaight, has no ground of complaint whatever. It so happened that he attacked personally several witnesses who came before the Committee on account of the evidence he gave, and it became my duty as Chairman to call him repeatedly to Order. I think he did not like it, and the result is that he has amused himself by writing these letters. Under these circumstances, as far as the Committee is concerned, I do not think it necessary to take any further notice of the matter.
    MR. CHANCE: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether—as this question has been raised, and the House is not asked to come to a decision upon it on the ground that it is scarcely of sufficient importance—whether you think it is proper or right that persons examined either in support of or against a Private Bill should, after the inquiry was over, go away and make at public meetings, or in the newspapers, attacks upon the conduct or character of the Gentlemen who have been sitting on the Committee? I understand that Members serving on a Private Bill Committee have the same right to the protection of the House as they have when discharging their duty in the House itself, and that, under such circumstances, an attack made upon the Members of a Private Bill Committee is equivalent to an attack made upon the House itself.
    MR. SPEAKER: In substance the view of the hon. Member is perfectly correct. An attack made upon the Members of a Committee is equivalent to an attack made upon the House itself. No witness has a right to go away from a Committee Room and then impugn the character of the Gentlemen who compose the Committee. The hon. Member for Clare (Mr. Cox) was good enough to show me the grounds of his complaint before bringing it under the notice of the House. I think he was undoubtedly right in bringing it under the attention of the House, and having done that I am of opinion that the charges are of such a nature that I think the House may well take no further notice of the matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    BELFAST MAIN DRAINAGE BILL (by Order).

      LORDS AMENDMENTS. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
      Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th April], "That the Lords Amendments be now taken into consideration."
      Question again proposed.
      Debate resumed.
      MR. SEXTON: I find it necessary to ask the House to agree to the further adjournment of the debate. When the question last came up, about three weeks ago, on the 28th of April, the adjournment of the debate was ordered, because the House of Lords had struck out of the Bill a clause extending the franchise of the town of Belfast. We felt in the House that it was necessary to give the ratepayers control over the execution of this scheme of main drainage, seeing that it involved an expenditure of £500,000. The clause struck out of the Bill in the House of Lords provided the necessary machinery for conferring this control upon the ratepayers, and it was felt that until some steps could be taken, to extend the local government of Belfast so as to give the general body of ratepayers, not only control over the execution of the works, but also some control over the expenditure connected with the scheme, it was undesirable to pass the measure itself. The object of the adjournment was to afford time to both Houses of Parliament to consider the question of the extension of the franchise in a more regular manner in regard to the various boroughs of Ireland. I moved on that occasion the postponement of the consideration of this Bill until the 20th of July, because I felt that, having regard to the state of Public Business, an adjournment for three weeks would be insufficient for the purpose. But, in deference to the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I amended the proposal by moving that the debate should be adjourned until the present day; but, as I then anticipated, the interval which has elapsed has been insufficient for the purpose. The Franchise Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) has not yet left the House of Commons, although it has reached the
      652
      Committee stage. It came on this morning at 3 or 4 o'clock, far too late to enable the House to consider the Bill, and in the absence of the Members of the Government who were competent to deal with the question. If it had not been for that circumstance, the Bill might have been passed through Committee this morning, and have been down for a, third reading to-day. I hope that it will pass through Committee to-night, and go up to the House of Lords before the holidays, so that before the date which I originally fixed—the 20th of July—it may be passed into law. But if we proceed to-day to discuss the Lords' Amendments, I shall be compelled to move that the House disagree with them seriatim, and I shall be obliged to make each of them the subject of a Division.
      MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must point out that he has already spoken on the Motion before the House.
      MR. CONWAY: I beg to move that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments be postponed until the 20th of July.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Upon the point of Order, Sir, may I ask whether an hon. Gentleman who moves the adjournment is not capable of continuing the discussion on another occasion?
      MR. SPEAKER: No. The hon. Member who moved the adjournment has exhausted his right, having already addressed the House. May I also point out that the date moved by the hon. Member for Leitrim is a rather distant one? I had, on another occasion, to rule that the postponement of a Bill until so late a date as that would virtually defeat the measure. I would, therefore, ask the hon. Member to propose a nearer date, in accordance with the ordinary practice of the House.
      MR. CONWAY: In compliance with your suggestion, Sir, I will move that the debate be adjourned until the 20th of June.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "on Monday 20th June."—(Mr. Conway.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
      MR. EWART: I shall oppose that Motion. When this Bill

      653
      was last before the House the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) moved the adjournment until the 20th of July, on the ground that the House, in the interval which would elapse, would pass the Bill for the extension of the franchise, whereupon the Chairman of Ways and Means proposed that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments should be postponed until the 20th of May—this day—in order that, in the interval, steps should be taken to push forward the Bill which then stood in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry). Since then my hon. Friend has entered into an engagement to limit the provisions of that Bill to the borough of Belfast, and that engagement has been accepted by Members on this side of the House, and by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the interval which has elapsed my hon. Friend has done everything that was possible to carry out that arrangement. The Bill has been blocked, and has mot with opposition in several quarters; but, acting in good faith, with a sincere desire to carry out the arrangement now come to, my hon. Friend succeeded in getting the block removed, and the Bill came before the House last night. [Mr. SEXTON: NO; this morning.] Or, rather, this morning. The Bill was again opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the ground that it limited the extension of the franchise to the borough of Belfast. Hon. Members below the Gangway contend that all Ireland should be included; but I may point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Armagh would not have succeeded in getting the block removed, and thereby would not have been enabled to bring the Bill on at all last night, unless he had entered into the understanding that the provisions of the measure should be limited to the borough of Belfast. Unless my hon. Friend had done that, it would have been simply impossible to bring the measure forward; and, under these circumstances, it would be dishonourable on our part to give any aid to any measure which goes further than the extension of the municipal franchise to the borough of Belfast. For these reasons, I feel it impossible to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leitrim. The Bill for the extension of the franchise will come before the House this evening; and hon. Members, if they are willing to carry out the arrangement suggested
      654
      by the Chairman of Ways and Means, will be able to make progress with the Franchise Bill to their hearts' content.
      MR. M. J. KENNY: When the question was previously before the House I took occasion to point out the danger of allowing this Bill to leave the House of Commons until such time as we had previously secured the passage of the Municipal Franchise Bill. Now, Sir, since then the Municipal Franchise Bill has undoubtedly made very considerable progress, and there is no reason to doubt that it will pass this House in the course of a very few days. Under these circumstances, we are bound to ask whether the Municipal Franchise Bill will receive the same consideration in "another place" as it has received at our hands? Therefore, I think it is our duty to suspend the Belfast Main Drainage Bill until we have satisfied ourselves that that Bill has been passed in "another place." We have repeated precedents of such a course. We have the precedent of the Lords themselves, who have frequently suspended a Bill in that House pending the passage through this House of other Bills. Therefore, I think it is a precedent on which we may fairly act in this House also. It has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim to adjourn the debate upon this Bill until the 20th of July; but you, Sir, said that so long a postponement would have the effect of killing the Bill, and, acting upon your suggestion, my hon. Friend withdrew the original Motion, and substituted the 20th of June. The House is now about to adjourn for a fortnight; it will re-assemble on the 6th of June, and there will only be a space of 12 days, or less than two weeks, left with which any progress can be made with the Municipal Franchise Bill. I do not know whether the Town Council of Belfast will meet more than once or twice during that space of time, and I certainly fail to see how any rapid progress is to be made with the Bill before that date. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) would absolutely lose nothing by acceding to the Motion of my hon. Friend; because considering the time of year we have now arrived at, and the Recess which is about to take place, I cannot conceive how any further progress is to be made with the Main Drainage Bill, although it may be possible, on the other hand, to make

      655
      material progress with the Municipal Franchise Bill. Under these circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman cannot possibly be injured by the Motion of my hon. Friend, and seeing that the interests of those persons who are connected with the Main Drainage Bill cannot be damnified by a further postponement, I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will have the grace to withdraw his opposition to the Motion of my hon. Friend, and not put the House to the trouble of a Division.
      MR. JOHNSTON: I also feel it my duty to oppose the Motion. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that the influence of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means induced the House to consent to the adjournment of the Bill until this day. It will be a serious inconvenience and a great loss to the town of Belfast if there is any further postponement. The state of the Lagan River at the present moment is a disgrace to Belfast, and is a crying evil. The Belfast Town Commissioners have passed a Resolution almost unanimously, for I believe there wore only two dissentients, calling upon this House to consent to this Bill without any further delay. I hope, therefore, the House will consent to the Bill without any further postponement. Not only have the Town Commissioners of Belfast passed a Resolution in favour of the Main Drainage Bill, but another influential body has given its support to the scheme; and I think that is a sufficient proof that the people of Belfast want it. The Franchise Question has made considerable progress in this House, and if it has not made more progress hon. Members will be aware that that fact has not been owing to any action on the part of the promoters of the Main Drainage Bill. The municipal franchise would have been conferred by this House on the people of Belfast but for the opposition given to this Bill last month by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), who, notwithstanding the sympathy he has frequently expressed in this House towards the extension of the franchise to the people of Belfast, took the extraordinary course last night of opposing the Franchise Bill.
      MR. SEXTONI gave no opposition whatever to that Bill last night.
      MR. JOHNSTONYou certainly moved to report Progress.
      MR. SEXTONNo doubt, but it was at 3 o'clock in the morning.
      MR. JOHNSTONIf a Motion to report Progress is not opposition to a Bill I fail to understand what opposition is. I trust that the promoters of the Bill will have the support of the House on this occasion, and that no further Motion for the adjournment of the debate will be acceded to, so that the measure will now receive the consideration it deserves. I trust that the Lords' Amendments will be approved of, and that the Bill will be passed through its final stages in the interests of the people of Belfast.
      MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member for South Belfast has, with his habitual inaccuracy, taken exception to what occurred this morning. Now, I gave no opposition to the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry); but I believe that the course I took met with the general concurrence of the House. Previous to the Bill being reached there had been an exhaustive Sitting of 11 hours, and there were numerous important Amendments upon the Paper against the Bill. Many Members also had left the House; and, therefore, I felt it my duty to move that Progress should be reported. I am not an enemy to the Franchise Bill. I am a friend of the Bill, and those who are the enemies of the Bill, although they claim to be its friends, are hon. Gentlemen opposite. For some reasons, which I have not been able to fathom, the provisions of the Bill are now limited to the borough of Belfast. I wish to assure the House that they will make a great mistake, and produce a most profound resentment among the community of Belfast—a community already sufficiently troubled by a variety of other causes—if they attempt to pass this Bill, and impose a burden of £500,000 upon the people, if they do not take care that they give the people of Belfast some control over the execution of the works and the expenditure of the money. The hon. Member for South Belfast has stated that the people of that town are unanimously in favour of the main drainage scheme, and he has referred to the River Lagan, Why, at this moment the Lagan Pollution Committee have sent a telegram to me, which I have only just received, stating that they—

      657
      "Confidently expect my assistance in securing the postponement of the Main Drainage Bill pending the settlement of the franchise in accordance with the popular desire of the people of Belfast."
      Representations of a similar character reach me every day, and the hon. Gentleman knows very well that this scheme was prepared by a private Committee of the Corporation, and that it has never been submitted to the ratepayers at any public meeting, although public meetings have been held against it. Nevertheless, the hon. Member has the hardihood in this House—a House sitting in London, and not in Dublin—to say that the opinion of the community of Belfast is in favour of passing this Bill. It was at the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means that on the 28th of April we postponed the Bill, and the grounds on which that postponement took place have not yet been complied with. The object was to secure time for the passing of the Franchise Bill, and will any hon. Gentleman opposite say that there has not been sufficient time for that purpose? No doubt I proposed the adjournment of the Franchise Bill for two days for the purpose of consulting my Colleagues—namely, from Tuesday until Thursday. It must be remembered that the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh has materially altered the scope of the Franchise Bill. We claim that it should be passed for the whole of Ireland; but even if it be limited only to the town of Belfast, and is passed in that form, we shall be satisfied to withdraw our opposition to the Main Drainage Bill. It is idle to tell me that the Franchise Bill will be passed as soon as we have disposed of this Bill. I cannot forget that the Drainage Bill will place in the hands of a small ring in Belfast the power of spending £500,000 of the ratepayers, and by the time the Franchise Bill passes into law the people of Belfast may find themselves saddled with the payment of £35,000 a-year for 40 years to come. I tell you that if you pass this Bill I will go to Belfast and advise the ratepayers of that city, if they will listen to my voice, not to pay 1d. to the municipal rates until such arrangements are made as will enable them to exercise control over the expenditure of the rates. If that is done I fail to see how the main drainage scheme will be carried into operation. I was about to say,
      658
      when I was interrupted on a point of Order a short time ago, that in discussing this matter I should have to raise a Constitutional question. The House of Lords have, on technical grounds, struck out the Franchise Clause, which was inserted by the House of Commons, the ground being that no Notice of that clause was given by the promoters at the time the Bill was deposited. As a matter of fact, no such Notice could have been given, because the promoters had no intention of inserting the clause. If the House refuse to consent to the adjournment of the debate it will be my duty to go into that question at length, and to put it to the House whether the House of Lords are constitutionally entitled, upon a Standing Order intended to be used against the promoters of a Private Bill, to object to the Constitutional right of this House to make any amendment in a Bill which it is pleased to make? I have placed Notices on the Taper which I intend to submit for the amendment of the Municipal Franchise Bill. The object of those clauses is to provide that, at the next annual municipal election for Belfast after the passing of the Act, every seat in the Municipal Council shall become vacant as if the period of occupancy prescribed by law had expired, and that there shall be a new election for every seat in the Council; and also to provide that until the new Council shall have been elected no action shall be taken or liability incurred in respect of the main drainage scheme. The object of those clauses is to afford an opportunity to the people of Belfast for obtaining some real control over the execution of the works, and the expenditure which may be involved. Without some such provision it will take three years before the entire Municipal Council can be elected under the Franchise Bill. Only one-third of the Council retire this year, a second third next year, and the remaining third the year after. Therefore, three years will elapse before the ratepayers will obtain any control over the expenditure connected with the scheme. I denounce that as a mockery and a sham, and I claim the support of the Chairman of Ways and Means to the Motion made by my hon. Friend, not that I desire any prolonged adjournment which, Sir, in. your wisdom, as the Head of this House, you consider would be unreasonable, but a moderate adjournment which will

      659
      enable the House to prosecute the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh, and to send it to the House of Lords, by which means only you will be able to get rid of the conflict which now exists between the two Houses, and which, if no means of that nature are taken, will inevitably lead to an angry debate.
      MR. DE COBAIN: I confess that I have been taken by surprise at the course which has been pursued in reference to this Belfast Main Drainage Bill. When this Bill was last before the House I was necessarily absent through a business engagement in Ireland; and I had hoped under those circumstances, in deference to the fact that I was unable to be present to represent the views of those who think with me in reference to this measure, that the promoters of it would have permitted it at that time to be adjourned; but they adopted the less chivalrous course of pressing it on when they knew I could not be present. The Main Drainage Bill now under consideration has the support of scarcely anybody outside the Corporation of Belfast. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) has stated, that there have been two Resolutions arrived at by two Public Bodies in support of the Bill; but one of those Public Bodies—the Belfast Water Commissioners—passed a Resolution approving of a main drainage scheme, but not necessarily of this main drainage scheme. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners, another important Body, came to a decision to support the Bill; but the Resolution was brought forward at a meeting without due notice having been given, and it was not unanimously carried. With regard to the public feeling in relation to the Bill in Belfast, I may fairly and frankly state that no public meeting has been held in support of the provisions of the measure, whereas several public meetings, representing, among others, persons largely connected with the principal interests of Belfast, have been held, and have with unanimity condemned it. I think that, under such circumstances, to insist upon the House of Commons coming to a decision upon the merits of the question to-day would be exceedingly unfair to the ratepayers of Belfast. We have, at present, a limited municipal franchise. The municipal burgess roll consists of about 6,000 electors, whereas we have a Parliamentary
      660
      roll comprising 33,000 householders. I understand that a statutable enactment makes it binding in all the towns of England to call a town's meeting to approve of all public schemes which involve the expenditure of the ratepayers' money before they are carried into effect. Such a provision, unfortunately, does not apply to the town of Belfast. If it had done so, and the ratepayers had been required to consider the matter before the promoters brought their Bill into Parliament, I believe the people of Belfast would almost unanimously have condemned the provisions of the measure. I know that it is a painful matter to keep a public question like this dangling for so long a time, and that the argument against further delay derives some force from its being postponed more than once before. At the same time, no one can deny the equity and justice of the demand now made that the people who will be required to pay the cost of this main drainage scheme should have the right to say "Yea" or "Nay" to it. In deference to the opinion already expressed in this House, and the decision lately come to in regard to the Main Drainage Bill, it is only a matter of equity towards the people of Belfast that the measure extending the municipal franchise shall come into operation before this Bill finally becomes law. Under those circumstances, I do not see why the promoters should not consent to a further adjournment—that is to say, if they are sincere, and if they are really honest in desiring that the working people of Belfast should have the privilege which is already enjoyed by the working people of Dublin, and by every other great community in the Empire. I do not see why the working people of Belfast are not as capable and as fairly entitled to enjoy the privilege of the municipal franchise as any other community. I do not see why a measure of this kind, which proposes to impose a public debt upon the town of Belfast of £500,000, and to increase the municipal taxation to the extent of 20 per cent, should be hurried through the House, especially when it is perfectly notorious that there is an ample source of revenue in the hands of the Corporation which would enable them to carry out this main drainage scheme without adding one single 1d. to the rates. In a question which will so seriously effect the financial interests of the whole people, I think

      661
      the fairest course for the promoters to adopt would be to say—"We will suspend any action in regard to the passing of the Bill until all the ratepaying classes of Belfast and all the householders have an opportunity of expressing their concurrence in this Bill or their disapproval of it." I was sorry to see the Bill for the extension of the municipal franchise delayed again last night; but I must altogether dissent from the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), that the delay was occasioned by the action of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). The hon. Member for West Belfast, no doubt, was of opinion that the hour was too advanced for the consideration of the question, and of all the Amendments which stood upon the Paper. In that opinion I cordially concurred. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), and others sitting on the other side of the House below the Gangway, expressed not only an opinion in favour of the principle of the Bill, but in favour of the extension of the municipal franchise throughout the whole of the corporate boroughs of Ireland. From that view some hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House appear to dissent. I myself have no objection to an extension of the municipal franchise to all the corporate towns of Ireland. But as yet we have only got an expression of a desire in that direction from the town of Belfast, and we are not aware that all other corporate towns of Ireland are in favour of an extension of the municipal franchise. In Belfast itself there have been public meetings held in opposition to this Bill, and in favour of the extension of the municipal franchise, so that we know the feeling of Belfast fully and clearly on the subject. I think that in deference to that feeling the House of Commons should permit this Bill to be further adjourned until such time as the municipal franchise has been extended, and we are in a position to recognize the fact that all the ratepaying people of Belfast will have an opportunity of expressing their concurrence in the scheme of the promoters, or their dissent from it.
      THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): The House is in a position, I am afraid, of considerable embarrassment in respect of this Bill; and certainly, as far as I am myself concerned, I feel not
      662
      only in a position of some embarrassment, but also to a certain extent of vexation. I cannot help thinking that the proposal I made a few weeks ago ought to have been more successful in securing a satisfactory result than it has been. The situation is this. A scheme for the drainage of Belfast went last year before a Select Committee of this House—a Private Bill Committee. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) a short time ago expressed the greatest confidence in the impartiality of Select Committees of this House.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I said where politics were not involved.
      MR. COURTNEYYes; where politics were not involved. But the method to be adopted in regard to the drainage of the town of Belfast is not a question involving politics; and, therefore, I can see no reason why the decision of a Private Bill Committee on this Bill should not receive the same support of this House which the decisions of Private Bill Committees usually receive. After the Bill came back to us from the Committee a clause was introduced into it on Report extending the municipal franchise in Belfast, and in that form it passed this House. The Bill then went up to the House of Lords, who struck out that clause, re-examined in detail the whole of the drainage scheme, heard all the opposition that could be made to it, and affirmed the propriety of the scheme generally. The scheme of drainage, therefore, which is contained in this Bill for the town of Belfast has been affirmed and sanctioned by Committees of both Houses, and that fact is undoubtedly one which deserves our consideration. That is the present situation. Although the Bill has been opposed by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), on the last occasion when the subject was before the House the hon. Member admitted that he was quite willing to allow the measure to go on if the municipal franchise were extended, so that his opposition was not to this scheme as a drainage scheme, but he desired to make it compulsory to proceed with the Bill for the extension of the franchise. What the hon. Member has stated to-day confirms that view—namely, that this scheme for drainage, whatever may have been said about it at any public meeting in Bel-

      663
      fast, is, on its merits, a drainage scheme which ought to receive the support of this House. It comes before us with the approval and the authority of two Committees, and with the implied approval of the hon. Member for West Belfast. When the question was under discussion on the last occasion, there was a Bill before the House promoted by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) for the extension of the franchise in certain boroughs in Ireland. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Eleven in all.] I understood that the measure received general assent, not only on this side, but upon the other side of the House; and I suggested that if this Bill were postponed for three weeks there might be a prospect, in. the meantime, of pushing forward the Municipal Franchise Bill, and passing it into law. I had no idea at that time that the Bill would be cut down to a Bill for extending the franchise in Belfast only. That was no part of my idea, although, no doubt, it was for the purpose of putting that principle in operation in Belfast that the suggestion was then made. As soon as the proposal to postpone the Bill for some weeks was made, it was followed by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis), who intimated that if nobody else would block the Franchise Bill he would. The hon. Baronet did block the Bill; but the block was subsequently taken off, and we have been informed this afternoon that it disappeared in consequence of some arrangement that the provisions of the Franchise Bill should be confined to the town of Belfast. It must not, however, be forgotten that the Bill was also blocked by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). The promoters of the Franchise Bill now feel under a debt of honour not to go on with it unless it is accepted upon those lines. I confess that, personally, I am sorry that the Bill has been restricted in its scope; but, at the same time, I believe there is a precedent for extending by a Public Bill the municipal franchise in one of the boroughs of Ireland. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Dublin.] Yes; the City of Dublin. It is now proposed to proceed on the same lines in regard to the City of Belfast, leaving out the other 10 boroughs of Ireland. If the proposal to adjourn the present Bill until the 20th of June were coupled with an undertaking not to oppose the modified
      664
      Bill, I think the House might listen to the proposal for the further adjournment of the debate; but there would not be the slightest use in adjourning the debate until the 20th of June if it is understood that the progress of the Municipal Franchise Bill is to be blocked again, so that, in its modified shape, it will not be allowed to go on. The promoters of the Bill have pretty plainly intimated that they will not go on with it except in its modified form. Therefore, if that Bill cannot go on in any other shape than its restricted application to Belfast, the House, I think, had better come to a decision today as to whether it will accept this scheme of main drainage, approved, as it has been, by Private Bill Committees of both Houses, or whether it will refuse to assent to it in consequence of the state of the franchise in Belfast. That is the practical question, and I hope it will be decided in a practical manner. I confess, for my own part, that leaving the other 10 boroughs out of consideration, if the understanding is come to that the Bill for the extension of the franchise in Belfast alone will go on, it would not be reasonable to hang up the Drainage Bill until that measure becomes law. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has a, number of Amendments on the Paper in reference to the Bill for the extension of the municipal franchise. I must tell him, however, that one of the clauses he proposes to insert is of an unusual and objectionable character, inasmuch as it requires that the operation of this particular Bill shall be hung up until the Municipal Council has been reconstituted.
      MR. SEXTONThat was the course taken in the case of Dublin, which has already been referred to.
      MR. COURTNEYThe first clause which the hon. Member proposes may be admissible in an amended form, but the second clause which he proposes would not be admissible as an Amendment in the Bill in Committee. It is not within the scope of the Bill, and could not be introduced in Committee. It may be proposed on the Report stage, but not in Committee. I only desire that the hon. Member for West Belfast should not be under any misapprehension in that respect. The best way to get out of the difficulty in which we are now placed will be, I think, to agree

      665
      that the Municipal Franchise Bill should be extended to Belfast only; and if an arrangement of that kind is come to, then the promoters of the Bill might be satisfied to consent to an adjournment of the present debate until the 20th of June.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The House will remember that when this Bill was under discussion on the last occasion I moved the adjournment of the debate until to-day. I did so on a perfectly distinct and specified ground. I stated that I did not know anything about the merits of the Bill itself, but that I considered it absurd to tax the people of Belfast to the extent of £500,000, with so limited a franchise in the town of Belfast itself. Well, Sir, there is a Bill now before the House for extending the franchise.
      MR. SEXTONNo; for extending it generally in all the boroughs of Ireland.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLI am in favour of extending the franchise generally in all the boroughs of Ireland, but I am not prepared to prevent Belfast from getting it because the majority of the House are not willing to confer it upon all the other boroughs. The difficulty which arose this morning in reference to the Franchise Bill arose from Members below the Gangway, and was in no way due to the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir James Corry); and as my opposition was limited to the question of the franchise, I am bound to say that if the Bill goes to a Division I shall now support it.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: With regard to what has fallen from the Chairman of Ways and Means I should like to say one or two words. It is perfectly correct that I said I had faith in the decision of a Committee of this House where politics are not concerned. No doubt, Select Committees of both Houses have approved of this main drainage scheme; but in this instance there is a distinct political issue raised, and although this House may approve, in the abstract, of the drainage of Belfast, or the drainage of the watershed of Central Africa, seeing that there would be no political question as to where the outfall should be, and would be in- different as to the cost of it; but when, in this particular instance, we have the additional fact that the entire Town Council of Belfast are opposed by the
      666
      general body of the ratepayers, although they are of the same religion and political principles as themselves, there must be something involved in the measure far beyond the ordinary engineering details of a Private Bill. We are told that there has been no town's meeting convened by the Town Council in support of the Bill, and I maintain that mere engineering matters sink into in-significance, and that the opposition to the measure arises from much more important principles. The real question is, have the people of Belfast had an opportunity of approving the measure? The Member in charge of the Franchise Bill is an expelled Member for one of the Divisions of Belfast, having been | expelled by the present Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain), who had been borough cashier to the Corporation of Belfast at a salary of £1,000 a-year. The Corporation dismissed him from that position because he had the audacity to oppose the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry). The hon. Gentleman, nevertheless, persisted in his opposition to the hon. Baronet, and, notwithstanding the exercise of the entire power of the Town Council, succeeded in expelling the hon. Baronet from the representation of East Belfast. Her Majesty's Government, however, gave the hon. Member for Mid Armagh the usual consolation of a Baronetcy, and he has been returned since to represent Mid Armagh. That fact shows, I think, that a deep feeling exists in the town of Belfast upon these questions. Perhaps the House will allow to me to refer for a moment to the argument of inconvenience. I presume that Her Majesty's Government are seriously anxious to save the time of the House, and if the time of the House is wasted the Government have only themselves to thank for the shuffling way in which they have treated the matter. Ton days ago I asked the Government if they were going to support the Motion of the hon. Baronet to confine the Franchise Bill to Belfast alone. The First Lord of the Treasury said he could not answer the Question; and, therefore, I put the same Question to the Under Secretary for Ireland, and he said that at the proper time he would answer the Question. Now, "the proper time" occurred very late at night, and neither the Attorney General for Ireland, nor the Chief Secretary, nor the Under Se-

      667
      cretary chose to be in his place, although they were all in their places a few moments before, when a Division was taken on the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill. The moment the Division was taken they skedaddled, well knowing that this Bill was coming on. Now, I considered that that was a most unfair way in which to treat the House, and I said I would not allow the House to go into Committee until we had a statement from the Government. Upon the distinct understanding that the Bill was to extend to the whole of Ireland I did not oppose the Motion for going into Committee. It was not until pressure was put on the hon. Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) from his own side that the block he had placed against the Bill was withdrawn, and we are now told that the block was only withdrawn on the distinct understanding with the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim that the provisions of the Bill shall only apply to the borough of Belfast. But there was another block against the Bill, which had been placed on the Paper by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner).
      MR. COURTNEYIt was admitted last time that that was an indiscretion.
      MR. T. M. HEALYI believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork never acts with indiscretion, but as a matter of principle. My hon. Friend withdrew the block on an appeal being made to him from this side of the House, and the block of my hon. Friend was removed by us, just as the block of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim was removed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We made a compact with the hon. Member for Mid Cork to withdraw his block, hearing that, in that case, the hon. Member for North Antrim would remove his block also. But we were not informed—and I trust the Chairman of Ways and Means will see that this is a substantial matter—we were not informed that any terms whatever had been made with the hon. Member for North Antrim as to the withdrawal of his block. We knew nothing whatever of the fact that part of the understanding upon which the block was to be withdrawn was that the provisions of the Bill were to apply to one borough only. If I had known of that proposal I would have put down a block in my own name, because I strongly pro-
      668
      test against the Bill being allowed to proceed on the understanding that it is to apply to one borough only. If that understanding was made part of the bargain, the withdrawal of the block on this side of the House was obtained under false pretences. Surely we have as much claim to fair treatment in private matters as we have in our public capacity, and we were entitled to be made acquainted with any private understanding which had been arrived at between the two hon. Baronets—the Member for Mid Armagh and the Member for North Antrim. I now see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his place for the first time this evening, and I hope it has not distressed him to come down at this early hour. I have been pointing out that neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor the Attorney General for Ireland, nor the Under Secretary was in his place when we allowed the Municipal Franchise Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh to go into Committee, on the distinct understanding that it was to apply to the whole of Ireland. That understanding has now been broken. And now let me say a word upon the question of convenience. I know that any argument as to inconvenience and wasting the time of the House has much weight with right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Should the Motion of my hon. Friend for the postponement of this Bill be defeated there must be a long discussion, which will probably occupy the whole of the evening, upon the question of the action of the House of Lords in knocking the Franchise Clause out of the Drainage Bill. A long debate on the merits of the Bill and on the excision of the Franchise Clause will probably waste the entire night. On the other hand, if the Government assent to the Motion for adjourning the debate, and will give us an opportunity of placing the whole of the boroughs of Ireland on the same principle of equality which is extended to the boroughs of England and Scotland, there will be no difficulty in passing the Main Drainage Bill. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) in his place, and I hope we shall not only have his support, but that of the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington)—the real Govern-

      669
      ment in Office. Are they going to say that a municipal franchise which has existed in England and Scotland for 25 years is not to be applied to the corporate towns of Ireland? We are told that the Bill will not pass if it is allowed to remain intact. At present it is a Bill which is to be applied to the whole of Ireland; but it is proposed to restrict it to Belfast alone. Let the House of Lords restrict it to Belfast alone if they like to take that responsibility into their hands. I would appeal to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham whether he desires to see the expension of the municipal franchise in Ireland restricted to the town of Belfast? There are wards in Limerick in which the municipal voters are so few that there cannot be a contest. It takes 20 voters to justify a contest, and in one of the wards in Limerick there are only 18. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to support a restricted franchise of that nature? In Waterford there are no rates levied, because there is plenty of municipal property; but there are not more than 100 voters in the entire municipal borough. Are we, with our eyes open, to allow these restricted franchises to exist? Is it not a duty to our constituents to protest against them, and make the Franchise Bill general, leaving the House of Lords, if they like, to restrict its application to the borough of Belfast? We ought not to allow a Municipal Bill dealing with the whole of Ireland to be shrunk into such miserable dimensions that it will apply to Belfast alone. The hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain) said that there is no demand for it in the rest of Ireland. It may be said that there was no demand for it in Belfast until my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) came forward to oppose the restriction. The entire credit is due to my hon. Friend for all that has been done since. When the rest of the people of Ireland see that the Bill has passed a second reading and got into Committee, and that they have the haven within sight, will they be content to see the franchise restricted to one borough? I am afraid we are asked to do a thing which will be scouted by our constituents. Seeing that the Government opposite is not a Tory Government, but a Unionist Government, and that the House has assented
      670
      on half-a-dozen previous occasions to the principle of extending to Ireland the provisions relating to the municipal franchise which now exist in England and Scotland, I ask the Government to see that a way shall be found out of this holdfast, and that the provisions of the Bill shall not be restricted to Belfast alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork would certainly never have taken off his block if he could have known that such an understanding had been arrived at.
      SIR JAMES CORRY: I can afford to pass by the references which have been made to myself by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). But having the charge of the Municipal Franchise Bill I think it right to say how the matter stands. Immediately after the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, I endeavoured to put myself in communication with the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), and I told him that I found it entirely impossible to proceed with the Bill as it stood, but that if it was confined to Belfast I had no doubt that it would pass. He said that it was impossible for him at that time to give me any reply to the question, but that he would consult the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), and would let me know later on what course it would be possible to take. A few days afterwards the hon. Member informed me that he had mentioned the matter to some Members of his Party, and that some were in favour of the proposal, while others were not. As far as he was concerned, he was prepared, when the Bill came before the House, to support its restriction to Belfast.
      MR. SEXTONWill the hon. Baronet allow me to say a word in explanation? What I said was that, even if the Bill was passed in its restricted form, I should no further oppose the Main Drainage Bill.
      SIR JAMES CORRYI understood the hon. Member to say that if the Bill was proceeded with, and restricted to Belfast, he would not oppose it, but would do the best he could to induce other hon. Members of the Party to which he belongs to accept it. To my knowledge, there have been considerable differences of opinion among the Nationalists already in reference to this

      671
      Bill. When I found that a block had been attached to it by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) I spoke to him upon the matter, and arranged that it should be taken off, on the understanding, however, that the provisions of the Bill should be limited to Belfast. The result was that, on the second reading, I explained to the House my intention to move ultimately that the Bill should be restricted to Belfast. I did that in perfect good faith, because the clause which the hon. Member for West Belfast had introduced into the Drainage Bill in this House, and which was struck out in the House of Lords, only applied to Belfast; and I was very anxious that, as far as I was concerned, I should endeavour to carry out the understanding with the hon. Member for West Belfast, and secure the passing of the Municipal Franchise Bill. The clause which the hon. Member for West Belfast had introduced into the Drainage Bill was entirely contrary to all precedent. There is no precedent whatever, as far as I know, for the introduction of a Franchise Clause into a Bill of that kind. When the Bill had been read a second time I named Monday last for the Committee; but the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) asked me to name Tuesday, which I did. On Tuesday the hon. Member for West Belfast asked me to postpone the Committee stage still further until Thursday, so that he might be able to communicate with his friends. I was, therefore, much astonished this morning, when the Bill came on, to find the hon. and learned Member for North Longford declaring that he was prepared to reject a Bill which restricted the franchise to Belfast, and that he would only support a Bill for the whole of Ireland. I had no opportunity of consulting the members of the Corporation of Belfast on the subject; but I had undoubtedly understood that hon. Members belonging to the Nationalist Party below the Gangway were prepared to accept the restriction of the measure to Belfast. I certainly fell in with that view; but I cannot consent to the further postponement of the present Bill, seeing that the question of the main drainage is one of the most urgent importance. It is an entire mistake to say that the majority of the people of Bel-
      672
      fast are opposed to this scheme; and I think I ought to know, from my long residence in Belfast, the views of the people of that town quite as well as the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain). I say, unhesitatingly, that this is a Bill approved of by everybody who knows anything of the requirements of the town, and who have any stake in the prosperity of Belfast, and who are anxious to see that prosperity going on with increased vigour. The hon. Member for East Belfast says that if the Bill were postponed, or even if the Bill were rejected, the corporate funds of the borough are quite sufficient for the purpose of carrying out a scheme of main drainage. I quite understand the suggestion which he makes, and that is that the profits of the Gas Works, which belong to the town, should be applied to this purpose. His suggestion would not only relieve the owners of small property from taxation, but it would simply remove the burden from one class to another. As a matter of fact, I have heard many of the opponents of the Bill state at various deputations that they are not opposed to the main drainage scheme, and that it is only because they have been disappointed in not getting what they want that they now oppose it. The fact is that the main drainage scheme is one which is very much required, and it would be a very great mistake if it were further postponed. I shall certainly oppose the Motion which the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Con-way) has made, unless there is an agreement that the Franchise Bill, which I have had the honour to bring in, shall be restricted to Belfast alone. If such an agreement were arrived at, I should have no objection to postpone this Bill until the 20th of June.
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: I really should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary what is in the mind of the Government with reference to the Franchise Question. It is scarcely fair to the House to leave it in the dark as to the purpose of the Government in reference to the Franchise Bill, and the Government must be aware that whether they were going to accept the limited proposal of the hon. Baronet or the Bill in its entirety goes to the root of the matter. If the Government will tell us what line they are going to take in re-

      673
      ference to the Bill, it will probably have the effect of throwing the responsibility on hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway as to the course which may be pursued. I would therefore press on the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, as shortly as he likes, but quite distinctly, what course he and his Colleagues are going to take.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND) (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It appears to me that we are now considering the Main Drainage Bill, and not the merits of the Franchise Bill. It is quite clear that whether it be right or wrong to test the merits of a local scheme of drainage by the question of an extension of the municipal franchise, the connection is an unnatural one which ought no longer to be allowed to exist, and if we cannot come to some agreement to-night, the opinion of the House ought to be taken upon the Drainage Bill by itself. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asks me what course the Government intend to take in regard to the Franchise Bill. I do not think that I am at this moment called upon to express any judgment with regard to the abstract merits or demerits of a scheme for extending the municipal franchise in every borough in Ireland. The present occasion is one on which such a measure could not be carried through, and I should not support but oppose it upon a Bill of this character, without expressing any views on the general question. Everything connected with this Bill has been singular and anomalous, and I hope that the precedent will never be followed again. If we look at the question of the municipal franchise on its merits it does appear to mo that it may be discussed on the Bill, limited in its scope, which has been framed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry). If the Committee, whose duty it is to deal with the Bill, will accept the limited scope of the measure, confining its operation to the City of Belfast, the Government will be happy to give any assistance they can. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why?] For reasons which I have laid before the House already. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked me what the policy of the Government is? I hope I have explained the position of the Government. If I were to state more fully the motives which influence them, I should probably be ruled out of Order.
      674
      I have, however, explained the course the Government are prepared to take in the matter, and I would ask the House if an arrangement cannot be come to by which the Franchise Bill may be limited to Belfast, at all events to finally announce whether this Drainage Bill is to be passed or not, and bring to an end this melancholy contest upon which we have already wasted so much time.
      MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I believe it is an entire mistake on the part of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to say that this is the only instance of the tacking on a Franchise Clause to a Private Bill. I believe that it has been done over and over again. To come to the question more immediately before the House, I believe we are reduced to this position—shall we accept or shall we not accept the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means. Now, as far as I am concerned, I regret, as most of my hon. Friends do, the attempt to strike out of the Municipal Franchise Bill all reference to any place except the borough of Belfast. I will go further, and say that I regret very much that any arrangement has been made which seems to support and sanction a proceeding of that kind on this side of the House. Everyone who will go back into the history of this measure will see perfectly well that it is a measure the principle of which has again and again been affirmed upon this side of the House. The hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain) and some other hon. Members seem to think that Belfast is a city peculiarly wanting this increased and improved franchise, and which has expressed a special desire to obtain it. I assure him that upon that matter he is entirely mistaken. Belfast has, no doubt, had peculiar opportunities for pressing her wishes upon the House in a decisive manner. But I assure him that in the City of Derry, which I represent, there is quite as great a need for an extended franchise. I say with confidence that a great dissatisfaction is ex-pressed there against the present franchise, and that there is as strong and popular a desire for a better state of things as prevails even in Belfast or in any other borough in Ireland. Still we have now brought down the question to a narrow issue—namely, whether we

      675
      ought to accept the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means or not. Speaking now only for myself, I am willing to accept that proposal. I think that, at any rate, we should gain something for Belfast, and that we shall gain nothing, even for Belfast, if we reject it. Therefore, I cannot take on myself the responsibility of rejecting the proposition; and, as far as I am concerned, I shall offer no further opposition to the progress of the Franchise Bill.
      Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
      Question, "That the words 'on Monday 20th June,' be there added," put, and agreed to.
      Main Question, as amended, put.
      Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till Monday 20th June.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: By way of personal explanation, I wish to say that, although I do not oppose the Lords' Amendments, I wish it to be clearly understood that I do not consider myself in the least bound not to oppose the Franchise Bill in its restricted form.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (re-committed) BILL (by Order)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I wish to explain that it is proposed in the Bill to give certain market rights to the Great Eastern Railway Company. The Company already possess certain markets in crowded localities in the East End of London, but they have held them without any market rights, and it is proposed in this Bill to give them certain market rights and legal authority for holding these markets. When the Bill was before the House on a former occasion, I considered it my duty to ask the House to refer it back to the Committee to consider whether or not some provision should not be inserted which would deprive the Company of any vested interests. A clause was inserted which it was thought would carry out that intention; but I do not think the clause is quite clear on the subject, and
    676
    I now have to propose that the clause be omitted, with a view to inserting another clause providing that on any market authority starting a market in the neighbourhood, they may be able to call upon the Great Eastern Railway Company to close their market without compensation. By that means the market rights of the Company cannot by any possibility come into conflict with any power which may be exercised by a Local Authority. That is the short history of the clause which I now ask the House to read a second time. I beg to move, after Clause 61, to insert the following clause:—
    "In the event of any public authority exercising the powers of a market authority for any district or borough in which the Bishopsgate Market or the Stratford Market is situated, and providing adequate market accommodation for such district or borough, such authority may give notice in writing to the Company that such accommodation has been provided; and, at the expiration of three months from the date of such notice, or from the date of the order hereinafter referred to of the Local Government Board certifying that adequate market accommodation within the meaning of this section has been provided by the public authority, the market rights and powers by this Act vested in the Company shall cease and determine as regards the Bishopsgate Market or the Stratford Market, as the case may be, and no compensation shall be payable to the Company in respect of the determination of such rights and powers.
    Provided, That, if the Company or if any person interested shall, within one month from the giving to the Company of such notice as aforesaid, represent in writing to the Local Government Board that adequate market accommodation within the meaning of this section has not been provided by the public authority, the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of such accommodation shall be determined by the Local Government Board, who shall by order certify whether or not adequate market accommodation within the meaning of this section has been provided by the public authority, and any such order shall be conclusive as to the fact.
    Provided also, That, when the market rights and powers by this Act vested in the Company have ceased and determined as regards either the Bishopsgate Market or the Stratford Market, the Company may retain the site of such market as part of their Railway undertaking.
    The Local Government Board may direct any inquiries to be held by their inspectors which they may deem necessary for the purposes of this section, and the inspectors of the Local Government Board shall, for the purposes of any such inquiry, have all such powers as they have for the purposes of inquiries directed by that Board under 'The Public Health Act, 1875.'
    Any expenses incurred by the Local Government Board in relation to any inquiries under this section, including the expenses of any wit-

    677
    nesses summoned by the inspector holding the inquiry, and a sum to be fixed by that Board, not exceeding three guineas a day, for the services of such inspector shall be paid to that Board by the market authority or the Company, as the Local Government Board may by order determine."
    New Clause—
    (In the emit of adequate market accommodation being provided by public authorities, Company's market rights under this Act to cease without entitling them to compensation, &c.,)—(Mr. Ritchie,)—
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not object to the insertion of this clause. The points to which I desire to draw the attention of the House will, I think, be more fittingly raised upon the Amendments which stand on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex (Major Rasch). With that reservation, I offer no opposition to the clause.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I believe that this clause will be useless, because there are several clauses of the Bill which the House will be asked to reject on account of the variety of interests involved in them. Therefore, if we accept the clause for the moment, I hope it will be thoroughly understood that we are not to be precluded from offering opposition to other clauses.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added.
    MR. BURDETT - COUTTS: I beg to move the omission from the Preamble of paragraphs 1 and 2. I have to apologize to the House, especially at this late hour, and to ask them to give me a patient hearing upon this subject. It is a one to which I have given some four or five years of very close study and even of practical work, and although this Bill appears before the House as a Private Bill it is a measure which introduces questions which relate to public policy, and which are altogether unprecedented in our legislation. This House, Sir, is asked to commit itself to a provision which will give into the hands of a Railway Company an enormous extension of a monopoly which they at present enjoy. It is asked to give them a monopoly over
    678
    something, which I submit is the last thing in the world in regard to which a monopoly should be exercised, and that is, the food of this Metropolis. That is the real question at issue. In a Paper which has been distributed by the Great Eastern Railway Company to the Members of this House, this morning, I see it stated that the opponents of the Bill are monopolists, who wish to retain monopolies in their own hands. As far as I am personally concerned, everything that I have done in regard to this market question in London has been directed towards breaking down the monopoly which now exists in regard to the food supply, and in getting rid of the ring in connection with which every question of the food supply has been tied up. I am well aware of the difficulties I shall have to encounter in opposing a powerful Railway Company—a Railway Company which has four of its Directors Members of this House, all of them sitting on this side of the House. That is one of the difficulties I have to contend with, and I am also aware of the difficulty of attempting to upset the decision of the Select Committee of this House. At the same time, I maintain that this is a new departure in the spirit and policy of our legislation in regard to railways; and, therefore, I wish to take the question out of the hands of the Committee of four Members and out of the hands of the Directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company, and to submit it to the general judgment of the House, and of those who are unwilling to consent that any act of public policy should be passed in this House within the covers of a Private Bill without having first received the full sanction of the House. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that the opposition which is raised to this part of the Bill will not inconvenience the Great Eastern Railway Company with regard to the Bill generally. The Bill itself is an Omnibus Bill, and my opposition is confined to the market clauses which are contained within it. I wish, also, to impress upon the attention of the House, that our opposition to these clauses of the measure will not endanger or effect the continuation of Stratford Market. I am prepared to admit that Stratford Market at the present moment is doing a useful work; but the Great Eastern Railway Company have carried

    679
    on Stratford Market for eight years without attempting to apply for Parliamentary sanction; they are carrying it on now with the utmost perseverance, and the only person who opposes them is the lessee of Spitalfields Market. The agreement with him under which they carry on the market holds good until the year 1888, and by that time the whole question of the markets, which has been referred to a Royal Commission, may be expected to be settled, and if it should so happen that it is not settled there would be no difficulty in obtaining a temporary renewal of the agreement. Therefore, the opposition to these clauses can have nothing to do with endangering the existence of the existing market at Stratford. That is a mere bogey raised up in order to secure the passing of the Bill. My two main points, Sir, are that these Market Clauses are contrary to the spirit and practice of our railway legislation, and that they are injurious and threatening to the public interest. Sir, I contend that there is no precedent for granting a market authority to a Railway Company. It would have the effect of converting them into traders, because although they do not themselves sell the goods, they have full control over the traders who do sell the goods, and in that way they have the practical, if indirect, management of the trading. Parliament, I am aware, has granted the ownership of steamboats and of hotels to Railway Companies, but there is no parallel between those cases and this, seeing that the former are merely a physical continuation of the proper business of a Railway Company as carriers, and the latter are necessary for the accommodation of the passengers carried by rail; and, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that Railway Companies have no control over the passengers they carry or over the conveyance of the goods. The Great Northern Railway Company at the present moment have a depÔt at King's Cross for the sale of potatoes; but they have no market authority, and have never applied for one. Indeed, a few years ago they attempted to open a market there, but were stopped by injunction. In 1883 the Great Eastern Railway Company obtained the right of opening shops in the Bishops-gate DepÔt; but that is a totally different thing from a market franchise, because in a market the general public
    680
    have a right, whereas in a shop they have no right at all. It is in this aspect of the case I submit to the House the necessity of opposing the granting to a Railway Company of the complete control over a market where the public should have rights, but where a Railway Company has an interest altogether opposed to that of the public—namely, the private interest of its traffic rate. This has been recognised in the case of Bradford, where there is a railway market, i.e., a market with the rails running into it; but the market, itself is in the hands of the Corporation, which is right and proper, for it is thereby secured that it is worked in the interests of the market, i.e., in the interests of the public, and not in the interests of the Railway. I wish to lay stress on the point that a railway market is a very different thing from a market in the hands of a Rail-way. I ask the House to listen for a moment to the methods by which a Railway Company can exercise these powers if Parliament choose to confer market powers upon them. One principle ought to underlie the granting of every market franchise, and that is that it is to be for the public interest. Now, Sir, let us go a step further. In order that the public interest should be preserved, it is of the essence of a market that it should be free. By free, I do not mean free from tolls and charges, although on this point I think nothing more than the mere cost of maintaining the market should be taxed upon the food in the shape of tolls. By free, I mean that there should be perfect equality, and that there should be no differential tolls and charges, but that there should he perfect freedom of access to the market, and that the consignees, who are tenants within the market, should be free to bring their goods from whatever source they please, and by whatever means of communication they please, so that there should be within the market a perfect competition of produce from all sources, and a perfect competition of the charges or cost of bringing the produce by road or by rail, and if by rail, by different lines of rail, into the market. How will these conditions, which are the necessary basis of a public market, be affected by a market in the hands of a Railway Company? The first interest of a Railway Company is its traffic rate. In the first

    681
    place, the market authority, if the Rail-way Company is the market authority, will prefer rail-borne produce to road- borne produce. They will get nothing out of the road-borne produce, and will direct their whole attention to the rail-borne produce. In support of this argument, I may mention the fact that hitherto, in Stratford Market, the delicate and perishable garden produce which is brought there has been invariably left out in the open space, while the whole of the covered spaces have been monopolized for rail-borne traffic. This treatment is destructive of the industry of the market gardeners around London who bring fresh vegetables into London. Compare with this the treatment which the same produce receives in Covent Garden Market, where there is no railway interest to serve. In the case of Covent Garden, the market-garden produce is placed under cover, and the heavy rail-borne produce is put in the open spaces. There is a second thing that a Railway Company, if it becomes a market authority, must do—it must secure that all goods conveyed to the market are conveyed upon its own line. Now the Great Eastern Railway Company are great carriers of vegetable produce from the Eastern Counties; but, in those counties, many of the most important districts with which the Great Eastern Railway have a connection are common also to the Great Northern Railway. Then is it to be supposed for a moment that the Great Eastern Railway, having the power they possess over their tenants, will not say to their tenants—"You must send all your produce over the Great Eastern Railway;" and the result will be that the competition of rates, which is the only safeguard the public have, will be completely destroyed. There is a third thing a Railway Company must do. It will invariably give the preference to big consignors over small consignors, and it is easy to see why. It gets more out of them; they are saved trouble; and there can be no doubt that the small landholder whom we wish to encourage will, under such an arrangement, certainly go to the wall. Then, fourthly, it is only natural to conclude that the Railway Company will incessantly work for the 'long lead,' i.e., they will prefer to obtain the produce for the markets they are serving from the greatest
    682
    possible distance, and the result of that will be that growers within 30 or 40 miles of London will be placed at a disadvantage. The Railway Company will take very little trouble in regard to consignors in the immediate neighbourhood of the market itself, their principal object being to obtain the extra remuneration they will get for the carriage of goods over long stretches of their own railway. Now, Sir, I have by no means exhausted the subject, but I have shown four definite ways by which a Railway Company, if converted into a market authority, will interfere with the freedom of access, and the fair and full competition which must form the basis of a real public market. I am afraid that I have entered at too great length upon this part of the subject, and have left myself little time to point out the unreasonableness of this question being raised at a moment when the whole matter is under the consideration of a Royal Commission, which the House has granted at the instance of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and which if it means anything at all, means this—that all markets are to be in the hands of popularly elected representative local authorities. The President of the Local Government Board has inserted a clause which absolutely nullifies this principle, for this Railway is to be allowed to keep these markets open, and in its own hands, until the Local Authorities shall have provided ample market accommodation. But so far as the Bishopsgate district is concerned, they never can do this. It would cost the ratepayers an enormous sum. Therefore if they wait till that day, as the clause compels them to do, Bishops-gate Market will remain for ever in the hands of the railway. Why this tender interest, this marked exception for a Railway Company? Let me remind the House that a Railway Company necessarily has enormous power over their tenants—tenants, whose rents they can raise any day from the £15 actually paid, to the £50 they take care to put in the agreement—monthly tenants whom they are able to turn out at almost a moment's notice if they do not get their goods by rail instead of road, by the Great Eastern rail instead of any other, from big consignors instead of small, from distant sources instead of

    683
    nearer ones. I am quite aware that there has been introduced into this Bill what is called a Protective Clause; but I maintain that that Protective Clause is purely illusory. After the word "equality" come the words "so far as circumstances will allow." I say that those are very suspicious words, especially when they are left in the hands of a Railway Company. They leave a very wide margin indeed for the Railway Company to experiment upon, and it cannot be supposed that in their treatment of their tenants they will sacrifice their own interests for those of the public. Now, I say that, on all these points, and especially in regard to the question of road-borne and rail-borne produce, there is absolutely no protection whatever in this Bill for the public, and no protection for the market tenants. I maintain that it is unwise and unsafe to alter the policy which Parliament has for so many years adopted in regard to Railway Companies, and to place the powers of a market authority in their hands. I maintain, further, that if you grant the powers now asked for, you will create a monopoly, you will destroy the present road-borne produce, and you will leave the market at the mercy of a Railway Company, whose previous record, with regard to all questions of traffic and their treatment of the public, is certainly most unsatisfactory, and is certainly not such as to justify the House of Commons in extending a monopoly. I thank the House for having granted its indulgence to me, and for having listened to my remarks so patiently. In conclusion, I have only to add one word, which is of a personal nature. It may be said that I have a personal interest in the question, as opposed to the Great Eastern Railway. "Well, Sir, it is quite true that it has devolved upon mo to be the owner of a market at the East End of London, which, for some years, I have been endeavouring, under great difficulties, to maintain, in pursuance of the noble objects with which it was built, to afford some relief to the congested state of the food supply of London, especially in the poorest districts. I am ready to admit that that enterprise has not been so successful as its promoters desired; but I claim for it that it has done this—that it
    684
    has been a standing menace to rings and monopolists, and has very much mitigated their evil action; because those who exercise the power of these rings and monopolies know that if they oppress their victims too much, in the end they will resort to another market where they have no power. With regard to the question of my own personal interest, which may be flung in my face, I may say that the market which is now in my possession was opened without the slightest hope of a return for the capital expended upon it, and while I ask the pardon of the House for entering into a personal matter, I do not hesitate to claim that what I have spoken on this occasion has been dictated by the same motives that have dictated my previous action in the matter of the food supply of London—viz., the public interest. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and which I may explain refers solely to Bishopsgate Market, a new market which the Great Eastern Railway Company seek to establish within 200 or 300 yards of two other markets, which are ample for the purposes of the locality.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out lines 1 to 14, inclusive.—(Mr. Burdett-Coutts.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I will detain the House as shortly as I possibly can in putting before it the points which have induced me to decide in favour of the Amendment, although I frankly say that my objection applies both to Bishopsgate and Stratford Markets, and the whole of the clauses which affect them. I think that the Railway Company are ill-advised, considering the beneficial Amendments which were made in the Bill when it was first brought before the House, in insisting upon the Toll Schedules at all; because if they did not claim the right of levying tolls on produce, the opposition which is being offered to the Bill would have been to a great extent disarmed. It is unfortunate that while the House has just decided to appoint a Royal Commission for the purpose of investigating the whole question, and the opinion has been ex-

    685
    pressed with unanimity by the House that all tolls shall be in the hands of market authorities; that even for a limited time new market toll rights should be granted by Statute by this House. I would suggest that the Great Eastern Railway Company should make their profits in a proper way—namely, as common carriers, and not as market keepers. There are many disadvantages connected with the course taken by the Great Eastern Railway Company, and a special disadvantage arises in this case—namely, that the tolls have in the past been of an exorbitant character—that they have been imposed under a Charter which dates back for some centuries. The railway have now very properly thrown over the Charter owners—at least, as far as this Bill is concerned—but I do not know whether the Company have any private agreement. If they have, they have been keeping it to themselves; and I trust that the House will not permit them to derive a toll profit at all. Unless there is a distinct statement from the promoters of the Bill as to these tolls, I trust that the division may be made a test question on the whole of these Market Clauses, and that the House will reject them. There is another difficulty, how to meet which is not clear in my mind. It is a difficulty which I have raised in the House before. In a statement circulated among Members to-day, the Great Eastern Railway Company express a desire to encourage the enterprise of the occupiers of small farms and the small growers of garden produce. If that is their intention, they give no evidence of it in this Bill. This Bill gives them powers which Railway Companies generally exercise in order to obtain the tonnage which pays them best on conditions which suit them most, and it will suit them most to maintain a large and a regular through traffic with through rates, and if possible, preferential rates to foreign growers at the expense of the home growers, which is acting directly in the teeth of the decision of the House the other day. I understand that the object of the House in that decision was to restrict, as far as possible, the action of the middleman between the grower and the market. It is impossible to suppose that a Railway Company will afford facilities to small growers unless there is something to impose that obligation
    686
    upon them. Their disposition is to take from the middleman large quantities of produce, which are easily received, and convey them for long distances, and in that way to handicap the smaller growers, whom it is the object of the House to encourage. There is a difficulty which I do not understand, unless it arises from some desire to consult the interest of the Charter owners. By Clause 63 of the Bill it is provided that road and rail traffic shall, as far as Stratford Market is concerned, be treated on an equality; but there is no provision for the admission of road produce to Bishopsgate at all, so that if the House passes this Bill, it will drive the unfortunate growers who are near London entirely into the hands of the Charter owner, whose rights are about to be inquired into, and against all these Charter rights the House expressed a strong opinion upon the Motion which I moved. I do not think it would be decent on my part to occupy the time of the House any further on a Private Bill; but I do ask the House not to consent to give to this Railway Company a statutory right to levy tolls which cannot be necessary for them. Their profits ought to be made out of the ordinary work which Railway Companies undertake to perform as common carriers. Although it is perfectly true, and I thank the Government for it, that we have a clause by which, when Local Authority takes over this market, there is to be no claim for compensation. I regret very much that these Market Clauses should appear in the Bill at all. I think we ought also to feel indebted to the Committee and the Chairman of the Committee for the efforts they have made to look after the interests of the home growers, seeing that it is so much to the interest of the Railway Company to carry large quantities for the middlemen rather than small quantities for the producer who consigns them straight to the consumer. I entreat the House not to give to this Railway Com-2)any the large powers which they now seek.
    MR. HANBURY: Although the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) only refers to one market—namely, that at Bishopsgate, practically this discussion will deal with them as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has suggested. I admit at once that

    687
    the question which the hon. Member has raised, as to tolls, is a very important one indeed. The principle on which the Committee went was that the tolls levied at these markets should be lower than any other tolls at any other market in London. I think that that was safeguarding the rights of the public to a very considerable extent.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Did the Committee have any evidence that the tolls are lower?
    MR. HANBURY: Yes; there was a good deal of evidence to that effect, and I believe that the Great Eastern Railway Company are willing that the tolls levied in these markets should be lower than those levied in any other market in London. As to foreign produce, I sympathize thoroughly with the remarks of the hon. Member with respect to preferential rates for foreign produce; but, unfortunately, it was a question of rates with which the Committee have no power to deal in a Bill of this sort. The same remark applies to the encouragement of the small producers. Unfortunately their case also was not one for the Committee to deal with; but I should have thought that there were sufficient powers in the hands of the Railway Commissioners to see that the small producers are put on the same footing as the large. Then, as to the road-borne traffic, there again the hon. Member has raised what at first sight may seem to be a grievance; but Bishopsgate Market is in a peculiar position. In the first place, there are two road-borne markets within 400 yards of it on each side, and therefore there is not the same necessity for a road-borne market as there is for a rail-borne market. On the other hand, the Committee were most anxious, if it could be established, to see a fair road-borne market; but in regard to Bishopsgate Market we found, that although a large market itself, the purchasers are small purchasers, and that it is impossible to constitute it both a rail-borne and a road-borne market at the same time. There were some other reasons why it was not constituted a road - borne market. I would ask the hon. Member for Northampton to recollect that while we had to consider the interests of the public, we had also to fight the monopolists of the markets at the present moment. The hon. Member for West-
    688
    minster, in the beginning of his speech, said he was afraid that the Bill was practically introducing the new principle of allowing a Railway Company to hold a market. The hon. Gentleman got a Bill passed through this House making him the owner of a railroad also.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to misrepresent me. I got no Bill to make myself the owner of a railway anywhere. The Bill I got was one to make myself the owner of tram lines, and put myself in communication with the railway; but the whole point of my enterprise was that it was to put me in communication with all the railroads of England, and therefore secure perfect competition of rates and charges to the market—a very different thing from one big railway line controlling a market.
    MR. HANBURY: It was something more than a tramway, for it was in actual connection with the line, and the trains of the North-Western Railway ran over it. We have been told over and over again that there is not a single line which runs into his market which, cannot also run into this market at Bishopsgate. We talk as if it were a new proposal to open a market at Bishopsgate at all; but, as a matter of fact, in 1883 Parliament allowed a market for fish and meat to be established at Bishopsgate, but it was not allowed to be a market for vegetables, and for this reason—it was because there was a very great monopoly at Spitalfields Market, where the owner of the market was enabled, under an old Charter of King James II., when the population of London was a hundred fold less then it is now, to prevent anybody, within six miles, from selling any vegetables at all. That was a monstrous monopoly; but it existed. You have the fact that the Committee having broken down that monopoly there is no disposition that Stratford Market should be discontinued. Not a man came be-fore the Committee to say he wanted the market discontinued. But what was the whole argument of those who opposed the continuance of the market at Bishopsgate? Why that Stratford Market had been going on for the last seven years, and was under no Parliamentary powers, and therefore was illegal, and the salesmen at Stratford, and the West Ham Corporation, if the

    689
    Great Eastern authorities did not do their bidding exactly, and carry on the market as they wanted, could come against them with an injunction and say—"We will shut up your market altogether." Here, then, you have the fact that they wish this market to be continued, and the only opposition to our powers is on the part of those men who wish to have entirely the whip hands of the Great Eastern Railway Company. I do not believe Parliament would wish that the Railway Company should be put any longer in this position of having a market which anybody could close at once by an injunction. It is much more straightforward and honest to come before this House, and frankly ask to have market powers given to them. Then, I say, if they are entitled to have a market at Bishopsgate for fish and meat, how much more necessary is it to have a market for vegetables, for what is the condition of things at pre-sent?
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: The Great Eastern have no market rights at all, and never had. They simply have a power to open shops.
    MR. HANBURY: Take the poor of the East End; they are dependent almost entirely for vegetables on those which are brought by road. Well, we know how the area of London is extending; how great districts, like South Kensington for instance, are now completely transformed by buildings. It is all the more necessary that London should be supplied with vegetables from a great distance. A great deal of the opposition springs from those who bring road-borne produce to market; but it is for the interests of the public that they should have good, sound, healthy vegetables brought for them by rail. But that cannot be done at present, because there are no markets at the railway stations, and the vegetables are much damaged by being transferred from the railway trucks to the ordinary markets. Therefore, I believe the Railway Company are doing good to the public and to the poor by this proposal, which would enable them to get their vegetables without all this friction and transference. Then, I ask, is this a time, when the agricultural districts are suffering so severely, when the farmers do not know which way to turn in order to make both
    690
    ends meet, to refuse what is asked? Surely it would be well for the farmers, and those who depend upon them, that markets should be open to them in London, so that they might send their produce there. Mr. Clare Sewell Read, who is a great authority on such a subject, said, when he was examined before the Committee, that it was a matter of life or death to the farmers of Norfolk and Suffolk that they should have a market to send to. As to the Local Authorities, and their right to establish markets, the Bill was opposed by the Local Authorities, who thought that if they had powers for markets of their own, it would be better. But the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) has settled that matter by providing that there shall be no interference with the powers of the Local Authorities—that if the Bill is passed, the Local Authorities shall not have to fight the battle over again with the monopolists, and that it will be easier for them, and a positive advantage to them, that the Bill should have been passed. Now, there is one other point to which I wish specially to direct attention, and it arises out of the remarks of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts). If he is the owner of a rival market, I do not say that he has not a right to attend to his own private interests in this House; but I do say this—that we must look at Columbia Market and the position it occupies. It was originally carried on on purely philanthropic principles; and, I am sorry to say, that it was about as dead a failure as ever there was in this world. But since the hon. Member for Westminster has come into connection with that market, he has conducted it very wisely indeed on purely commercial principles.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: HOW?
    MR. HANBURY: Well, in the first place, he has power to raise very heavy tolls indeed—tolls very much in excess of anything to be levied under this Bill.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to say that no tolls of any kind have ever been charged in Columbia Market. The hon. Member began to describe how I am conducting the market at present. What have these old latent powers to do with that?
    MR. HANBURY: No, I dare say not; but we have no guarantee that they will

    691
    not be. The tolls which the hon. Member has power to raise are greater than at any other market in London. Now, I do not wish, to trust to anybody's philanthropy. I look at the fact, and the fact is that the tolls which may be levied there are much greater than anything we ask for. Then, again, Columbia Market, magnificent as it is—and I am bound to say that the people and the poor of London owe a vast debt of gratitude to the lady who established it; but, fine as it is, it is small and limited in area, and is not fit for a wholesale market in any sense of the word.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: It has large powers of extension.
    MR. HANBURY: I am talking of it as it exists at the present moment. I say it is not fit for a wholesale market as it stands. The hon. Member for Westminster says he is the owner of railway communication. Well, if that is the case, I do not see how he is entitled to oppose another railway which would let into another market as many railroads as are admitted into Columbia Market.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: The Great Eastern won't let any other line into their market.
    MR. HANBURY: But how far have we met him? We recognize that it would be grossly unfair, after all he has done for Columbia Market, and after he has got powers to establish railway communication, to let the Great Eastern Railway Company come in at once as a rival railway market. It was represented to us very fairly, that if the Great Eastern Railway Company were to establish their market at once it would get a monopoly, and the hon. Member would start under great difficulties. But what did we do? We inserted a clause which provided, that if the hon. Member did use the powers he obtained in 1885, to establish a railway market within a reasonable period, the Great Eastern Railway Company should not start their market until such period, and the two parties should then start on absolutely fair terms. We could not have done more. I do not think there are any other points which it is necessary for me to enter into; but I do maintain that this is a Bill in the interests of the public, and we certainly want to see the system at work—there can be no doubt
    692
    whatever about that. I think the objections of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) are very fair and just, and should be provided for in the Bill, and on the third reading, I will give him my support upon them—that is, so far as tolls are concerned, and making them lower than those of any other market in London. Then. I think, this Bill and these markets will be distinctly in the interests of the public. They are in the interests of the Local Authorities who wish to become owners of markets. They are in the interests of the farmers who are served by the Great Eastern Railway. Finally, they are essentially in the interests of the poor of London, who are entitled to have their fresh vegetables where they can get them best and cheapest.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I have listened with great attention to the argument of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), who has constituted himself the defender of the Railway Company in this House, and I undertake, if necessary, to prove in a very few words the truth of what I say in opposition to his view. Now, I have a right to be heard for a few moments upon this question.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to a point of Procedure, Sir. I claim to move that the Question be now put.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having made that Motion, I decline to put it.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I think the House ought to know what the Railway Company have tried to do for years, and what it is that they propose to do now. Their station at Bishopsgate is within 300 yards of the Spitalfields Market. It is a market which receives a large amount of produce carried by road, and also a large amount carried by the Great Eastern Railway Company; and when the Great Eastern Railway Company tried, on a previous occasion, to start this Bishopsgate Market, we opposed it for the reason that they would have taken away all the railway-borne business which we had formed. The Railway Company fought the question through all the Courts right up to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords decided that they had no right. The Railway Company during the progress of this great suit came to the House of Commons,

    693
    and asked for the powers at Bishopsgate which the hon. Member the defender of the Railway Company (Mr. Hanbury) has just given. The Railway Company did not get them, and the Committee of that day marked their opinion very strongly by giving coats against the Railway Company. That is a very rare thing to do, and shows the opinion of the then Committee. What has happened since? At Stratford they have carried on their business without having a market of their own, and the owners of Spitalfields have in no way objected; but they have objected when the Company has tried to transfer the business of Spitalfields Market to Bishopsgate. The Railway Company have prevented most of the growers on their line from sending their goods to London, because they have charged such exorbitant rates. They admit that, for they themselves say that they propose to reduce their rates, and undertake to prove that it is owing to the high rates that the produce has not come. All that has come has been sent to Spitalfields Market, and has been sold in fair competition with road-borne produce. What does the Chairman of the Committee want them to do? When this Bill was brought in there were no Tolls Clauses in it at all. The Tolls Clauses were a subsequent idea, invented by the very acute solicitor of the Great Eastern Railway Company. It clearly caused the scheduled agreement to be rejected, and gave the Great Eastern Railway somebody else's property without fair compensation. I will put it to the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) whether it is an honest thing on the part of the Railway Company to transfer most of the business of the Spitalfields Market to the Great Eastern Railway Company without any payment of compensation in face of the fact that the House of Lords, and every other tribunal, have decided that they have no right to do so? I ask that question, and I should like to have an answer to it. When you remember that the Committee have decided to postpone the opening of the market for 18 months there is no hurry, and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) will probably have his Report before that time. I shall support the Motion of the hon. Member; but I put it to the Mem-
    694
    bers of Her Majesty's Government to say whether in fact it is at all likely that the public will have any greater convenience from the transfer of the business done at Columbia and Spitalfields Markets to the Railway Company. That is the state of the case, and I hope the House will not approve of such a proceeding. I therefore trust the House will not agree to the Bill as it stands.
    MAJOR, RASCH: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks on this subject entirely in the interests of my constituents, many of whom are farmers and market gardeners in the Division of South Essex which I have the honour to represent. The House has heard the observation of the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) to the effect that the people of West Ham will be disposed to construct a market of their own, and that will have the effect of extinguishing the market of the Great Eastern Railway Company; but I venture to think it would not do us the least good. We have no influence whatever with the Corporation of West Ham; we cannot oblige them to start a market; and we are entirely in the hands of the Great Eastern Railway Company, as we have been for seven and a-half years. Let me give the House some reasons why we do not wish to be left without a market. As things are at present, we complain of the undue preference of rates and tolls, particularly in the case of what are known as road-borne goods; and I would like to ask hon. Members to look at Clause 63 of the Great Eastern Bill, which states that no undue preference shall be shown to produce borne by rail. I venture to submit that that sentence entirely invalidates the whole clause and makes it a bogus clause. At the end of the clause it is suggested that the decision of a magistrate—if the parties go to law—shall be final. But the magistrate would have no power over the Great Eastern Railway Company, and it is absurd to suppose that the gardeners and small farmers whom I represent would be able to fight a powerful Corporation like the Great Eastern. The reason, Sir, why the Great Eastern Railway Company give preferential rates and charges, and favour railway-borne over road-borne produce is that it pays them better. My constituents are men who have horses

    695
    and carts, barrows and small trucks, and they would bring their produce if they could. But they are debarred from that, and are almost crushed out of existence. Another reason why the Great Eastern Company should not have a market is that they would be the landlords of the Stratford Market, and the salesmen there would be their three months tenants, and they would use their influence with these salesmen to induce them to bring their produce from districts further away than the suburban districts. The produce from the suburban districts would be kept back. At present the suburban produce which comes at 12 o'clock at night is retained until 6 in the morning till that coming from the Northern Counties of England can also be brought into the market. They charge 10s. a-ton on potatoes going from a distance short of Southend to the Stratford Market, while at the same time they charge only 9s. 2d,. per ton on potatoes from Lincolnshire, which is four times as far, and only 5s. a-ton from Southend, which is 10 miles further than the district they charge 10s. from. I do not wish to trouble the House or take up any more time; but I would suggest to hon. Members that the Railway Companies are the worst possible masters of markets, for they use their influence in the interests of their shareholders first, and only secondly in the interests of producers and consumers. I would just allude to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) the other day, in which he said that the effect would be to increase the price of food and to put land out of cultivation. That is what is being done in my Division. Land is going out of cultivation because these men cannot get a market. If this Bill passes as it stands this House will have increased the price of food, and it will be against the interests of the people of the East End and of the small farmers and labourers. The matter is extremely important to the men whom I am sent here to represent.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may say a few words in the hope of bringing this discussion to a speedy close. In the first place, I would say a word in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down (Major Rasch). He says the people of his district are having their
    696
    land going out of cultivation, and are unable to obtain the means of livelihood owing, in some indirect manner, to the influence of the Stratford Market. The House would gather that that market was a failure, and had not been appreciated by the public, but what are the facts? That market was established in 1879, and opened in 1880, and in the first year 5,100 tons of agricultural produce was brought into the market. The amount of produce had increased last year from 5,100 tons to 25,724 tons, making a total tonnage in six years of 102,493. These facts speak for themselves. It is idle to contend that the market has been a failure in any sense, or that it has not been appreciated by the consumers of the district when I quote these figures to the House. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) that we are monopolists. Now, he was very careful to avoid bringing any evidence in support of that allegation. From the very first moment we endeavoured to open these markets we have been fighting tooth and nail against the monopolists of the district. We got powers under the Act of 1883, which in fact established a market at Bishops-gate, and that market would have succeeded if it had not been for the opposition of one of the monopolists in the person of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid). He obtained under his rights an injunction against us as regarded the continuance of that market. We fought our case on behalf of the public in every Court of Law up to the House of Lords, and in every instance the decision was against us, and in favour of the monopolists. They succeeded, and we have had to shut up the market which we had opened in competition with that of which the hon. Member for Westminster is part owner. Now, it has been said that the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) is in some respect entitled to compensation. We made an agreement with the hon. Baronet and his co-owner, which agreement we were most anxious to see inserted in the Bill. The Committee declined to insert any such provision; but, at the same time, the Great Eastern Railway Company are perfectly willing that the decision of the Courts of Law should be embodied in the Bill should the House

    697
    think fit—they are quite willing to insert a clause which would give the hon. Baronet and his co-owner the same tonnage rights they would have possessed according to the original agreement between us as the owners of Bishopsgate Market and themselves as owners of Spitalfields Market, so long as the former situation continues to be used as a market. [Sir JULIAN GOLDSMID: It would not give them to me.] Give them to the lessee of the hon. Baronet. Now, as regards Stratford Market we are in a perfectly different condition. The market rights which it is contended should be exercised at Stratford have never been recognized by any Court of Law, and, therefore, looking to the fact that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) obtained a Royal Commission to inquire into Market Eights, we maintain that any agreement we were willing to have entered into falls to the ground. Now that that agreement has been rejected by the Committee of this House we have nothing further to do with it. The hon. Member for Northampton has very fairly dealt with the various objections he holds with regard to this measure. One is the alleged differential charge between rail and road borne traffic. Now the Bill provides most carefully against any such differential charge in future, should any have been made in the past, and it also appoints a Stipendiary Magistrate, as has been alluded to, as the arbiter in cases of difference, and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton) proposes, with our consent, to insert in the Bill a clause imposing a penalty upon the Company when the Stipendiary Magistrate should find us guilty of making a differential charge. Further, I will myself give a pledge on behalf of the Company that we will not in any way encourage in the Stratford Market rail as against road-borne traffic, and I hope that assurance will be regarded as sufficient by the hon. Member.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Can that assurance be embodied in the Bill? I quite accept the noble Lord's assurance; but some future Board of Directors might not think themselves bound by it.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: I quite agree with the hon. Member that we are all mortal; and, therefore, it would be advisable that that assurance should be
    698
    embodied in the Bill, and I am perfectly willing to consent to its embodiment in the Bill. Well, then, there is the objection as regards the small occupiers. I can assure the hon. Member that, so far as we are concerned, we do not, and never have, favoured large producers as against small producers. Nothing of the kind. We are willing, as common carriers, to bring to market all that conies within our net; it is not our interest, as a Corporation, to do anything which will prejudice the small producers as against large producers. Now, the matter of tolls is a very important one. We cannot consent altogether to give up the tolls which we ask for in this Bill, and for this reason—we have been put to very large capital expense in establishing this market, and we are going to incur still further expense, and there is every day the out-goings consequent upon keeping the market in repair. But I will give this undertaking—that, under all circumstances, the tolls charged by us shall be less than, the tolls charged by any other market in London. The tolls charged in Columbia Market are the highest in London, though I quite admit they have not always been exercised.
    MR. BURDETT - COUTTS: I pointed out that they had never been exercised. I cannot help their being in the Act. I cannot take them out. But everything I have done with respect to Columbia Market has been based upon the assumption that no tolls would be charged.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: I quite admit the intentions of the hon. Member are very good; but, as I observed before, we are all mortal, and that what we may wish to do at the present time, we may be compelled not to do at another time.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Do I understand the noble Lord to say he will also take care that that undertaking is in some formal way recorded in the Bill?
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: If it can be done. ["Oh, oh!"]
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I am afraid that if I am to withdraw my opposition, it must be on the undertaking that some means be found for doing it. Lawyers are very clever, and, I think, will have no difficulty in framing words to cover the undertaking.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: I put it in this way—if it can be done, it

    699
    shall be done. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot speak definitely on the point; but I imagine it can be done.
    MR. BRADLAUGHI think I can help your legal advisers in the matter.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTONIf the hon. Member will give us the benefit of his assistance, I am sure we shall readily accept it. Now, I think I have answered the main objections to this Bill. The House, I am sure, will understand that we possess no monopoly whatever. The Bill provides that any other market authority may be established next door to us, or opposite to us. We have no right whatever given by this Bill, which prevents another market being set up. We are not monopolists; but we are fighting against monopoly, and I trust that, under these circumstances, the House will assent to the adoption of this Bill.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I will not occupy the House very long. I think that we on this side of the House occupy on this occasion the position of a jury so to speak. We have no prejudice one way or the other; and, therefore, are in a position to give an unbiased opinion. As far as I have been able to make out, a good deal of extraneous matter has been introduced by hon. Members—by the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton), for instance, when he said the exertions of Railway Companies are made on behalf of the public; and also by some of those who preceded him, when they said that they acted on behalf of the consumers. I think neither of these positions can be fairly taken up by Companies in the present day. We must admit that most hon. Members who address the House are, in their remarks, actuated a good deal by their own self-interests, and that we are, as a House, to look upon matters from the point of view of the public interest, or from the point of view of the greatest good. I wish also to say distinctly that, so far as vested rights, upon which the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) has particularly based his speech, are concerned, vested interests are capable of indefinite extension. Considering that vested rights in this case have not been very clearly put forward, we can scarcely hold that the hon. Baronet has made out a case. The great question involved in this matter is whether or not market rights can safely be entrusted, under the conditions
    700
    laid down in this Bill, to a Railway Company. With regard to the locality in question, I am distinctly of opinion that the consumers will get no benefit whatever from the establishment of the proposed market. The consumers will have to pay the same, whether they buy in this market, or in the market of the hon. Member (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) who moved the Amendment. The producers will, however, obtain some benefit; and, therefore, I think that upon that ground there is something to be said in favour of the Railway Company. Then, lot me regard the matter from another point of view entirely. We have, unfortunately, very large tracts of land in Ireland unsupplied with market accommodation. In the absence of Local Authorities capable of establishing markets, there is no one but Railway Companies to establish markets. There are many railway schemes projected, extending into the far West. It is impossible to carry a line through every village around the coast; but it is quite possible to carry a line to a district central to a large number of villages in the West, which at present are mere places of barter. I shall certainly vote in favour of a Railway Company having the right to establish a market. So far as the debate has gone, the question involved seems to be whether Railway Companies can be trusted with market rights. One Member who opposed this Bill in a very able speech, did so upon the ground that this particular Railway Company was not to be trusted. Now, I understand that this Bill has been considered by and approved by a Committee of this House; and I think that unless a most overwhelming case can be made out, it would be a monstrous thing for us to overturn the decision of our Committee.
    THE FIRST LORD or THE TREA-SURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an appeal to the House. I think this question has now been completely debated, and that we may well come to a decision upon it. I appeal to the House to come to a decision without further delay.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Perhaps, by the indulgence of the House, I may be permitted to say that I have received most satisfactory assurances on every point which has been raised, and an undertaking to embody these assurances in the Bill when it goes to

    701
    "another place." Therefore I and my hon. Friends will offer no further opposition to the Bill.
    MR. DILLON: I think it is as well to point out to the First Lord of the Treasury that when nearly three-quarters of an hour ago we moved the closure from these Benches, the right hon. Gentleman made no sign of assenting to it. I, therefore, do not see that he has much cause to complain of the length of the debate.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: As both Bishopsgate and Columbia Markets are situated in my constituency, perhaps, by the kind indulgence of the House, I may, even after the expostulation of the First Lord of the Treasury, say a few words on this question. I want, in the first place, to meet the challenge which was thrown out by the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton). The noble Lord endeavoured to represent the Company with which he is intimately connected as fighting against monopolies, and he challenged us to bring forward a single particle of evidence which would exhibit them in a different character. Sir, I take up the challenge which the noble Lord threw down. As this Bill was originally introduced in the House there was appended to it an agreement between this Company and Mr. Horner, the lessee of Spitalfields Market, and in that agreement there was one clause which particularly struck my attention. It was to this effect—that six of the tenants of Spitalfields Market should always have a prior right of holding in the new market to be established at Bishopsgate. Now, I ask the House whether you could have a provision more admirably adapted to form the nucleus of one of those food-rings from which the population of this Metropolis so grievously suffer? One great objection to the establishment of a market at Bishopsgate consists in this—that land-borne produce is absolutely excluded from the market. I need not enlarge, for other speakers have done so, upon the grievous injury which this provision would inflict upon the small producers whom we are all most anxious to encourage. But I think I may perhaps be permitted to point out what seems to me the greatest inconsistency in the conclusions of the Committee in regard to this matter, So far as the Stratford Market
    702
    is concerned, they have stipulated, and rightly stipulated, that land-borne produce and rail-borne produce should be treated upon exactly equal terms; but, Sir, what greater inequality can there possibly be than the absolute exclusion of land-borne produce from the Bishopsgate Market. Although I would not say that the Committee have strained at a gnat with regard to Stratford Market, I maintain they have certainly swallowed the camel with regard to Bishopsgate Market. I quite admit that Bishopsgate Market is, by its nature and its surroundings, absolutely disqualified for the admission of land-borne produce, but that seems to me to be a reason, not for disposing of an essential condition, but simply for looking elsewhere for the site for your market. Of all individuals, or Corporations, which might be constituted market authorities, it seems to me that a Railway Company is the worst. Now, it has been said that this is not a favourable and opportune time for coming to this House and asking for new market powers. That is obvious. I do not know that it has been ever impressed upon the House that there is really any occasion for hurry. There is no need why we should come to a decision upon the point at the present time. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) dwelt, and I thought rather irrelevantly, on the argument advanced from this side of the House upon the desirability of extending market accommodation; but the effect of passing this Bill will not be immediately to extend the market accommodation of London. So far as the Stratford Market is concerned, you have had a market open there for eight years, and without Parliamentary powers, and there is no doubt that the market will continue. So far as Bishopsgate Market is concerned, I may point out it is not proposed to give to the Great Eastern Railway Company power to open the market at Bishopsgate at once, but only after the expiration of 18 months from the passing of the Bill. Well, Sir, within 18 months of the passing of the Bill it is probable that we shall have the Report of the Commissioners who have been appointed to consider the whole question of market rights; and I do therefore ask the House to wait until they can decide this question by the light of the information which the

    703
    Commissioners will give them, and by the aid of the recommendations which the Commissioners will make.
    MR. P. M'DONALD: As I had the honour of serving on the Committee, I am anxious to say a few words with reference to the Motion now before the House. The remark has been made more than once that the proceedings of Committees on Private Bills are always fairly and honourably con-ducted, inasmuch as politics do not enter into the minds of the Members forming the Committee. Now, Sir, I can bear testimony to the manner in which this Committee discharged its duties. I believe that no two Members of the Committee were perfectly in accord as regards politics; but I am forced to say that we were practically unanimous in the decision we came to. I say practically, Sir, because it was only on one small point that we differed. We de-voted something like 21 or 22 days to the consideration of the question; we examined numberless witnesses, and considered the case in all its bearings. We had an opportunity of testing the value of the evidence given us, and we availed ourselves of it more fully, possibly, than is generally done. It has also been said more than once that monopolies should not be allowed to exist. Why, the first consideration of our Committee was to break down monopolies. Two or three monopolies were installed before us, and we at once resolved that anything that lay in our power in the way of breaking down monopolies should be done. We did, Sir, in one case, endeavour to break down a monopoly, and that was the monopoly of Spitalfields Market, the Charter of which was granted, I think, in the reign of James II. I myself put a question to the present lessee of that market. I asked him if a line of carts extended six miles from the market, would he claim to levy toll on all the carts, and his answer was that he certainly should, if the line was unbroken. The House will agree with me that it is monstrous that the lessee of the market should have the right to levy toll over an area of six miles radius. Now, the considerations we took into account were, firstly, the requirements of the poor and increasing population of the East End; secondly, the agricultural interests of the Eastern portion of England—we
    704
    very anxiously considered the requirements of the local growers around London, particularly in the Eastern Counties, so as to give at least equal and full facilities to the road-borne produce as to the rail-borne produce; thirdly, the facilities of supplying the large and increasing population of the Metropolis; and fourthly, the desirability of reducing the price of food, and the rates of carriage which the Railway Company charge. On all these matters we were thoroughly and fully agreed. I am pleased that the objections raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) have been readily met by the promoters of the Bill. Under the circumstances, I think the House will agree with me that the Committee came to the right conclusion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendments made.
    Bill to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  WAR OFFICE—ARMY ABROAD AND IN INDIA—AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is a fact that the accounts of the Army abroad and India are audited every month, while those of the Army at home are only audited half yearly; and, in such case, what is the reason for the distinction; and, if he will consider whether a monthly audit would be advantageous to financial control in the public interest, as well as more satisfactory to the officers of the Army Pay Department?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: In reply to this Question, I have to say that I am quite of opinion that a monthly audit of accounts is preferable on many grounds; and I am now considering a scheme by which it may be arrived at without causing additional charge against the public.

  WAR OFFICE—COMPENSATION TO CERTAIN SENIOR MAJORS.
  GENERAL SIR WILLIAM CROSSMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration the claims for com-

  705
  pensation, in some way or other, of those senior Majors in the Army, very few of whom remain, who attained the rank of Captain before the abolition of purchase, and who, owing to the issue of the Royal Warrant of 1st January, 1887, have lost the chance of early promotion, and many of whom will probably have to retire on account of age before attaining the rank of substantive Lieutenant Colonel; and, whether it is the fact that those few officers who consequently do not attain the rank of Lieutenant Colonel will lose at least £50 per year pension?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: A certain number of Majors will have their chances of promotion impaired by the reduction in regimental establishments; but I cannot admit any claim to compensation arising on such grounds. The original Warrant of 1877, which brought in compulsory retirement, made a liberal provision for compensating what were then looked upon, perhaps justly, as the vested rights of purchase officers; but in the preamble of that Warrant, and of every subsequent Warrant on Promotion and Retirement, it was clearly stipulated that no future claim should arise for compensation in regard to any promotion or pension which might be affected by any Warrant or change of regulation issued thereafter. This I must adhere to as a general principle; and, as regards this particular case, I may point out that before the changes of establishment made in 1881 there was only one Lieutenant Colonel in a regiment of Cavalry or battalion of Infantry, so that the present senior Major would, but for that change, have been the second Major, with only one officer in the rank next above him.

  WAR OFFICE—REGIMENTAL TRANSPORT AT ALDERSHOT—GENERAL SERVICE WAGONS.
  COLONEL LLOYD ANSTRUTHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the general service wagons, just issued to the Regimental Transport at Aldershot, have not had their guard-irons and foot-boards altered according to pattern laid down in War Office Order, No. 4741, of 1885; and, if so,
  706
  who is responsible for such omission; whether the Order quoted was issued on account of some men of the Army Service Corps having been killed and injured, owing to accidents caused by the defective construction of the guard-irons and foot-boards, prior to 1885; and, whether the reserve of general service wagons in store are all of defective pattern?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: The wagons issued lately at Aldershot are only intended for use temporarily till others of the altered pattern are received from Woolwich. No wagons are issued from the reserve store at Woolwich until they have been altered in accordance with the Order of 1885. Orders were given to have all wagons altered according to the pattern specified in the Question; and those at Aldershot ought to have been so altered locally, as they were in store there when the orders were given. I will cause inquiry to be made as to the cause of the omission. The Order of 1885 was issued in consequence of a fatal accident to two men of the Commissariat and Transport Corps.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE BROTHERS HOWARD, IMPRISONED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether information has reached him that the two brothers named Howard, in Kilmainham Gaol since June, 1886, under committal by the Vice Chancellor of Ireland for contempt of Court, are both men of weak intellect, in fact almost imbecile, and incapable of understanding the reason why they were committed to prison, or why they are kept there; whether, in a Return recently presented to Parliament, the mental condition of both these men is described as "indifferent;" will he make inquiries into those cases, and get a full Report from the medical officer; and, if the facts are as indicated, will he take steps to obtain the release of the Howards?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said, he understood the brothers Howard were committed not by the Vice Chancellor, but by the Judge of the Land Division of

  707
  the High. Court of Justice. The prison medical officer had furnished a Report as to the mental condition of the men; and the Chief Secretary would have that Report forwarded to the Judge, with a view to his taking such action as he thought right.
  DR. KENNY: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer the latter part of the Question?
  MR. HOLMESI have answered it.
  DR. KENNYI beg to say that I will repeat the latter portion of the Question.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—IMPRISONMENT OF MICHAEL SPILLANE.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Michael Spillane has been confined in Kilmainham Gaol since the 19th January, 1886, when he was committed by Judge Boyd for unsatisfactory answering in the Bankruptcy Court; whether all his assets were subsequently realized, and the entire proceeds handed over to the Court; whether his wife, a fortnight after her confinement, and nine children, the eldest under 15 years of age, were turned out of their house and obliged to take refuge in the Killarney Workhouse, where they still remain; whether, in a Return recently presented to Parliament, the medical officer of the gaol reports that this man has a serious cardiac affection; and, whether, considering the punishment already inflicted on Spillane, he will make representations in the proper quarter with a view of obtaining his release from prison?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said, Spillane had been committed by Judge Boyd under the circumstances stated. He had no means of ascertaining whether the statements in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Question were correct or not. A Report had been received from the medical officer of the prison that the man was suffering from a cardiac affection, and that Report had been forwarded to the learned Judge.
  DR. KENNYasked, would the Government take immediate steps to have the man liberated?
  MR. HOLMESsaid, the Report of the medical officer had been seat to the
  708
  learned Judge by that evening's post, and the Government could not do anything beyond that.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, wore periodical Reports not made in regard to prisoners of this description?
  MR. HOLMESsaid, if the hon. Member wanted an answer to that Question he should put it on the Paper, as he (Mr. Holmes) was not acquainted with the procedure of the prison in the matter.

  SCOTLAND—TWEED FISHERIES—ALLEGED TRESPASSES.
  MR. A. L. BROWN&c.)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. David Maxwell, journeyman saddler, who it is reported on the 30th April last was fishing for trout on that part of the River Tweed, near Kelso, known as the "Junction Water," which it is alleged has always been open to the public for trout fishing, and no intimation has been made that it is closed; whether Mr. J. E. W. Drummond, Writer to the Signet, who leases a salmon fishing on the Tweed, which includes the "Junction Water," ordered Mr. Maxwell to desist from fishing, and, on his refusing, pushed him from a boat, so that Mr. Maxwell was immersed in the river; whether this assault was reported to the County Fiscal, who refused to take it up; and, whether he will instruct the Fiscal to proceed with the case?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): My attention has been called to this case. I understand that Mr. Drummond, who is lessee of the fishing at the part of the river in question, has always permitted angling for trout, and has no intention of preventing members of the public enjoying this sport; but he does object to people wading in deep and fishing into the salmon casts of which he is tenant. On the occasion in question Mr. Drummond was fishing for salmon, and Mr. Maxwell was up to his middle in the water fishing for trout in the same pool, Mr. Drummond remonstrated with him, and told him that, while he did not object to his fishing for trout at other parts of his water, he objected to his wading into his salmon cast, and he repeatedly asked him to leave that part of

  709
  the water. Mr. Maxwell, erroneously believing that his having fished for many years on that water gave him a legal right to do so, refused to leave the salmon cast; and Mr. Drummond, coming up in his fishing boat, insisted on his going away, telling him that if he would not legal proceedings would have to be taken. Mr. Drummond did give Mr. Maxwell what the onlookers described as a slight push on the shoulder with his hand. Mr. Maxwell fell. He at once said he had got what he wanted, presumably meaning that he had got a legal case. He was not injured, and went on fishing for some time. On a complaint being made, the Procurator Fiscal made an inquiry, and was satisfied that there was nut ground for a criminal prosecution. I have seen the note of evidence taken on the inquiry, and also a fuller precognition taken since, and I concur in the opinion of the Procurator Fiscal.
  MR. A. L. BROWNI should like to ask the Lord Advocate if a poor man may push a rich man into the water?
  MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—COLONEL MAITLAND, SUPERINTENDENT OF GUN FACTORY, WOOLWICH.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether it is the fact that it is in contemplation to appoint Colonel Maitland (Superintendent of Gun Factory at Woolwich) to a higher post; and, who is chiefly responsible for the design of the 14 43-ton guns condemned as worthless, after the bursting of the Collingwood's gun, and which cost about £90,000?
  MR. HANBURYalso asked, What use it was intended to make of the 13 guns which had not burst, and which had been condemned as useless?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): The first part of the Question is for the Secretary of State. I can only say that, as yet, I have received no information on the subject; and I presume that my right hon. Friend is unlikely to consider questions of new appointments until he has studied the Reports of the Royal Commission and of the Earl of Morley's Committee on the Manufacturing Departments. With regard to the second
  710
  part of the Question, Colonel Maitland accepts the responsibility for the design and submission of the Collingwood, gun to the Ordnance Committee. So far from these guns being condemned as worthless, they are being chase-hooped and issued for service in the forts, and are used with most satisfactory results for testing the new steel armour-piercing projectiles. As regards the chase, the part which failed, the design was in conformity with the practice of the best Continental makers of ordnance, all of whom have been compelled to follow the chase-hooping plan which has been adopted by us.

  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND)—THE EATON BEQUEST.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests made a Special Report to Government or to the Attorney General for Ireland, in reference to the disposal of the fund left by the will of Miss Catherine Eaton, to establish a woollen factory in the town of Wicklow; and, if so, will he lay it upon the Table of the House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said, no such Special Report was made to the Government; but the case was laid before the late Attorney General for Ireland for his opinion. That case could not be laid on the Table of the House; but he would allow the hon. Member to see it if he cabled at his Office.

  LIGHTHOUSES AND LIGHTSHIPS—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION—LORD CRAWFORD'S COMMITTEE—TORY ISLAND.
  LORD ERNEST HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, When the Report of Lord Crawford's Committee on the Connection of Lighthouses and Lightships with the Mainland by Telegraph Communication, so far as regards Tory Island, will be laid upon the Table?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade are informed by the Committee that their Report will be

  711
  sent in with as little delay as possible. I am not aware that a special Report will be made with regard to Tory-Island.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—CARRICKAWILKIN (CO. ARMAGH) NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a teacher has yet been appointed to fill the vacancy created in the Carrickawilkin (County Armagh) National School, by the dismissal of Mr. T. A. Irwin; and, if not, will he explain the cause of the delay, and when it is intended to make the appointment?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): A communication has been received by the Board of National Education from the management of the school announcing the appointment of a new teacher.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS—THE TREASURY MINUTE.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, How many Civil Service writers have, under the terms of the Treasury Minute of the 22nd December last, been recommended for promotion to the Lower Division clerkships; what number of writers so recommended have been placed on the Lower Division; and, can he also state the number of writers who have accepted the gratuity offered, and have left the Government service?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to answer Questions relating to the writers. I practically answered this Question in my reply to the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. T. C. Harrington) yesterday. The number of copyists who have accepted the gratuity and left the Government service is 31.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—THE PIER AT CAPE CLEAR ISLAND.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fact that a pier, which was constructed by the Commissioners of Irish Public Works at Cape Clear
  712
  Island 12 years ago, is, for all practical purposes, useless to the inhabitants of that Island; whether the expenses of said pier were partly defrayed by local contributions; whether a Memorial praying that its defects would be remedied was received by the Commissioners of Irish Public Works in 1884; and, whether, considering the importance of Cape Clear as a fishing station, steps will be taken to make the pier of some advantage to the inhabitants of the Island?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: The information which comes to me does not show that this pier is useless for all practical purposes. The expense of erection was partly defrayed by local contributions. A Memorial was received on October 29, 1883, and was forwarded the next day to the Commissioners appointed under the Sea Fisheries Act, who, however, did not see fit to allocate any sum for the execution of works. The Board of Works have no funds at their disposal at present which could be applied to improvements at Cape Clear.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman for what practical purposes is the pier useful? I know none.
  [No reply.]

  BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND)—LOO ROCK.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fact that the men employed by the Board of Irish Public Works at Loo Rock for the past three years have recently discontinued working; and, if so, when their operations will be resumed?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: In consequence of the exposed position of this rock-which is also little above low water-it is impossible to execute works on it except in very calm weather, and, therefore, the works were suspended on October 29 last. The chief engineer to the Board of Works visited the rock on the 12th instant, and has called for a tender from an experienced contractor, which it is expected will be received within the present week.

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE—METHODS OF TESTING SPIRITS IN BOTTLES.
  MR. YOUNGasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether complaints have reached him that it is the practice of Her Majesty's Officers of Customs and Excise to open bottles taken from cases containing spirits, and to withdraw there from a considerable portion of liquor, in order to test the strength of the spirit contained therein, and then to replace the bottles so opened in the case from which they were taken without any notification of the fact to those to whom such cases are consigned, thus entailing a considerable loss to the consignees on the cases so opened; and, whether he will take steps to remedy this grievance by having the cases so opened specially marked and charged with a lower duty?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I have received no complaints on this subject, nor have the Board of Inland Revenue, and I understand that the Board of Customs seldom receive any. The process of sampling and testing the strength of spirits is too long for me to explain in answer to a Question; but if the hon. Gentleman will speak co me I shall be happy to put him in communication with the Boards of Customs and Inland Revenue, who will give him every information, I may, however, say that no bottle is sampled without being labelled as such.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE EDUCATION ACTS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Royal Commission on the Education Acts are expected to report at an early date?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE), in reply, said, that another volume of evidence had been issued by the Royal Commission. He feared there was no chance of the Report being presented before the close of the present Session.

  ADMIRALTY—THE DOCKYARDS—GRATUITIES TO DISCHARGED WORKMEN.
  MR. J. O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty,
  714
  Whether it is a fact that a gratuity of one month's pay was awarded to workmen of seven years' service on being discharged from Chatham Dockyard; and, whether he will extend a like favour to the men under notice to be discharged from Haulbowline on the 1st June?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The gratuity of a month's pay which is to be awarded to certain classes of workmen of Chatham Dockyard will be extended to all classes of workmen of similar standing and occupation who may be discharged this year in consequence of the reduction of the Dockyard establishments. I cannot say now if the men under notice to be discharged from Haulbowline on the 1st of June will come in this category; but my impression is that they will not.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSIONERS—SITTING AT CLONMEL.
  MR. FLYNN(for Mr. J. O'CONNOR)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Land Commissioners have not sat in Clonmel since February, 1884; whether a large number of cases for settlement of rent have been listed for hearing from the surrounding districts, some of the originating notices having been served nearly three years ago; and, whether he will inquire if the Commissioners can advance the date fixed by them for the hearing of these cases?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners report that the facts are in no wise as alleged in the Question. The Munster Sub - Commission held sittings in the County Tipperary in May, 1886, and sat in Court at Clonmel towards the end of that month. No Tipperary cases in Clonmel Union were then left remaining over; and of the part of the County Waterford which is situate in Clonmel Union there are only three cases remaining over from the June, 1886, sittings, from which they were necessarily adjourned. The hearing of Tipperary cases will probably be again taken up in the usual course towards the end of July. It would not be practicable to advance the date.

  INDIA (BENGAL)—MANUFACTURE OF SPIRITS.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to the announcement that it is in contemplation to establish 52 out-stills for the manufacture of spirits in the Hugli District of Bengal; whether one such out-still was opened at Bhastarah, on the 1st of April last, with the effect of disturbing the peace of the village; and, whether he will communicate with the Government of India, with a view to suppress these provocations to intemperance?
  THE UNDER SECTERARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The statements implied in this Question would come under the notice of the Government of India in the ordinary course. The Secretary of State has no information about them, and he does not think it necessary to send a despatch on the subject. This Question, and others recently put by the hon. Member, seem to suggest that our policy in India is to encourage intemperance for the sake of revenue. I am informed that the precise contrary is the fact. The consumption of spirits is checked by a repressively high duty; and since 1872, in consequence of improvements in the Abkari Administration, the number of liquor shops has steadily and appreciably decreased, notwithstanding the increase of the population during that period.

  INDIA—ADMISSION OF NATIVES AND EUROPEANS TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE.
  MR. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of India, having, since the Commission as constituted under Sir Charles Aitchison broke up, appointed a limited Sub-Committee to inquire into the subject of the admission not only of Natives but Europeans to all the more important branches of the Public Service connected with the Civil administration of the country, thus largely extending the scope of the inquiry, any arrangements have been made to give the Uncovenanted Service a fair opportunity of laying its grievances before the Committee; whether his attention has been called to the expressions
  716
  of alarm in the Indian Press and among the Anglo-Indian community at the course being pursued by the Government of India, owing to the suspicion that very important changes are contemplated in the organization and condition of the Services, especially in the direction of a large admission of Natives to important positions in the Services; whether the Under Secretary of State has information that the Bengal Chamber of Commerce has had submitted to it a letter strongly deprecating the course now being pursued by the Government in relation to this question; whether, having regard to the grave interests involved, he can make any statement with regard to the ultimate object of the inquiry, and the time within which it will be brought to a conclusion, which may have the effect of re-assuring investors and others having interests in India that no serious changes are about to be made in the direction indicated in the above letter; and, what object the Government of India has in view in its present proceedings?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Public Service Commission has not broken up. It was originally appointed in consequence of a Despatch of the Earl of Kimberley, dated 15th July, 1886, to inquire into the admission of Natives of India to officers formerly reserved exclusively for members of the Covenanted Civil Service. The Resolution of the 4th October, 1886, appointing the Commission, and the Resolution of the 8th March last, appointing the Sub-Committee, referred to by the hon. Member, have been laid upon the Table. From the former of these Resolutions it will be seen that the necessity for appointing such a Sub-Committee as that referred to was contemplated from the first. The latter of the Resolutions states the subjects referred to the Sub-Committee for inquiry, as—
  "First, the present Regulations of the various Departments as to admission to the various grades and ranks in each; the conditions of service in each Department; and the capacity for rendering efficient service therein of the various classes who put forward claims to such employment."
  As regards the question of grievances, I must refer to the answer which I gave on the 12th. It is for the Commission and the Sub-Committee to make ar-

  717
  rangements for obtaining full information on the subjects of the inquiry; and I have no reason to suppose that the Uncovenanted Service will not be given a fair opportunity for stating its grievances. I hope that this explanation will dispel the alarms and suspicions referred to in the second and third paragraphs of the Question, which have found expression in the newspaper articles and the letter mentioned. As regards the action to be taken in the future, it is intended that the Sub-Committee shall conclude its inquiry by the autumn, and that then the Commission, as a whole, shall be re-constituted, for the purpose of pre-paring one single Report, covering the whole subject. The Report, it is expected, will be submitted to the Government of India in the course of next winter. Any changes which the Government of India may have to propose after considering the Report of the Commission will be submitted, in the ordinary course, to the Secretary of State in Council, and will be considered with the care due to the importance of the subject before receiving the sanction of Her Majesty's Government.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE CONSTABLES AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. O'HANLONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How many hours is supposed to constitute one day's work for the constables in and about the House of Commons; will he recommend that each constable be paid for any overtime; and, whether he will say the reasons given by Sir Charles Warren for refusing to pay them for any overtime during the last six months?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State is informed by the Commissioner of Police that the average number of hours during which police constables are employed in the House is not greater than that of men employed in other public buildings, as although they have more hours on certain days they have lighter work on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. They get about 25 per cent more pay than constables employed at ordinary work, and duty in the Houses of Parliament is very eagerly sought after by members
  718
  of the Force. On special occasions, when the messengers of the House receive extra pay, the Commissioner of Police recommends a similar allowance to the police on duty. He has done so within the last six months. The Secretary of State does not intend to make any recommendation to the Chief Commissioner on the subject.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)—PROCLAIMED MEETINGS IN ULSTER.
  MR. BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether information has reached him that an organized attempt to suppress public meetings in Ulster is being made at present, by the calling of counter meetings at the same time and place, with the object of having both meetings proclaimed; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps to secure the liberty of public meeting in Ireland? I wish to ask also, Whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is the intention of the Orange Society to suppress National public meetings in that fashion in the North of Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the Question of which he gave me private Notice was asked yesterday in the House by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and that there was a debate late at night on the same subject. I do not think I can add anything to the statement of policy which I then made on be-half of the Government.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received the information that the placard, in consequence of which the Nationalist meeting at Dungannon was suppressed, was concocted by the Earl of Ranfurly, a Justice of the Peace, and his agent, also a Justice of the Peace, in the shop of Mr. Aiker, in the town of Dungannon, and if the announcement to hold the Orange meeting was the only reason why the original meeting was proclaimed?
  [No reply.]

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—ARKLOW HARBOUR WORKS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that nothing has been done to repair the pier on the north side of Arklow Harbour, and that a quantity of old piles and blocks of stone

  719
  are thrown in the bed of the river, obstructing the entrance to the harbour; and, whether he will direct the Board of Works forthwith to complete the work in accordance with the original contract, as set forth in Parliamentary Paper [C. 4775]?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am informed that no representations have been made to the Board of Works as to débris from the old north pier at Arklow obstructing the entrance to the harbour, and no obstruction is believed to exist. Nothing has been done towards repairing the old pier; but the new north groyne proposed to be constructed when the plans were approved would occupy the site of the old pier, and doubtless improve the entrance. As, however, the hon. Member is well aware, no steps can be taken for the construction of the new groyne until the township of Arklow shall have given a guarantee for any excess caused in its construction over the sum originally provided for the harbour works at Arklow.
  MR. W. J. CORBETTasked, was it not the fact that the original sum was quite sufficient to cover all the expenses of making the harbour according to the original plan; and that it was in consequence of a departure from the plan that the additional expenses had become necessary.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the answer to that must be that the sum originally granted was not sufficient, because it had proved insufficient. He had been assured that every precaution would be taken to make the work complete.

  THE GROUSE DISEASE.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON(for Dr. FARQUHARSON)asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether his attention has been drawn, by announcements in the Press and elsewhere, to the outbreak of grouse disease in various parts of Scotland, and the North of England; and, whether, in consideration of the great scientific, pecuniary, and other interests involved, he will direct an investigation into the nature of the epidemic, to be undertaken by the officers of the Veterinary Department?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)(who re-
  720
  plied) said: Grouse disease cannot be dealt with by the veterinary officers of the Privy Council, as the Acts under which they work are limited to "four-footed beasts," and the Department have no funds at their disposal for undertaking such an investigation as that referred to in the Question.

  THE EXECUTIVE (IRELAND)—THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECREARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When it was intended to bring in the promised Bill to regularize the position of his Under Secretary; if his attention has been called to the speech of Colonel King-Harman, M. P., at a meeting held on 10th January, 1884, in Rathmines Rink, to protest against Earl Spencer's action in removing the Earl of Rossmore from the Magistracy, when the present Under Secretary for Ireland declared he was an Orangeman; if he is aware that at the meeting called to welcome the Right Hon. W. H. Smith, in the Rotunda, Dublin, on 24th January, 1884, the Under Secretary is reported to have said—
  "It was easy enough in the North for men to stand together. The Orange Association, of which he (Colonel King-Harman) was a member, was a strong bond of union for men professing one faith in this country;"
  whether the Resolution of the House of Commons of 11th August, 1835, directed against the Orange Society, has ever been rescinded; whether, on 23rd February, 1836, this House presented an humble Address to the Crown to—
  "Take measures for the effectual discouragement of Orange Lodges and all Societies excluding persons of different faiths using signs and symbols and acting by associated branches,"
  to which on 25th February, 1836, a gracious reply was immediately returned by the Crown; whether thereupon a Treasury Minute, dated 15th March, 1836, was issued, declaring that any Orange Civil Servants should immediately withdraw from the Order, and that no person "who serves in whatever capacity under the Crown" should thereafter become a member, or be in any way connected with, the Orange Body; and, whether the Government have ascertained if Colonel King-Harman has withdrawn from the Orange Order?
  MR. JOHNSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, may I ask him if he is not aware that, in accordance with the Resolution referred to in the Question, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland was totally dissolved in 1836; and if in 1845 the Orange Institution was not reorganized upon a new basis, in consequence of the revolutionary proceedings in the agitation for the repeal of the Union under O'Connell?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): A Bill dealing with the Office of Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant will be brought in as soon as practicable; but it is impossible, in the present state of Public Business, to fix a date. My attention has not previously been drawn to the particular incidents referred to in the second and third paragraphs of the Question; but I understand from my right hon. and gallant Friend that the statements are substantially accurate. With regard to the matters of history to which the hon. and learned Member refers, the House is aware that the Orange Society, which was the subject of the Resolution and Treasury Minute mentioned, was dissolved by its own authorities; and that, as explained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), in reply to a similar Question three years ago, the Society was subsequently re-constituted on an entirely different basis, without secret signs or religious ceremonial. Under successive Governments since those occurrences membership has not been held to be a bar to employment under the Crown; and, in these circumstances, Her Majesty's present Advisers agree with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian on the occasion I have already referred to, that—
  "It would not be discreet or considerate on the part of the Government … to carry into execution a Minute which had remained in abeyance for a long time, but which was aimed at the provisions of a certain Society, which provisions had ceased to exist."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred of such a nature as that it will have to be founded on a Resolution in Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In all probability that will be the case.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the Government made any inquiries to satisfy themselves whether the Orange Society does not still remain a Society with secret signs and symbols; and as to the point of religious faith, has the right hon. Gentleman seen books of the Society which show that members were expelled for marrying a Catholic—such as So-and-so for marrying a Papist?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say anything about religious faith; but I spoke about religious rites.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of Lord Palmerston, in 1855, did, as a matter of fact, issue a Circular to the Lord Chancellor not to permit any Orangeman to become a magistrate, and stating they would not make Orangemen magistrates in future?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it necessary to go behind the declaration of policy made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, to which I have referred.

  COURT OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND)—IMPRISONMENT OF FATHER KELLER.
  MR. DILLONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, What official is responsible for the continuation of the proceedings in the Court of Bankruptcy which has caused the imprisonment of Father Keller; and, whether the usual course has been followed in these proceedings?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES), in reply, said, the usual course was taken in the case.
  MR. CHANCE: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether there is any other instance in which the Official Assignee commenced proceedings against the unanimous wish of the creditors?
  [No reply.]

  WAR OFFICE—THE ORDNANCE COMMITTEE—APPOINTMENT AND CON-STITUTION.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary of State for War, Who are the Members of the Ordnance Committee; by whom were they appointed, and for how long?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The names of the Ordnance Committee will be found in the monthly Army List, at page 44. The Military Members are appointed by the Secretary of State for War; the Naval Members by the Admiralty, with the Secretary of State's concurrence; and one represents the India Office. The usual term of appointment is three years, but the Committee is at present sitting during pleasure; and in the light of the approaching changes in the Ordnance Department, the whole constitution of the Committee will be reconsidered. The Civilian Members (Sir Frederick Bramwell and Mr. W. H. Barlow) have served since the appointment of the Committee in 1881, and were appointed by the Secretary of State for War.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS—PETITION FROM BRADFORD—ALLEGED FICTITIOUS SIGNATURES.
  MR. BYRON REEDasked the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, Whether the attention of the Committee has been called to a Petition, lately presented to the House by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), purporting to be signed by inhabitants of the Eastern Division of the Borough of Bradford; whether he is aware that very many of the names appearing upon the Petition are those of children of tender years; that some of the persons whose names appear thereupon repudiate the signatures attributed to them, and declare their disagreement with the opinions expressed by the Petition; that, in some instances, children have been persuaded to write the names of their parents upon the Petition without the knowledge or consent of the parents; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Committee proposes to institute a searching inquiry into this and similar Petitions?
  THE CHAIRMAN (Sir CHARLES FORSTER), in reply, said, that some of the signatures to the Petition referred to by the hon. Member were those of children of tender years; but it was not proposed to institute an inquiry.

  LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. GROTRIANasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade,
  724
  Whether it is a fact that the evidence before the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Loss of Life at Sea was closed already some nine months ago; whether any meetings of the Commissioners have since been held; and, whether the Report of said Commission has been drawn up; and, if so, when it will be laid before the House?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Chairman of the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea informs me that their proceedings were suspended during the winter by the absence abroad of two of its most important Members. The Commission have since met for the consideration of their Report, which they hope may be concluded shortly after Whitsuntide.

  VACCINATION ACT—CONVICTIONS BY THE LEICESTER COUNTY BENCH.
  MR. PICTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Mr. King, of Mere Road, New Evington, in the County of Leicester, recently wrote to him appealing for remission of a fine inflicted by the County Magistrates on account of the non-vaccination of a child, dead nearly 12 months before the fine was enforced; and, whether he will state what answer has been given to this appeal?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: the Secretary of State did receive an application from Mr. King, and, after carefully inquiring into this case, answered that he was unable to interfere. King had been convicted and fined for not complying with the law. The fact that the child died before the vaccination officer, after repeated applications, proceeded to enforce the fine does not alter the liability of Mr. King.

  THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES)—NONCONFORMIST MAGISTRATES IN FLINTSHIRE.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why there are no Nonconformist Magistrates in Flintshire?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLET)(who replied) said: I can only repeat, Sir, the answer which

  725
  the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Baronet on April 4—that the Lord Lieutenant was not able to ascertain that there were any Nonconformists resident in Flintshire with the necessary qualifications.

  WAR OFFICE—CORPORATION ROAD ROUND THE CITADEL FORT, PLYMOUTH.
  MR. COGHILLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Corporation of Plymouth are making a road round the Citadel Fort there in such a way as to deprive the troops quartered in it of their bathing place, and that there is no other place in Plymouth suitable for such a purpose; whether he will take immediate steps to prevent the men being deprived of the only bathing they can get in the summer months; and, whether it is true that the Government have handed over the whole of the ramparts and outworks of the fort to the Corporation of Plymouth?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: The road referred to does not debar the troops from access to their bathing place; but it renders it more visible to the public than it formerly was. The General Officer Commanding is considering, in conjunction with the Corporation, the arrangements to be made for the troops bathing. The outworks of the Citadel Fort have been leased to the Corporation; but not the ramparts.

  ADMIRALTY—SUPPLY OF WELSH COAL TO HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS AT QUEENSFERRY.
  MR. MASONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that Her Majesty's guardship lying at Queensferry (within a few miles of the Salamanan Coalfields) is supplied with coal from Wales, costing a very much higher price; whether it is the case that the Admiralty tried coal from Scotland in 1876, and reported that it was found nearly equal to the best Welsh coal; and, whether he will take steps to put a stop to this apparent waste of public money?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It is the case that the guardship in question
  726
  has been supplied with Welsh coal, which cost 13s. per ton alongside. The Scotch coal would cost less, but how much less cannot be stated, as no actual purchase of a large quantity has been made. The Admiralty tried coal from Scotland, as stated in the Question; but it was not found nearly equal to the best Welsh coal. The Welsh coal has the great advantage of being smokeless, and not choking the flues, neither of which qualities pertain to the Scotch coal.
  MR. MASONasked, if the 13s. per ton included the carriage of the coal round from Wales to the Forth?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, it included the carriage.

  BURMAH—LICENSING AND REGULATION OF IMMORALITY.
  MR. ATKINSONasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true, as stated in an American paper, that—
  "The presence of our soldiers in Burmah is made the reason for the licensing and regulating of vice, under the charge of high officials?"
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State does not concur in the expression of opinion extracted from the American paper. Certain sanitary arrangements were made; but that does not constitute a licensing and regulation of vice.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid, he did not put it as a matter of opinion, but as a fact. He would put the Question again in plainer words next Monday.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he is in a position to make any statement as to the course of Business after the Third Reading of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, and, more particularly, if he can state whether the Government intends to adopt any, and, if any, what, means to enable the House to overtake this year a fair proportion of the ordinary Legislative Business of the country?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that I am unable to make any statement with regard to the

  727
  progress of Public Business after the Third Reading of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will use his influence to forward that Bill. Until that Bill has reached a stage at which I can really hope for the Third Reading I will be quite unable to make any statement with regard to the Business, It is our desire to push forward Public Business, other than the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, as rapidly as possible.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked, whether the Government intended to regard the passing of that Bill as the special legislative work of the Session; or whether it was their intention to consider some other means whereby the ordinary Legislative Business of the country might be in part attended to, at whatever date the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill might pass?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Undoubtedly the Government do not consider that the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill would be a sufficient discharge of the duties of Parliament; and it will be their duty to consider what course they will recommend to Parliament under the circumstances.

  CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN IN LONDON.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTON(for Mr. WHITMORE)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended to celebrate the Queen's Jubilee in London in any public manner?
  MR. COBBasked, Whether the Government would reconsider their decision with regard to the display of fireworks in the public Parks, considering the pleasure they would give to hundreds of thousands of the people of the Metropolis?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to the last Question, which has been put to me without Notice, I can only say this—that the Government regret that any portion of the community should be deprived of any pleasure of the kind to which the hon. Member refers; and if funds could be found which would not be a charge upon the public purse, the Government would be exceedingly happy to afford any facility for
  728
  the purpose; but they have not thought it right to submit a Vote to Parliament in order that the inhabitants of the Metropolis might be provided with fireworks. If we were to make such provision for the Metropolis, it would at once be asked what are we going to do for the large Provincial towns. I may be asked what provision we desire to make in other respects. That is a difficulty which I am sure the House will feel could not be easily solved. A Proclamation has been issued declaring Tuesday, June 21, a public holiday. On that day Her Majesty will proceed to the Service at Westminster Abbey. Any other celebration of the day will be entirely of a spontaneous and local character, no provision having been proposed to Parliament for public rejoicings in any other way.
  MR. DODDS: Will hon. Members have the opportunity of attending the Service at the Abbey on that day?
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will ask the Poet Laureate to prepare an ode on the Jubilee Coercion Bill for the occasion?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is trifling with the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope to make arrangements by which Members of Parliament who express a wish to be present will be able to attend.
  MR. T. M. HEALYWill that include the Irish Members?
  MR. DODDS: Will each Member be allowed to take a lady?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Lord Chamberlain is the proper officer to approach in regard to such matters.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you what arrangements you propose to make with reference to the attendance of the House on Sunday at St. Margaret's Church?
  MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to inform the House that I propose to take my seat at that (the Clerk's) Table at a quarter to 11 on Sunday, and that I shall then go down the House to that door (under the clock). I hope that the Members of the Government, the Members of the Front Opposition Bench, Privy Councillors, and others who hap-

  729
  pen to be in the House will form behind me, so as to constitute the head of the procession. The Mace will meet me at the folding doors. I shall then proceed through the Members' Lobby to the Central Lobby, during which time I hope Members will fall in and form the rest of the procession. I would earnestly entreat hon. Members to observe the formation of four abreast. The Volunteers will keep a line which will admit of that number walking side by side. It will be very important that order should be kept throughout. From the Central Lobby I propose to go down St. Stephen's Hall to the top of the stairs in Westminster Hall, and thence down the main stairs of Westminster Hall to the north door of that Hall. At that door I believe that the clergy of Westminster Abbey and St. Margaret's Church will meet the procession and form the head of it. I shall then go through Palace Yard, through Parliament Square, through the central portion of that Square, between the two flower beds, and on reaching the end of the walk I shall take a line diagonally to the west door of St. Margaret's Church. I may say, perhaps, that the Queen's Westminster Volunteers have undertaken to furnish a guard of honour, and to keep the line throughout the whole length of the route taken by the procession; and I think I may tender to that gallant corps, on behalf of the House, my thanks for their presence on the occasion, and especially to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent), the Colonel of that corps. If there is any other information which I can impart to the House I shall be very happy to give it.
  SIR HENEY TYLER: What arrangements are there for meeting our ladies on this occasion? Ladies' tickets have been issued.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am scarcely responsible for all the minor details; but to allay the natural anxiety of the hon. Member I would, if I may, strongly advise the ladies to be present in St. Margaret's Church before the procession leaves this House.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is it in contemplation to take a Resolution of the House in the sense which you, Sir, have mentioned, according to the precedent when Mr. Speaker
  730
  attended on behalf of the House at the Thanksgiving Service at St. Paul's?
  MR. SPEAKER: The House has already passed a Resolution.
  MR. RATHBONEasked, what arrangements had been made for the attendance of the House at the ceremony in Westminster Abbey on the 21st of June?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I understand that ample provision has been made by the Lord Chamberlain for the accommodation of the House on the 21st of June. But it is usual for a Committee of the House to be appointed to assist the Speaker in making the necessary arrangements for such an occasion; and if it is the pleasure of the House I will on Monday propose the appointment of such a Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the House sit on the 21st of June?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It will be a public holiday, Sir; and I shall move the adjournment of the House over that day.
  DR. TANNER: If the weather is unsatisfactory on Sunday, Mr. Speaker, will omnibuses be provided for Members?
  MR. SPEAKER: I will not answer a Question which I regard as trivial and offensive.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have been earnestly solicited by the Government of the Dominion to grant a subsidy to the Canadian Pacific Railway; and, whether, in giving this request their consideration, Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind the action of the Government of the Dominion in raising the duty upon imported iron, and will also endeavour to have an estimate made of the loss to those engaged in the iron export trade of this country which such increase of duty will entail?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Dominion Government has earnestly solicited Her Majesty's Government to grant a subsidy to a line of steamers which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is willing to establish between Vancouver and Hong Kong. It is not suggested that such subsidy should be

  731
  given as an assistance to the railway; but the proposed steamship service is being considered on its own merits, the question being whether the advantages to this country and to the Empire generally of maintaining an efficient service of powerful vessels in the North Pacific will justify an application to Parliament for an annual subsidy of not less than £45,000. It has not been the practice to look upon the high tariffs which Canada finds it necessary to adopt as directly affecting the consideration of any general question in which the point arises whether or how far this country should cooperate with the Dominion; but Her Majesty's Government cannot but feel that a change in the Canadian duties, such as that alleged, must indirectly affect the consideration of the main question, which must be ultimately decided by Parliament.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 217.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 19th May.]
  [ELEVENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered, in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
  Clause 2 (Extension of summary jurisdiction).
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, after "or," insert "to compel any person or persons by means of threats, intimidation, or violence."—(Mr. King.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHANCE: In supporting the Amendment I desire to point out that we have already decided that it is a criminal conspiracy for anyone "to compel or induce any person or persons not to fulfil his or their legal obligations." We now come to a very distinct and separate question, whether it shall be a criminal conspiracy to compel or induce any person or persons—
  "Not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persona in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation."
  732
  We have to ask ourselves what a conspiracy is. It consists of an agreement, a means, and an object. No doubt, the mere act of an agreement is in itself a conspiracy; but I need hardly point out to anybody with a grain of common sense that there cannot be criminality in an abstract agreement, and that the criminality of an agreement must be judged of either by its means or by its object. In this case the object of the agreement is, as I say, to prevent persons from letting, hiring, using, or occupying land, or from dealing with, working for, or hiring any person or persons. That object in itself cannot be criminal, because, at the present moment, anyone is perfectly entitled to refuse to let, hire, use, or occupy land, and so on. That being so, we have to consider whether the means are such that criminality is imported into the matter. What are these means? We have adopted the word "induce." If that word stands part of the clause, an agreement to use inducement to effect a lawful and legitimate object will be declared by the section to be a criminal conspiracy. Now I deny that inducement can ever be criminal. In strict legal language the word "induce" excludes any idea of fear or fraud, and the inducement cannot be criminal unless the object imparts criminality. But the object is not criminal; therefore I am forced to the conclusion that if the clause stands in its present shape we shall have declared that it is criminal for two or three or more persons to obtain lawful objects by moral suasion. That would be an atrocious state of things. Supposing several people induce a testator to give a legacy of £100,000 to a certain person, does anyone say that because they have agreed to "induce" the testator the will will be void? If, under this clause, it is not intended, under such circumstances, to declare that an absolute crime is committed by persons who induce a testator to make a will, but it is intended to say that it is a crime to induce a person not to let, hire, use, or occupy land, is not the proposition preposterous? There is no doubt in the world that the object of the clause is to protect landlords, and to give them extraordinary legal remedies against people who refuse to let, hire, use, or occupy this land. Simple agreements to obtain a perfectly lawful object by means that

  733
  up to the present moment are legal, are to be declared illegal, and persons taking part in such agreements are to receive six months' imprisonment with hard labour at the will of two Resident Magistrates who are under the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The Amendment is a different one from that which we had under consideration yesterday; but, at the same time, it would seem that the principle which governed the Committee in disposing of the Amendment yesterday should influence it now in disposing of this Amendment. It seems to the Government that the same arguments that were used yesterday are equally applicable to this Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) moved words yesterday to provide that any person who should "conspire by violence or intimidation" to do the things specified in the sub-section should be liable to the penalties of the clause, and another hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. T. Reid) moved to leave out the word "induce," in order to confine the section to persons who compelled others to do the things specified therein. The Committee rejected both those Amendments yesterday, and the same grounds which led the Committee to reject them ought to lead it to-day to reject the present Amendment, inasmuch as its object is to limit the action of the subsection—not in regard to the fulfilment of legal obligations, as was the case with the Amendment yesterday, but in regard to letting, hiring, using, or occupying land, and so on—to persons who compel others by means of "threats, intimidation, or violence." What we propose to do in the section is not to alter the law in the smallest degree from what it is now, but to enact that those means which apply now to the attaining of an object could be punished under indictment as criminal conspiracy shall, under this Act, be punished by summary jurisdiction. Such a case as that referred to by the hon. Member—the case of agreeing to induce a person to make a will—could not be punished under indictment, and will not be touched by this measure,
  MR. CHANCE: I did not speak of the persons being punished; but I said would anyone say that the will would become void through adopting the means employed in this agreement?
  MR. HOLMES: No; it would not; neither would an agreement to induce a person by moral suasion to refuse to let, hire, use, or occupy land be a criminal conspiracy. It would not be a criminal conspiracy now, neither would it be a criminal conspiracy under the Bill, because, as I have pointed out, the clause only renders punishable by summary jurisdiction what is now punishable by means of indictment. The hon. Member says that if we pass the clause as it now stands you will make it a criminal offence, punishable by summary jurisdiction, to agree to induce a person to attain a lawful object; but that is not the fact, for it is not an offence punishable by indictment at the present time to combine to effect a legal object by legitimate means.
  MR. CHANCE: There is a great distinction between the object of obtaining the non-fulfilment of a legal obligation and the object of obtaining the non-performance of an act that a person is perfectly entitled not to do. There is no obligation pre-existing as the hiring of land. We are told that this clause will not make it criminal to do any act which is not criminal already; but that I altogether deny. A criminal conspiracy is to agree to adopt means to attain an object, either one of which must be criminal—either the means or the object. But, under this clause, to agree to attain by legal means—that is to say, by inducement—a lawful object may be made a criminal conspiracy. No one denies that we have these three things under the clause—agreement, means, and object. Inducement is laid down as the means. What question can arise outside the limits of these three things I utterly fail to conceive. We are told that an Amendment has been introduced and accepted by the Committee which will prevent a new offence being created under this Act. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) will take the trouble to refer to Mr. Justice Stephen on Criminal Law Amendment, or to the same autho-

  735
  rity on Conspiracy, as given in pages 124 and 125 of Roscoe's Criminal Evidence, he will there learn that, in the opinion of Mr. Justice Stephen, reasons must be found by the Judge for declaring it to be criminal to combine to do an act which, in the opinion of the Judge, is politically or socially dangerous. And yet you are giving powers to two nominees of the Government, and investing them with the powers which Mr. Justice Stephen says the Judges already possess. Any combination which the Judge declares to be criminal is already punishable by law. By this Bill you are making the Resident Magistrates Judges, and giving them despotic power to declare an agreement criminal, and you point out clearly that a combination or an agreement to induce a person not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land is a criminal conspiracy.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: If this Amendment had been in principle decided, or came close to being decided, by the determination which the Committee arrived at yesterday, it would not be necessary for me to trouble the Committee much upon this question, because I should not be able to bring myself to repeat an argument with reference to it. Such repetition only weakens the position of a speaker in a case like this. On the other hand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, I think, rather underrated the argument of my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance), and did not sufficiently appreciate the distinction he wishes to point out. But, whether there is or not a distinction to be drawn between the 1st and 2nd parts of the sub-section, I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this clause will have a serious effect upon the Ulster Tenant Right Custom which has prevailed for the past 100 years. The Ulster tenants have combined to refuse to take farms where the tenant right was not adequately recognized by the landlord; and clearly the sub-section under discussion, as it now stands, would render such combination a criminal conspiracy in the view of any Resident Magistrate who chose so to construe the provision. I cannot allow to pass without protest anything which would cast upon Ulster the stain that its tenants have been living in a criminal conspiracy for the past 100 years. I have known cases in Ulster in which farms have laid vacant for 20 years in
  736
  consequence of refusal to recognize the tenant-right custom. I have known a case where a Protestant has been evicted from a farm in a Catholic district, and a foot would not be put into it by a Catholic farmer; and I have known a Catholic evicted in a Protestant district with a precisely similar result. I have known farms, under these circumstances, lie idle for 20 or 30 years, the owner merely disposing of the grazing of it. But few persons were mad enough to refuse the Ulster tenant right in the face of such a spirit as that. Then, what will happen now when evictions take place, and the landlord assumes possession of the land, the tenant forfeiting for a year's rent his 15 years' possession? The landlord will have 14 years of another man's property, and he will probably desire to get the land in occupation again to his own advantage. Whatever your laws may be, there will, certainly be a higher law—that of honour and respect for another man's property, which will never be broken by the people of Ireland. What is the use of passing Criminal Laws to make men do a certain thing, which, though not criminal according to the law, is far more criminal in their eyes than that which this measure would make criminal, and which involves a greater penalty, from a social point of view, than the breaking of the law? I wish to draw a clear distinction between the decision we arrived at yesterday and the point raised to-day. I think the hon. Gentleman who put down the present Amendment was well advised. I believe I am correct that the hon. Member took the advice of those most able and experienced in these matters before moving the Amendment as to the form in which it should be brought forward. I admire the ingenuity with which he tried to reconcile his Conservative principles with what I consider his kind heart, for he has shown himself kind-hearted in this matter—he, at least, has been in Ireland and knows what we are. It is an extraordinary thing that we should now be supporting an Amendment moved from the other side of the House. I can understand the Committee saying that it is a conspiracy to induce a man not to do a thing which he is under obligation to do, and which a third person has a right to have performed. In that case there is a duty on one hand,

  737
  and a right on the other; and if a conspiracy is got up to break the relations of the two men mutually bound to each other, there is some argument to be offered for making it criminal, because the conspirators would be without a reasonable excuse. But take the case of a farm which is vacant. There is no obligation on anyone to take it. A man may be induced not to take it, and pressure may be put upon him to refrain from taking it. The farmer primâ facie may do what he likes with the farm; he may accept a person as tenant, or refuse him, just as he likes, and no one can complain; and equally the person sought to be induced or persuaded has incurred no duty with regard to its acceptance or refusal, and the person who induces or persuades him clearly should not be held criminal. It is a different thing where, in the words of the Amendment, a person is "compelled" by means of "threats, intimidation, or violence," not to take a farm. There is an obvious distinction between the 1st and 2nd part of the sub-section. In the one case a person is prevented from fulfilling a legal obligation. A man is compelled to do that which it is a breach of duty to do, and which it is a breach of another man's right to have done; and there may be some ground for calling that a criminal conspiracy. In the other case, you suppose a man who has a farm, which he has a right to let in the best way he can, but there is no duty on the community to take it, nor is there any obligation on any individual to do so, therefore there is no breach of any right of the landlord. But to go further than that, though the Amendment deals only with the question of land, there are many cases where it is the duty and right of a man to induce others not to buy at a particular time, or sell at a particular time, and to put up prices at a particular time. This right is recognized in England, and I must say I do not believe the commercial prosperity of England would have been at all what it is to-day if you had put shackles on the right of trade combinations. I only rise, however, to distinguish between the two parts of the sub-section—namely, the fulfilling of legal obligations—which we dealt with yesterday—and the taking of land with regard to which no legal obligation exists. To my own knowledge, the Ulster tenant right has been preserved by a practice which
  738
  I firmly believe, if this law had been passed years ago, would have been held to be criminal, and would have had the effect of throwing one-half of the tenant farmers of the Province into gaol.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think that having regard to the quarter from which this Amendment comes the Government have received it with very scant courtesy. It would, indeed, be a curious result to see the clôture applied to it by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury; but we may take it, having regard as I say to the quarter whence it come, that the right hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to take that course. I agree with my hon. Friends that we are forced to support this Amendment by the decision of the Committee last night on the proposal to omit the words "or induce." I think it is perfectly plain that there is a substantial distinction, not merely of form, but of fact, between the present Amendment and that moved last night by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). The Attorney General for Ireland tells us that what is intended to be struck at by this clause is the use of illegal means. He says that this clause will not be operative in the case of any innocent combination, and that unless the means which any body of men combining together take to effect this object are illegal, this clause will not apply. I meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that ground, and I ask, if it is his view that this Bill should not apply save in a case where illegal means are used to further the object of conspiracy, will he consent to insert in the sub-section now under discussion, after the word "induce," not, perhaps, the words proposed in the Amendment, but words which will carry out his own expressed intention? Will he accept such words as "or induce by illegal means?" He says he does not want to limit the clause in the manner pointed out in the Amendment of one of his supporters. He says he does not want to limit it to threats, intimidation, or violence. Let him, at any rate, take means to carry out his own view, and to make his declaration perfectly plain. Let him put something in the Act of Parliament by which the uninstructed Resident Magistrates, who will have the administration of this

  739
  clause, will see plainly what the Government want. I think we are entitled to an answer on that point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says it is not intended that this Act should strike at any combinations to induce any persons by illegal means to do a legal act; and that being so, I ask them to embody in the words of this clause some expression which will make their intention perfectly plain, and from which the Resident Magistrates, who will afterwards be the administrators of the new law, will have the conclusion of the Government forced on them that this section is only to be used where there has been a conspiracy to induce persons to do an illegal act, or to induce persons to do a legal act by illegal means.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman, like his predecessors, is travelling rather beyond the permissible scope of this Amendment. The Committee have already refused to admit the words "or induce," and also to define conspiracy "by violence or intimidation." Those two principles govern nearly the whole of the section, and the present Amendment is only admissible on the argument that in dealing with land there is a special necessity for the making of a definition.
  MR. CHANCE: On the point of Order I should like to point out that the Amendment to strike out the words "or induce "had reference to preventing a person from fulfilling a legal obligation.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; that is not so. The words "compel or induce" govern the whole section.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I quite accept that explanation from you, Sir. It is quite evident, however, that the words this Amendment proposes to introduce only seek to govern the words of the section which deal with the letting, hiring, using, or occupying of land. We agree upon that, and I was under the impression that what I was saying, though general in its character, had a particular application to conspiracies as affecting dealings with regard to land. I come now to the words conspiracy to induce a person "not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land." What is the motive of these words—what is the meaning of this section which the Government have introduced in the Bill? On what ground have they based the necessity for this clause? The motive
  740
  power the Government have used to press this Bill through the House is the undue intimidation as to the letting, hiring, or selling of land which they say has prevailed in Ireland. I venture to say that without the allegations they have made in regard to this undue intimidation a Bill of this kind would have been scouted from this House and this country. And, that being so, I ask is it not monstrous that while their whole case is founded on allegations of intimidation, they should push this Bill a step further than the extent to which their case of intimidation would chow it to be necessary? If their ease is that it is owing to intimidation that farms cannot be let, and that tenants combine to obtain reductions of rent, and their case is that it is owing to intimidation that combinations for these purposes, which would not otherwise exist, are so powerful in Ireland, I say, then, why not limit the clause to that particular point? I maintain that without the impetus that this Bill receives from these allegations of intimidation, it would have been impossible for the Government to have introduced it in this House, and it would be impossible for them to defend it before the country. At any rate, before they can ask the Committee to extend the Bill on the provisions of this clause beyond this question of intimidation, they are bound to make out a specific case outside "threats, intimidation, and violence," for the necessity of such extension. They have not attempted to do anything of the kind. They have not attempted to show that, apart from threats, intimidation, or violence, there are things which make such a clause reasonable. In all the wildest appeals we have heard from the opposite side of the House—and we have heard some most reckless assertions from that quarter as to the condition of Ireland—there has not been a single attempt to show that, apart from the question of intimidation, any case for this clause exists. If that is the case, are we not justified in asking that the Government, who found this Bill on allegations of the existence of intimidation—and found it on nothing else, for we are told that they do not rely on statistics of crime—shall limit it to the particular matter they allege as its origin? I do not think the Government are treating us fairly in this matter. We are not

  741
  content with their general allegation as to the necessity for making this clause wide enough to introduce every possible class of offence. They do not even prove the existence of offences such as this Amendment will deal with. It seems to me, when such enormous powers are given and confirmed by a Bill of this kind, the Government are bound to produce justification, not merely for every clause of it, but for every line, every word, and every syllable it contains. Liberty should not be restricted, the Constitution should not be cut in upon, except to the extent for which a case been made out for it. If the Government complain that offences of a particular character exist, I submit that any remedy that Parliament applies should be limited to the case they make out. It is an old maxim in connection with the construction of Acts of Parliament that, in order to find out the object of an Act, you ought first to learn the mischief with which it is intended to deal. Now, I maintain that the remedy this clause provides is not limited to the mischief of which the Government complain. My complaint is that they extend the remedy far beyond any mischief they allege, and make it wide enough to include a vast variety of cases in regard to which they have shown no necessity for the clause. I say, therefore, if the words "or induce" had been left out of the clause, the section would have been sufficiently stringent to effect the avowed object of the Government. The Government case is amply vindicated by the adoption of the word "compel," and I think, if the section were limited to that word, the answer given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would be complete. But so long as they continue to retain in the section the use of the words "or induce," involving and describing acts which are not in themselves criminal, we shall be warranted in asking that where the object in view is not illegal, and where the conspiracy is a mere conspiracy to induce persons to do or not to do what it is perfectly legal for them to do or not to do, that then, at any rate, the House will step in and provide that some illegality shall be pointed to in the means taken to effect the object before the clause shall pass in its present form.
  742
  If the Government can make out a case for anything beyond what is in this Amendment, let them make it out; but certainly, up to the present, they have not attempted to do so. Until they have done so, I hold that we are justified in asking the Committee to limit the application of the clause.
  MR. CHANCE: The Amendment, as it stands on the Paper, reads—"To compel any person or persons, by means of threats, intimidation, or violence." I fear that if we insist upon this Amendment, we shall be told that modification of this part of the section was refused, because we wished to confine it to threats, intimidation, or violence. I would ask to leave out of the Amendment the words "by means of threats, intimidation, or violence." We shall have a distinct issue then as to whether to compel a person to do or not to do what he has a perfectly legal right to do or not to do shall be rendered criminal or not. I assert, without fear of contradiction, that the word "induce" in this section is distinctly a description of method and means, and that the object not being in itself criminal, and it being necessary that the criminality should be found in the means here stated, the word "compel," and not "induce," should apply. If the clause is passed without this alteration, it will be for the first time the erection of a combination to induce persons to attain an object which is lawful into a criminal conspiracy. I would ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland whether it is contended that the words "or induce" do not constitute a description of the means and method of the object of a conspiracy? I do trust the Attorney General for England will deal with that question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move to omit from the proposed Amendment the words ''by means of threats, intimidation, or violence?"
  MR. CHANCE: Yes, Sir.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "persons," to omit the words "by means of threats, intimidation, or violence."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask the Government whether, under these circumstances, they cannot see their way to accept the proposed Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: My object in moving this is that we may have a clear issue before us, and that we may leave no loophole of escape to the Government, who might say that they were compelled to reject it, because it would render the magistrates unable to arrive at a conviction for certain descriptions of unlawful combination.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The Committee will understand my reason for not taking part in this discussion. It was that I consider the reasons which have been advanced more than once against the limitation of this section apply equally to the present proposal. I quite admit that it is a substantial modification which is now proposed, still the objections already taken will apply to it.
  MR. CHANCE: The words have not yet been omitted from the Amendment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would be good enough to permit them to be omitted, we should be delighted to hear how he can defend the application of the word "induce" to the series of acts contained in the clause which are perfectly legal.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I do not see the use of leaving these words out if the Government are not going to accept the Amendment. If a number of men residing in a certain district see in their neighbourhood a man harshly dealt with by his landlord, they may say amongst each other—"What a shame it is! See how this man has been treated." Then, one may say, "I won't take that farm," and another may say, "Neither will I," and in this way there may be a combination not to hire, use, or occupy the land. Is it not preposterous to call that a criminal conspiracy? The inducements to which this clause will apply will cover the action of members of a Temperance or any other society who may say—"We will agree not to have a man in our association if he does so and so, or if he does not do so and so, and we will not hire or occupy his land." If the words it is proposed to leave out in the Amendment were omitted, we should give the Government power to proceed against
  744
  these men, and to inflict upon them the punishment of law because a man was expelled from their ranks for going against the principles to which he subscribed, and which he had before his eyes when he entered their society.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have been in error in permitting the original Amendment to be moved at all. I have already pointed out that the words "compel or induce" have been adopted, and these words, I find, govern all the words which follow in the section. I had thought that a variation might be introduced with respect to dealings with land, but I see that the words of the section are—
  "To compel or induce any person or persons either not to fulfil his or their legal obligations, or no not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land,"
  and so on. The words "either" and "or" clearly indicate that the word "induce" applies to the whole of the section.
  MR. CHANCE: This Amendment is not ours. It is on the paper in the name of a Tory Member, and we, in his absence owing to illness, undertook to move it for him. I am not responsible for the wording of it, and all I can do on behalf of that absent Member is to submit to your ruling.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In the words as they originally stood in the Amendment, would it not be competent for us to discuss whether it shall be an illegal conspiracy to "compel" a person not to do certain things, instead of "compel or induce?" Could we not take out the word "or," so as not to limit the second part of the section?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; that could not be done, inasmuch as the word "either" governs the section as well as the word "or."
  Original Amendment, and proposed Amendment thereto, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I propose, in line 19, after the word "occupy" to insert the words—
  "Sell or exercise any customary privilege, usage, tenant right, easement, or profit a prendre in or over."
  I propose this Amendment to meet the case of a combination of landlords in Ireland to prevent the tenants exercising the rights given by the Irish Land Act, and also to meet a case which is very common of organized interference with receivers of rent in regard to the cus-

  745
  tomary privileges and rights of tenants in various parts of the country. These organizations are carried on in a very respectable manner, so far as outer eyes can see, and by very respectable people; but their effect is to injure others, and interfere with the rights which are secured to them by law. These things are done openly, so that in their case there is no necessity for a Star-Chamber inquiry. I am afraid that, considering the character of the Judge who will have to decide the cases, even if this Amendment were accepted it would be of little use; but I move it as a protest against what I see will be one of the effects of this clause—namely, the destruction of the Ulster Tenant Eight Association. There will be, under this clause, cases of continual warfare; but, as a rule, the individual landlord can act against the tenant, so that the conspiracy will only be on the side of the tenant as against the landlord.
  THE CHAIRMAN: In order to make sense, the hon. Member must move to admit the word "or" before the word "occupy."
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Then I do that, Sir.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 19, leave out "or occupy," and insert "occupy, sell, or exercise any customary privilege, usage, tenant right, easement, or profit a prendre in or over."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I cannot understand what case the hon. Member has made out for this Amendment. He has stated very fairly and frankly that he proposes in some way to protect tenants against the operations of open associations which are not formed by illegal means. I should imagine that he wishes to direct his Amendment against the Commons Preservation Society, whose object is to prevent squatting; at any rate, I do not think he has made out a case for his Amendment.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: At any rate, it is a great thing to have got from so high an authority as the hon. and learned Gentleman an expression of opinion that there can be combinations of landlords for the protection of their rights.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: No doubt that is so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In my judgment, the Amendment is one which, even if it were carried, the tenants would not be able to put in operation. The landlords have the appointment of the Resident Magistrates, practically speaking, and naturally the magistrates would not put this section into operation against their patrons, even if they had the power. However, I did think that we should have had from Her Majesty's Government some expression of disapproval of the practice on the part of some landlords of preventing tenants from availing themselves of the right to sea-wrack and bog. The difficulty that I see with regard to all those Amendments—though I quite approve of their object—is this, that if we passed 50 of them we should not derive any benefit, because the magistrates in the districts will be the landlords' henchmen, and will not carry out the clause against them. I do not regret the refusal of the Amendment by the Government, because even if it had been accepted, it would never have been put into operation, but would have been wrested in some way by the landlords against the tenants, I trust my hon. Friend will not persist in his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), I beg to move the insertion of the Amendment which stands in his name—namely, after "land," in line 20, to add "within such proclaimed district." I propose this Amendment, because I think the section should only apply to the criminal conspiracies specified when they take place within the proclaimed districts.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, after "land," insert "within such proclaimed district."—(Mr. T.M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I cannot accept this Amendment, as it would involve the manifest absurdity of excepting from the operation of the clause a conspiracy in a proclaimed district to commit an offence just outside that district. It is neces-

  747
  sary to retain the clause as drafted in order to maintain the efficiency of this section.
  MR. CHANCE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says he cannot accept the Amendment, because it is necessary to protect the efficiency of the powers of Section 1. This is the argument upon which the Amendment is based, that you declare that it is only necessary to protect people within certain defined limits from illegal acts, or, rather, from acts against which by singularly unconstitutional methods you desire to afford protection. The presumption is that you wish to leave persons outside those proclaimed districts to the adequate protection of the ordinary law. It is for that reason why I do not see that a conspiracy within a proclaimed district to commit acts which are not in themselves illegal outside that district should be punished as are offences specially legislated for in the case of proclaimed districts.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsupported the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I maintain that the magistrates in Cork should not have power to deal with a conspiracy in Donegal—that they should not have power to bring to Cork a man from Donegal, or send to Donegal a man from Cork. The Act reads—"Any person who shall commit any of the following offences in a proclaimed district, etc.," and amongst the offences is a criminal conspiracy. Well, a conspiracy may take place in an organization having branches at Cork, at Donegal, and elsewhere. Is it to be permitted that a man can be brought from Donegal to Cork simply because he belongs to an association which has a branch in each place? If the section is allowed to stand as framed you might have witnesses dragged all over the country. There is some confidence in the Common Law as it exists at present, for in those conspiracy cases which were committed in Galway, Monaghan, Clare, and Kerry, the defendants were tried in Dublin, and which, of course, involved considerable expense in railway fares and so on; but if you are to have people dragged indiscriminately all over the country, the effect will be infinitely worse.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I am afraid there is an idea that there is some virtue in a Proclamation; but no earthly good would
  748
  be gained by carrying this Amendment, because the Proclamation would be widened so as to include both the conspiracy and the land. I do not see that the adoption of this Amendment would promote the object for which it is moved. Looking at the matter in the best way I can, it seems to me desirable to have the Proclamation issued in as limited a manner as possible. I think, therefore, that this Amendment should be withdrawn.
  MR. CHANCE: The Proclamation must be issued by the Lord Lieutenant in a certain manner, and we have yet to discuss what the Proclamation shall be, and whether or not it shall be under the control of Parliament. My hon. Friend is prejudging this matter, and has taken upon himself to suppose that it will be competent for the authorities to enlarge the area covered by the Proclamation as they choose. If we decide that the Proclamations are to be under the control of Parliament, this will be impossible. The case of the Government is that in certain disturbed districts it is necessary to protect people by extreme methods. Admitting this case, I say that the real danger of conspiracy is to be found where the conspiracy can become effective for some particular object. If the land in respect of which a conspiracy is on foot is not in a proclaimed district, but in a peaceful district, then I say that a conspiracy fructifying into crime should be tried, not by this extraordinary summary jurisdiction, but by an ordinary Court of Law. I say it is reasonable, if we are to have special Courts of Inquiry under this Bill, that we should only have them to try offences that occur in specially proclaimed districts. They should not trench upon the ordinary law until the ordinary law has been found insufficient. I say that the Government should not, under cover of protecting people in a disturbed and proclaimed district from an offence, punish offences committed in a peaceful district where, according to their own showing—that is to say, by the absence of a Proclamation—the ordinary Courts of Law are sufficient for the maintenance of law and order.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move, after "land," in line 20, to insert "dealt with in the Land Act of 1881." This

  749
  Amendment is put down by me, because the Government have been saying that the character of the trouble in Ireland is agrarian, and that if the agrarian difficulty were got rid of there would be no trouble in Ireland. I propose, therefore, that they should deal with nothing that is not agrarian—that the clause shall not have a wider application than the clauses of the Act of 1881. I cannot see that the Government can have any difficulty in accepting the Amendment, as the Act of 1881 applies to all land that is a source of trouble and annoyance in Ireland. There may be land on which houses are built in towns, and common lands, to which this section would apply without this modification. But I think the land subject to the jurisdiction of the magistrates should be such land as forms a portion of that which you yourselves say makes the agrarian difficulty in Ireland.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, after "land," insert "dealt with in the Land Act of 1881."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HOLMES: I cannot agree to accept this Amendment, as it would leave untouched the Boycotting of grazing land taken for the summer months. The clause would not be sufficiently stringent if it were a mere reproduction of the corresponding clause in the Act of 1882.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, after "land," to leave out from "or" to "occupation" in line 21. The words I propose to leave out are—
  "Or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation."
  These words deal with a difficulty which is shortly expressed in the word '' Boycotting," and that is the point to which I wish to attract observation. I think the offence of Boycotting is sufficiently dealt with and met by the second subsection of this clause. The matter is not one with which we are dealing for the first time. Boycotting has been in existence since the year 1879, when the word was coined, I think; and in the year 1882, when the Government of the
  750
  day were passing the Crimes Bill, they most carefully considered this matter, and framed a clause of their Bill which they considered amply sufficient to deal with it—namely, the Intimidation Clause, which Her Majesty's Government have adopted almost in identical terms in Subsection 2 of this clause. The point I make is this—that if the powers taken in 1882 were sufficient for the Government of that day to suppress Boycotting, the Government of to-day, who profess that this Bill is a milder measure than the Crimes Act, ought to be content with similar powers, neither more nor less. Her Majesty's Government have not made up their minds as to this question of Boycotting. Lord Salisbury told us that no legislation could put down Boycotting; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us on the second reading of this Bill that the Crimes Act did put down Boycotting, and that three months after the lapse of that Act Boycotting was introduced to some fabulous extent. I must assume that the latter opinion, being the more recent, expresses the mature view of the Government. If they consider that the powers taken in the Crimes Act were effective and sufficient for the purpose of putting down Boycotting, and if this is a milder measure than the Bill of 1882, why are they not content to introduce into this Bill the same provisions, no more and no less, than the Government of the day introduced into the Act of 1882? Let me point out that Subsection 2, as it stands at present, is amply sufficient to meet any difficulty that can be said to arise, and the Government can have no apprehension that its scope will be cut down by the tribunal to which they hand over its administration with such confidence. I remember, under the Act of 1882, defending a number of persons against the charge of intimidation under the clause to which I refer; and I remember one case where I appealed from two Resident Magistrates to the County Court Judge, and where we solemnly discussed the whole question of Subsection 2 for two days, the Judge reserving his judgment, and telling us on the next day that, in his opinion, the effect of this sub-section was that no one in Ireland could go anywhere and open his mouth to deal with any aspect of the agrarian difficulty, no matter how mild

  751
  the language he employed, without running himself into the meshes of this clause. He told us that while this clause was in force every man who spoke on a platform in Ireland without having a lawyer at his elbow ran a great risk of making the acquaintance of a plank bed, and thereupon he sentenced my client to two months' imprisonment. Now, that being so, the wording of this Subsection 2 being of such a searching character, what more can the Government possibly want? Is there any possible phase of this Boycotting difficulty which is not met by either of the portions of this Sub-section 2. It makes it illegal, with violence or intimidation, to compel any person to do any act which he has a legal right to do, or a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which he has a legal right to do, and it makes it illegal to use violence or intimidation towards a person, in consequence either of his having done any act which he had a legal right to do, or of his having abstained from doing any act which he had a legal right to abstain from doing. That covers every conceivable case which can possibly arise under this offence of intimidation. That being so, I ask cannot the Government be content with the enormous power which this sub-clause gives them? What case have they made out for a more stringent enactment dealing with the subject of Boycotting than was made out in 1882 by the late Government when they were passing the Crimes Bill? They have not contended that the clause in the Crimes Act was found inefficient in any way. They have not ventured to offer any illustration, or give any instances, in which the clause contained in that Act was not amply sufficient for every purpose in dealing with those offences; and, that being so, I say that they are exceeding the bounds of moderation in not being content with this very searching clause of the Act of 1882, and in taking up, under this clause dealing with conspiracy, fresh powers to enable them to deal with the very same class of offences. I think that is the view under which we may properly ask the Committee to omit these words which I here propose to leave out. I cannot expect the Government to agree with the reason that it is monstrous to bring up every person against whom even a whisper of Boy-
  752
  cotting is heard, and try them before the sort of drum-head tribunal proposed in this clause. I, therefore, address to the Government a reason drawn from their own Bill which they may fairly be expected to consider, and attach some weight to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, after "land," leave out from "or," to "occupation" in line 21.—(Mr. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I quite agree that, if we could assent to the argument of the hon. Member—namely, that there is no necessity to go beyond the Act of 1882; that there will be no necessity for the introduction of these words. But we have over and over again pointed out, and we maintain the same ground now, that in our view there are important matters which it is essential to prevent, with which the Act of 1882 did not deal. It may be—and this is one of the arguments—that there may not be individual intimidation; but persons may meet together, and, without performing the acts themselves, may provide money or inducements or adopt other measures commonly practised by associations to compel, or induce others to take the steps complained of. I think it is desirable to have regard to these matters of conspiracy, and therefore I hold that the Act of 1882 is not sufficient.
  MR. MOLLOY: If these words in Sub-section 2 did not include the cases the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to then I could quite understand the objection to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I think the words "now punishable by law" have very little meaning or protection as to this clause, because, under the judgment of Lord Fitzgerald, we know perfectly well that the words "now punishable by law" really amount to no protection at all. I would draw the attention of the Attorney General to two of the words it is proposed to strike out—namely, "work for." Now, to compel or induce anyone not to "work for" a person goes a great deal further than the circumstances of the case would seem to require according to the argument of the Attorney General. Under the words

  753
  in this clause if a certain number of workmen induce their fellow workmen—not by intimidation, not by violence or threats, but merely induce—not to work for their employer because of some legitimate reason, they will be punishable under this clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. I know that, according to his argument, that would not be so, and if the word "compel" stood alone I should agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman; but we have here the word "induce," about which there has been a great deal of argument, and that makes all the difference in the world. Under the word "induce" there may be legitimate reasons for one workman trying to influence another, and under the clause as it stands the magistrates—nay, even under the judgment of Lord Fitzgerald at the present moment, the magistrates will be entitled to say that inducement brought to bear upon a body of men not to continue working for their employer will be subject to the penal consequences attached to this clause. Under the Act of 1882 Boycotting is dealt with under the head of intimidation. Acts which are calculated to put any person in fear were condemned, and the same result might be efficiently attained by adhering simply to the word "intimidation" in this clause. The definition of the word "intimidation" at the end of the Bill would be sufficient protection; but as you have deliberately refused to put in intimidation, and give the protection which is conveyed in the definition of the word at the end of the Bill, I think I am perfectly entitled to say that any mere trades unionism, in the legitimate sense in which it has been explained in this House over and over again, would bring those indulging in it under the provisions of this Bill. The Government do not want to accept this Amendment, because they want to go a great deal further than is expressed in the words of the measure. But, at any rate, I am glad that a protest has been made, because, if it does nothing else, it will enable us to refer to the attitude of the Irish Representatives in any action we may have to take in the future—it may justify us in the position we may have to assume before the Resident Magistrates.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask the Government what is the use of their
  754
  putting in this sub-section? It is absolutely useless. You have in a subsequent sub-section the words "Any person who shall wrongfully and without legal authority use violence or intimidation." Your word "intimidation" there covers the whole thing. You say any person who shall do this to a person to make him do an act which he has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing an act which he has a legal right to do shall be summarily prosecuted. Well, to intimidate a person to abstain from doing that which he has a legal right to do covers the words that it is proposed to leave out—namely—
  "Not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persona in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation."
  I may be told that, in the one case, the offence is conspiracy, and in the other it is not; but, surely, all you want to do is to punish the offender, and why should you not effect your object in the easiest manner? This drafting is perfectly absurd; all the filigree work of your draftsmen here is absolutely needless, so far as your Resident Magistrates, who will have to administer this measure, are concerned. Do the Government think that they can reach, under the words proposed to be left out, persons whom they could not reach under the 2nd sub-section—do they desire to punish men under the Conspiracy Clause for doing that which, if done by each man singly, would be perfectly legal? Suppose a man goes round to a village to sell his cow, and he cannot get anyone to buy it, is every person who refuses to buy it to be punishable under this section?—because there is your conspiracy at once. You have all conspired not to buy the cow. That appears to me to be perfectly absurd. Yet that seems to me to be what the clause provides for, for it says—
  "To induce any person or persons not to fulfil his or their legal obligations, and not to deal with anyone in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation."
  That takes in absolutely everything. I am entitled to buy my cows from whom I like; but under this section I may be punished for agreeing not to buy them from a certain individual. Am I to be told that the Government are to forestal the market, so to speak—to rigg the market—in the interests of particular

  755
  persons? If a landlord sends his pigs into the market and fails to get a purchaser, are you going to punish everyone who refuses to buy except at their own price? That is what the clause really comes to. The idea in this clause that it is to be a criminal act ''not to deal with" a person is most grotesque. Lord Salisbury's speeches are stuck up in letters of gold, I presume, at your firesides. If you read them, you will see that he says that you cannot, by legislation, interfere with Boycotting. He says that you cannot compel people to associate with a man—that if a man goes into church, and the other people present do not desire his society, no Act of Parliament that you can pass can compel them to pray with him. But apply this clause in this way, and you will see how iniquitous it is. If a man has cattle to sell, under the ordinary law you cannot compel people to buy them; but under this clause you will be able to do so. They may refuse to "deal" with him, and "deal" means "buy." Do let the Government consider well our proposal so far, at least, as "deal" is concerned. This word seems to me a repeating-rifle sort of thing—or rather, I should say, it is a grape-shot—it hits everywhere. To compel a man to sell you the necessaries of life is a very different thing from compelling a man to buy them, and yet that is what this section effects. It goes up and down—it affects buying as well as selling. It is absurd to say even that Boycotting ever prevented persons from purchasing. Even the Primrose League does not prevent people from purchasing from their own political friends. You can always buy from people of your own way of thinking; but compel persons to sell things if you like; do not say, however, that I must deal with a certain person. I will not. I will not buy anything because it is the landlord's—whether it is his pigs or potatoes, unless, indeed, I can get them at my own price. Why do not you pass an Act saying that these things shall be sold at such a price, and that if that price is not given it will be intimidation or conspiracy. I say this word "deal"—and you should add "or sell"—is a preposterous thing to put into this section. You may make a man sell, but to compel a man to buy is a thing that all the King's horses and all the King'3 men cannot make him do. He
  756
  may have no money—he may plead the Bankruptcy Clauses of your Land Bill. I do ask the Solicitor General for England to make some statement on this matter, to give us his view of the section, and tell us what it means.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. E. T. REID&c.): I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) is not here for the purpose of moving the Amendment in his name, to which he attaches, and I think many of us attach, great importance. In his absence he has asked me to move the Amendment on his behalf. I wish to say that the object of the Amendment is to prevent that which is unquestionably an evil in Ireland. The object we have in view is to enable the tenant-farmers in that unhappy country to know the landmarks by which they may distinguish between lawful combination, as far as this Act is concerned, and combination within its meshes. I know it may be said that some forms of combination may be crime for summary punishment; but we say give us some idea of what that crime is, however imperfect, by which the tenants may know how they can keep outside the penalties of the Bill. This subject has already been, to some extent, discussed on an Amendment already brought forward, and in that which I have to say I shall endeavour to avoid going over the old ground, although it is impossible absolutely to avoid going over it. There have been several Amendments proposed tending in this direction. Among others an attempt was made to provide that no combination should be punishable unless the means used were violence and intimidation; it was also proposed that the clause should be limited to cases of compulsion. These Amendments have not been accepted. We are, therefore, now practically fighting in the last ditch, and, perhaps, I may say without any great hope of success, but still with the view of making clear the point at issue between the Government and ourselves. I propose that in the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction that one man should not be punished for doing a thing which is innocent in the eye of the Criminal Law, merely because some other person combines with him to do the same thing—that unless the

  757
  means employed, or the thing aimed at. constitute a crime, persons should not be punishable for combining together. Now, there are some peculiarities I desire shortly to touch upon in the law of Ireland, with regard to conspiracy, contained in a few sentences in a summing up of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, which distinguish the law of England from the law of Ireland, that is to say, so far as I know the law of England. I think no Judge in recent times has ever put in England the Law of Conspiracy to anything like the same use as that to which it has been put in the case of "The Queen v. Parnell." That learned Judge pointed out in that important trial that conspiracy consists in an agreement by two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do an act by unlawful means. I would point out that by the term "unlawful" it is not intended to confine the meaning of the term unlawful to what is in itself criminal. The learned Judge says—
  "If, for instance, a tenant withholds his rent, it is a violation of the right of the landlord; but it would not he a criminal act in a tenant, though it would be a violation of a right; but if two or more agree to do that act there would be a criminal act."
  I think it follows, from the law as here laid down, that it is possible, according to Irish Law, that there should be a conspiracy punishable which does not in any way involve a criminal object. Such a conspiracy might compass an unlawful end; but it is no more criminal than my refusal to carry out a bargain I may make with a cabdriver. There is one other matter referred to in the same judgment—namely, the extreme ease with which evidence is received in cases of this kind. The Judge said—
  "I have to inform you that in the law of conspiracy there is no necessity that there should be an express act of conspiracy, but that the parties might then and there personally attempt to carry out the alleged purpose. It might be that the conspirators have never seen each other, and yet at law they are parties in a criminal proceeding."
  That decision will not, I think, be disputed to be the Law of Ireland at the present time; and I say it has never been equalled and never rivalled by any decision in England of the like severity. It must, however, be remembered that this will be the Law of Conspiracy in Ireland before whatever tribunal a case arising out of the Act may come. Now let
  758
  me apply that to the payment of rent. There is a land war going on at the present time in Ireland. Let me suppose that 40 or 50 tenants on an estate did not pay the rent. Then if it can be inferred that there was combination among them not to pay rent, that would be a criminal conspiracy according to the law of Ireland; and, further, it will not be necessary to show, in order to insure conviction according to the judgment of Lord Fitzgerald, that they have put their heads together or even that they are acquainted with one another; and notwithstanding that it is possible they may be found guilty because they have done a criminal act. This is the consequence I wish to avoid under this Bill, and if I am right in the view I take—namely, that this judgment of Judge Fitzgerald is the law, will the Government explain how it is that they can contend unless the present Proviso be adopted, that tenants, combining for the purpose of refusing to pay rent, which may be an unjust rent, are free from the meshes of this clause, or in other words, how this clause will not be available for the purpose of imposing criminal consequences upon the non-discharge of civil liabilities, a policy which I believe has been universally condemned? Whatever any man may think with reference to the propriety of refusing to pay rent, and I have never defended the non-payment of rent if honest and fair, no one can say that the non-payment of rent is criminal, and it is an abuse of language to speak of it as either a crime or an offence of such a character as deserves to be treated in an exceptional manner. I have referred to the fact that there is in Ireland a land war. It is a war, a contest, or conflict substantially of the same character as that which was waged in England between employers of labour and those persons who work for wages. The difficulty which existed in that case was solved in 1875 by a clause exactly the same as that which I am moving on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend. There must be Gentlemen in this House who recollect a keen, legal, and social contest waged around that question, and how it was settled by declaring that if there was intimidation, if there was violence or undue compulsion, then the law might interfere in a criminal way; but if there was persuasion or the

  759
  mere pressure of social exclusion, then the law would be prevented from interfering. In the Act of 1875 the following section was introduced to regulate the relations between workmen and their employers. It was to the effect that an agreement or combination between two or more persons to do, or procure to be done, any act in furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen, should not be indictable as conspiracy, if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime. Now, the similar clause which I am about to move, and which, mutatis mutandis, will be identical in principle is this—
  "Provided that an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or not to do, or procure to be done or not to be done, any of the matters aforesaid, shall not be punishable under this section as a crime if such doing or not doing by one person would not be punishable as a crime according to the existing law."
  The parallel is absolutely complete, so far as the principle of the proposed clause is concerned, and I desire to point out why the parallel of circumstances is substantially identical. It has been said by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann) and other Gentlemen in the course of this debate, that there is a great difference between the two cases, inasmuch as in the case of those who are tenants in Ireland they would retain possession of the land, which, it is said, belongs to the landlord. Now, it is undoubtedly the case that they would retain possession of the land; but that does not make any difference at all. To begin with, the land is partially the property of the tenants, and therefore not exclusively the property of the landlords; but to rely upon that is to rely on a method of argument which utterly destroys all chance of arriving at a satisfactory analogy between the two cases. What I have heard with regard to trade disputes is, that you have a large number of poor people who have a struggle between themselves on a point in which they are mutually interested. That being so, I am unable to see what is the difference between these two classes. Now, in justice to the proposal which I present to the Committee, I appeal to non. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly to those of them who are willing, if they can, to prevent this Bill being made the means of wresting from the tenants of Ireland rents which they can-
  760
  not pay, that while fighting intimidation, fighting violence, still more fighting against crime, that they should not allow this law of conspiracy to be so worked as to impose on the breach of a civil obligation the penalties attaching to a criminal offence. There is one other proposal in the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend on which I wish to address to the Committee a very few words. It is the second Proviso of the Amendment—
  "That this sub-section shall not be held or construed to create any new crime, and no person shall be punishable for conspiracy thereunder, unless it be proved that the purpose of such conspiracy was cither (1) the commission of a crime, or (2) the attainment of some object by means which are criminal according to the existing law."
  Now, as far as the first part of the second Proviso is concerned, I dare say it will be said that it has already been met by the words of the Amendment of the Attorney General for England; but I desire to point out to the Government that if they wish to try to meet Members who have honest objections to this Bill, they should admit such words as are in the first line of this Proviso, which make clear what we think is doubtful, and which, according to their own Law Officers, cannot affect the clause. This would limit the application of the punishment under the clause to every conspiracy which either attains, or seeks to attain, a criminal end, or seeks to attain a lawful end by criminal means. If this Bill be a Bill for the suppression of these crimes, surely it is never intended to leave the definition of them to the new tribunal. We are not seeking to codify the law in any sense; we are only trying to limit that part of the law which is to be entrusted to a strange and novel jurisdiction. The ground on which I press this on the Government finally is this, as I have said before, that this is a case in which, unless great care be taken, it is most likely that the operation of the new jurisdiction will be to do that which is contrary to the principles of the Trades Unions Act, and, as I think, to the principles of Common Law generally—namely, to interfere by means of the Criminal Law between two parties to a civil contract, one of whom is alleged to have broken his contract.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 22, after the word "Law," to insert the words—"Provided that an agree-

  761
  ment or combination by two or more persons to do or not to do, or to procure to be done or not to be done, any of the matters aforesaid, shall not be punishable under this section as a crime if such doing or not doing by one person would not be punishable as a crime according to the existing Law.
  "Provided further, that this sub-section shall not be held or construed to create any new crime, and no person shall be punishable for conspiracy thereunder, unless it be proved that the purpose of such conspiracy was either (1) the commission of a crime, or (2) the attainment of some object by means which are criminal according to the existing Law."—(Mr. Robert Reid.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries will remember that he has in the course of his observations referred to the fact that the Law of Conspiracy has already been treated of in the progress of this Committee. I think we have had four or five discussions on the subject, and under the circumstances the Committee will not, perhaps, be surprised if the Government do not propose to reiterate the arguments they have already put forward. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made an observation which has more than once been made in the course of this debate—namely, that the Law of Conspiracy in Ireland seems to differ from the Law of Conspiracy in England. Now I have on one or two occasions denied that position, and I must deny it again. Of course the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that the law of the two countries is theoretically the same with reference to this matter. The Common Law of the two countries is the same, and any decision given in England would be received and quoted in the Courts of Law in Ireland. But, as far as I can gather from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the suggestion that there is a difference between the laws of the two countries is to be deduced from some observations taken hero and there in the charge to the jury by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald in the case of "The Queen v. Parnell." Now I remind the Committee that those utterances of the Judge were not the final judgment upon any specific point of law raised before him. The charge was a long one, lasting over some hours, and the report which was in the paper was, I believe, never corrected by
  762
  the Judge himself. It is, no doubt, quite possible to take two or three sentences from a charge of that length and derive a meaning from them which would be entirely different from that which was in the mind of the Judge. It is necessary to look at the whole of the charge, and I contend that the instructions given to the jury by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald and Mr. Justice Barry were precisely similar to that which would have been given by any Judge in England. And it amounts to this—that, if the evidence produced in that case is to be accepted, it is quite sufficient to constitute a criminal conspiracy according to the law of England; and I think if the hon. and learned Member would read the evidence he would, beyond all doubt, come to the conclusion that if that evidence were true the crime of conspiracy had been committed. He has referred to two particular points which were dealt with by the learned Judge. The first was the proposition that if two or more persons combine to do a certain act they might be guilty of criminal conspiracy, although if one person committed the act he would be guilty of no offence whatever. Now I do not think you can find anything in any interpretation of the English Law of Conspiracy which would show that that is not in harmony with the English Law. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that if there be a combination among men to make property perfectly useless to the owner, and they determine to carry out the intention so that it shall be useless, the combination ought to be punishable. Therefore it seems to me that the proposition laid down is in entire accordance with English Law. The other point in which the hon. and learned Member found fault with the statement of the learned Judge was that persons might be held to be engaged in a conspiracy with people whose names they did not know and whom they had never seen. Now, I think that is also a proposition for which there will be found to be foundation in the law. I gather from the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the law of Ireland was the same as the law of England his objection to the clause would not exist, or, at all events, not exist to such a degree as it does now. The hon. and learned Member has argued that it was reasonable to insert

  763
  the clause of the Trades Unions Act of 1875 into this Bill, and there I differ from the hon. and learned Member again, and for the reason that it seems to me that the conditions are essentially different. In a Trade Union dispute the workmen merely combine in reference to a matter primâ facie under their control—that is to say, their own labour in the future, whereas here the combination is with regard to something—namely, the land which, as the hon. and learned Member himself has admitted, belongs partly to the landlord. But even on the theory of dual ownership, the tenants' ownership can only exist as long as he fulfils a particular obligation. The combinations in Ireland refer to the land, which, according to the hon. and learned Member's argument belongs to two parties, and the tenants combine together for the purpose of retaining the whole of it for themselves. That seems to make the difference between the two cases complete and to leave no analogy between the case dealt with by the Act of 1875 and the present case. As far as I can judge, the first part of the Amendment of the hon. and. learned Member is already in our Bill by the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. As far as the 2nd section of the Amendment is concerned, we can say no more than that we define in the Bill the object of the conspiracy, not attempting to codify the means of aiming at such object in any way. Having given our reasons why we cannot admit the Proviso of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I venture to express a hope that the rest of the discussion may be taken as quickly as possible.
  MR. WADDY: The statement, which has been made by the Attorney General for Ireland by way of answer to my hon. and learned Friend, is that this particular section applies to land and does not apply to work. It must have escaped entirely the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, that one of the very things provided for by the section to which this addition is proposed to be made, is exactly the same as is the subject to which reference has been made, both by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. E. T. Reid) and the Attorney General for Ireland. It is not a question
  764
  of land alone. The Bill has these words "or not to deal with, work for or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation."
  MR. HOLMES: As far as the law with regard to Trade Unions is concerned, there is a special section in the Bill with reference to that.
  MR. WADDY: That is not all the question. What I am endeavouring to point out is, that in order to make an argument against the clause we are told that this is only an Act relating to matters connected with land. That I deny, and say that directly we come to Section 7 of the Appendix, we find it is not to apply to land only, but also to matters of trade. Therefore, I say that the whole argument of the Attorney General for Ireland falls to the ground at once. But this is not the real question; the difficulty we feel, and in respect of which we cannot get any answer, is much broader and wider. It is that this Law of Conspiracy is one of the most objectionable, doubtful, and dangerous branches of our law which we have been endeavouring for years for the purpose of this country and Ireland also to get within due limits, as far as it is possible, to define it. And now you are proposing to establish a now series of offences, and when you establish those offences and bring them within the reach of this exceedingly dangerous branch of law you refuse to define what they are. It is a principle that every penal Statute shall be construed as strictly as possible, and when we ask you to do that, we are told in almost so many words that you really will not do it; that it is not safe, and that you decline to codify the law. No one wants you to codify the law. If you were dealing with the whole law you might say that, but you are here dealing with only part of it. You are now establishing an entirely new set of offences, and when we ask for a clear and definite statement of what these offences are, we cannot get them defined. I wish to point out that the real danger arises very much from the forum before which these matters are to be tried. You have quoted one paragraph from the very learned work of a learned friend of mine, which is cited against us constantly in a very learned fashion—
  "But let me remind you that it is true there may be oases in which acts done by several

  765
  persons under agreement ought to be punished, although the same acts ought not to be punished if done without agreement."
  We agree; but the paragraph which follows is one which you seem to forget. It is to the effect, that these offences ought to be specifically and carefully defined. Now this is the one thing which I want to drive home; you will not define the offence; you will not allow these people in Ireland to know when they are in danger; you are going to establish a new jurisdiction of a novel character before which these offences are to be tried, and that is why we call upon you to let them know where they are going wrong. We are told that it is very difficult to codify the law, and yet these extraordinary difficulties are thrown in the way of our carrying out this improvement. We are told by an eminent authority that there is great danger in this law and the working of it, lest the Judge should be tempted to declare it a criminal offence to combine to do anything which is opposed to his political or social views. When we know that this is recognized by trained lawyers and Judges, and when we know that you are going to leave the clause in the hands of Resident Magistrates, then I think it is really too bad, seeing that time after time we have asked you to throw something like a lighten the subject, that the Government should say—"You have asked for it before, but we cannot give it." But, inasmuch as this is a new Statute from beginning to end, we shall continue to ask, perhaps in vain, for such information as is necessary for us to understand your Bill, and particularly on behalf of those persons who are to be ruled by it.
  MR. HUNTER: This is one of the Amendments to the Bill which it may be said will divide the sheep from the goats; it will distinguish between those who are prepared to support a measure for putting down crime, and those who are prepared to support a measure for putting down the tenant farmers in Ireland. It is an Amendment which raises a principle incontestable in itself, and which, I venture to say, is one that is not in harmony with the best part of English Law. Mr. Wright's book has often been referred to in the course of this discussion, and I am surprised that the Government have not learned a lesson from that book. Mr.
  766
  Wright shows that there is no such thing as Common Law conspiracy in the sense in which Common Law is generally understood; he shows, also, beyond the shadow of doubt, that conspiracy was developed by the Star Chamber, and that it was not a part of the Common Law. This is not the first time that the House of Commons has had before it the subject of conspiracy. It has been before the House on its merits when it was raised without any Party feeling or any sinister object and viewed purely as a question of law. The question was raised by the Conservative Government in 1880, and what were the provisions with regard to conspiracy which the Conservative Government proposed as a codification of the English Law? This will be found in Sections 361–2 of the Criminal Code introduced by Sir John Holker, the Attorney General for England in 1880. Now, these provisions are very remarkable, because they are provisions which are drawn on the line of Mr. Wright's book; they are provisions which are entirely in harmony with this Amendment, and if the Government would accept them in substitution for their criminal clauses in the present Bill, I venture to say there would be very little difficulty in carrying the Bill through the House. Clause 360 of Sir John Holker's Bill provides that everyone is guilty of crime and liable to five years' penal servitude who conspires with any persons to commit any crime punishable with penal servitude. The second clause provides that conspiracy to do what is not punishable with penal servitude shall be visited with a penalty of two years' imprisonment. Beyond these, the only provision was to deal with conspiring to prevent the collection of rates or taxes; everyone was to be guilty of crime, and liable to two years' imprisonment who conspires to prevent the collection of rates and taxes, the levying or collection of which is authorized by law. With that provision also we do not quarrel. These are the things which the Tory Government of 1880 specified in bringing before this House in a codified form, what they considered to be the Law of Conspiracy, and I think they have there an example which they will be doing well to follow in the present case. But they have not done this for a reason which we can all understand, a reason which I have stated to be, that this Bill

  767
  is not intended to put down crime, but is a Tory measure to aid the landlords in extorting exorbitant rents.
  MR. HENBY H. FOWLER: I am sorry to see that the Government are disposed to reply to this Amendment by silence. I can quite understand that there have been Amendments put forward in the course of the Committee stage on this Bill with regard to which the Government would be justified in at once announcing their decision, and asking the Committee to divide upon the question; but this, I think, perhaps, is the most important Amendment which has been moved upon this clause, and possibly the most important Amendment to the clause on the Paper. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would consider this case a little more fully than, perhaps, he has hitherto done, and not ask the Committee to come to a decision simply upon the non possumus of the Attorney General for Ireland? I am not going to discuss the Law of Conspiracy, which has, no doubt, been fully discussed on recent occasions; but it was hardly fair, on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland, to say that this is the same question which has been raised over and over again. I do not think it is. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), which was moved with so great ability by him, assumes the law to be what the Attorney General for Ireland says it is; it takes it for granted that the law is the same in Ireland as in England. It is not the argument that the law is to be altered; my hon. and learned Friend says that in England there is a protection afforded against the unjust application of the law in certain cases, and the purpose of this Amendment is to ask that that protection may be afforded in Ireland. We are agreed with reference to the first great principle of the Law of Conspiracy—namely, that it is conspiring unlawfully to do an unlawful thing; that the second is conspiring unlawfully to do a lawful thing; and then there is the third distinction, of which we have heard so much lately—the combination of two or more persons to do a thing which would not be unlawful if done by one singly. We do not dispute the law. I will not argue Judge Fitzgerald's charge; but we say that in England, after a long
  768
  and protracted struggle, a protection has been given against an unfair application of the Law of Conspiracy to a specific class of persons dealing with their own industry, and we ask that the same protection should be given in Ireland. I would put this case before the Chief Secretary, because it is one which was set up by a great authority on this question. He said, on this question, that the sub-section which was then before the Committee assumed that to be a crime which was not a crime—namely, a combination to effect a breach of contract. Upon that point at the time the whole Liberal agitation turned. The workmen claimed the right to break their contract singly and jointly, and to induce others to do the like, subject only to proceedings which might be taken in a Civil Court. Now that is precisely the case of the tenants in Ireland; they claim the right to break their contract singly, and induce others to do the like. This was the very question afterwards successfully dealt with in the House of Commons by the efforts of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) and the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and others. The principle was accepted by the Conservative Government, and the legislation was embodied in the Act of 1875. It was admitted on all hands, notably by the Conservative Government, and particularly by Sir Richard Cross, that the law which made breach of contract criminal did not apply as against workmen. We say that the principal, almost the sole, industry in Ireland is the cultivation of land, and that it is just as much a staple as the manufacture of cotton in Lancashire; and iron in Staffordshire, and that the workmen in Ireland are entitled to the same protection in Ireland in respect of their combinations to keep up the value of their labour as the workmen engaged in England in those industries. An hon. Member opposite said the other night that the difference between the two classes was, that in Ireland the men were working with somebody else's property, whereas in England they were working with their own. The Attorney General for Ireland said just now that a man had a right to make what terms he could with reference to his own labour, but that it does not apply to the price which

  769
  a man pays for the use of land. My hon. and learned Friend pointed to the dual ownership of land in Ireland; but I do not think that that does much to strengthen the case; I think the argument would be as strong without that. I think where you have an industry which cannot be made valuable without the labour of another, it would be right to bring it under this clause. But the question in England was not with regard to the man's own wages, it was with regard to the wages of other people. What was done in England was not to establish the right to protect their own contracts, but the right to induce others to break theirs. The principle of strikes is this—the employer wants to reduce wages; there are always a number of men who are willing to go on at the reduced wages; but the heads of the industry say no, it is the interest of the class that we should not have the wages reduced; and therefore they apply strong measures in their own interests in order to compel their fellow-workmen not to work at the rate of wages which the majority judge to be inimical to the trade. It was under those circumstances that the Legislature stepped in and said that the men should not be punished for the act of combination. Sir James Stephen has well put this case. He said that the Act of 1875 protects all combinations in furtherance of trade disputes, and with respect to such questions, provided positively that no crime should be treated as indictable conspiracy, unless the Act agreed upon would be criminal if done by a single person. That is what Sir James Stephen sums up as the law of this country in reference to trade disputes, and that is what we ask shall be the law in reference to these land disputes in Ireland. If the act is a criminal one between men, let it be criminally dealt with. We do not say a word against that. That is not our meaning; but we do mean that where it is a case of simple combination to break a contract, then we say unless that offence is not criminal if committed by one man, it is unfair and unjust to make it criminal when done by four, five, or 20 men in combination. Now, I ask the Government for a moment to strip this question of a good deal of the prejudice which has been involved in it. I ask the Government to agree that the tenants of Ireland, who work with the raw
  770
  material of land, should have the same protection which after a long struggle was granted to the workmen in England. The Act of 1875 has been found to work well in this country. There have since that Act was passed been fewer strikes, and a better state of feeling between the employers and workmen; and therefore I hope that the Government will look at this question from a statesmanlike point of view, and not strain the Bill into an instrument of oppression for the enforcement of civil contracts.
  THE CHIEF SECERTARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The circumstances which the right hon. Member has referred to as the reason for the passing of the Act of 1875 are not, in my opinion, analogous to the present position in Ireland. The ground of adoption of the principle of the Act was that, by a series of judgments in Court, and the unfortunate extension of the law in England, the Law of Conspiracy was made to apply in a very harsh manner to the case of the workmen; and what you have to show is that there is some corresponding extension which has been found to be unfair to the tenants of Ireland, and if that were proved to have taken place, there would be something in the contention of the right hon. Gentleman. We say there is no such analogy or extension with regard to the tenants in Ireland; and it is on that ground that we refuse to make this an opportunity for either altering or codifying the Law of Conspiracy. If it had been shown that the Law of Conspiracy had been interpreted either by Irish or English Courts harshly, and was of an oppressive character, then as I have said, there would have been more strength in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman; but there has been no such attempt. I admit we should be most cautious in dealing with the Law of Conspiracy at all; but as we do not attempt that, the right hon. Member must allow us to pursue what we consider to be the expedient course of leaving the Law of Conspiracy as it is, because there has been no adequate reason for engaging in the Herculean task of codification.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think the right hon. Gentleman is capable of being answered in a single sentence. He said if it were a fact that

  771
  the Irish Law of Conspiracy had been proved to be as harsh towards the tenants in Ireland as the English Law has been to the workmen in England, that then there ought to be protection given. I take that to be his proposition. But the Law of Conspiracy has not hitherto acted harshly towards the tenants in Ireland, because they have had the protection of trial by jury. Whatever doc-trine the Judges may have laid down on this subject, it was necessary that when a harsh interpretation was placed upon the law that it should come before a jury. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that English Judges have put a harsh interpretation on the law, which bore harshly on British artizans. There have been cases of unjust interpretation by the English Judges; and I myself have got those judgments overruled in principle and practice. Well, the doctrine is the same in Ireland. The Irish tenant, up to this time, has had the protection of juries of his own class, which has prevented injustice being done. But we say, if you remove the protection of trial by jury from the Irish tenants, and place the law in the hands not of Resident Magistrates, but at all events, of Judges, without the protection of trial by jury, then you are almost certain to get the same result as you have had in England. That is my answer to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He said—"Prove me the danger in the past;" but it is not danger in the past that we are dealing with—it is danger in the future, arising out of a specific provision of this Bill, against which we think adequate protection should be given.
  MR. A. COHEN: I have only one observation to make on the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. I think the hon. and learned Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy) showed that that argument was of a very insufficient validity, because the clause we are now considering is not limited to land at all. If the argument were good for anything, the Attorney General for Ireland ought to be ready to strike out all words except those relating to land. But let me give an example, which I think the Committee will at once see has a most important bearing on the whole Irish Question. Suppose 100 tenants were to agree together that they would not allow anyone to take land from a
  772
  landlord who has evicted his tenants for non payment of rent, can any lawyer say that such an agreement would be indictable for conspiracy? I defy any lawyer who has studied the law with great care to say that would be so. That shows the correctness of the view which is stated in Mr. Wright's book; and I say that if the Government have read it, having referred to that book in connection with the 1st clause, they ought to come to the same conclusion at which the author has arrived—that is, that the whole Law of Conspiracy is Judge-made law. I say that when the Legislature is asked to pass a measure which we were informed the other night by the Chief Secretary for Ireland is a permanent measure, and if by that measure it is intended to give the Resident Magistrates in Ireland summary jurisdiction over a certain class of offences, it is the absolute duty of the Legislature to take care that those offences are clearly defined, or that they are only such offences as are known to the English Law, and clearly as ascertainable according to that law. But it is admitted and proved beyond doubt that, according to English Law, it is extremely doubtful what are and what are not indictable conspiracies, and we ask the Government to tell us what they mean. Do they mean to make any conspiracies indictable other than those which are not crimes to-day, because they are not criminally done by individuals? If they say that that is their intention, then they ought to tell us what other specific offences they intend to include; and if that is not their intention—and I do not believe they have quite made up their minds—then they are bound to accept our Amendment.
  MR. DILLON: I gladly accept the challenge of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). He said—and I heard him with surprise—that if it could be proved that there had been in Ireland the same harsh exercise of the Law of Conspiracy as was admitted to have taken place in regard to English artizans, he would admit we had a case for this Amendment. I gladly accept the challenge, and I am perfectly astonished that the right hon. Gentleman could make such a challenge in the face of the debates that have taken place. Such a statement coming from the Chief Secretary for Ireland is

  773
  ample proof of the necessity of repeating some of these matters over and over again. I do not intend to read at any length extracts from the now famous charge of Justice Fitzgerald, which has been so repeatedly referred to in this House; but I must read a couple of passages from that charge. What did Justice Fitzgerald say in regard to the Law of Conspiracy? He said—
  "Now, gentlemen, having dealt thus shortly with the information, let me unfold to you what the Law of Conspiracy is, and how it bears on the case."
  The case at issue was the combination of the tenants of Ireland to obtain a reduction of rents. Then Justice Fitzgerald gave a definition of conspiracy which has been often quoted. He said—
  "If, for instance, a tenant withholds his rent, that is a violation of the right of his landlord to receive it, but it would not be a criminal act, though it would be a violation of a right; but if two or more incite him to do that act, their agreement so to incite him is by the law of the land an offence."
  Can anything be more clear or more distinct than that? I maintained the other day, and I repeat now, that that definition of the Law of Conspiracy includes within its scope every single meeting that has been summoned in Ireland, whether in Ulster or Munster, for the purpose of getting a reduction of rent, because there cannot be the slightest doubt that on all those Northern estates, where there was no question of Nationalist organization, the speakers at meetings did incite their brother tenants to withhold their rents for the purpose of getting a reduction. Now, Sir, I noticed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) attempted in his speech to explain away the charge of Justice Fitzgerald. He endeavoured to water it down, for he said it was very unfair to fix upon certain short extracts from a long charge thus, and pin a Judge to them as an expression of his opinion. Justice Fitzgerald is a man eminently able to distinguish between the different portions of his address; and in the first place, he laid down what the law was, then he proceeded to apply it to the facts of the case. But I do not rest myself there. It has been my fate to have been three times tried in Ireland for criminal conspiracy. The first time I was tried
  774
  by Justice Fitzgerald, and the charge from which I have quoted was the charge in the case. I was then tried before the Queen's Bench in Dublin by Chief Justice O'Brien, and in that trial I was convicted because there was no jury, and I was sentenced in heavy bail, which the Government failed in estreating, because they were met by the barrier of a jury. But, Sir, in my second trial, before the Queen's Bench, i was convicted of criminal conspiracy. On what charge? On this charge, and no other—that I had incited tenants in Ireland to withhold their rents with the view of getting a reduction. I tried to put in the plea of justification on account of intent; but Chief Justice O'Brien, and, subsequently, Justice Murphy, declared they would allow no evidence bearing on the intent, as the intent was nothing to the point. They precluded me from examining witnesses as to my intent. Chief Justice O'Brien took up the charge of Justice Fitzgerald and made it the basis of his judgment. He said that was a definition of the Law of Conspiracy laid down by one of the most distinguished of the Irish Judges; it had become classical, and would become an authority in all future cases. That was my second experience of the Law of Conspiracy in Ireland, and I admit I approach the consideration of this case from a totally different point of view from that from which it has been discussed for the last half-hour. I am not a lawyer, but, I am sorry to say, I am learned in the application of the law. My third trial was before Justice Murphy, so I have the widest experience of the views of the Irish Judges. Now, what occurred at my third trial? Justice Murphy pursued precisely the same course as Chief Justice O'Brien—he quoted the charge of Justice Fitzgerald, said that charge had now become classical, and was a definition of the law in which all Irish Judges would in future go when trying cases of conspiracy. He said that on the one issue whether I had incited tenants to withhold their rents with a view of getting a reduction, I was guilty of the crime of conspiracy, and he distinctly directed the jury to convict. What saved me was the same thing that has saved many men, and nullified the Law of Seditious Libel in this country—namely, the moral sense of the jury. Although the jury

  775
  were not farmers, they refused to take the definition of the law from the Judge, and they decided that I was not guilty of any crime. It is monstrous for the Government to argue as if they are simply leaving the law as it stands. What did the Chief Secretary for Ireland say? He said he declined to attempt to define the Law of Conspiracy. "We think we are justified in leaving the law as it stands to be interpreted by a competent tribunal." Those were the words of the Chief Secretary for Ireland—"to be interpreted by a competent tribunal." That is to say, that this law, which has exercised the greatest Judges of England, which has been matter of the highest controversy in this House for years, is to be relegated for its interpretation to a bench of Irish magistrates, and this House, which did not hesitate, when called upon in the interests of English working men, to override and reverse the decisions of the most learned lawyers in England, now hesitates to place any limit or restriction upon the jurisdiction of these competent tribunals in Ireland, to whom the unfortunate tenant-farmers are to be handed over. Now, Sir, the Chief Secretary for Ireland dwelt with great force on what he considered to be the fact—that there is no analogy between the case of the Irish tenant farmer and the case of the English artizan. I completely and absolutely deny that any man has a right to make such a statement. No analogy! I fail to see how there can be analogy between any two cases unless there is between these two. Strongly as the case was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), they failed to put it as strongly as it can be put. Why is it that a demand was made in England for the protection of men labouring for wages only? Because your farmers are capitalists; they employ labour with their capital, and therefore the demand for protection for their employment came from the labouring men. What is the analogy which is absolutely strict? It is that four-fifths of the farmers of Ireland are absolutely working men, earning wages out of the land. Well, if they are deprived of that land they are reduced to beggary and starvation. And allow me to re-
  776
  mind the Chief Secretary for Ireland what this comes to—what the application of such theories comes to. It comes to this—that the fact is, men are legislating for a country the conditions of whose population they are unacquainted with. Let the Chief Secretary for Ireland come down to East Mayo, where there is, practically speaking, no wage-earning population, and he will see the absurdity of saying that the same protection should not be afforded to the tenant farmers of Ireland as is afforded to the labourers of England. They accuse us of exciting these people to hold other men's property while refusing to pay for it. Have the landlords not got their legal rights? Have we incited, in a single instance, the farmers of Ireland to resist by force of arms, or by force of any kind, the enforcement of legal rights? Nothing of the sort. The legal remedy is always open to the landlord, and he can, by legal process, recover possession of his property; and, therefore, it is monstrously untrue to say we incite these people to hold another man's property; and in the end the landlord, under the law as it stands at present, can get a great deal more than his just rights. If the tenant refuses to pay an exorbitant rent, the landlord can not only take back his property, but he can also take from the tenant the whole of his property, and that is what is being done in Ireland every day. It is a monstrously illusory argument to tell us the tenants of Ireland are holding other men's property because they do not of their own free wills walk out of their farms. They remain in possession of their holdings, but the landlords have a tremendous remedy by which they can recover their property—a remedy they have shown they are not slow to use. It remains for the Government to tell us on what real and substantial grounds they deny that the tenants of Ireland stand in precisely the same position to the general population of Ireland as the artizans of this country do to the general population of England. It remains for the Government to tell us on what ground they refuse to the tenants of Ireland the same protection they have given to the artizans of England. In my opinion, the Irish tenant has a stronger case for protection than the artizan of England, because the latter is free to go and

  777
  labour where he likes—he carries his fortune at his fingers' ends; but the poor tenant of Ireland is chained to the one spot of earth, not only by sentimental feelings—which are enormously strong—but by property, which he must leave behind and be robbed of if he leaves the spot. His position is much more defenceless and weaker than that of the artizan of England, and, therefore, I say he deserves greater protection under these circumstance. I utterly fail to understand on what grounds the Government persist in their present position. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland distinctly stated that if we could show that this harsh assertion of the Law of Conspiracy had been made against the Irish tenants he would admit we had a strong case. I contend that we have fully shown the fact to him, and now I earnestly ask him to give a reason why he should persist in rejecting this Amendment. There is only one other point I desire to refer to. I am not sure whether it was the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the Attorney General for Ireland who said the supporters of this Amendment had overlooked the provision protecting trades unions in Ireland. Why do you need to protect trades unions by a special provision if this Act is not to deprive Irish farmers of the rights you have secured to English labour? The very existence of that provision is the condemnation of this clause; it is a declaration that by this Act you mean to say that the tenant farmers of Ireland—the small tenant farmers of Ireland who constitute four-fifths of the population—are inferior beings, not fit to stand on the same footing as their English bretheren, and it is by that declaration alone you will see the condemnation of your Act in the eyes of the working men of this country.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: I have listened with the greatest interest to the whole of this debate, and desire to address a few words to the Committee. A great deal has been said of the book which has been written by Mr. Wright upon the Law of Conspiracy. I cannot help thinking that the book has been, more referred to than read. I have, whilst the debate has proceeded, carefully read and re-read that admirable work, and endeavoured to realize exactly how the matter stands with re-
  778
  ference to this branch of English juris prudence. It seems to me the arguments in this case have too technical a character. Let me try to present the state of affairs as far as this particular section is concerned. As Mr. Wright points out, the whole of this branch of the Criminal law is Judge-made—it is exclusively the product of the judicial mind. Excellent as judicial legislation has been with reference to Commercial Law, unfortunately, in dealing with Criminal Law we always find that the judicial mind is rather in favour of arbitrary treatment. The state of the law with reference to combination is this—First of all we have combinations to do what, if done by one person, would be Lawful, by means which would be lawful. It is agreed on all hands that such combinations are lawful. Then we have agreements by workmen not to work except on certain terms; and here I come to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) which seems to me to be utterly opposed to the principles of criminal jurisprudence with reference to combination. As I understand the law laid down by Mr. Wright, it is not the Common Law, and never has been the Common Law of this country, that combinations by workmen not to work except upon certain terms are illegal. The trade combinations which have been referred to were made distinctly illegal by old Statutes, and it was based upon these old Statutes that our Judges directed juries to convict. It was in consequence of the decisions in these cases that the Masters and Servants' Act of 1875 was passed. It is distinctly stated in Mr. Wright's book that all combinations of this kind were perfectly legal, with the single exception of the combination of the trades union. I will upon this point give an authority which is highly respected in this House—the authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). In the debate upon the Masters and Servant's Act, in 1873, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—
  "In punishing what the law called conspiracy we were punishing what working-men called combination. They were bound to combine, and their experience was that without combination all attempts to improve their condition were hopeless. The gas stokers were punished because admitting their right to combine, they had combined to break a contract, and because

  779
  under Section 14 of the Master and Servant Act that was a criminal offence. It would not have been criminal on the part of any other subject of the Realm, but it was criminal in them."—(3 Hansard, [216] 607.)
  So much for legal combinations by workmen or others to improve their position. Now we come to the combinations which are distinctly criminal. A criminal combination to do something is either to do something which is criminal or to do something which is perfectly legal by criminal means. It is only the intermediate class, a very large and varied class of combinations, which is left at large under this section, and which we, on this side of the House, say should be clearly defined. I am quite willing to admit that there is the greatest difference between the dicta in. reference to this class of cases of learned Judges on this side, and learned Judges on the other side of the Irish Channel. I wish to be perfectly fair, because it is very important we should realize the true bearings of the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) has mentioned some cases. Perhaps the Committee will bear with me while I mention one or two cases in corroboration of this view—
  "A conspiracy to injure a man in his private property, a conspiracy to prevent all customers coming to his shop, what is that but a civil injury? A conspiracy to injure two men combining to interfere with a man's civil right is indictable."
  What does Mr. Wright say in reference to that dictum of Mr. Justice Erle?" It is conceived," says Mr. Wright—
  "That these expressions, for the most part only amounting to a question or a doubt are not sufficient to establish exceptions to the principles involved in the decisions given before."
  Namely, that a combination to injure is not criminal unless criminal means be used. Now, Mr. Courtney, it is precisely this class of case in which it is admitted on the Treasury Bench that the act is not, per se, in itself illegal, but in which something may be done which may possibly be injurious or unlawful, that we are asked to deliberately withdraw from the only safeguard which, for generations, has preserved the humbler classes in this country from the injustice which would have been done them if these dicta had not been actually withstood by juries, I was greatly surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney
  780
  General (Sir Richard Webster) say he thought two of the Irish Resident Magistrates were better than 12 jurymen in England or in Ireland. I am sure Liberal Members do not wish to make any reflection upon the competency of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland; but I think every sensible man will admit that those questions of nicety and delicacy, involving the greatest Constitutional consequences, are questions which should not be withdrawn from juries. I quite agree with my right hon. and learned Friends that if we must have this odious Act the Government ought at least to define the criminal acts which they are going to create.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Mr. Courtney, I desire to say a very few words in support of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. T. Reid). I think that no one can read the remarks of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald in the Parnell case without coming to the conclusion that he goes very far beyond any decision of English Judges in similar cases, that he has laid down a doctrine which goes very far beyond the Law of Conspiracy as defined in any of the law books or decisions of English Judges, and without questioning the law of that learned Judge, I cannot but think it would be very desirable that his ruling should be revised by the Superior Court, either the Superior Court of Ireland or the Supreme Court of England—namely, the House of Lords. At present, the ruling of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald must be taken as conclusive, and it is absolutely certain that that ruling will be accepted as the law by the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. Well, now there will be no appeal under the clause before us, if it is passed in its present shape, except to a single Judge—namely, the Judge of the County Court. There will be no possibility of appeal from the Resident Magistrate to the higher tribunals of Ireland, or even of England. It will be quite possible when this clause is passed into law that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) may be summoned before a magistrate and committed to prison for six months for merely recommending tenants to combine for a reduction of rent. It is quite possible that anybody in the position of the hon. Member maybe summoned before one of the Resident Magistrates in

  781
  Ireland and sentenced to prison for six months with hard labour, without the possibility of his appealing to the higher tribunals of either Ireland or England. That would be a great scandal, one of the greatest scandals possible in the country. It is surely very undesirable any such thing should take place. For my part, I think that the case of the small tenants of Ireland for protection is even a stronger one than that of the labourers of England, because they have an interest in the property of the holdings in respect of which the dispute arises; and having that interest it is most important that they should be put in a position in which they can freely combine for the purpose of obtaining just rents in respect of their holdings. The clause which is now before us prevents them having that free power of combination, and it is for that reason I most strongly oppose it, and earnestly hope the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. T. Reid) will be passed. I have put a question to the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes); but as yet neither he nor any Member of the Government has ventured to answer it. I put this question—Suppose 50 or 60 small tenants in Ireland, feeling themselves unjustly treated in regard to rent, combine together, and four or five of the leading men summon the tenants together and advise them to strike against their rents, will the four or five men be liable to be summoned, under the clause as it stands, before a Resident Magistrate, and to be convicted and sent to prison with hard labour? No answer has as yet been given from the Government Bench to that question, and I presume, therefore, it cannot be answered; because under this clause, as it stands, it will be possible to commit these men to prison. I say that is a position precisely similar to that of the labourers of England before the Act of 1875; and if the analogy holds good, as I believe it does, we ought to give the same protection to the tenants of Ireland as we have given to the labourers of England under the Act of 1875. There is no law in any country in Europe in which a similar Law of Conspiracy exists. Even in India people cannot be convicted of conspiracy under such conditions. I maintain that the law of Europe and of India is opposed to the clause now before
  782
  us, and, therefore, I hope the Committee will agree with the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I must say the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite is not, in my judgment, calculated to shorten discussion. Mr. Courtney, this is a Bill you would not apply to niggers, and yet you mean to apply it to Irishmen; and when that right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre)—a Privy Counsellor, an ex-Cabinet Minister—refers to the fact that hon. Members of this House may get certain imprisonment, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, who weep over a wounded land-grabber, and who groan in spirit if the tail of a cow is cut off, think it is calculated to promote discussion in this House by gloating beforehand over the action of their Resident Magistrates. Now, let me say that, whatever this House of Commons may do, whatever hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may think, and whatever Rules you may enforce, we will fight you as long as we can sit on these Benches. I tell hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who, in a half-drunken condition, try to howl us down——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman must be more respectful to the House than use language of that kind. [Ministerial cries of "Withdraw!"] It would greatly assist the Chair if hon. Gentlemen would not proffer their assistance by cries of "Withdraw!"
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Mr. Courtney, I bow to your ruling under any circumstances——
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I rise to Order, Mr. Courtney. I wish to ask you if the hon. Gentleman should not withdraw that expression?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Mr. Healy.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would respect a ruling made by you, Sir, under any circumstances. If it will please hon. Gentlemen opposite I will withdraw the expression; but I must say we will not sit here and be howled down by hon. Gentlemen opposite when the liberties of our country are under discussion. No matter what the consequences or what the penalty may be, so long as we are here we will protest against this Bill. If you howl us down you must

  783
  take the consequences. I know no Assembly in Europe where conduct such as that of hon. Gentlemen opposite would be tolerated for a moment. We are here in a minority, it is true; but we are fighting for the liberty of our country, and for hon. Members who call themselves Gentlemen——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When we are dealing with one of the most important, abstruse, and delicate questions that ever came before any country, are we going to have our men howled down by men who have not even taken the trouble to read the Bill, who know nothing about it—who are, in fact, absolutely incompetent to pronounce an opinion upon it? I say it is a public scandal, and I tell them that, whatever the consequences may be, it is not by howling that they will pass this Bill. Now, Sir, we have to sit here while they are away at dinner. We have to argue these points while they are indicting letters, possibly denouncing us to The Times. Let any one of them put his finger upon some particular portion of the debate, and say this is irrelevant or that is irrelevant, and not deal with us by a system of howling which has become a disgrace to them and the country they belong to.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 1 80; Noes 263: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 166.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: The decision just arrived at disposes of the next two Amendments.
  MR. MARUM: I beg to move to insert after "Law" in line 22—
  "Provided, That no agreement or combination shall amount to any such criminal conspiracy unless some act, other than such agreement or combination, be done to affect the object thereof by one or more of the parties to such agreement or combination."
  I do not propose to travel over the ground which has been covered by previous Amendments. My Amendment simply provides that a person shall be guilty of some act other than the act of entering into an agreement before he shall be said to have engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The provision I propose is to be found in the American Code.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 22, after "Law" insert "Provided that no agreement or combination shall amount to any such criminal conspiracy unless some Act, other than such agreement or combination, be done to effect the object thereof by one or more of the parties to such agreement or combination."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): This Amendment would introduce a change in the law, for which we have got no precedent in this country, nor, as far as I am aware, has it been suggested in any code or by any authority that such a change should be made in this country. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member will not press the Amendment to a Division.
  MR. CHANCE: The right hon. and learned Gentlemen has admitted that this Amendment would introduce a change in the law, because an overt act may be done in coming to—in producing an agreement, and that overt Act, without producing an agreement, would be quite sufficient evidence of conspiracy; but without entering in the slightest degree into the advisability of introducing the change, he refused to support this Amendment on the ground that there was no precedent whatsoever in any code or elsewhere for a provision requiring an overt act other than the Act which creates the agreement for which conspiracy could be charged. On that point, I think I can refer him to the existing Code of Indian Law which bears out the principle which this Amendment seeks to introduce. If he would be good enough to refer to Act 45 of the Governor General of India, passed in the year 1860, and if he looks at the 5th chapter of that Act, Sections 178 and 179, he would find it laid down that an offence or offences constituting conspiracy may be conspiracy followed up by an overt act; and in Sections 107 and 108, that no conviction for conspiracy can be had unless conspiracy and some overt act have been shown. But I might point out further, that the Indian Law not only supports this Amendment, but it absolutely goes on to provide that no conspiracy shall be punishable unless either by means or by object that conspiracy tends to the commission of an offence which would

  785
  be a crime if committed by one person. That Indian Code, which is at present the law governing the action of many millions of Her Majesty's subjects, contains the very principle which the Amendment of my hon. Friend seeks to introduce. It has been fully recognized in India since 1860, a period of nearly 28 years; and I think it is full time that such a principle should be recognized in Ireland.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The Committee will observe that the act is not an act to be done by the person charged with an offence. The limitation which my hon. Frined wishes to put upon the crime, as it is to be dealt with by the Resident Magistrates, is such a conspiracy as has gone so far that an act or an attempt to carry out the object of the conspiracy shall be done. Surely that is not much of a limitation. It may be in the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes), a change in the definition of the Law of Conspiracy if we were here denning the Law of Conspiracy; but what this section is doing is denning that part of the Law of Conspiracy which is to be dealt with by Resident Magistrates, and, surely, when we seek to put a limitation—when we seek to put one condition upon the conspiracy that is to be dealt with by Resident Magistrates, it hardly lies in the mouth of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that here we are seeking a change in the definition of the law. The Government are themselves responsible for this Amendment. They choose deliberately to avoid the technical word "conspire." That word they have changed, or rather they have discarded, and they have put in "take part in," and surely it is little enough that the taking part in should be taking part in something which has gone so far, at least, as either to attempt to compel, or an attempt to induce—that something should have been done more than the mere taking part in. In my opinion, if a Resident Magistrate finds that a discussion has gone on among some tenants in a small room as to whether they should apply to their landlord for a reduction of rent, and that they might say—"Yes, we should, and we should not pay our rent until we send in a memorial"—that thereupon the Resident Magistrate would say that is conspiracy, yet no act will have been done
  786
  more than the mere conversation of the men and their agreement to do a certain act. There is a very remarkable part of the law in regard to the very highest offence. The offence of treason must be evidenced by an overt act. Surely, if such a condition was required with regard to treason, and offences against the Sovereign, some such limitation should be imported into the Law of Conspiracy that has to be administered by two Resident Magistrates in Ireland. I think my hon. Friend was right in moving the Amendment. I think the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was wrong in saying that this was an effort to introduce change in the definition of the Law of Conspiracy, and if we do not ask, as we do not ask by this Amendment, that an act shall be proved against the person himself charged with an offence, but simply on the part of some one of the conspirators, we are not asking the Committee to sanction anything which is extraordinary.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): As I desire to report progress in order to take two Bills which must be taken this evening, I hope the Committee will come to a decision upon the Amendment as soon as possible.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think the request of the right hon. Gentleman is not unreasonable, and I would join in his appeal to come to a decision as soon as possible.
  MR. MARUM: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. CHANCE: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Courtney, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to take this Bill on Monday next. It will, I think, be rather unreasonable to keep a large number of Members in London for one day next week who would otherwise go home, when you might allow other business to be done. No real progress will be made on Monday, because it will be impossible almost to keep the necessary

  787
  number of Members in the House to enable the Government to do that.
  MR. MARUM: The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that it takes two days for Irish Members to go to and return from Ireland.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I announced that the Bill would be taken on Monday, and I am afraid I cannot draw back from that announcement, having regard to the convenience of hon. Gentlemen generally. I propose, however, not to take the Bill on Monday fortnight, that is to say, on the 6th June, but to take Supply instead. The object of hon. Gentlemen will thus be secured in some measure, and I trust that arrangement will meet with satisfaction. Perhaps I am hardly in order in going further. ["Go on."] Well, Sir, with the permission of the House I wish to say that on Monday the 6th June it is proposed to take Supply, the Budget Bill later, and subsequently the National Debt Bill. ["What Supply?"] In accordance with an arrangement made with the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Post Office Estimates will be taken first, and then in the ordinary course, Class 1 of the Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when all the Papers relating to the Whiteboy Acts will be in the hands of hon. Members. We are now coming-near that portion of the Bill which deals with the Whiteboy Acts, and the putting down of Amendments will be rendered very difficult unless we know what the charges under these Acts are.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We will give the House full information before we arrive at that portion of the Bill which refers to the Whiteboy Acts. Any assistance which the House requires for the discussion of these Acts will certainly be given.
  MR. CHANCE: I understand no progress will be made with the Crimes Bill on Tuesday next—at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That is the intention of the Government. The Bill will be put down for Monday and will be taken on Monday, and I hope, notwithstanding the anticipation of the hon. Gentleman, that considerable progress will be made with it. We shall then adjourn consideration of the Bill until Tuesday the 7th June.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

DUKE OF CONNAUCHT'S LEAVE BILL.— [BILL 228.]
(Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Sir John Gorst.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir John Gorst.)
MR. T. M. HEALYI wish to ask the Government a question upon this Bill. I offer no opposition in the world to the Duke of Connaught's leave; but it seems to me the Government might take this opportunity of making that slight change in the law for the benefit of other officers which was discussed on the second reading of the Bill. There will be no trouble in passing the Bill in reference to the Duke of Connaught; but I would respectfully point out that it would be the most simple thing in the world to change the title of the Bill and call it something like the Leave of Absence from India Bill, and thus prevent it from having the invidious appearance of being passed simply for the convenience of the Duke of Connaught. I do not think it fair to pass an Act which seems to raise an invidious distinction; and to put in a clause dealing with officers generally would look fairer all round.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST): The matter is not so simple as it appears. It is now under consideration, and I hope in the present Session that a measure may be submitted to Parliament for dealing with the question, To attempt to do it now would, I think, involve matters which, at all events, would cause delay; and it is a matter which ought not to be dealt with without full consideration.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
MR. LABOUCHERE: Upon this clause I wish to say, Sir, that we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the

789
Treasury that the Duke of Connaught will not receive any pay during the period of his leave. I wish, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether that applies only to Indian pay or generally?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-SURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: It refers to his pay as Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay Army. It does not, of course, affect any regimental pay, which he would have under any circumstances, whether he was in command or not in command. The engagement is that all his pay and all his allowances, in reference to his position as Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay Army, will be suspended the moment he leaves his command until he returns to it.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I presume the Duke of Connaught will pay his own expenses in coming home?
MR. W. H. SMITH: That, also, is understood.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir John Gorst.)
MR. T. M. HEALY: I simply wish to ask a question with reference to the next Business on the Paper—namely, what Bills it is proposed by the Government to take to-night?
MR. W. H. SMITH: We propose to take the East India Stock Conversion Bill, the Truro Bishopric Bill, and the Public Parks and Works (Metropolis) Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

EAST INDIA STOCK CONVERSION BILL.— [BILL 267.]
(Sir John Gorst, Mr. Jackson.)

CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
Bill, as amended, considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir John Gorst.)
MR. SPEAKER: As this Bill, which is technically speaking a Money Bill, provides no charge, but on the contrary, effects a saving, I shall under these circumstances, make no objection so far as
790
I am concerned to the next stage being taken.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I am entirely in favour of this Bill being taken; but, at the same time, I am always at a loss to know why it was regarded as a Money Bill, and why the block did not affect it. I always understood a Money Bill to be a Bill which made a charge on the taxpayers. I am at a loss to know under what possible circumstances a Bill like this should ever be considered a Money Bill. I think it a most unfortunate thing that we should have this extension of the Money Bill principle. We had another instance in a Bill dealing with the Irish Constabulary, which was called a Money Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC PARKS AND WORKS (METROPOLIS) BILL.— [BILL 136.]
(Mr. David Plunket, Mr. Jackson.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): I am extremely glad that I have at last obtained the opportunity of asking the House to give a second reading to this Bill, and I hope there will be no opposition to it. At the same time, I feel it is right that I should very briefly state to the House what the object of the Bill is, and what it is proposed to do. The object of this Bill is to give effect to a promise which was given last year when the Estimates were being discussed, and when considerable objection was taken to a continuance of the payment of the expenses of the Parks of the Metropolis by the taxpayers of the country. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), amongst others, objected strongly to this, and there was a Division adverse to the Vote on that occasion—that is to say, adverse to the maintenance of the Parks at the cost of the taxpayers. On a subsequent occasion, it was agreed that the Vote would not be opposed, as to the Parks which are known as Royal Parks, on a pledge being given that the other Parks were excluded from the Vote, and accordingly a Bill was brought in last year for the purpose of giving effect to that pledge.

791
Unfortunately, that Bill miscarried, and did not become an Act of Parliament; and this year, as early as we could, the Bill which I have now to ask a second reading for was introduced in this House. The objects of the Bill are, very shortly, as follows. They are to transfer certain Parks and other works to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and to provide that in future they shall be maintained at the expense of the ratepayers of the Metropolis, instead of at the expense of the taxpayers of the country. The Parks and the works which it is proposed to transfer in this way are set out in the Schedule of this Bill, and they are Victoria Park, Battersea Park, Kenning-ton Park, Bethnal Green, Westminster Bridge, and the Thames Embankment at Chelsea, These are the Parks and works which it is proposed by this Bill to transfer to the Metropolitan Board of Works, so that in future the expense of maintaining them shall be borne by the ratepayers of the Metropolis, and no longer by the taxpayers of the Kingdom. I do not know that the principle of this Bill will be disputed in any quarter of the House; but I know that objections have been taken to the fact that one of these Parks—that is to say, Battersea Park—is charged with a considerable sum of money—a sum of £133,000 of debt. But, on the other hand, we propose in this Bill to transfer to the Metropolitan Board of Works along with this debt an estate which at the present time produces £4,500 a-year from ground rents, and which will, we believe, in a few years produce the much larger sum of £6,800 a-year. We believe that this would not be a bad bargain for the Metropolitan Board of Works to make. At the same time, as I have informed the House, in answer to Questions which have been put to mo on the subject, if those who represent the interests of the Metropolitan Board of Works should prefer to have it in the other way—that is to say, that we should simply hand over the Battersea Park to the Metropolitan Board of Works, discharged of the debt, and without the estate, we should amend the Bill in that way, and the natural result would be as follows:—that is to say, we keep the estate from which a very large income is derived, and we keep the debt; but we hand over the Park without the
792
estate and without the debt. We believe that the way in which it is proposed by the Bill—that is to say, to give the Park with the debt to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the estate which produces the income I have mentioned—-would not be a bad bargain for the Metropolitan Board of Works. On the other hand, if they prefer to take the other way—to take over the Park without the debt, and without the estate which produces the income I have mentioned, we shall not resist such an Amendment if it is proposed. Therefore, the Metroplitan Board of Works will have its own way. I have only to state that the natural result of the Bill will then be as follows. There will be properties transferred which, in order to place them in their present position, would involve a capital expenditure of £493,500, against an annual expenditure of £19,300—that is to say, an annual expenditure for keeping up and maintaining these works. I do not know that the House would wish me at the present time to go through more particularly the section of the Bill. I think I have stated generally the provisions of the Bill, and when we come to discuss the matter in Committee, it can be more fully gone into. Sir, I hope that on the present occasion the House will allow the second reading of this Bill. I move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time."—(Mr. Plunket.)
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I do not wish in any way to oppose my right hon. Friend's Motion; but I must say that I am taken very considerably at a disadvantage. I did not think that this Bill would be brought on just now, and it is my misfortune that I have not brought any notes down to the House with me. With regard to what advantage the Metropolitan ratepayers may get, I may just remark this—that it is rather hard on the ratepayers of the Metropolis to say they get a very good bargain. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would accede to the Motion I have put down, that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. [Mr. PLUNKET indicated assent.] Very well, that being so, I think I shall not waste the time of the House, but agree to the

793
second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that it shall be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. PLUNKET: I have no objection to that course.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: Before the Bill is disposed of in the very agreeable manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James McGarel-Hogg), I think there should be an expression of opinion from the general body of the House as to the position in which the whole question stands. I may point out that parks are not peculiar to London. There is now hardly a town of any magnitude or enterprise in the United Kingdom which is not provided with parks quite as large in proportion as those in the Metropolis. Now, Sir, what are the means out of which, these parks have been provided? Unless it be by the private munificence of individuals, there is only one method available whereby the ratepayers can provide themselves with the necessary funds. Recourse is had to the practice of borrowing on the rates of the town, and the ratepayers are made liable for the repayment of principal and interest. I suppose it will scarcely be contended in any part of the House that these parks are worth the money that they have cost; and if the whole charge of the London Parks was thrown upon the Metropolis, the Metropolis would be in precisely the same position as any other town or city in the United Kingdom wishing to provide itself with similar advantages. No doubt the error in the past has been that Parliament has taken upon itself to provide the Metropolis, free of charge, with these enormous advantages. But, fortunately, the representatives of the general taxpayers of the country have risen to protest against a continuance of the practice. I do not see any necessity why an estate to the value of £178,000 should be handed over to the Metropolis in order to induce the Metropolis to take over these Parks. What is the fund to which the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) refers? I suppose it is really now a national estate; and, because Parliament is handing over to the Metropolis property which is costing the Board £493,000, I do not see any necessity for the additional gift of an estate now bringing in over £4,000
794
a-year, and which will shortly be bringing in over £7,000 a-year. It is true that these Parks will require an annual charge on the Metropolis for their maintenance; but there is no peculiarity in that. There is an annual charge on every Provincial Park in the country, and I do not see why the Metropolis should have exceptional privileges in this respect. After the transfer of these Parks and the annual charges in relation thereto, there will still remain several Parks in London in regard to which the Metropolis will enjoy exclusive advantages, and in regard to which the annual charge will remain upon the taxation of the country at large. The Metropolis has the exclusive benefit of the Royal Parks, and I do not see why the cost of their maintenance should be a general charge upon the taxpayer. The ownership of the Royal Parks might remain with the State as at present; but, so long as they are for the sole benefit of the Metropolis, I think the least that can be done is to make the Metropolis liable for their maintenance. I do not hesitate to say that any other city in this country would be only too pleased to take over any public property on the same conditions. At any rate, as representing a Provincial constituency, I wish to enter my protest against handing over this additional estate in order to sweeten the gift to the Metropolis.
SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I do not propose to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice, because I am of opinion that the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) will answer the purpose I had in view. I wish, as a Metropolitan Member, to protest against additional burdens being placed upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis in consequence of what was little else than a snap Division taken at an unreasonable hour last Session. The ratepayers of London are already notoriously overburdened, and I think it is hard, under these circumstances, that they should be made responsible for additional charges. If new burdens are to be imposed on the ratepayers in London, I think any fund so raised might be applied to the purpose of obtaining new open spaces for the benefit of the poor. It must be remembered that the circumstances of

795
London are entirely different from those of most of the Provincial towns. I venture to submit to the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) that in the case of any ordinary Provincial town the ratepayers are within easy reach of the suburbs, and are not called upon to find any rates to keep up those suburbs. Even in the larger Provincial towns the poor are not so entirely shut out from access to the suburbs as they are in London. I took part only last week in the opening of a recreation ground in the borough which I have the honour to represent. This recreation ground is at a considerable distance from any one of the existing Metropolitan Parks, and it was universally agreed on that occasion that until this open space was provided, the poor of the neighbourhood were absolutely precluded from taking advantage of those green spaces which are the lungs of London. I trust that Members who sit for Provincial constituencies will consider the peculiar circumstances of the ratepayers and of the poor of London; and that they will, at any rate, consent to the very moderate proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: Speaking as one of the Metropolitan Liberal Members, I may say that, inasmuch as the Government have consented to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, I have no intention of opposing the second reading. I do not quite understand the drift of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). Either we have no right to be burdened with the cost of Battersea Park, or if we have a right to be so burdened we have a right to any source of income which appertains to it. The estate to which reference has been made distinctly belongs to Battersea Park, and I, for one, shall fight against any proposal to throw the charge on the rates, unless we also have the estate or some equivalent for it. I should also like to point out that London is in an entirely different position from Provincial towns in reference to the control which the ratepayers exercise over local affairs. If the Metropolis had the same
796
kind of municipal authority as Bradford or Manchester, we might be more ready to assume responsibilities of this kind. I do not intend to trouble the House further at this late hour of the evening, except to say that I hope the ratepayers of London will be given an opportunity of expressing their views before the Select Committee suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I entirely agree with the principle of this Bill; and I should like to know whether, under the terms of the Reference to a Select Committee, it will be open to the Metropolitan Board of Works to object to that principle? If so, I shall strongly oppose such. Reference. If it is proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee for the consideration of details, assuming the principle to have been agreed upon by this House, then I shall have no objection to the course proposed. With regard to the suggestion of my hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be charged to the original cost of these Parks, or at all events, should not, on the other hand, take the estate which the Government proposed to transfer to the Parks, I cannot agree with him. No doubt, by this Bill we are going to impose a burden of a considerable character upon the Metropolitan Board; but my hon. Friend does not recollect, or does not know, that the City of London does not receive its contribution of half the cost of its police. If the Metropolis had its local government, the same as Provincial towns, that contribution would have to be paid; and the amount would not be far short of the charge we are now imposing. Another question that occurs to me is, whether this would not be a good opportunity for handing over to the Metropolitan Board that very inconvenient property—Brompton Cemetery. It is obvious that the income of that cemetery will drop through before long, and some authority ought to be in a position to buy land to replace it when it is filled. I cannot but think that this would be a good opportunity for settling the question on a more satisfactory basis.
MR. KIMBER: I wish to ask whether it would be competent

797
for the Committee, if appointed, to take into consideration the excising from the Schedule of any of the Parks, or the adding of parks which are not included in the Schedule? The constituency which I represent includes Wimbledon Common, an open space dedicated to the public at large; but the expense of maintaining which is borne entirely by the district of which it is a part. If this Bill is passed in the form in which it is proposed, it will have the effect of throwing upon my constituency a portion of the maintenance of the parks scheduled, in addition to the burden we now have to bear in respect of Wimbledon Common. It seems to me that we have an equitable right to set off the special burdens already imposed upon us by legislation affecting the Common against the charge which the Bill would throw upon us in regard to the Parks generally, and if we are not to be admitted before the Committee to raise this case, I shall feel it my duty to oppose the measure. The Bill has taken its rise from an objection urged in the time of the late Government to two or three Votes for the expense of the maintenance of these Parks; and it seems to me that when it is committed, powers ought to be given to the Committee for the consideration of special circumstances affecting any particular part of the Metropolis.
MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Kimber) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) are not quite accurate in their historical recollection of this question. They assumed that when the question was raised in Parliament in 1885, that was the first occasion on which this matter had been raised, and that it was the decision of that evening which has produced this change of policy on the part of the Government. It was nothing of the sort. This question has been raised for many years in the House of Commons on the Estimates, and there has been a growing feeling year after year that the time has arrived when London ought to defray the cost of its own Parks in the same manner as Liverpool, Manchester, and the other large towns of the Kingdom defray the cost of their Parks. The question was not decided on a snatch
798
Division. I was responsible for the Vote on that occasion, and I believe it was one of the largest Divisions that has over taken plane in Supply. Moreover, the feeling in the House was so strong, that they not only rejected the Votes for the ordinary London Parks, but attempted to put pressure on the Government in the same way in reference to the Royal Parks. It was impossible to assent to the rejection of the Vote for the Royal Parks, as that would have been a breach of the contract made with Her Majesty when she ascended the Throne; but the Government only obtained the Vote on the distinct pledge that the cost of what might be called the London Parks proper should be thrown upon the ratepayers of London. London is not only the wealthiest city in this Empire, but one of the lowest rated. The burden proposed to be put on the Metropolitan Board of Works is one-sixth of a penny. Now, I ask any hon. Gentleman who represent English, or Scotch, or Irish municipalities if they know of any Park which is kept up at a cost of one-sixth of a penny? I think the proposition of the Government is fair and just, and I think the good sense of the Metropolitan Members will cause them to see that the time has come when this burden should be put upon the proper shoulders. I agree that there are matters of detail connected with the Bill which a Select Committee is the proper tribunal to deal with, and I would go further and say that the position of the Battersea Debt and Estate is also a question for the Committee; but I object strongly to the question of public policy involved in the Preamble of the Bill being referred to a Select Committee of five Members. That is a question of Government policy. Two administrations have now declared in this House that the time has arrived for transferring the cost of these Parks from the State to the Metropolis; and it should be distinctly understood that in assenting to this Motion for a Select Committee we are only assenting to the reference to the Committee of the details by which this scheme can be carried out.
MR. BARTLEY: The position in which we stand in the North of London is that we are farther from the Parks than most people. I look, however, upon the maintenance of the

799
Parks as a matter of local taxation, and I think London is rich enough to pay for its own Parks. At the present time, when all parts of the country are overburdened with taxation, we in London should set the example to other districts of bearing our own burdens in the way proposed by the Bill.
MR. LABOUCHEEE: I suppose it will be made quite clear that the question of principle in regard to the Bill will not be raised before the Select Committee. I should also like to know whether the Board of Works will be entitled to appear by counsel before the Committee as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Board (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), who, I presume, would be represented by counsel as the promoter of the Bill. With regard to the Bill itself, I think it is a fair and legitimate compromise; and if the Metropolitan Members look into it they will see that they will do well to accept it in its entirety instead of raising points, because they must remember that points may also be raised on the other side. It has been suggested that the Committee should have power to strike out any of the Parks included in the Schedule. If that was the case, power should also be given to insert Parks. I presume this would be done.
CAPTAIN COLOMB&c.): I wish to point to one defect in this Bill, and I should like to have some assurance that the matter will be dealt with by the Committee. The case to which I allude is that of Victoria Park, in the East of London. Victoria Park was created a Royal Park, and made over to the Crown in 1841. I will read a few words from the Act of that year relating to the subject, because they are important as showing that this was intended to be a Royal Park for ever—
"And such lands and hereditaments, when purchased, to be conveyed and assured to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, and when so conveyed, shall if ever thereafter be taken to be a Royal Park, by the name of 'Victoria Park,' and part and parcel of the possessions and land revenues of Her Majesty in right of the Crown; and all laws, provisions, and regulations now in force or hereafter to be in force with respect to Royal Parks, shall be taken to extend and apply to such Park, except that Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Buildings of the time being, may in such manner as by law is provided with regard to the hereditary reve-
800
nues of the Crown (not being Royal Parks, lease any part of the said Royal Park,&c."
That raises a very material point. I cannot myself perceive on what ground a Royal Park in the industrial portion of London is to be transferred to the rates, and I should like some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) that this is a subject which requires some investigation at the hands of the Committee, and that the Committee will have powers to deal with the point. I should not raise the question, but there is a very strong, and I think, justifiably strong feeling, that it is wrong to throw upon the ratepayers the cost of maintaining this Royal Park in a crowded part of London, while three Royal Parks in other and wealthier parts of London are chargeable on the Imperial Exchequer.
MR. HENEAGE: I hope that we shall have an answer to the question which has been asked by my hon. and gallant Friend. There seems to be no difficulty with regard to the second reading. What we want to know is the scope of the reference to the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman opposite appears to acquiesce in the proposal of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg); but if I construe this Reference correctly, it means that all Petitions are to be heard against the Bill, but none in its favour. If they may be heard against the Bill, I suppose they may be heard against any part of it or against the principle. Does the Government accept the Amendment on the Paper?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SURY (Mr. JACKSON): The right hon. Gentleman must know that when a Bill is referred to a Select Committee of this kind it is referred without restriction. The Select Committee will, no doubt, have the power, if it chooses to exercise it, to recommend the House to pass the Bill, or reject it, or to alter or amend it. But, of course, the whole matter will be in the discretion of the House. Four Members of the Select Committee will be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection. There are thus to be seven Members in all. The House, therefore, in the first place, has a control over the appointment of the Committee, and can

801
take care that it fairly represents the general opinion of the House The opinion of the Government is that as the House has accepted the second reading it has approved of the principle of the Bill; but I may further remind the House that if the Committee were to take the course which has been suggested, and which would be most unusual, the House would have full power to deal with the Bill when it came back from the Committee. The House is not going to part with any of its powers. It has affirmed a principle, and the Government intend to stand by the principle. I hope, therefore, the Motion for the second reading will be agreed to. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke about Victoria Park being a Royal Park. Well, it is not a Royal Park in the sense in which the other Parks which are known by that title are Royal Parks. The other Royal Parks are parks that at certain times were exchanged for Royal property. Victoria Park is not in that position, and, therefore, I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend will consider that it is at all in the same category as the other Royal Parks.
MR. LAWSON: I should only like to say one word on behalf of the Metropolitan Members on this side of the House. We most readily assent to the second reading, subject to the conditions of reference agreed to by the Government. As to the statement made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that in a sense the ratepayers of London are receiving a present of the capital expended on these Parks, that is only true to a very limited extent, and on the understanding that we had actually no voice in the spending of the money. We did not have even the slight and indirect control which we are able to exercise over the Metropolitan Board of Works.
MR. ISAACS: Will the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) kindly say whether the Committee will have power to enlarge the number of properties mentioned in the Bill, or to omit any from the list?
MR. JACKSON: As I understand the matter, the Committee will have no power to introduce into the Bill any other properties than those now mentioned in it, except on a special Instruction given by the House.
MR. KIMBER: Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for your direction as to whether, assuming that the ratepayers of Wands-worth wish to place their case before the Committee on the Bill, their locus standi could be objected to? I understand the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to intimate that he does not know, and I should like to hear from the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) whether a Petition from thorn to the Select Committee would hold good? I only wish my constituents to be heard. I assent to the principle of the Bill, which, I admit, is reasonable; but I say that we in Wandsworth have an equitable claim.
MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Member's question, I can only say that the Committee will, of course, decide its own locus standi.
MR. KIMBER: Then do I understand that to make it clear I ought to move a special Instruction to the Committee?
MR. SPEAKER: It would be most unusual to fetter the Committee with an Instruction in the sense which the hon. Member refers to. It would be utterly without example.
MR. KIMBER: I am afraid I have not made myself understood. I wish in no case to object to the Preamble of the Bill. I only desire to get a hearing. I do not wish to fetter the Committee.
MR. COURTNEY: I would advise the hon. Member not to persevere with his intention. This is a Bill to settle relations between the Government and the Metropolis. The question the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise is really foreign to this Bill altogether.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented two clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be hoard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

FIRST OFFENDERS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 189.]
(Mr. Howard Vincent, Lord Randolph Spencer Churchill, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Hoare, Mr. Addison, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Molloy.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 10th May.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Power to court to release upon probation of good conduct instead of sentencing to imprisonment) agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central), the following Clauses were inserted after Clause 1:—
(Provision in case of offender failing to observe conditions of his recognizances.)
"(1.) If a court, having power to deal with the offender in respect of his original offence, or any court of summary jurisdiction is satisfied by information on oath that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognizance, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension.
"(2.) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant, shall, if not brought forthwith before the court having power to sentence him, be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction, and that court may either remand him by warrant until the time at which he was required by his recognizance to appear for judgment, or until the sitting of a court having power to deal with his original offence, or may admit him to bail with a sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for judgment.
"(3.) The offender when so remanded may be committed to a prison, either for the county or place in or for which the court remanding him acts or for the county or place where he is bound to appear for judgment, and the warrant of remand shall order the gaoler to bring him before the court before which he was bound to appear for judgment, or to answer as to his conduct since his release.
(Conditions as to abode of the offender.)
"The court, before directing the release of an offender under this Act, shall be satisfied that the offender or his surety has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the county or place for which the court acts, or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions."
(Power to vary conditions.)
"The court having power to sentence an offender released under this Act may, on his application at any time during the period of probation, vary the conditions of his release by substituting another authority for the authority first named or otherwise, as the case may require."
MR. CHANCE: I beg to move the following new clause:—
(Act not to apply to Ireland.)
"This Act shall not apply to Ireland."
New Clause brought up (Mr. Chance), and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I shall not oppose the hon. Member's proposal, although I regret it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause added to the Bill.
MR. CHANCE: I beg to propose the adoption of the new clause of which Notice has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), as follows:—
(Duration of Act.)
"This Act shall remain in force until the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, and no longer."
We look upon this Bill as a very curious innovation. Its principle is not very clear, and I am afraid that some of its provisions will be found to be distinctly dangerous. But, of course, as it has been decided that the measure shall not apply to Ireland, I will not press this clause if it is the general sense of the Committee that it ought to be a permanent Act. although I myself do not think that it ought to be permanent.
New Clause—
(Duration of Act.)
"This Act shall remain in force until the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, and no longer,"—(Mr. Chance,)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. To limit the duration of the Bill in this manner would be altogether to divest the measure of its utility. The Bill has been very carefully considered. It was before the last Parliament; it has been under the consideration of the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews); and it has been drafted by the Government draftsman. I trust the hon. Member will withdraw his proposal.
MR. MOLLOY: As one of those whose names appear on the back of the Bill, I also hope that the

805
proposed new clause will not be added to the Bill.
MR. F. S. POWELL: I hope that this Amendment will not be agreed to. I am not myself aware of any Bill which has only had an operation of one year. To insert the clause would be to create an entirely new precedent. This is a Bill which can only be tested by experience and practice, and it is quite impossible to test anything thoroughly by experience and practice in the course of 12 months.
MR. CHANCE: As the opinion of the English Members seems to be against the Amendment I will not press it. It seems to me, however, that it will be a curious matter if any first offender is subjected to a longer period of probation than one year. At the same time, after the intimation that has been given to me of the feeling of the Committee I must ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACTS (IRELAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 176.]
(Sir James Carry, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Johnston.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 19th May.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Short title).
Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 5 and 6, leave out "Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act Amendment," and insert "Municipal Corporation of Belfast."—(Sir James Corry.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. SEXTON: After what happened to-day it would be of no use to oppose the Amendment. After the declaration made on behalf of the Government, there is no choice between having a Bill confined to Belfast or no Bill at all. That being so, I do not think I am entitled, as a Belfast Member, to do anything to prejudice this reform. I shall, therefore, not oppose the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
Words inserted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 (Commencement).
MR. SEXTON: I beg to move that Clause 2 be omitted. I am greatly astonished that the hon. Baronet (Sir James Corry) who is in charge of the Bill has not moved the Amendment himself. The clause provides that the Bill shall commence to take effect on the 31st of December, 1887. Now, after the passing of the last Amendment the Bill has become special, and the Bill is urgent. The Bill is special because it now applies to Belfast alone. The Corporation of Belfast is a Corporation which is composed of one class with one creed. The Bill is urgent because another measure will soon pass into law which will place on the town a very heavy burden. Supposing this Bill passes into law this Session, and this clause remains unaltered, the new franchise will not come into play until next year. It will not be until November, 1888, that the ratepayers under the new franchise will be entitled to elect one-third of the Council. They will not be able to elect a second third until 1889, and it will not be until 1890 that the whole of the present Members may have been displaced. I appeal, then, to the Committee not to give with one hand and to take away with the other. In an ordinary measure it is provided that the Act shall come into force as soon as it passes into law. I think the Committee will see that this clause ought to come out, and that the Bill ought to come into force in the present year.
Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 2.—(Mr. Sexton.)
Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
SIR JAMES CORRY: The object of this clause was to give time for the registration, which will be very heavy, and to bring the Bill into operation next year. I have, however, no objection whatever to the measure coming into operation as soon as it is passed.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause struck out.
Clause 3 (Amendment of Section 30 of the Municipal Corporations Act).
On the Motion of Sir JAMES CORRY, Amendments made, in page 1, line 13, by leaving out "as required," and inserting "(hereinafter called the principal Act)

807
as requires;" page 1, lines 16 and 17, by leaving out "several boroughs named in Schedule A to said Act annexed," and inserting "municipal borough of Belfast."
MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—In page 1, line 20, to leave out "last day of August," and insert ''twentieth day of July." The qualifying date in respect of the municipal franchise will, under this Bill, be the last day of August. The qualifying date in respect of the Parliamentary franchise is the 20th of July. I suppose that under this Bill there will be about 25,000 voters; and I have received many letters from Belfast respecting the trouble and expense which will be entailed by having two registrations of voters. Unless my Amendment is agreed to, there will have to be two attendances before the Revising Barrister—once in respect of the Parliamentary, and once in respect of the municipal franchise. I am acting in obedience to representations which have been made to me; and I say that for the two qualifications only one attendance ought to be necessary.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out "last day of August," and insert "twentieth day of July."—(Mr. Sexton.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
SIR JAMES COREY: This is an Amendment which I really cannot accept. The Bill was drawn on the same lines as the English Corporations Act; and the 31st of August is the date there given. It would be most inconvenient that the revision should take place on the day mentioned by the hon. Member, because the Parliamentary franchise and the municipal franchise do not correspond at all. It would be perfectly impossible for the two revisions to go on at the same time. We have a new element introduced into the municipal franchise by this Bill, because it allows women to vote. On the other hand, there is no lodger franchise, and no service franchise, in regard to the municipal elections. It would, therefore, be most inconvenient for the two registrations to go on at the same time. I, therefore, cannot accept the Amendment.
MR. CHANCE: May I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that he has hardly put forward the full strength of his case, because the hon. Baronet who is in charge of the Bill has introduced into the section a technical expression, which is only to be found in Parliamentary Franchise Acts. The effect of adopting the 20th of July as the date at which the revision should take place would be that the authorities who make up the list of municipal voters would have all the advantage of being able to utilize the list already made up for the Parliamentary franchise. It would reduce their work 60 per cent, and no practical disadvantage would re-suit. On the other hand, the very greatest expense and trouble will be caused by adopting a provision which is absolutely unknown in any franchise. The matter is merely one of utility and advantage.
MR. SEXTON: The remarks made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) were entirely irrelevant. He says that some of the voters under the municipal franchise will be women. I really do not see what difference that makes. The qualifications of Parliamentary and municipal voters will be practically identical in Belfast, and one inspection will do for both. The two Courts would sit at the same time, and one Inspector will be able to attend both. I may say that my proposal is much more to the advantage of the hon. Baronet's friends than it is to our advantage, because we shall always be a small minority in Belfast. As far as I see at present I must press the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 81: Majority 5.—(Div. List, No. 167.)
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Provisions of Act not to affect existing burgess roll) agreed to.
Clause 5 (Repeal of provisions of Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act as to election of aldermen).
MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the omission of this clause. The hon. Baronet will confess that, while this might be permissible to a general Bill, it has no place in a Bill applicable solely to the borough of Belfast. This clause pro-

809
poses to remove the election of aldermen from the burgesses and hand it over to the Council, and this is the only borough which is selected for the change. I am aware that it is the law in England; but we do not like it, and do not want it. The effect of its operation would be to elect aldermen all of the same class, as it gives the election of 10 aldermen every year into the hands of the 30 Councillors. I hope the hon. Baronet will consent to withdraw the clause.
Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 5.—(Mr. Sexton.)
Question proposed, "That the Clause proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I hope the hon. Baronet will not press this clause. It seems to rue that it is a disfranchising, not an enfranchising clause. In Dublin and other boroughs the burgesses elect the aldermen, and I do not see why we should depart from the ordinary rule.
SIR JAMES CORRY: I have taken the clause, precisely as it stands, from the English Act, as I think, in a matter of this kind, we should assimilate the law of the two countries. I must insist upon the clause being retained.
MR. CHANCE: I trust the clause will not be retained, for it is introducing an absolutely new principle into the municipal franchise in Ireland. By the Bill you are proposing to give an extension of the municipal franchise, but by this clause you are taking it away; so that you are giving an extension of the franchise with the one hand and taking it away with the other. There is no reason whatever why this Bill should be used as a vehicle to import a new disfranchisement. I know that the English law has it; but it is a distinct disadvantage as compared with the Irish law. Originally this Bill was intended to apply to the whole of Ireland, and if we import into this the English law it will result in this—that when afterwards the Act is extended to the whole of Ireland this will be quoted as a precedent why we should apply it to the whole of Ireland. This is no Party matter. We desire to give to the Orange people of Belfast the government of their own town as far as municipal franchise is concerned, and we will be no party to
810
imposing upon these people a new and special disability never yet known to the law of Ireland.
MR. EWART: As a Bill dealing with the local government of Ireland will be introduced next year, I think it would be a pity to impose, in the meantime, a charge of this sort upon one borough.
MR. F. S. POWELL: I only wish to make one remark upon this and the three following clauses. I have, in connection with a Committee upstairs, recently studied the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and can trace but small relationship with the sections of that Act and these clauses proposed to be introduced into this Bill. I think these are not clauses fit to be introduced into an Act of Parliament. They are skeleton clauses, and on that ground alone, if on no other, I should object to them.
SIR JAMES CORRY: I could not accept the Motion without consulting my friends; and I beg to move, Sir, that you do report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir James Corry.)
MR. T. M. HEALY: I was not in the House, unfortunately, when this Bill went into Committee, otherwise I should have objected; but I now give the hon. Baronet warning that, having this lucky chance of getting his Bill, if he reports Progress to-night this is the last opportunity he will get.
MR. CHANCE: I hope the Committee will not allow the Motion to succeed. A large number of Members have stayed here at great inconvenience to do justice even to a small portion of Ireland, and I trust their efforts will not be frustrated.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I hope the hon. Member for Mid Armagh will not press the Motion. Undoubtedly the clause ought not to be introduced into a Bill of this kind.
SIR JAMES CORRY: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause struck out.
Clauses 6, 7, and 8 struck out.
New Clause (Application of Act), "The Act shall apply only to the bo-

811
rough of Belfast,"—(Sir James Corry.)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. T. M. HEALY: In consequence of what occurred this afternoon I am obliged to take a Division against this clause, restricting the application of the Act to the borough of Belfast.
MR. SEXTON: I am compelled to oppose the adoption of this new clause.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 20: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 168.)
Clause added to the Bill.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the insertion of a new clause, which is really consequential upon Clause 2. By Clause 2 the Bill will come into active operation immediately; and, therefore, the new franchise could be applied to the Register for the present year, instead of being delayed until the 8th of December, after the elections have been closed. The proposal I lay before the Committee is this. Having increased the number of burgesses from 5,000 to 25,000, you have no right to say that the 20,000 shall be loft without the exercise of the voting power until November of next year; you have a right to admit them immediately to the exercise of this power, and more especially as there is a necessity of entering into contracts with respect to the main drainage scheme. Unless this clause is adopted the present Corporation, elected by a small body of persons, will, in the meantime, have entered into the contracts. I quote the Dublin Bill of 1849 as a precedent for the course I have taken. In the year 1849 the municipal franchise was extended to Dublin, and the House of Commons of that day, taking a common-sense view of the matter, allowed the ratepayers the exercise of the powers immediately the Bill was passed, where by there was a full election. I ask that that precedent shall be now followed.
New Clause—
(First Election of New Council.)
"At the date of the ordinary annual municipal elections for the borough of Belfast, occurring next after the passing of this Act, every seat in the Municipal Council of Belfast shall
812
become vacant, as if the period of occupancy prescribed by Law had expired, and there shall be on the said date a new election for any seat in the said Council,"—(Mr. Sexton.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
SIR JAMES CORRY: I must oppose the introduction of this clause into the Bill, as its adoption, in my opinion, would be likely to be very serious indeed. I think it would be much better that a number of the members of the old Corporation should remain for some time as members, certainly until the drainage scheme is properly carried out. I think it would be most unfortunate were this clause to be adopted, and I must strongly oppose it.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: I think the remarks of the hon. Baronet are the strongest condemnation of the contention of the opponents of the proposal—namely, that if the electors had this power they would not have confidence in the old Corporation. Well, Sir, if it be that the Belfast Corporation is about to proceed to an enormous contract, saddling the town of Belfast with £500,000, I am quite sure the proposal of the hon. Member for West Belfast is the one the Committee would follow. It would be contrary to all precedent that there should be any unnecessary delay in allowing the electorate to come into the exercise of their new powers at once.
MR. DE COBAIN: It appears to me not to accept this proposal would place the Corporation of Belfast in a very awkward position. Two-thirds of the Corporation would thus represent about 6,000 rate papers, and the remaining one-third would represent a very largely increased constituency of, say, 40,000 ratepayers, as women householders under this Bill have votes. By the hon. Baronet's contention the two-thirds, representing 6,000 people, would have double the voting power and control of those who represented an electorate of 40,000 voters or upwards. I think that would be entirely unprecedented. I certainly hope the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh will see his way to accept this clause. It seems to mo that it would only be just and fair that the new electorate that is constituted should be brought into play at once, so

813
that the new Corporation may represent the opinion of the entire town.
MR. EWART: I am very strongly opposed indeed to this clause, as I think to have an election next November for an entire new Town Council would lead to a deal of disturbance and confusion and that in the present state of Belfast it would be highly undesirable. If this clause is adopted I think very many of the old Corporation would seize the opportunity of retiring from the duties, and I think the Council would be very much injured in consequence. It appears to me a very unwise thing to do. Politically speaking, it would not make any difference; but it would create a great deal of inconvenience locally.
MR. CHANCE: It will be in the recollection of the Committee that upon two occasions or more the proceedings in Committee upon the Belfast Main Drainage Bill have been postponed expressly on account that no money should be spent upon that scheme until the people of Belfast had an effective control over their local affairs. After these decisions, the Committee of the House would stultify itself if it decided that while the Main Drainage Bill is passed, and a large amount of money spent at once, the people of Belfast shall have no control over their affairs for two years. Either this clause must be inserted, or all action under the Drainage Bill must be suspended for two years, for we have positively decided that not a penny shall be spent until the representatives of the extended franchise have control.
MR. F. S. POWELL: There is one question I should like to ask the hon. Member for West Belfast. What is the effect of this clause? Is it intended to have an entirely new Council at the expiration of the annual term, and is it intended that part of the new Council shall go out after a short interval, another after a longer term, and the third after a still longer interval, or, again, that all the members always go out at the time?
MR. CHANCE: The original Municipal Act is adhered to with the new franchise. The machinery of the old Act will be applied; the retirement of the Council will be as before—simply the extension of the franchise will apply at once.
Motion agreed to.
Clause added to the Bill.
MR. CHANCE: As a consequence of the adoption of this Amendment, we have to provide for a person to preside at these elections. The old Act provides that an alderman or councillor shall preside; but, every seat being declared vacant, there would be no person qualified to preside. I will therefore move that the person who, under the present law, would fill the post, shall do so under the altered circumstances.
Amendment proposed,
To add to the now Clause—"Provided always that the person who by law would be bound to preside at the next election if this Act were not passed shall nevertheless preside at such election."—(Mr. Chance.)
Amendment agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast—in reference to the suspension of the main drainage scheme—cannot, as I have already mentioned, be moved in Committee.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to say that I shall move it on the consideration of Report.
Bill reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be taken into Consideration, as amended, on Monday 6th June."—(Sir James Corry.)
MR. SEXTON: I would ask the hon. Baronet to fix that stage for Monday next. The Main Drainage Bill, as he is aware, is hung up until June 20, to allow this Bill to pass; and with the Whitsuntide holidays intervening, there is not much time to allow of the Bill being sent up to "another place." I must move that the Report be taken on Monday next.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "6th June," and add the word "next."—(Mr. Sexton.)
Question proposed, "That the words '6th June' stand part of the Question."
SIR JAMES CORRY: June 6 will be more convenient. I have made arrangements that will not allow me to be in my place on Monday.
MR. CHANCE: We will move it then.
MR. SEXTON: I must move for Monday next; the question is urgent.
SIR JAMES CORRY: I think I can undertake to say the Bill will not be delayed in the House of Lords.
Question put, and negatived.
Question, "That the word 'next' be there added," put, and agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put.
Bill, as amended, to be taken into Consideration upon Monday next.

DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT REGISTRATION BILL.— [BILL 231.]
(Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Mr. Howard Vincent, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Coddington, Mr. Lawson.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th May.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Extent of Act).
MR. MAURICE HEALY: So far as I can judge this is an admirable Bill; but I cannot see why its promoters should wish to restrict its application to England. I see no reason whatever why it should not apply to Ireland, and, therefore, I beg to move the omission of the words "or Ireland."
Amendment proposed, line 11, to leave out the words "or Ireland."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Clause."
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I welcome that Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 (Commencement of Act) agreed to.
Clause 4 struck out.
Clause 5 (Avoidance of unregistered deeds of arrangement).
MR. CHANCE: In line 21 I move the second of my Amendments, to omit the word "immediately."
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has no Amendment on the Paper.
MR. CHANCE: But I move it, Sir It is an Amendment I understand the promoters agree to, substituting the "words within a week after the execution thereof" for the word "immediately."
Amendment proposed, to omit the word "immediately," and insert the words "within one week."—(Mr. Chance.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 (Mode of registration).
On the Motion of The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir Edward Clarke), Amendment made, in page 2, line 29, after "affidavit," by leaving out "of" and inserting "verifying."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Form of register) agreed to.
Clause 8 (The registrar, and the office for registration).
On the Motion of The SOLICITOR GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 3, line 6, by leaving out "attached to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice."
On the Motion of Mr. CHANCE, Amendment made, in line 7, after "shall" by inserting "and the Registrar of Bills of Sale in Ireland shall."
Amendment proposed,
In line 11, after the words "in England shall," insert "and the Bill of Sale officer in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland shall."—(Mr. Chance.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): Before this Amendment is adopted and further progress made, I should like to have it clearly stated whether these Amendments have been agreed to by the Attorneys General for England and Ireland. So far as I am aware, no such agreement has been come to. I am not in a position to say how far these Amendments are consequential upon the extension of the Bill to Ireland; but if they have been agreed upon I make no further objection. But, at the same time, I think that opportunity should be given that their full effect may be considered.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: The principle of applying the Bill to Ireland was distinctly agreed upon; but upon these Amendments, which we feel were consequential upon the general agreement—these particular words—I cannot say there was an agreement. But ample time will be allowed for their consideration before Report.
MR. CHANCE: They are consequential Amendments, and can be dealt with

817
on Report. I trust there may be no factious opposition at this stage.
SIR EDWARD CLARKE: It is a serious matter to go on inserting Amendments which have not been considered and agreed upon by anyone responsible on this Bench for the conduct of such Business as this. We have introduced Amendments to this section—for instance, the authority is mentioned for registering in Ireland; it may be the proper authority, but I am not in a position to discuss the question now, nor, so far as I know, is any Member of the Government present in a position to make himself acquainted with the effect of the alterations suggested by the hon. Member for South Islington (Sir Albert Rollit). We have got to a stage, I think, when we might report Progress, and it would be very much better to put these Amendments on the Paper, that they may be considered before we go on further with the clauses.
MR. CHANCE: Of course, I am in the hands of the Committee; but these are purely consequential Amendments, and reasonable objection cannot be taken to them. But, if necessary, I am willing to reserve my Amendments for Report. I did not think there would be the slightest objection, and I consulted with the hon. Member who brought in the Bill, and who knows the subject thoroughly. I do not wish to prevent Progress being made with the Bill, and if I am pressed—unreasonably pressed—I must yield, and insert the Amendments on Report.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I hope there will be no unreasonable objection to our going on. I have satisfied myself of the propriety of the Amendments as consequent upon the extension of the Bill to Ireland; and I have no doubt they will be approved by the Attorney General, who has given me material assistance in shaping the measure. I hope the Solicitor General will see his way to allowing us to proceed.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I do not think there is any desire on the part of anybody to raise factious opposition to the Bill; but I am sure the hon. Member will agree that, inasmuch as the matter is one particularly for the consideration of the Attorney General, who has not seen the Amendments, and that we have no knowledge—certainly I have no knowledge—of the effect of the
818
alterations, and that the ultimate progress of the Bill will not be retarded, it will be better to report Progress now, and the Attorney General will have an opportunity of seeing the Amendments before they are inserted.
MR. CHANCE: I presume, if Amendments of any considerable nature were made on Report, the third reading could not be taken on the same evening, and, therefore, there can be no object in finishing the Committee to-night. At the same time, I would say that, having settled that Ireland is to be included, we should stultify ourselves and make absolute nonsense of the section if we introduced provisions that could not apply to Ireland. I agree to reporting Progress now it will not make any real difference.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

MOTIONS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government District of Buxton, the Borough of Halifax, and the Local Government Districts of Otley, South-wick, and Sowerby Bridge, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 269.]

  CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to amend "The Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874," and "The Conveyancing (Scotland) Act (1874) Amendment Act, 1879," ordered to he brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 270.]

  BUTTER SUBSTITUTES BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE).
  Ordered, That it he an Instruction to the Select Committee on the Butter Substitutes Bill, that they have power to consolidate the Butter Substitutes Bill and the Oleomargarine (Fraudulent Sale) Bill into one Bill.—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)

  FORESTRY.
  Select Committee on Forestry nominated of,—Mr. C. Acland, Mr. Biddulph, Mr. Craig Sellar, Mr. Evelyn, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Farquharson, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Fuller Maitland, Mr. Gilhooly, Mr. Egerton Hubbard, Colonel King-Harman, Sir Edmund Lechmere, Sir John

  819
  Lubbock, Colonel Nolan, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Mark Stewart, and Sir Richard Temple.—[Sir Edmund Lechmere.)
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Two o'clock till Monday next.