Commons Sitting of 29 April 1892

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition. Whereupon Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table; and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES). (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Sir JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection that they had selected the following six Members to be the Chairman's Panel and to serve as Chairmen of the two Standing Committees to be appointed under Standing Order 49:—Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry James, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Sir Matthew White Ridley, and Mr. Salt.
Ordered, That the Report do lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection that they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Trade—including Agriculture and Fishing—Shipping, and Manufacture which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Addison, Mr. Asher, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Barran, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. Bolitho, Mr. Bonsor, Mr. Boord, Mr. A. H. Brown, Mr. Brunner, Mr. Burt, Mr. Carew, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Mr. Childers, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Colman, Mr. Craig, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Baron Henry de Worms, Mr. Dixon-Hartland, Sir George Elliot, Mr. Thomas Ellis, Colonel Eyre, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Gilliat, Sir Julian Goldsmid, Mr. Grotrian, Mr. Timothy Harrington, Mr. Heath, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Howell, Mr. Hoyle,
1642
Mr. Jackson, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Macartney, Mr. J. M. Maclean, Mr. M'Lagan, Mr. Morrogh, Mr. Mowbray, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Murray Mr. Murphy, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Sir Richard Paget, Sir Joseph Pease, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Roche, Mr. Edmund Robertson, Mr. Round, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Sheil, Mr. William P. Sinclair, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. Mark Stewart, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. Tomlinson, Sir George Trevelyan, Sir Richard Webster, Mr. Stephen Williamson, Mr. C. H. Wilson, Mr. Winterbotham, and Mr. Wood.
Sir JOHN MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee of Selection that they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Tyssen Amherst, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Beach, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Caldwell, Sir Edward Clarke, Mr. Coghill, Dr. Commins, Mr. Radcliffe Cooke, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Darling, Sir John Dorington, Mr. Dugdale, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. John Ellis, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. S. T. Evans, Mr. Lewis Fry, Mr. Forrest Fulton, Mr. Herbert Gardner, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Mr. Gurdon, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Hall, Sir Charles Hall, Sir W. Vernon Harcourt, Sir Edward Harland, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Hinckes, Mr. Samuel Hoare, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Isaacs, Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Knox, Mr. W. F. Lawrence, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Llewellyn, Mr. Lockwood, Mr. MacNeill, Mr. Madden, Mr. Mahony, Mr. Story-Maskelyne, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Milvain, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Mulholland, Mr. Muntz, Mr. William O'Brien, Sir Charles Pearson, Mr. Pickard, Mr. Picton, Mr. John E. Redmond, Mr. Bryn Roberts, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Charles Russell, Sir George Russell, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Ernest Spencer, Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Whitmore, and Mr. Stuart Wortley.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
COLONEL HUGHESrose to move—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the desirability of inserting a Clause enabling the Clerk of the County Council of London to correct the Totals of the Valuation Lists, so far as the same have been affected by the decisions on any rating appeals, and that Section 44 of 'The Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act, 1869,' should apply thereto as if such correction had been duly made on an appeal against Totals."
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have considered the terms of the Motion for an Instruction of which the hon. Member has given notice. The Bill to which it refers is an omnibus Bill, but I do not find that any one of the clauses deals with any matter cognate to the subject of the Instruction, which, therefore, cannot be entertained, not being in order.

QUESTIONS.

  HIGHER CLASS SCHOOL INSPECTORS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state the names of the gentlemen employed for the inspection of higher class schools last year, and the fees paid to them respectively?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,: It is not possible within the limits of an answer to give the information desired. But the hon. Member will obtain his information if he will be so good as to call at the Scotch Education Department.

  THE CONVICTS RICHARDSON AND EGDELL.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the convict Charles Richardson, who has served ten years, is still detained, though George Egdell, convicted for the same crime, was released?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: Egdell and Richardson were each sentenced to five years' penal servitude, not ten as
  1644
  stated in the question, in November, 1888. Egdell was released on licence this month, six months before the ordinary time for licence, on the ground of his age, and because he was the first to make voluntary confession of a crime of which two other men had been convicted. Richardson will be due for licence in August next, if he has been of good conduct while in prison.

  STREET OBSTRUCTION IN LAMBETH.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue instructions to the Chief Commissioner of Police to move on the crowd of betting men and others, who obstruct the pavement at the corner of York Road, Lambeth, every Monday, in a similar fashion to the way in which the crowd of Socialists was moved on at the World's End, Chelsea?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Chief Commissioner that the men who congregate at the place in question are not betting men, but theatrical and music-hall artists, who meet there daily, but in specially large numbers on Mondays, in order to make arrangements with the agents who live near by. This has been a custom for many years past, and no complaints have been made to the police of annoyance or obstruction to traffic.

  CIVIL SERVICE COPYISTS.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the present number of Civil Service Writers on the register; how many have taken the gratuity since the issue of the Treasury Minute of 21st December, 1886; how many are in receipt of a bonus, and how many of a special rate of pay; and what is the total number of writers already promoted to the position of abstractor or assistant clerk?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,: The number of Civil Service copyists at present on the register is 730; 353 have taken the gratuity since the issue of the Treasury Minute of 21st December, 1886; 476 are in receipt of bonus. The number in receipt of a special rate of pay cannot be definitely stated, as it varies according to the circumstances and requirements of departments from day to

  1645
  day; 147 copyists have been promoted to the position of abstractor or assistant clerk.

  TIES IN COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the election for a County Councillor for Maryport North, in Cumberland, in which the two candidates having received an equality of votes, and the Returning Officer having declined to give his casting vote, the result is that the County Council Division in question is at present without a representative; and whether he can suggest the proper course to be taken, or, in the event of legislation being necessary, he can hold out any hope of the required legislation being promoted by the Government?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: The facts are, I believe, as stated by the hon. Member. It appears to me that it is a matter of regret that the Returning Officer did not exercise the power conferred upon him by the Statute of giving a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes; but, under the circumstances, I apprehend that if it is desired that a further election should be held, the only course is to apply to the High Court for the issue of a mandamus for the purpose.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Will it not be possible to introduce legislation to make the meaning clear? I fancy a Bill with that object would not meet with any opposition.
  MR. RITCHIE: The provision regarding election is that of the Municipal Corporations Act, which was incorporated in the Local Government Act. The terms of the Municipal Corporations Act appear to raise a difficulty, and I think it is extremely desirable that some method should be found to rectify what is undoubtedly a serious omission, but I am afraid I cannot promise immediate legislation.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE: I may remind the light hon. Gentleman that a similar case occurred at Reigate, Will the right hon. Gentleman
  1646
  say whose business it is to apply for a mandamus?
  MR. RITCHIE: Anyone in the locality who is interested in the matter can move the High Court for a mandamus.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE: Any voter?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes.

  THE ENFIELD FACTORY AND SWORD CONTRACTS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if any orders for swords, cavalry, naval, and others, have been given to contractors; and if Enfield is without orders for swords at the present time?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,: No orders for any kind of swords have been given for some time, either to the trade or to the Royal Small Arms Factory. The orders for this year are about to be given out, and care will be taken to keep the Enfield factory employed.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Do I understand that Enfield is at present without orders for swords?
  MR. BRODRICK: I believe the orders are just being completed, but care will be taken to renew the Enfield orders.

  VOLUNTEERS AND JURY SERVICE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state when the Lord Chancellor will introduce the measure contemplated dealing with the Jury Laws; and, if, having regard to the facts brought forward, showing that the liability to jury service of the Volunteer Force extends to only 25 per cent. of the noncommissioned officers, and 8 per cent. of the privates, Her Majesty's Government see their way to extend the concession as regards the officers to other ranks?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am in communication with the Lord Chancellor in regard to this matter, and I shall be much obliged if my hon. Friend will put his question in a few days' time.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I will do so this day week.

  THE COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF CIVIL SERVANTS.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the rule laid down in the Order in Council for the compulsory retirement of Civil servants on attaining the age of 65 has been applied generally to all Departments; whether any Civil servants have been allowed to remain on active duty who are over 70 years of age; and, if so, how it is proposed to remunerate them for their services?
  SIR J. GORST: Clause 10 of the Order in Council to which the hon. Member refers has been applied generally to all Departments except the legal Departments and the Houses of Lords and Commons. A few Civil servants, principally scientific or technical officers, remain on duty notwithstanding that they are over 70, but their services are only temporarily retained for special reasons. They are paid as for unestablished service, and that service does not count for pension.

  THE SALARIES OF PRISON SURGEONS.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the case that the surgeons of Northampton Prison with a daily population of 104 and commitments of 1,140, and Shrewsbury Prison with a daily population of 95 and commitments of 1,290, each receive a salary of £110 per annum, while the surgeons at Dundee Prison with a daily population of 109 and commitments of 3,560, and of Ayr Prison with a daily population of 70 and commitments of 1,750, receive respectively £80 and £70 per annum; why the salary of the Ayr Prison surgeon has been reduced; and under what rules are these salaries determined?
  SIR. J. GORST: I have no information to enable me to check the accuracy, or otherwise, of the numbers quoted. The salary at Ayr was recently revised on the death of the former surgeon so as to correspond more closely to the present scale at other prisons in Scotland. The salaries of prison surgeons in Scotland who do not give their whole time to the public are fixed, as far as possible, with reference to the number of commitments and daily average number of prisoners at the time when the surgeons are
  1648
  appointed, a maximum of £80 being fixed in accordance with the recommendation of a Committee which sat in 1879.
  DR. CLARK: Do the rules apply equally to Scotland and England?
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Gentleman will get better information from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but if he will give me notice of his question I will procure the information for him.

  THE IRISH PARLIAMENT HOUSE.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will allow the Return standing on the Notice Paper of to-day, referring to the agreement entered into in 1800, between the Government of the day and the Governors of the Bank of Ireland, as to tenancy by the latter of the buildings in College Green, Dublin, formerly devoted to the purposes of an Irish Legislature?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: In answer to the hon. Gentleman I have to say that I understand that a similar question was put to the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) when he was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in 1884, and he did not see his way to granting the required documents. I should be glad to know, before making any investigation as to the probability of granting the Return, whether any public object is intended to be served by it? Perhaps the hon. Member can give me some information on that point.
  MR. CRILLY: In view of the likelihood of Home Rule being a burning question at the next General Election, and in view of the fact that the Irish people will insist upon getting the building back for the purposes of the new Parliament, I want to know what were the arrangements come to in 1800 between the Government of that day and the Bank of Ireland so that we may know upon what terms the building can be taken possession of again for the Irish people?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think, so far as I understand the matter, that the real difficulty in the way of Home Rule will consist of any arrangements come to in 1800 between the Bank

  1649
  of Ireland and the Government of the day. I am sure that when Home Rule is granted the hon. Member will find no difficulty in obtaining the necessary premises for conducting the business of Ireland.
  MR. CRILLY: In view of the fact that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian introduced his Home Rule Bill in 1886 he reprinted for the use of Members a number of historical documents connected with the period of the Union, I would like to know what objection and what difficulty there would be in allowing this Parliament, the successor to the Parliament which made the arrangement, to see the agreement entered into with the Bank of Ireland?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask——
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! It is an argumentative question, and should not be put.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INSPECTORS.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education what experience in the teaching and management of public elementary schools each of the three recently appointed Inspectors has had; in which division of the certificate examination held by the Education Department's Examiners these Inspectors passed; whether one of these Inspectors, Mr. Marvin, has been examined more than once by the Civil Service Commissioners for the office of Inspector's assistant, and, if so, why; what was the duration of Mr. Marvin's experience as Inspector's assistant; and what academical degrees and what experience in the work of public elementary schools were possessed by the sub-Inspectors and Inspectors' assistants over whose heads Mr. Marvin was promoted?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: Only one of the recently appointed Inspectors was a certificated teacher who had graduated in first-class honours, and of the other two, one was Senior Wrangler of his year, and the other, after obtaining the highest honours of his University, had been employed some years in tuition. The hon. Member is probably aware of the conditions
  1650
  under which Inspectors are appointed, as they are printed in a Memorandum which is freely circulated to all applicants, and also that every Inspector, when first appointed, is employed on probation with another Inspector in order that he may obtain sufficient experience of elementary schools under qualified supervision. I may further take the opportunity of reminding him that the most delicate and important part of an Inspector's duties lies outside the school, and that a higher equipment than the position and training of a certificated teacher can often afford, is required in order to qualify him to act as the agent of the Department in difficult negotiations with managers and School Boards, and as its adviser in dealing with the intricate questions of school supply.

  SCIENCE TEACHING AT SOUTH KENSINGTON.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can now state to the House what arrangements the Government intend to make to meet the urgent necessities of science teaching at South Kensington?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I am unable to enlighten the hon. Gentleman in regard to this matter at this moment. The Science and Art Department is in communication with the Treasury on the subject, and I hope soon to be in a position to say something definite. I will let the hon. Member know how matters progress.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. SHAW-STEWART: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any foundation for the rumour that the Government intend to withdraw the Public Health Clauses of the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that a rumour has got abroad that I have entered into an arrangement with an hon. Member by which the Bill is to be altered in the sense indicated in the question. I had some conversation on the subject, and it is possible that a compromise between those who object to the

  1651
  Bill in its present shape, and those who desire to see it passed, may be come to on the lines suggested; but I never indicated that it was my opinion that that course ought to be pursued. I should be sorry to express an opinion on it, and it certainly is a course which cannot be decided upon by any private agreement. I hope some arrangement may be come to, for the Bill is of a character that it cannot pass through its stages without general consent.
  DR. CLARK: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the only thing the right hon. Gentleman agreed to was that he would pass over the Public Health Clauses as contentious clauses, leaving questions in relation to these for further consideration?

  THE BECHUANALAND BORDER POLICE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT, on behalf of Mr. LOCKWOOD (York): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies upon what system promotion is carried out in the Bechuanaland Border Police; and whether, in the interests of the Force itself and the public, promotion therein will be conducted upon the same principles as those which are acted upon in the Regular Army?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,: Promotions within the Bechuanaland Border Police are made on the recommendation of the officer commanding, with the approval of the High Commissioner, due regard being paid to the claims arising from efficiency and seniority. This has been found to work well, and the Secretary of State sees no reason to alter it. It is hardly necessary to point out that this Police Force is very different in many respects from the Regular Army.

  CATTLE DISEASE IN ESSEX.
  MR. H. GARDNER: May I ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Order of the Department of 13th April placing restrictions, in consequence of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, on the movement of cattle in the district of Royston, Bishops Stortford, and Saffron Walden, has been, or will be, rescinded?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: I am glad to be able to say that all the restrictions affecting the county of Essex have been removed by Order within the last few days, and that the Order will come into force on Monday next.

  A DEADLOCK IN THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether some remedy can be found for the present deadlock in the administration of the Inclosure and Land Department of the Board of Agriculture, owing to the continued illness of its present chief, Sir Jacob Wilson?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I regret to say that it is the fact that Sir Jacob Wilson is prevented by a relapse of illness—following upon an attack of influenza and a premature return to his duties—from attending his Department at the present moment. But he was at his post immediately before the Easter holidays, and the amiable assumption of the hon. Member that the work of this Department is, in consequence, at a deadlock, I believe to be entirely without foundation. But if the hon. Member has any reason to suppose that unwarranted delay has occurred in any individual case and will supply me with particulars, I shall be happy to give my personal attention to the matter.

  COUNTY CORK WATER SUPPLY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps the Local Government Board have taken to settle the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the water supply of Kilworth, in the Fermoy, County Cork, Union?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,: A delay has occurred in proceeding with the Water Supply Scheme for Kilworth in consequence of differences between the Sanitary Authority and an owner of water rights affected by the proposed scheme. As, however, there seems no immediate prospect of an amicable settlement of these differences being come to, the Local Government Board are about to issue the necessary Provi-

  1653
  sional Order in connection with the scheme, leaving these differences to be settled in the ordinary course.

  UNSANITARY HOUSES IN THE BANDON UNION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken to remedy the unsanitary condition of houses in the Kilbrittain district of the Bandon Union; and whether the Local Government Board will consider the application of Dr. Shorter, of Kilbrittain, to insist on the Bandon Board of Guardians appointing a third relieving officer, and thus prevent the frequently reported unsanitary condition of houses in the Union?
  MR. JACKSON: The Board of Guardians of the Bandon Union had under consideration, on the 13th inst., a complaint made by the Medical Officer mentioned, in reference to the unsanitary condition of some houses in his district. The sanitary sub-officer reported that he had already served notices on the offending parties, and the Guardians thereupon directed that he should serve fresh notices requiring the premises complained of to be put in order within 14 days. The Guardians had on a previous occasion under consideration the question of appointing a third relieving officer. This question appears to come up for consideration early next month.

  POISONOUS EXPLOSIVES IN MINES.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the verdict of a Coroner's jury at an inquest held at Atherton, on Friday, 12th February, 1892, in the case of Edward Sandeland, when the verdict was that the deceased died from having, while at work in the Chanters Pit, Atherton, by accident and misfortune, inhaled certain noxious gases liberated upon the explosion there of a roburite cartridge, and that he came to his death by accident, and not otherwise; and whether any, and, if so, what, steps will be taken to protect life in mines by preventing the use of poisonous explosives?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member will allow me to answer the question. Yes, Sir; I have had my attention called to the facts of the case of Edward
  1654
  Sandeland, and to the verdict of the jury. Although the jury decided that the death of the deceased man was due to the poisonous fumes of a roburite shot, yet there was at the inquest a difference of medical opinion upon the subject, and I have since had other competent opinions not in accordance with the verdict. The Inspector of the district informs me that the precautions observed on the occasion in question, both in respect of the time which elapsed before the workmen returned to the working place, and in respect of the air current which passed through the working place, were in conformity with the recommendations of a skilled Commission in Durham, which inquired into the possibility of danger arising from the use of roburite as an explosive in mines. Under these circumstances, I do not think that I ought to interfere under the Coal Mines Regulation Act to prevent the use of an explosive which is largely used and wihch has the advantage of being flameless.

  SMALL-POX IN DEWSBURY AND BATLEY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the fact that an epidemic of smallpox now prevails in Dewsbury, Batley, and the neighbourhood known as the heavy woollen district; and has led to heavy local expenditure in providing for the necessities of the case; whether complete isolation of persons capable of spreading infection is attended to; and whether the origin of the epidemic can be traced to inefficient vaccination?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am aware that there has been an outbreak of small-pox in the district referred to in the question. The Town Councils of Dewsbury and Batley have provided some hospital accommodation, but I cannot state that the arrangements in the district are such as adequately to provide for the complete isolation of all persons capable of spreading infection, although the necessity for providing such means of isolation has on several occasions been urged on the Sanitary Authorities by the Local Government Board. The questions of the origin of the epidemic and of its relation to vaccination are being investigated for the Royal Com-

  1655
  mission on Vaccination by Dr. Sidney Coupland, of the Middlesex Hospital, who has already been in the district for some weeks.

  EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND TO AMERICA.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the large number of emigrants now leaving Ireland for America; whether it is true that 800 emigrants embarked at Queens-town on the 22nd instant on the Cunard steamship Pavonia for Boston; and whether steps have been, and are being, taken to insure efficient sanitary, hospital, and water provision, and medical inspection after leaving port, for such steerage passengers by the Board of Trade?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I am informed that a large number of emigrants are leaving Ireland for America, and that about 800 embarked at Queenstown on the 22nd on the Cunard steamship Pavonia for Boston. The emigration officer reports that the sanitary and hospital arrangements on board were satisfactory, that the water and provisions were sufficient, and that the passengers were medically inspected by the sanitary surveyor before the ship left port. There was a surgeon on board whose duty it would, of course, be to attend to the medical supervision of the passengers after leaving port.
  DR. TANNER: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Pavonia is fitted with permanent steerage accommodation or not; whether the sanitary arrangements for the large number of emigrants carried in the ship are of a permanent character, and have been passed by the Medical Officers of the Board of Trade?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have stated that they have been passed. I cannot say how far the arrangements are of a permanent character.
  DR. TANNER: I will raise this question in Committee on the Estimates.

  IMPORTED GUNPOWDER BARRELS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any opportunity has been given to the Ballincollig coopers and Cork coopers of providing the gunpowder casks
  1656
  hitherto imported into Ireland for the carriage of powder from the manufactory at Ballincollig, County Cork?
  MR. BRODRICK: Since my last reply on this subject a contract for a supply of gunpowder has been made with the Ballincollig Company, but they did not on this occasion wish to supply the barrels, although the opportunity was given them. They are, however, about to furnish a sample barrel with a view to supplying their own barrels in the future.

  CORK BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the been directed to the conduct of the Chairman of the Cork Board of Guar-Irish Local Government Board has dians, in refusing, on Thursday the 21st instant, to proceed with the election of dispensary committees, to the great inconvenience of Guardians convened for the purpose of proceeding with such election, and whether inquiry will be made into this and other rulings of a similar nature?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that it is not the case that the Chairman of the Cork Board of Guardians refused to proceed with the election of the Committee on the 21st inst. as alleged; nor, as a matter of fact, were the Guardians convened for the purpose of such elections.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that on Thursday last week the Guardians were prepared to proceed with the election of the committees, and that the Chairman distinctly refused to carry out what the Guardians were assembled for?
  MR. JACKSON: I have already said that cannot be the fact, because the Guardians were not convened for the purpose.
  DR. TANNER: As an old Guardian of the Union I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the information supplied to him is, as indeed it often is, inaccurate.

  HIGH GRADE SCHOOLS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. CRAWFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any objection to giving a Return,

  1657
  by counties, of Burgh Schools, Endowed Schools, and Private Schools referred to in the Memorandum on the proposed Grant for Higher Education in Scotland of the 12th day of April, 1892?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate is not here just now, and I cannot give an answer without consulting the Scotch Office. In any case, I think it could hardly be in the hands of Members in time for the approaching discussion.
  MR. CRAWFORD: I will put the information I desire in the form of a question, and perhaps it can be given within the limits of an answer.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member will do that on Monday, my right hon. Friend will reply.

  MRS. MONTAGU.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the direct question whether the prisoner Mrs. Montagu is required to wear the prison dress? I find from the reports of what took place yesterday, when a question on the subject was asked, that the right hon. Gentleman's reply was not clearly understood.
  MR. JACKSON: I am sorry if I did not make my meaning clear—I thought I had done so. I read the Rule 28, under which power is given to the General Prisons Board to allow a prisoner to wear his own dress on application being made for that purpose. A petition to the Board from Mrs. Montagu to be allowed to wear her own dress was presented to the Board, and the Board saw no reason for making an exception in her case, and gave permission.
  DR. TANNER: But, Sir, is Mrs. Montagu now wearing her own clothes, or is she wearing the prison dress? I really must press for a direct answer. I find that different papers take different views of the fact. Is this prisoner wearing the prison dress or not?
  MR. JACKSON: I have already twice said Mrs. Montagu applied to be allowed to wear her own dress, and permission was given.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman order that Mrs. Montagu shall be treated like any ordinary prisoner?
  MR. JACKSON: I stated yesterday that no exception had been made in the case of Mrs. Montagu.

  THE IRISH HOME RULE MOTION.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I wish to ask your ruling, Sir, on a point of Order connected with a Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane) with respect to the establishment of an Irish Parliament. I wish to ask whether the discussion on that Motion will be in any way interfered with by the terms of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) for to-night?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must say, in reference to this question, on behalf of Mr. Speaker, that the matter was never brought before him at all till last Wednesday, and therefore the statements that have been made in the Press are quite unauthorised. The question on the Paper for to-day is so different in scope from that standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Armagh for next Friday, that the discussion of the latter Motion will not be prejudiced by any decision the House may come to on the former.

MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (MORNING SITTINGS).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name, in regard to the Business of the House. I do not think it is necessary for me to do more than to remind the House that the arrangement I now propose was in force for some weeks before Easter, and was approved, I think, by all sections in the House. It enables private Members to discuss—not at great length, but adequately—subjects in which they are interested on the evenings of Tuesdays and Fridays, and it allows the Government to get on with Government Business at the Morning Sittings on those days. Under these circumstances, and until occasion arises, which in the ordinary course it does at a later period of the Session, for the Government to ask for still greater privileges for the transaction of business, I think we may be content to ask for a

  1659
  continuance of the arrangement which proved so successful for a few weeks before Easter. I hope the House will be disposed to accept without opposition the Motion I now make.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet at Two of the clock on Tuesday and Friday; and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the Morning Sitting on those days."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. H. GARDNER: I cannot help thinking that many hon. Members have felt some surprise at hearing the information which the First Lord of the Treasury has offered with regard to the Motion which he has now placed before the House. I do not wish myself to delay the Business of the House by making any lengthened observations; I merely wish to make a short protest on behalf of myself and on behalf of those agricultural Members who take, as I do, and whose constituents take, a very deep interest in the Small Holdings Bill, against the way in which I venture to think the Government have treated the House with regard to that very important matter. As the House will recollect, when the Bill was introduced into the House, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury laid very great weight upon the Bill, and he, or the President of the Board of Agriculture, announced that the Government would stand or fall by that Bill. The Bill was received with sufficient favour by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. They found, of course, something to criticise in it; for instance, that it did not include the very important principle of compulsion and various other questions which, the Representatives of agricultural constituencies think of the highest importance with regard to a measure of this sort. But, on the whole, I think I may say that we who represent agricultural constituencies in the country are extremely anxious to see this Bill passed, and passed speedily. When a question on this subject was put to the First Lord of the Treasury—I rather fancy it was by myself—he said that when the Bill got into Committee he intended to proceed with it de die in diem, and when it did get into Committee we proceeded some way with the Bill. The
  1660
  House then rose for the Easter Recess, and when we sat again last Monday we did not expect the Government would proceed with it on the first day that Parliament met, but still we expected that at some period very near to the time at which the House again met we should proceed with this very important measure. We certainly had not for a single moment expected that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would get up after the somewhat prolonged Recess we have had at Easter and practically defer the consideration of this most important Bill which the Government are anxious to see passed, and which hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House are also most anxious to see passed—we did not for a single moment expect the First Lord of the Treasury would defer the consideration of this most important Bill for a fortnight after the re-assembling of Parliament.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I desire to appeal to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury to make an exception in favour of the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane), and which deals with a question which an hon. Member sitting on the other side of the House this afternoon told the House was to be the burning question at the General Election; and hon. Members on both sides of the House know that, sooner or later, a General Election will come. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to except Friday, the 6th of May, from his Motion; and I appeal to him on this ground, and I think hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House will see that it is a very sound ground. If my right hon. Friend carries his Motion without making an exception of the 6th of May, what will happen will be this: The Motion of the hon. Member for South Armagh will come on for discussion at nine o'clock, and, according to the Rules of the House, the discussion will close in three hours. The hon. Member for South Armagh would probably open the discussion, and lay his views before the House; he would be followed probably by the various leaders of the sections of the hon. Members for Ireland. Then undoubtedly there are no less than two or three right

  1661
  hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench who would be most anxious to take the opportunity to express their views on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby told us in his speech the other day in the New Forest that he had not been aware of the terms of the Motion, bu1 that he would be prepared on some other occasion to discuss it, and I am sure we would be delighted to hear him. But what would be the result of this? The intervention of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench during the three hours undoubtedly would leave very little time for the other hon. Members from Ireland who sit on this side of the House, and other independent Members who have no chance of catching your eye on those occasions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but who are very anxious indeed to contribute their views on this important Motion. Therefore, I think, having regard to the great interests at stake, the fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway tell us that this is to be the burning question at the General Election, and the fact that the discussion will have the effect of clearing away a good deal of misconception, both above and below the Gangway, as to what is the particular position occupied by the Party opposite on this question, I feel that my right hon. Friend will be doing a very just and reasonable thing if he excepts from his Motion Friday, the 6th of May.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. My right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) desires me to state on his behalf that, with the view of forwarding business, he desires to offer no opposition to that Motion. In reference to the appeal made by the hon. Member who has just sat down, I think, as the hon. Member takes such an interest in the Motion that is intended to be moved by the hon. Member for South Armagh, that if he were to undertake to second it, it would probably commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. He seems to be afraid that there will not be sufficient time for the discussion of
  1662
  that Motion, or time to express his own opinion upon the subject, and that hon. Gentlemen on these Benches are likely to fully occupy all the time of the House. I should be extremely glad to offer him the time I might have occupied, and the hon. Member may rest assured that I have not the smallest desire to interfere with him in fully discussing the subject. It is most interesting to see the great interest which Ulster takes with the other parts of Ireland in this particular Motion. Its support of the Motion must give great hopes of that harmony in Ireland which we are all desirous to see existing. With reference to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I think it proper that we should ask some explanation of the use that is going to be made of the time of private Members that he has proposed to take. Now my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden has, I think, expressed some natural surprise at the manner in which, day after day, the Small Holdings Bill is shoved off—measures of the smallest and the very simplest importance seem to be seized upon for the purpose of postponing the consideration of that question. Now I have a very distinct recollection that when this Bill was first introduced and put first, the Government declared that they meant to proceed with it de die in diem. I cannot understand why that declaration has been departed from. I have had sufficient means of ascertaining the views and intentions of Gentlemen who sit on this side; and I am quite sure that there is no disposition to prolong the discussion upon that Bill. I believe I am expressing their sentiments when I say that they consider that the main points have been already discussed upon the Amendments that have been moved. There are probably one or two other points which will have to be raised upon the Bill; but I think that I may confidently say that if the Government wish on Monday next to resume the consideration of this Bill, and if they get the time which the right hon. Gentleman asks for in his Motion, there is no doubt whatever that the Small Holdings Bill might be passed through Committee in the course of next week; and that being so, surely that is the most convenient arrangement of business, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider

  1663
  whether it is not the course he should take. With regard to the discussion on the Budget, there are some important matters that may be raised upon it, but they are not matters at all urgent. The question of whether the consideration of the Budget should be taken on Thursday next, or whether it should be taken in the ensuing week, seems to me not to be a material question. It seems to me that there could not be a more appropriate method of dealing with the time placed at the disposal of the Government; and if I might reciprocate the interest in the Irish question which has been already expressed by the hon. Member who has just sat down, I, too, have a considerable interest in the discussion upon the plan of the Government for Local Government in Ireland. Now it must be quite plainly seen by the Government that one of the results of this perpetual postponement of the Small Holdings Bill is to protract, prolong, and put off the period of the discussion of that measure. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should proceed at once, as he can without difficulty or any serious opposition, to conclude the discussion of the Small Holdings Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to another question which is likely to be affected by his Motion. I refer to the Resolution to be brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow for the Disestablishment of the Church in Scotland. I should like to ask, as the Resolution stands far down on the Paper, whether on that day the Evening Sitting would extend from nine o'clock to one o'clock?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; we altered that by Standing Order.
  MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: Then I shall reserve the remarks I intended to make. However, I think that a matter of extreme importance such as this should be brought forward at a time when a reasonable discussion could take place upon it. But I do not think there is much good in grumbling about the matter. I do not see how the difficulty can be met; but I should like, if possible, on the occasion to which I refer that the nine o'clock Sitting should go on till one o'clock. ("No, no!") Well, then, I do not know whether it would not be better
  1664
  to vote on the question without any discussion than to take it up and dispose of it without having properly discussed it. I think it very unfortunate that this very important discussion should come on at a time when it cannot be done justice to on one side of the House or the other.
  MR. CREMER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member who has just sat down. Twelve o'clock is quite late enough for the Members of this House who have to work for their living during the day, and who are consequently not able to sit here to a late hour at night. But I rise to ask the light hon. Gentleman if he will be good enough to state—for the information of several Members of the House who have balloted several times during the Session and not had an opportunity of bringing forward their Motions in consequence of the attitude taken up by the Government—I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would be good enough to state how long he proposes to continue the rule which he now asks the House to sanction—whether he proposes that the rule shall only extend to Whitsuntide, or beyond it? Of course, I know every Member regards his own Motion as the most important which the House of Commons could undertake to consider. I may, therefore, be pardoned for expressing the opinion that the Motion which I have down for next Tuesday is one of the most important that the House of Commons could be called upon to discuss. It has been down twice during the Session. A number of other Members are placed in the same position as myself; and it might save us the trouble of coming down on Tuesday and Friday to ballot for places, if the right hon. Gentleman would give a clear answer to the question which I have put to him. My Motion has reference to a Treaty of Arbitration between Great Britain and the United States of America. Since Mr. Plimsoll's Motion with regard to the shipping question, I doubt if any Resolution has ever elicited such an extraordinary expression of opinion concerning the question as my Motion. Fifty-seven Trades Councils out of the 62 in the United Kingdom, and

  1665
  nearly every organised body of workers in the country, have expressed their opinion in favour of it, to say nothing of the great religious bodies. Therefore I think I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I am likely to have an opportunity of calling attention to the subject this Session, or whether it must be deferred till the new Parliament.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think it would be much better for the Government to take one whole night, and to leave the whole of the other night to private Members than to revive Morning Sittings. The right hon. Gentleman has said that Morning Sittings have worked very satisfactorily until Easter. I think, on the contrary, hon. Members will see that the result of Morning Sittings has been that practically the Government made no progress at all with business in these Morning Sittings, and destroyed all the benefit which private Members would have been able to obtain from a proper discussion of their Motions. I do not know that there is any use in protesting against these Morning Sittings, but I should like to enter my protest against what I think is an unprecedented thing—namely, taking Morning Sittings after Whitsuntide. It has always been the custom of the Government after Whitsuntide to take one whole night to deal with the remaining business of the Session, and leave the other night for private Members. If that course were adopted on this occasion we should have ample opportunity of having this Home Rule question discussed, and there would be plenty of time left for the hon. Member for Glasgow to make as long a speech as he liked in reference to Scotch Disestablishment, and plenty of time for hon. Members to take part in that Debate. I know it is no use appealing to the right hon. Gentleman upon this question; but I think it my duty to protest against this perpetual system of the introduction of Morning Sittings. I believe they are destructive of the despatch of Government business, and certainly they are destructive of all the use and efficiency of private Members' business.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden has said with respect to the
  1666
  Small Holdings Bill, and I think there are some other measures of the Government with respect to which great interest is felt out-of-doors. I am bound to say, however, that I do not consider the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the state of business, as at all unreasonable. I doubt very much if in recent years you could find that the House has been sitting for fifty days out of a normal Session of one hundred and twenty and the Government business in a state of such lamentable arrear as it is. Since the beginning of the Session on the 9th February, the House has got into Committee and made some progress with regard to two measures only—the Indian Councils Bill and the Small Holdings Bill—and we are just entering Committee with regard to the Clergy Discipline Bill. That is to say, there are three measures out of ten that have passed the Second Reading, and that we have made any progress with; and there are but four other measures which have only been read a first time. There is the Irish Education Bill, the Private Procedure Bill—which I believe after the Recess we shall not hear much more of—and above all there is the Irish Local Government Bill. I venture to say unhesitatingly that the state of Irish business is a scandal and a reproach to Her Majesty's Government. In January, 1886, the Government of Lord Salisbury came before the House with the Irish Local Government Bill as a primary measure in Her Majesty's Speech of that Session. The Leader of the House after the General Election of that year, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, speaking from that Bench, over and over again promised that that measure would be dealt with. But what do we find? In reply to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, it was said this matter should be proceeded with immediately after the Small Holdings Bill had been through Committee. There is no reason in my mind why, after Easter, we should not have proceeded with that Bill. Then there are four measures that have not been heard of at all: that is, the District Councils Bill, which has been referred to in the south-west of England by a most distinguished supporter of Her Majesty's Government during the Recess; and the

  1667
  Bill for the Relief of Public Elementary Schools from rates, an important matter in which great interest is taken. Then there is a most important commercial measure, the Bill relating to the agreement between the Government and the Bank of England; and, above all, there is the Employers' Liability Bill, a Bill upon which a great deal of time was spent in Grand Committee in 1888, a Bill which affects hundreds of thousands of persons outside this House, and in which they are very keenly interested, and which of course should be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government, if they have really any bona fides on the subject. If the Government had had the slightest desire to put an end to the crying evils that exist in regard to this matter they could have done so. I will not go so fully into the question as to say whose fault it is that we find ourselves in this lamentable condition with regard to the Business of this House. People are constantly accusing the Leader of the House with being young at his work, and with rushing into discussions when he might well keep silence; but, in my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman's misfortune has been that he has had supporters behind him who would not support him. I think there is much accuracy in the criticism of the First Lord of the Treasury himself with reference to the Parliament with which he has to deal. He used very strong language in the Debate upon the Septennial Act. He applied the word "senile" to the House. Now, if he considers that the House of Commons has fallen into a condition of senility, the Government have a very easy remedy. Let them send us to our constituents, take the sense of the country, and introduce the new vigour which is so much needed into the action of Parliament. I do not consider the request of the right hon. Gentleman is an unreasonable one under all the circumstances of the case, but its justification depends entirely upon the manner in which the Government intend to use the time which they are endeavouring to obtain. If they will only act with a little more method and vigour they will enable us to proceed with business in a reasonable way; but if they show lassitude and procrastination, and the same old habit of postponing measures, then we shall only be doing what we have hitherto
  1668
  done, and that is wasting the time of the House.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (&c.): My hon. Friend who has just sat down has asked the House to use a certain amount of method in conducting the Business of the House. I wish to add my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, for some information with reference to the measures which are to be dealt with. He proposes to take on Monday the measure dealing with the Scotch Equivalent Grant. That is to be interpreted as if it were to be in the middle of the Committee stage of the Small Holdings Bill. I could understand it, if the Equivalent Grant measure could be got through in a very short time, but I am sure that it will give rise to a most interesting discussion, which will occupy probably more than one night. If there is to be a gap made in the proceedings with regard to the Small Holdings Bill, I certainly can hold out no hope that it will be a small one. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Equivalent Grant question is connected with the scheme for secondary education for Scotland—a scheme which proposes to make certain changes in the Scotch Education Department. Now the report of that Department was only issued last week, and we have not heard a word from our constituents as to their views with regard to it. I would therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman both on that ground, and because of the merits of the Bill, not to take the Scotch Equivalent Grant Bill in the middle of the Committee Stage of the Small Holdings Bill.
  MR. MORTON: I am not troubled by what may happen next Friday, but the more you discuss Home Rule the better I shall be pleased. It is interesting to notice that Parnellite Members—or those who are called Parnellite Members—now sit on both sides of the House. I have personally no objection to the Resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to-day, so long as we understand that we are to take up the practical business of the country. I have, indeed, some reason to be in favour of that Resolution, because it does not appear to me, from what occurred on Tuesday last (when we had a "count out"), that private Members take much trouble to attend

  1669
  here when they have an opportunity of looking after Private Business. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why he has said nothing about Supply? Apparently it is going to be left over until the end of the Session, and then taken in the middle of the night. When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take Supply again? When does he propose to go on with the consideration of the Ordnance Vote? We were prevented from discussing matters with reference to the War Office on the first Vote, but we did anticipate that we should be allowed to go on with the discussion on the Ordnance Vote. For some extraordinary reason, however, the Government seemed to be afraid to face that discussion. I do not know whether it is because Birmingham is mixed up with Enfield in regard to it. It is only fair that we should be given an early opportunity of finishing that discussion. I wish now again to raise the question of the appointment of the Committee to consider the subject of the Parliamentary Debates. I brought the matter forward last Session, and again this Session, as a matter of urgency on the Vote on Account, and I asked for the appointment of a Committee. If it is delayed until the end of the Session the matter will be kept over till next year. The Committee should meet early if their Report is to be considered this Session. With apparently the general consent of the House, the Government promised we should have such a Committee. If no other alteration can be made, I think it would be advisable to do away with our present arrangement, and so save the £2,000 or £3,000 we are now paying for what is called the German or Reuter's Parliamentary Reports by taking in the weekly issue of the Times Parliamentary Reports, until we have some better system to suit the requirements of the House. I hope the Leader of the House will be good enough to say to-day that he intends to appoint the Committee at once. I know that he said on the last occasion that he is waiting to consult the House of Lords. The last Committee of the kind was a Joint Committee of both Houses. We can, if we choose, determine the contract at the end of the present Session, and I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to appoint the Committee at
  1670
  once, so that we may have their Report in a reasonable time.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: If there is a desire to obtain more time for the disposal of Private Business, there is a very easy way of doing it. Let us meet at eight o'clock instead of nine, and not waste the two hours in the dinner interval. It is not sufficient time for those who go away, while for those who remain in the precincts of the House it is entirely wasted. I regret that we are again asked to give up our privileges with regard to Private Members' sittings. There is one question upon which we desire to take the opinion of the House, and that is with regard to International Arbitration. If it came on there would be no chance of a count out on that particular evening. I would now like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the decision of Justice Denman, has entirely altered the interpretation which has been put upon the Metropolis Local Management Act. The President of the Local Government Board has stated that there is at the present time great difficulty in getting vestrymen to attend to their duties, because they do not know whether they would be subjected to an action, through the agency of a private informer, under that decision. I am informed that the crisis is so serious that the Vestry of St. Pancras are going to take a test case to the Courts, in order to ascertain the real position of vestrymen under the Metropolis Local Management Act. I understand that nothing can be done to meet the difficulty under the Bill dealing with District Councils, which we were led to believe was to be introduced on an early day this Session. The question is such a vital one that when the vestry elections take place in May, it is doubtful whether you will be able to get the necessary number of vestrymen. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is laughing.—
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I was not laughing. I rise to a point of order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is in order in going into details on the Bill in question?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be in order if he went into such details.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I do not desire to enter into the details of it, but this is a very important matter, as will be proved when the Vestry elections come on in May. I will only further say, that I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will give some answer to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Peterborough.
  MR. JUSTIN MCCARTHY: It seems clear to me that nothing in the way of serious or substantial work is going to be done in this moribund and hopeless Session of Parliament. I do not suppose that either the Members of the Government, or private Members, will be able to carry anything which is worth having during the remainder of this Session. Therefore how the time of the House is to be frittered and wasted away is a matter of comparatively little importance. The Government seem to me to have made up their minds to pass, if they can, a certain number of small Bills which they think are still within their power to pass, and which they probably consider that in common decency they ought to pass. They appear to be in the position of a man who knows he must plunge into bankruptcy very soon, with very heavy responsibilities upon him, and who wishes, before the crash comes, to pay off the household bills—to settle with the butcher and the tailor, and the housemaid and the cook. If that be the position of the Government, I wish they would be a little more candid, and take the House into their confidence and tell us frankly what they intend to do. If they say, "We know we are going into bankruptcy, we cannot meet our heavy engagements, but we wish to get rid of some small responsibilities before the crash come," I am sure the House will endeavour to assist them out of their difficulty. Let them tell us plainly whether they have done with the serious work of this Parliament, and give us an idea of the date on which they are going into political bankruptcy, and then I am sure we shall be inclined to give them all the help in our power to settle the more trivial affairs.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think it will be admitted by the Members of Her Majesty's Government themselves that the position with respect to the conduct
  1672
  of business is a very peculiar position. The setting aside of primary subjects for the sake of taking up a series of secondary subjects in the middle of a Parliamentary Session, whether in an old or young Parliament, is a proceeding perhaps without precedent—at any rate very unusual; and this unusual character of proceeding undoubtedly casts an air of mystery over the question: What are the motives and intentions of the Government? I doubt very much whether it is for the interest of the Government to take proceedings which cause that idea of mystery to prevail. The subjects which I imagine a very large portion of the House look to as the most important appear to me—I will not say studiously, but at any rate to a very great extent and in a remarkable manner—to have been kept back. So far as this side of the House is concerned—and I do not know that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are likely to differ—there are three matters with regard to which we desire to know the intentions of the Government, and to which we think every available hour of our time ought to be applied. The first question is that of Supply, which, with regard even to the great subjects of Army and Navy, is unusually backward. With regard to the Miscellaneous Estimates, Government is usually anxious to avail itself of any advantage it can reap from a careful husbanding of what may be called odds and ends of time; and unquestionably it has been the fixed use of Governments, so far as my knowledge goes, when the House meets on Friday at the usual hour, to take advantage of the possibility, which has not infrequently become a reality, that the Motions of private Members may be disposed of, and disappear at an early period, and consequently what is called effective Supply has been put on the Paper. But we met to-day at three o'clock as usual, and Supply did not appear on the Paper, so that if the Motions of private Members had by accident disappeared, the remainder of the evening would have been wasted. There is a universal desire on the part of the House to get forward with the Small Holdings Bill. We do not regard that Bill as a satisfactory measure, but we have had an opportunity of giving our views and of stating those essential particulars in which we think it is want-

  1673
  ing; and recognising it as a good measure up to the point to which it goes, and having failed to introduce into it a full expression of what we think necessary, we, notwithstanding, perform an elementary duty in assisting the right hon. Gentleman, so far as opportunity is given us, in putting forward that Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture must feel with us—he must in his inward heart be on our side—with respect to the appeal we are now making, in endeavouring to move the stony heart and disposition of the Leader of the House in order to secure some prospect of advancement for this measure. The measure is in no danger of obstruction whatever, unless it be in some secret manner organised by Her Majesty's Government. Now, I must say that I hardly feel that the gravity and magnitude of the question of the Irish Local Government Bill has been weighed by Her Majesty's Government. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has promised us that he will move the Second Reading of that Bill when the Committee stage of the Small Holdings Bill is concluded, and to that proposition we take no objection whatever in itself but this—that if the Local Government Bill for Ireland is in this manner attached and chained to the Small Holdings Bill for England, every postponement of the one is a postponement of the other; and as the art of delaying an obnoxious measure by an astute postponement of some measure which precedes it is well understood in this House, the right hon. Gentleman must see that this exposes him to suspicion as to the reality of his intentions with regard to the Local Government Bill for Ireland. We have had again and again the most solemn promises from Her Majesty's Government, and from a large portion of their supporters, with regard to that Bill, and it appertains to the honour of Parliament to see that they are redeemed. It is not simply because Irish Local Government is a very important matter in itself, but it is also, in the view of the majority of the Members of this House, and of Her Majesty's Ministers, a proper substitute for Home Rule. Nobody on that side of the House has said that the Government of Ireland ought to remain
  1674
  as it is. The language held has been, "We are as anxious to deal with the question as you are, but we think your manner bad and we think our way good;" and that more excellent way of dealing with it is that unfolded in the Irish Local Government Bill. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may be able to prove, by superhuman powers of argument, that they are right. I will not enter upon that at the present moment, but I do say that it is a question in regard to which the Government should shield themselves from the imputation of indirect dealing, and seek the earliest moment of placing us in possession of their intentions with regard to it, by pushing forward the Small Holdings Bill, which not only has the highest claims on its own account, but derives an additional claim from its relation to the Irish Local Government Bill. But it seems that we are not to take that Bill, on the ground that a Scottish measure is to be proceeded with on Monday night, with respect to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), who, though differing from Her Majesty's Government, does on this occasion speak the opinion of the majority of the Scottish Members, has said that the information is not ready to enable the House to enter into a discussion; so that we are ordered—I will not say forced—into a discussion with respect to which those principally concerned declare that the information is not ripe. In order to enter into this discussion for which we are not prepared, we are forbidden to enter into a discussion for which we are prepared, and which we all desire to enter into. I hope that some impression has been made on the flinty feelings which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has developed, by the appeals which have been addressed to him, and that he will endeavour to dissipate that cloud of mystery which is hanging over the proceedings of the Government. In view of the coming Dissolution, we feel naturally interested to have all the information that can be given us, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a frank declaration as to the intentions of the Government, and so place us in the position of understanding, in some degree, what is to be the course of affairs during the year, and how soon

  1675
  Parliament, which can now only do a very limited amount of work, is to apply some portion of the time which is left to it in a useful manner by advancing these great measures and by meeting the engagements to which the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government are pledged.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The criticisms upon this side of the House and the other side fall naturally into two classes. With the first of these I shall deal very briefly. It consists of a general criticism of the method in which we have conducted our business. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire (Mr. John Ellis) has attacked the Government, and has said that business is in a deplorably backward condition, and that this deplorable state of things is due entirely to the want of method and vigour of those who have the conduct of the business of this House. I differ from the premisses of the hon. Gentleman, and I differ from his conclusions. I do not think that business is specially backward this Session, considering the time at which we began our labours in February, and especially considering the amount of time which has been, so to speak, exceptionally and unexpectedly employed on questions of Privilege and Private business. I think several most important measures—measures not the less important because they have not aroused, or, at all events, need not arouse, great Party feeling—have been well advanced; and I do not see that there is any ground for thinking this Session may not turn out to be peculiarly fruitful in useful legislation. In regard to the hon. Member's criticism upon our method of conducting business, I can only say, so far as the method is concerned, that a Government can do little more than put down important work for such days as they have at their disposal. This they have done. And with regard to the vigour with which they ought to press their proceedings, the vigour which the hon. Gentleman says has been deplorably absent from our conduct of affairs, I do not know what he can mean except the absence of a free use of the Closure. If I have erred in not having used the Closure oftener I apologize, especially to the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. John Ellis). How
  1676
  I could have stimulated the debate, the completion of debate, by any means in my power to render discussion more compressed, I really do not know. I pass from that to the various criticisms or observations and appeals which have been made to me with regard to the future of business, and will deal with, what I may call without disrespect, the least important before I proceed to deal with those which chiefly occupy the minds of the right hon. Gentlemen, the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), and the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer) has made an appeal on the subject of a resolution in regard to arbitration. He seems to think it is an extremely important and pressing matter. That the matter is an important one, I do not deny; but that it is pressing—that is to say that Her Majesty's Government are showing by their conduct of foreign affairs that they are neglecting the use of arbitration where it can with advantage be used—I should have thought an obvious and notorious fact might have convinced him to the contrary.
  MR. CREMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to say there is nothing in the Motion of which I have given notice nor anything that I have said which can lead to such a conclusion as that which the right hon. Gentleman has just drawn?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My point is that if the Government have shown, as I think they have shown, a most earnest desire to use arbitration whenever that method is applicable, it does prove that the Motion of the hon. Member is not of an extraordinarily pressing character. I do not put it higher than that. Then the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. James Rowlands) asked me a question as to District Councils. The question of District Councils is an important one of itself, and that it may have special importance with reference to London and the constitution of vestries in London I do not deny upon the argument he put forward on the subject. But I am afraid it will not be possible for us to introduce, with any hope of passing, the measure which the hon. Member himself must know would be a long, complicated, and controversial measure. And even

  1677
  the brief Debate we have had is sufficient to show it is not necessary to increase the number of complicated and controversial measures which we have already in hand. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, as well as other hon. Members, discussed the question of Supply. I believe we have given, up to the present day, about as many days to Supply as has been usual. I am sure we have not given an exceptionally small number of days. If the progress during those days has not been sufficiently rapid to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I do not think the Government are to blame. Probably the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton), who raised this question, is quite qualified to give an opinion on the cause of the delay. Then the question of the Scotch Equivalent Grant, the Business for next Monday, has been alluded to by the right hon. Member for Midlothian, and has been pressed on my attention by the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). I regret that hon. Members do not feel themselves fully equipped for the discussion of the details of this Bill. But I must remind the House that it has been before the House since the beginning of the Session, and the Second Reading took place considerably before Easter. If this Bill is to become law at all—and I understand the right hon. Gentleman desires that it should—it is extremely desirable that we should not lose any further time in taking its next stage. I have now dealt with all the minor questions, and before coming to the question of the Small Holdings Bill, and the question of the Irish Local Government Bill, I need only notice the appeals which have been made to me to make exceptions in favour of particular Resolutions which attract great interest either in the House generally, or in the breasts of the hon. Members who have charge of them. Two appeals of this nature have been made to me—one by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) and the other by the Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney). The hon. Member for Roxburgh appealed to me on behalf of the Resolution for the Disestablishment of the Scotch Church. That so important a question as Disestablishment in Scotland can be thoroughly
  1678
  thrashed out in three hours is wholly absurd. It cannot be done; but nevertheless three hours' debate is not without its use. Probably on the whole, in spite of the inconvenience of endeavouring to compress these great controversies into debates of three hours, the House will choose to do that, and thus be left free to discuss twice as many subjects in preference to giving a full night's discussion once a week, and only getting through half the number of subjects. There is a balance of convenience and inconvenience on both sides, and on the whole I think the decision the Government have come to commends itself to the great majority of the House. Then there is the question of the Motion for next Friday, and the hon. Member for Antrim has appealed to us to give a full evening's debate to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Blane). He says that such a Debate will clear away a good deal of misconception. That entirely depends upon who speaks. I do not conceive that as to the Party for whom the hon. Member for Armagh has the right to speak, there is much doubt in the public mind as to what their attitude is with regard to this Resolution. I do not even think there is any doubt in the public mind as to the attitude of the other section of Irish Nationalist hon. Members who differ from the hon. Member for Armagh. I believe their views are also well known, and I am sure they would not in this House, or elsewhere, express different opinions on this subject to those which commend themselves to the hon. Member for Armagh. I take it there is no doubt as to what the opinions of hon. Members on this side of the House are. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim says he desires to speak on this question, but I am sure my hon. Friend does not think there are any doubts or ambiguities in his own position which require to be cleared up by speech; and, therefore, the misconceptions of which he speaks do not attach to his own opinions or to the opinions of those who act with him. Then I take it there is no doubt as to what the opinions of Gentlemen upon this Bench are. Indeed, I do not think it will be necessary for us to occupy a single moment of the time allotted to the hon. Member for Armagh for the

  1679
  discussion of his Amendment. If there is misconception, we are reduced by this process of exhaustion to the misconception which attaches to Gentlemen on that (the Opposition Front) Bench. I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Macartney) that it would be most convenient to the public interest, and in the interests of that General Election which the right hon. Member for Midlothian has just now alluded to, that any misconception which may exist with regard to the opinions of so important a section of the House should be cleared up. But that can only be cleared up if they speak, and possibly it may not be cleared up even if they do speak, and I wish to put this before my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim. What security have we that if we give six hours to this Debate, instead of three hours, that hon. Members will either make more speeches or clearer speeches than will be in their power to make during the three hours allotted? It is not in the power of the Government either to compel them to speak, or to compel them to speak in unambiguous terms. If they wish to speak, the opportunity will be given them during the three hours; and if they desire to speak I can see that no power of compulsion which resides in any part of the House will oblige hon. Members to make quite clear their opinions upon this interesting and important subject. Under these circumstances, I think my hon. Friend will see that I am compelled to come to the conclusion that while it would require a great sacrifice of Government time to give a full evening's debate for next Friday, there are no certain or even probable grounds for supposing that a full night's discussion would have the effect which he somewhat innocently anticipates. I now turn to the most important criticisms which have been passed upon the Government—criticisms most important in themselves, and coming from a quarter which specially deserves consideration. The right hon. Member for Midlothian seems to think that the course of business proposed by the Government is one of so mysterious a character that it hides, or may be supposed to hide, some dark Machiavellian design, and he implores us in our own interest to make clear what our position is. I have no difficulty in making that
  1680
  clear. It seems to me that the ambiguities, if he will allow me to say so with respect, are the creations, to a certain extent, of his own imagination. Where we differ from the right hon. Gentleman is, in simply beginning the Small Holdings Bill one week later than he desires. That is the whole difference between us. Nobody wished us to take it in the week after we met, and there was no desire to take it before the House rose for the Easter holidays. I do not see what contingency can arise which will put it beyond Monday week. Therefore, a week's difference in commencing the discussion on the Small Holdings Bill is absolutely the only foundation upon which this enormous superstructure of criticism and suspicion has been raised by the hon. Member opposite. Now, what is lost in the hon. Members' view by that? They seem to think that putting off the Small Holdings Bill for a week will in some mysterious way endanger the future progress of the Irish Local Government Bill. I have two observations to make upon that. The right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) told us that in his estimate it would only take us four Sittings to complete the discussion in Committee on the Small Holdings Bill. Therefore if we begin it, not next Monday, but Monday week, we should embark on the discussion of the Second Reading of the Irish Local Government Bill on Monday, 16th May. Is that putting off the Local Government Bill to some dim and distant future? At the latest that brings us to the central part of the Session when the House is peculiarly well attended, and when all those who desire will be able to express their opinions and to take part in the Debate. So much for the injury done to the Irish Local Government Bill. Let me say before I leave that subject that this interest in the Irish Local Government Bill from gentlemen opposite fills me with surprise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, putting into our mouths language which I, at all events, have not been responsible for, tells us that the Local Government Bill is our alternative for Home Rule—not the Home Rule which he proposed in 1886, but which he is going to propose some day. I can assure him that is not the view we

  1681
  take of the subject. We think that as we have reformed Local Government in England and in Scotland so we shall reform Local Government in Ireland. But this is in no sense a substitute or alternative for a Home Rule scheme. That this is to be considered on the same level, that it is to be regarded as at all a measure of an analogous kind is a doctrine I must absolutely refuse to accept. That is not all. This measure of Local Government, which hon. Members are so extremely anxious we should discuss, is one which all their leaders opposite have announced their intention of obstructing by every means in their power. I do not understand their new attitude. When I introduced the Bill they got up one after another—the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Justin McCarthy), every leader of every section of the House rose, and did not content themselves with a denouncement of the measure, but said the measure was so bad that they would leave no stone unturned to prevent it becoming law. Therefore, when they press the Government to bring it on, it is evidently their object to wreck the Session. They have expressed their policy of obstruction openly; they believe themselves to have the power of so resisting the Bill that they will be able to prolong its discussion to such a degree that the Bill will have to be dropped. Under these circumstances, they are practically asking us to extend and to waste—because they will stop the Bill—the rest of the Session upon an effort to pass this measure—an effort which they intend to make abortive. That is an attitude which is not very consistent in itself; and if there are dark and Machiavellian designs behind any statement of policy made in this House, it is behind the statement of hon. Members opposite, and not behind ours, that those dark schemes are to be detected. The real object which we have in view in attempting to go on in the course of next week with the concluding part of the Committee upon the Indian Councils Bill, the Criminal Law Evidence Bill, the Scotch Equivalent Grant Bill, and other smaller measures which I hope may pass without controversy, is, that we may take the Agricultural Small
  1682
  Holdings Bill de die in diem, that we may then have the Second Reading of the Irish Local Government Bill, and that during the interval which must elapse between the Second Reading and Committee stage we may take another stage of those less controversial and less important, but still useful, measures to which I have alluded. This is a very plain statement of a very plain policy. The idea that the Small Holdings Bill is less likely to become law because it begins on Monday, the 9th May, instead of Monday, the 2nd May; that is because it begins a week later than hon. Members desire, is obviously absurd. The Bill, I trust, is perfectly safe, and I trust also the other measures I have mentioned are perfectly safe. I can assure hon. Members that not only do I desire to bring to discussion the Irish Local Government Bill, but that I am looking forward with the keenest interest and enjoyment to the Debate we shall have on that subject. If they think we shrink from that discussion, they are entirely mistaken. There is no deeper design in the very plain programme which I have ventured to lay before the House other than I have stated. I hope, therefore, that whatever may be the shortcomings of the Government in the past, or their duplicity with regard to the future, that at all events the Resolution before the House is one which should be passed, and that the House will, without any further serious debate, proceed to take a Division upon it.
  MR. MORTON: May I ask the right hon. Member if he will answer the question I have mentioned respecting the Ordnance Vote, and the other as to the appointment of a Committee to consider the reporting of the Parliamentary Debates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As to the Ordnance Vote, I am afraid that I cannot give any definite information on the point. With regard to the Committee, the hon. Member will be aware that, in answer to a question put to me by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I stated that I would appoint a Committee in conformity with the pledge I gave on that subject some time ago; but that if the Committee was to be a Joint Committee, I could not make any definite

  1683

  statement until I had had an opportunity of consultation.
  MR. CREMER: There is another point which the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten to answer—that is, as to the period the Resolution is to remain in force?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Judging from past experience, if there is any new apportionment between Government time and the time of Members, that apportionment is more likely to be against private Members than the present one; but I cannot tell the hon. Member, until I see how Business progresses, whether any further alteration will be made.
  DR. CLARK: I wish to ask if the Government will adopt a slight Amendment at the end of their Motion in order that we may have a discussion when we meet at nine o'clock? Very often there are not 40 Members present, and it happens that before a Motion can be submitted someone calls the attention of the Speaker to the fact. I should like the First Lord of the Treasury to consider the desirability of adding these words—
  "And this House shall not be liable to be counted out on the evening of such Tuesdays and Fridays before 9.15 p.m."
  I move this, in order that we may have a quarter of an hour's grace before we can be counted out.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words, "And this House shall not be liable to be counted out on the evening of such Tuesdays and Fridays before 9.15 p.m."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure that no body of gentlemen would regard the acceptance of this Amendment with more heartfelt dismay than private Members themselves. Therefore, I cannot accept it in their interests. I do not think that you would gain anything by an extra quarter of an hour. If Members will not come down at nine o'clock, it is hardly likely they will come down at a quarter past.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet at Two of the clock on Tuesday and Friday; and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the Morning Sitting on those days.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  CONTROL OF DOMESTIC AFFAIRS (ENGLAND, IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES).

    RESOLUTION.
    DR. CLARK: I beg to move as an Amendment—
    To leave out, from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, in order to increase the efficiency of the Imperial Parliament to deal with Imperial affairs, and in order to give speedier and fuller effect to the desires and wants of the respective nationalities constituting the United Kingdom, it is desirable to devolve upon Legislative Assemblies in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England, respectively, the management and control of their domestic affairs."
    Sir, last year when I moved the same Resolution as I now propose, I brought before the House a number of facts and figures to show the congestion of Public Business and the utter impossibility of the Imperial Parliament being able to carry out the work it should do. I do not intend to bring again before the House those facts and figures except to say this: that of the many measures then referred to affecting Scotland that could not be considered for lack of time they all stand now in the same position as they did last year. As an instance, I may point out that we are just as far off having legislation on the principle of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) as we were nine years ago when it was first introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) has not been able to bring his measure affecting the liquor traffic before the House, and there is every reason to suppose that another Parliament will have passed away before the Scotch Members will have an opportunity of having that important measure affecting Scotland considered by the House—a measure which the majority of the Scotch Members are in favour of. Last year I was told that we were not suffering from the disease of congestion of business, as I

    1685
    pointed out, but that what we were suffering from was the disease of obstruction, and that since the Home Rule movement began there had been an attempt made to obstruct the business in this House and prevent Parliament from doing its work. Sir, let us look at the facts. It was in 1871 that Mr. Isaac Butt was elected a Member of this House, and the agitation for Home Rule, from a Parliamentary point of view, began. Now, I hold that facts prove that before the Home Rule agitation began there was the same congestion of business, and the same inability to carry out what the Government and private Members desired. And I will read one or two extracts from a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) in 1871, at a time previous to the election of Mr. Butt and the existence of the Home Rule Party in this House. Mr. Gladstone was receiving the freedom of the City of Aberdeen, and in a speech which he made in reply to the honour conferred upon him, be used the following words about the then condition of affairs. He said—
    "I admit, without the least hesitation, that the present condition of the action of Parliament with regard to Scotch business is unsatisfactory. You have much reason to complain or at least to regret, and I have deep reason, as have my colleagues, to regret, that we have not been able to deal with several subjects interesting to the feelings of Scotland, and material to its welfare, with the promptitude that we should all have desired."
    So that before Mr. Butt appeared in this House and began the Home Rule agitation, the then Prime Minister admitted that there was congestion, and that he regretted it. But what did he say in explanation of that condition of things? He said—
    "The difficulty is a very great one. Parliament is overtaxed, it performs a great deal more work, and has probably at all times—most certainly for the last 40 years—performed a great deal more work than any other Legislative Assembly in the world. … The amount of demand upon Parliament, the province marked out by public opinion for legislation, is greatly enlarged, and that which was, even when my life began, quite sufficient for the strength of the House of Commons, has now grown to such a height and mass that that strength is insufficient to meet it. Parliament is now expected to regulate the relations of life between different classes, and to provide
    1686
    for public want and against public evils of a description that were formerly believed to lie altogether beyond its competence and its power. Legislation upon health, legislation upon atmosphere, legislation upon water, legislation upon drainage, legislation upon labour in all its relations—these are topics which in a few words contain the key to a vast mass of work waiting to be done, and which it has not been found possible to overtake."
    I think that disposes of the argument that it is the obstruction of Irish Home Rule that has brought about the congestion of business. What has happened since the speech of the right hon. Gentleman makes, I think, his arguments much more powerful. Since then there has been a greater development of science, more growth of commerce, and greater progress of democracy, which have increased the work of this House. Since the Reform era, since the death of Palmerston, it has been impossible for this House to do its work. The result is that we have been muzzled, and have been giving up bit by bit all our rights. We have had a splendid specimen of that to-day with the Government proposal for practically taking away all our time except three hours twice a week, and five and a half hours on Wednesdays. Important questions are coming up for discussion, but there is no time to spare upon them. The result is that the House must scamp its work. And, Sir, I think the House must look at this question from the Imperial standpoint. We have given Home Rule to our Colonies, and I have very much sympathy with the views and wishes of a number of Gentlemen opposite who desire to bring the Colonies and the Mother Country closer together by other ties than those binding us now. But it will be impossible to have co-representation in this House while you discuss for days main drains for Belfast, bridges in Glasgow, and questions of that sort. As far as the great self-governing Colonies are concerned, we have given them Home Rule, and we cannot hinder them as far as local affairs are concerned; but in Imperial affairs they feel they are neglected, and they complain sometimes that they are betrayed, and that for the purposes of the Mother Country their interests are sacrificed. We have no time to consider them as we are situated at present, and other questions of im-

    1687
    portance have to be neglected. For instance, there is Pahang, where war is taking place, a country under our suzerainty, but whether the Rajah is an enemy or a friend we do not know. Servants of English companies are being murdered there, but we have no time to discuss the matter. Then there is the difficulty in Uganda in connection with one of the Chartered Companies. But we have no time to consider matters of that kind. I have put down in my Amendment Ireland first instead of England, and I see that that mode of arrangement has caused some little surprise. Well, I think we want to devolve the control of affairs upon Representative Assemblies in Ireland because the Irish people desire it. If the English people were in the same frame of mind as the Irish upon this question I should have suggested that England should come first; but England is only beginning to look at this question, whereas Ireland has demanded and requires it. So with regard to Scotland; Scotland is demanding it, and after a Dissolution, and Parliament meets again, there will be a larger number of Members in proportion from Scotland for Home Rule than you have now from Ireland for Home Rule for Ireland. As to Wales and England, I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian lives in Wales a good deal, and I remember when this question came up long ago he used these words:—
    "If doctrines of Home Rule are to be established in Ireland, I protest on your behalf that you will be just as well entitled to it in Scotland; and, moreover, I protest on behalf of Wales, in which I live a good deal—and where there are 800,000 people who, to this day, such is their sentiment of nationality—speak hardly anything except their own Celtic tongue—a larger number than speak the Celtic tongue, I apprehend, in Scotland, and a much larger number than speak it, I apprehend, in Ireland. I protest on behalf of Wales that it will be entitled to Home Rule also.
    I find nearly all the Members from Wales during the present Parliament agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and upon these grounds demand Home Rule; and I hope that when he comes back to power he will consider the claims on behalf of Wales which he has suggested. What I want to discuss is the kind of Home Rule we are going to have. When we go to the country a majority will come back in favour of Home Rule, and the
    1688
    question is: What is the kind of Home Rule we are going to have? We had a Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian in 1886 which provided for a dualistic form of Home Rule. I hope we shall not have that proposed again. The right hon. Gentle man wanted Home Rule for Ireland very much on the same lines as it exists in Austro-Hungary and Sweden and Norway. Now, I personally am very much opposed to any Home Rule of that kind, and in voting for the Second Reading of that Bill I voted for the principle of Home Rule; and if the Second Reading had been passed, I should have attempted in Committee to have entirely changed the character of the Bill. There is another form of Home Rule. I refer to that which obtains in Switzerland, where there are three races speaking three different languages—French, German, and Italian—and where there exist different religious faiths with keen feeling in reference to them. There you have a form of Home Rule which has been successful. The same thing occurs in America, under different conditions, and it has lately been adopted in Germany. If we have a Home Rule Bill on the same lines we may be able to settle this Home Rule question in a manner that will be permanent, and, at the same time, add to the stability of the Empire. I do not think there is any agitation for a dualistic type of Home Rule in Ireland. Daniel O'Connell at one time sought to bring about the Repeal of the Union, but before he died he gave up his aim for Repeal, and Repealers are now as much a thing of the past as Fenians are. I might read to the House the view expressed by O'Connell when he gave up Repeal, prior to throwing in his lot with the Federalists, as they existed in Ireland then. It is contained in a letter addressed to John G. Porter, the secretary of the Federal Home Rulers. He says—
    "The Federalists appear to me to require more for Ireland than the simple Repealers, for, besides the local Parliament in Ireland having full and perfect local authority, the Federalists require that there should be for questions of Imperial concern, Colonial, Military and Naval Policy, and of Foreign Alliances, a Congressional or Federative Parliament, in which Ireland should have her fair share and proportion of representation and power. It is but right and just to confess that in this respect the Federalists would

    1689
    give Ireland more weight and importance in Imperial concerns than she could acquire by means of the plan of the simple Repealers. For my own part, I will own that since I have come to contemplate the specific differences, such as they are, between simple Repeal and Federalism, I do at present feel a preference for the Federation plan, as tending more to the benefit of Ireland and to the maintenance of the connection with England than the mode of simple Repeal."
    Now, since the time of O'Connell—apart from Stephens and the Irish Republican Brotherhood, who were not Constitutionalists—there has been no Constitutional statesman in favour of simple Repeal. Eighteen years ago the first Motion in favour of Home Rule for Ireland was discussed in this House, and on that occasion Mr. Butt said he did not go in for Repeal, but that he wanted every one of the Irish Members to remain in the Imperial Parliament for Imperial purposes. He only asked that there should be a Legislative Assembly in Ireland for the purpose of controlling local and national matters. This nation has been built up as much by the Irish as by ourselves, and they have as much right to claim their share in deciding Imperial matters as we have. The late Member for Cork, although he said some strong things, was never in favour of simple Repeal; but he got £10,000 to carry on his agitation on Federal lines. Now, Sir, what do I propose by my Motion? Why, simply that the House do not repeal any Union, but that it should create subordinate Legislatures, with full powers of control over all local and domestic and national affairs, and that the Imperial Parliament shall remain as at present. What I should also propose is that the House should take the present constituencies as they are in Ireland and in Scotland, and also in England and Wales for local purposes, and that the Imperial Parliament should be constituted not of 670 Members, but that every two seats should be linked together for Imperial purposes, and that you should separate in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales local from Imperial matters. Only in that way can the Imperial Parliament do its work. But there have been other suggestions. We had a Bill before the House giving a Convocation of Scotch Members the right to meet in Edinburgh and consider and discuss all Scotch matters. Well, I
    1690
    should have been very glad to see that Bill passed; but the only difficulty that presents itself to me is that we should not be able to have a Dissolution on purely Scotch matters, such, for instance, as the question of Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland. I do not know how we are going to solve that question very well, except on the lines of Home Rule. When the English and the Scotch Parliaments were united, it was laid down as a fundamental principle of the Union that the Church should be maintained. The Scotch Church is in quite a different position from the English Church which was thrust upon Ireland, because the Church in Scotland is the Established Church of the people of Scotland, and nine-tenths of the people of Scotland belong to it. But I do not say that because our forefathers determined that a certain thing should be a fundamental principle that we should be bound by it. At the same time, I say it is impertinence in English candidates to raise the question of Scotch Disestablishment. I deny the right of the English people to determine this question at all, and I say that it can only be determined by the Scotch people and by the Scotch Members when it comes before them in a Constitutional way. The best way—the only legal way—to change any of the conditions which our forefathers made a fundamental principle of the Union is to constitute either a Commission of the whole of the Scotch Members or a constituent Assembly of the Scottish people for the purpose of determining these questions. I am in favour of Disestablishment, but I do not think it should be rushed through, and I will object to it until the people of Scotland have had the question placed before them and have given their decision in reference to it. I am not going to raise the question of what you should give to Ireland. I do not speak for Ireland. But what you give to Ireland we shall claim for Scotland, and anything less we will not have. The hon. Member for Renfrew (Mr. Shaw-Stewart) has an Amendment on the Paper which sets forth that to require the attendance of Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and English Representatives in local Legislatives Assemblies would tend to diminish or destroy their proper influence and control over Imperial legislation. I wonder if my hon. Friend since he

    1691
    became a County Councillor has had his influence destroyed for the House of Commons. If these local assemblies met at the same time as Parliament, it would, of course, be ridiculous and absurd to expect Members to be in two places at once. I cannot see what he means by this Amendment, unless he really misconceives what we want. We want to separate local from Imperial measures. I look on Federalism as having been the greatest possible success. We are not asking for something that has never been tried. It has been tried for over 500 years in Switzerland, and has been a success; it has been a success in America for a century, and it has been a success in Canada, though there may have been local corruption. Wherever Federalism has been tried, it has been a success. We must make some change; and if we adopt Federalism, I believe it will be as successful here as it has been in other countries, and we shall be able to solve local and Imperial problems on lines which will tend to strengthen and develop the Empire rather than to weaken it.
    MR. LENG: I rise to second the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), and I do so because the pressure of Imperial business and the innumerable details of local affairs render progress with Scottish legislation so very slow and unsatisfactory. We are so accustomed in this House to much talk and little practical work that I think we do not sufficiently estimate the waste of time that actually occurs, and the number of years spent in the discussion of Bills, without leading to any practical result. I do not know that I can bring this more clearly to the House than by referring to the last list of Public Bills for the Session, 1890–1. It begins with the Access to Mountains (Scotland) Bill, and the record is Second Reading—dropped. Then comes the Acquisition of Land by Local Authorities — Second Reading—dropped; Child Life Insurance Registration (Scotland)—withdrawn; Building Feus and Leases (Scotland) Bill—Second Reading—dropped; Building Land Scotland—Second Reading—dropped; and County Councils Purchase of Land—Second Reading—dropped. Then I come across one brilliant exception, the Crofters' (Scotland) Grazing Bill, the record
    1692
    opposite which is—Royal Assent. I might go on page by page with a succession of Bills dropped or withdrawn, but the general fact is that there were 40 Bills introduced last Session relating to Scotland, and of these 32 were dropped or withdrawn, one was thrown out on the Second Reading, and only seven out of the forty received the Royal Assent. It might be said by those who have not examined the figures that the proportion of Bills carried was as good for Scotland as for other parts of the United Kingdom, but it is not so. There were, altogether, 229 Bills introduced last Session, of which seventy were passed, nearly equal to one in three, whereas of the Scotch Bills just over one in six was passed, so that, in the scale of proportion, only one-half the number of measures was passed for Scotland that were passed for the other parts of the country. I have no wish to detract in any way from the importance of the Bills that were carried, but I can say with accuracy that there were other Bills with which no progress was made of still greater importance. This Session we have thus far had 36 Bills introduced; five of them have got to the Committee Stage; and one—introduced by the Member for St. Rollox—has passed, but the others have not yet reached the Second Reading stage; two have been withdrawn, and one has been practically set aside by being counted out. Not a few of these may be spoken of as hardy annuals, for they come up year after year without making any advance in the way of legislation. Under the present conditions, what chance is there of the majority of these Bills ever passing? Before they can pass, many whose hair is now perfectly black will be grey, many whose hair is now abundant will be bald, and some of us will be dead and gone out of this House. Every Bill has its merits or demerits, and if its merits exceed its demerits it ought to be passed, and if its demerits exceed its merits it ought to be extinguished. But this system of continually dangling in the air measures which have no chance of passing is a system of false pretences. We ought to make the system a reality, and adopt some method by which, if Bills are desirable, they should go on the Statute Book, and, if not, there should be an end of them. As a Representative of a

    1693
    Scotch constituency, I say that the Scotch people have a right to complain of the present state of things. If the Scotch Members constituted a Legislature of themselves all these questions could be rapidly disposed of, and we should avoid the coming up year after year of the same measures. But if it is thought that there should be some check on Scottish legislation, that could be easily accomplished by giving to the Secretary for Scotland the power of vetoing Bills which he thought infringed the limit with regard to national and local measures. I came into this House as a Home Ruler, and I hope as a sensible Home Ruler, and I regard Home Rule as giving to each division of the Kingdom control of its own strictly local affairs. I am not one of those who think that while Home Rule would be good as physic for Ireland it would be poison for Wales and Scotland, for what I would claim for Scotland I would willingly give to any other part of the United Kingdom. I would give to each division of the country the control of affairs that are left to the State Legislatures of the United States, or to the Legislative Assemblies of each province of the Dominion of Canada. It has been said that it would surpass the wit of man to discriminate between what are Imperial and what are local or national affairs, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian makes a remark of that kind Gentlemen on the other side of the House do not fail to note it, but without quoting many other things he has said in favour of Home Rule. I would reserve to the Imperial Parliament all those Imperial questions which are reserved to the Federal Congress of the United States. With respect to Ireland I would give to every Irishman at home the same political privileges he would enjoy if he settled in one of the cities of the United States, and that, I believe, would put an end to that strong and continued agitation on the other side of the Atlantic on behalf of Home Rule for Irishmen at home. But again it is asserted that it would be a mischievous thing to sever the control of the Imperial Parliament over any part of the United Kingdom, and it is also said that it would be a grander thing to be a citizen of the United Kingdom than of one part of it only.
    1694
    All that we propose is that we in Scotland should cease to interfere in the local and strictly national affairs of England and Ireland and Wales, and that, on the other hand, you should cease to interfere in the local and national affairs of Scotland. So far as Imperial affairs are concerned, every man in every division of the United Kingdom would remain as much interested in them as he was before. The fact that a man is a citizen of the State of Illinois, or California, does not diminish his interest in the affairs of the great American Union. When I was in America I found wherever I went that each citizen of each State was anxious to produce the most favourable impression with regard to his own State, and to crack up and magnify it, and was proud of its achievements and growth in all matters; but while he did that he was still prouder of and spoke with greater warmth and intensity of feeling with regard to the great Union of which his own State was a component part. And you will tranquillise the great mass of the people in each division of the United Kingdom if you give them more perfect control of the management of their own affairs; and though they will be attached to, and proud of, the division of the Kingdom to which they belong, that feeling will develop itself into still greater loyalty to the United Kingdom. If this tended to division or separation, I would not say one word in its favour; but I do not believe that it does, and I can quote the case of Canada in support of the idea. The Dominion was organised by a Conservative Government, for it was the late Lord Beaconsfield and the late Lord Derby who, in 1867, passed the measure which united the Provinces of Canada into one Dominion. They solved the difficulty of discriminating between Federal and Provincial affairs, and the same thing can be done with regard to our own country. I am satisfied that if Party prejudices were dismissed and the matter were looked at fairly with regard to the interests of the country alone, and if the use of phrases intended to distract attention from the real merits of the question ceased to be used, and we looked at the matter practically not only with reference to what has been done in Switzerland, but what has occurred in our own Colonies and in

    1695
    the great American Union, then we should cease to be alarmed at the bogie of Separation. We should consider Home Rule merely a true and legitimate development of the principle of Local Government giving to each large division of the Kingdom a more perfect control over its own local affairs. That, I have contended before, would not alienate any section of the population from another; but under wise safeguards, which I am certain do not pass the wit of man to devise, it would make us, instead of being a separate, a more united, a more loyal, and a more prosperous people than we are now; and for these reasons I cordially second the Motion which has been submitted to the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, in order to increase the efficiency of the Imperial Parliament to deal with Imperial affairs, and in order to give speedier and fuller effect to the desires and wants of the respective nationalities constituting the United Kingdom, it is desirable to devolve upon Legislative Assemblies in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England, respectively, the management and control of their domestic affairs,"—(Dr. Clark,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. SHAW-STEWART: It seems to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that both the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution have each their own plan of Home Rule; but they speak under the disadvantage of not having any well-considered general plan that they can advocate, and I think it is also a matter on which they should receive condolence that their words have fallen on deaf ears, so far, at all events, as the almost empty condition of the Opposition Front Bench shows the very little interest taken in this question by their Leaders. The hon. Member for Caithness. (Dr. Clark) asked us to look at this matter from an Imperial standpoint, and that is what I wish the House to do. I put an Amendment on the Paper, but by the Rules of the House I cannot move it, but there is, I believe, no reason why I should not refer to it. It is in these words—To leave out all after "House," and insert—
    1696
    "To require the attendance of Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and English Representatives in Local Legislative Assemblies would tend to diminish or destroy their proper influence and control over Imperial legislation."
    The hon. Member for Caithness says he does not understand why his proposal should diminish the control of the various Representatives over Imperial questions. I should have thought this was one of the most obvious complications which would arise if his proposal became law. If you send down to the various centres of nationality the popularly-elected Representatives, you must take away a certain amount of their time which is now devoted to the discussion and supervision of Imperial questions. If they are to sit in the various centres of the United Kingdom for three months, it is obvious that you diminish by that amount the time at their disposal for sitting as an Imperial Parliament; and unless you intend to largely increase the time for which Members sit at present you reduce their control of Imperial questions from six or seven months in the year, as it is now, to three months, or even less. I contend that we cannot in these days afford to compress the time which is allotted to us for the discussion of Imperial questions. If anything, we ought to amplify the time for the discussion of Imperial questions rather than shorten it. I have pointed out that the Motion proposes to take away part of the time—when we should be sitting in Scotland—which Scotch Members could devote to Imperial affairs, and I am sure the hon. Member would be the last person to say that Scotland is not pre-eminently concerned in colonial and foreign affairs. There is not a British colony or dependency where Scotchmen are not doing good work, not only for themselves and for their adopted country, but indirectly for Scotland also. The time of the Imperial Parliament for dealing with these affairs would be limited to about three months in the year; and though the English Parliament might during the other part of the year be sitting at Westminster, no question could be asked in it about colonial or foreign affairs; in fact, it would be an injustice to Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, if such questions could be asked while the representatives of those countries were elsewhere. Foreign questions continually arise in

    1697
    this country, and doubtless many of them are quietly disposed of by a strong Foreign Minister; but if the time should come when we should have a weak or incompetent Minister, while the nationalities were discussing local affairs, he could be involving the country in complications which, if Parliament were sitting, the representatives of the people might have had a hand in checking. Even when a strong Minister is in power there are at times difficult questions on which he is glad to be backed up by the strong feeling of the British people concentrated in their Representatives in Parliament. The Imperial Parliament also is not merely for legislative purposes; it ought to have control over the different Departments of War, the Navy, Finance, and the Home Office; and if you diminish the time during which the Members are to attend the Imperial Parliament, you diminish their control and influence over these Departments. The time may come when we can afford to spend less time in anxious deliberation over foreign ane colonial affairs. The time may comd when we shall have less to do with the different parts of the world and exert less influence, but that will only be when, by a series of disintegrating measures, we have lost our hold on our Colonies, perhaps on India, and on those ports and dependencies which are scattered all over the world. Then we may indulge in the luxury of breaking the Kingdom up into sections by setting up Parliaments to discuss local affairs, and then we in Scotland shall not quarrel whether we shall meet at Glasgow or Edinburgh, for in those days we may well hide our diminished heads in the wilds of Caithness. We are told that Parliament is over-weighted, but since the speech of the right hon. Member for Midlothian quoted by the hon. Member was delivered, we have had County Councils set up throughout Scotland which deal with local affairs; and it is understood on all sides that they will be considerably strengthened and have further powers given to them. There is also the possibility, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would allow of its discussion, of framing a measure for relieving Parliament by a system of Private Bill procedure. But, considering the time at the disposal of Parliament, I do not think it is impossible to deal with the questions that arise.
    1698
    If the small number of hon. Gentlemen who speak oftenest and longest were to exercise a little self-control, and do a little violence to their vanity, it would be to the advantage of the House. As a Scotchman and a Scotch Member, I not only object to the proposal of the hon. Member, but I resent it as depriving Scotland of a considerable amount of her power and opportunity of discussing and controlling Imperial affairs, and I condemn it as a proposal that would have a destructive and disintegrating effect on the constitution and character of the United Kingdom, with the strength, prosperity, and happiness of which the future of my country is inextricably bound up.
    MR. R. T. REID (&c.): Although it is true that this Motion has not enlisted the sympathies of a large number of Members, or of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench, it is a question which will attract a considerable amount of attention in future, and one which must be dealt with before we can expect to properly transact Public Business in Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw-Stewart) has put forward all the arguments of the Scotch Unionists against Home Rule for Scotland, I think we may fairly expect that in a short time he will join our ranks. He has raised four objections: The first is, that the Mover and Seconder have not agreed as to the form of Home Rule they desire. I am not sure that they have not agreed, but the proposal does not profess to formulate the form of Home Rule. There are several ways in which it can be dealt with, and it would be unreasonable towards the gentlemen who may be in office in a short time to commit ourselves now to one or other form, and so foreclose the decision, of the Members of the next Parliament as to the particular measure of Home Rule they may think fit to adopt. The principle is a matter on which we can all agree or dissent. The hon. Gentleman said that the Members who sit here cannot conveniently sit in Scotland to discuss local matters, because they might be wanted in two places at once.
    MR. SHAW-STEWART: I said if you require the attendance of Scotch Members in Scotland at a certain time in

    1699
    the year they would not have that time at their disposal for the consideration of Imperial questions.
    MR. R. T. REID: That is what I understood the hon. Gentleman to say. But the Motion does not require that the same individuals should represent Scotland in the Imperial and in the Scottish Parliament. That is wholly a matter of detail, and there is no necessity in law or convenience that they should be the same persons. The hon. Gentleman said that Scotland was interested in colonial affairs, and that no Scotch Member would consent to deprive her of a full share in their management. But nobody proposes that because domestic affairs in Scotland are to be disposed of by Scotchmen, we are, therefore, to be deprived of what we claim as a right—an equal voice with other parts of the country in dealing with Imperial matters. The hon. Gentleman suggested that things might go wrong while we were discussing local matters if we had a weak Foreign Minister, but he must remember that for more than half the year, as things now are, the Minister has the opportunity of leading us into infinite trouble and difficulty if he is so unwise as not to avoid it. If that is the array of argument to be placed before our somewhat hard-headed countrymen in discussing this question, I am not surprised that there is a considerable increase of feeling in favour of this movement in many parts of Scotland. Speaking for myself and my constituents, I wish to say that it is obvious that in this matter Ireland must come first, as she put forward the first claim. The effects of this government have been very serious in Ireland; we in Scotland have not suffered more misfortunes than England. There is great bitterness in Ireland, the result probably of historical causes, which prevents Ireland regarding England with the same loyalty and goodwill which is universal all over Scotland with respect to the Southern Kingdom. Therefore, as far as Scotland is concerned, there is no trace of bitterness or national resentment so far as regards Home Rule. We have nothing to look back on in history which we cannot contemplate with complacency. But Scotland has a great grievance peculiar to herself. For many years the practice of the House was not to over-ride Scotch opinion in regard to Scotch measures. The prac
    1700
    tice dates certainly from the last century and was continued down to 1886, when the present Government unfortunately broke the continuity of the practice. Since 1886 we have been repeatedly outvoted, notoriously in the instance of a Bill dealing with the questions of lighting, loads, police, and other purely Scotch questions. We were outvoted by English Members in twelve Divisions in a manner calculated to be most offensive to Scotch feeling. We were outvoted by Members who did not hear a word of our arguments, who stayed systematically out of the House during our speeches, and who treated our protests and arguments with contempt. We warned the Government in all good faith that the necessary result of that would be to raise a strong feeling in Scotland for the management of Scotch affairs by Scotchmen in Scotland. Our views have proved to be absolutely true. I ask the hon. Gentleman if he approves of his countrymen being outvoted in this House on Scotch questions by English Members?
    MR. SHAW - STEWART: It all depends on the question.
    MR. R. T. REID: The Scotch Members have no chance of holding their own on Scotch affairs. What would the feelings of the English Members be if the Church of England were disestablished by a Scotch vote? That is what is being constantly done by English Tory Members with regard to the views of Scotch Members who are as loyal and orderly as themselves, and it is a matter which is deserving of the consideration of Parliament. There is another grievance we share in common with the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is the congestion of business in this House. It seems to be a formal and elementary proposition of Government of whatever form — whether Despotic, Republican, or Constitutional Monarchy—that there should be some authority which can deal promptly with grievances as they arise. That was once the case with this Parliament, but no one can now reasonably pretend that we have in this House machinery which is capable of dealing with the wants of the country with reasonable promptitude. Take, for example, the measure for cheapening the transfer of land in England. All sections of the House agree that that is a Bill which ought to be passed, and, though

    1701
    it was agitated for forty years ago, it cannot be dealt with, because the other business prevents the possibility of the House dealing with it. Then, if there is one question which the Scotch people care more about than any other it is the liquor question. The hon. Member opposite places his name at the back of the Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) in 1884, and read a second time, but the hon. Member has been unable since then to get even a discussion on the Bill. It is a question on which every single burgh in Scotland, and every county, I believe, would go for the Bill; and I do not think even the hon. Member for Renfrew (Mr. Shaw-Stewart) would stand for his constituency if he pronounced against the Bill. What have we done to alter this state of things? During the last four or five years we have amended our procedure; we have introduced the Closure and Grand Committees, and the time of private Members has been ruthlessly taken away. There were protests at first, but they have all ceased, for we all know that it is necessary that the Government should have the time, and yet we are no better off than we were before. The hon. Gentleman intimated that the present state of things was the result of obstruction, but I do not think that in his cooler moments he will say that there has been serious obstruction this Session. It is not the necessity for reform, or unwillingness to carry it on, which has caused the arrears of work, but the utter incapacity of Parliament to discharge its duties. This state of things has produced serious results inside the House. I am not surprised to hear that many Members are not going to seek reelection, and that it is becoming more difficult every day to get suitable candidates to take part in the business of Parliament. Energetic men, such as we desire to see in the House, are prepared to see their views overruled, but they are not prepared to spend the whole of their time without an opportunity of these questions being disposed of, and to waste their best energies in forwarding measures which they feel almost certain will never have an opportunity of becoming law. There is a growing apathy also in the constituencies; they feel that there is not the machinery for getting
    1702
    through the work, and Parliament will lose that confidence which centuries of good work have earned for it. Thoughtful men will not deny that something is needed for the reform of procedure in the House. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman what is the meaning of the remedy to which he refers. Does Local Government mean County Government, or the Government of Town Councils? Why, the hon. Gentleman must know very well that nobody proposes to give them legislative powers at all. How then will they relieve the congestion of legislation in this House? The hon. Member referred to another proposal—namely, that the procedure in reference to Private Bills should be simplified in the method proposed by the Government. Though I differ from many of my hon. Friends on this side, and am rather sympathetic to the proposal of the Government as to procedure on Private Bills; yet, that proposal, if carried out, would not remedy the congested condition of business. Is there anything to be hoped from the legitimate use of Grand Committees? I do not think there is. Only one stage out of five will be got rid of by sending a Bill to a Grand Committee, and we have tried Grand Committees. I do not at all deny that they have done some good; but although they have done some good, they have not been effective for the purpose of preventing that great arrear of business which is now almost choking this House. I say there is only one other remedy that can be considered, and that is the distribution of business—call it devolution if you like—to some other Assembly than this. I think most lawyers will agree with me that you cannot destroy, if you wished to do so, the Imperial supremacy of this Parliament. I am strongly in favour of maintaining that supremacy, and I am not aware, so far as I know, that anybody wishes to destroy it. But, as I have said, you cannot destroy it, even if you wished, according to Constitutional Law. That being so, how do you propose that the business should be distributed to other Assemblies? It seems to me to be absolutely necessary so to distribute it; and in no other way than according to the natural line of cleavage that exists in this country. You have in Ireland and in Scotland—I say nothing in reference to

    1703
    Wales for the moment, I do not see many Welsh Members present—but with regard to Ireland and to Scotland in their relation to England you have this: they have different laws administered by different Judges, they have widely different histories, they have different religions, they have different customs, and, especially with regard to Ireland, they have different races, for, of course, it is well-known that the great bulk of the people of Scotland are Anglo-Saxons, and belong exactly to the same race as the Northern inhabitants of England. But, however, there are racial differences, and racial differences of a very pronounced character. Now, I beg to say that in my opinion those differences show a line of cleavage by which alone any devolution of Public Business can be effected. Nobody wishes that I am aware of in any way to interfere either with the Sovereignty of this Parliament, or with the full presence of Scotchmen and Irishmen in this House, to take part with Englishmen in the administration of all that concerns the common good. But what we feel in Scotland—those whom I represent, and I feel it myself as strongly as any of them—is this: In the first place that we cannot get our business sufficiently done as things are; and, in the second place, that if we had the opportunity we are not only able but willing heartily to transact our own business in a reasonable, conciliatory, and temperate spirit towards all sections of opinion in Scotland. We are also prepared, in addition, to take our full and equal share with Englishmen and Irishmen in the administration and conduct of business common to the United Kingdom.
    MR. ATHERLEY - JONES: I cannot help thinking that those of us who favour the establishment of Home Rule in Ireland would be likely to be opposed to it if we could see that the necessary corrollary of the establishment of Home Rule in Ireland was to be the establishment of three domestic Parliaments, with three domestic Prime Ministers and three domestic Lord Chancellors, and so forth in the Kingdom, for Scotland, for England, and for the Principality of Wales. I do not however regard the Motion of my hon. Friend as pointing in that direction. I gather that his Motion is a declaration, perhaps couched in somewhat infelicitous
    1704
    language, that it is desirable that there should be a devolution of the functions of Parliament in respect of certain domestic matters upon certain bodies constituted ad hoc in Scotland, England, Ireland, and Wales. I must say I could not follow the speech, in sympathy at any rate, of my hon. and learned Friend who last spoke, in his somewhat gloomy jeremiad over the condition of Scotland. My hon. and learned Friend adverted to the great want of time which was suffered by Scotland for the transaction of its own domestic business. Now, I am bound to say that with the single exception of the question connected with a very debatable subject—that of the liquor traffic—he did not advance one single instance of a Scotch measure ripe for legislative treatment which has been neglected by the Imperial Parliament.
    Mil. R. T. REID: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon—I only quoted one instance; but my hon. Friend was not in the House when a long list was given to the House by the hon. Member for Dundee.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: My hon. and learned Friend is inaccurate. I was not in my seat, but I have learned from an hon. Friend what took place, and I say that no question ripe for legislative treatment of capital importance has ever been neglected by this Imperial Parliament. But I admit that undoubtedly there is a very considerable arrear of urgent and pressing business relating to all parts of the United Kingdom. I admit that there are many measures, especially as regards social reform, to which the people of this country look for legislative treatment; but the hon. and learned Member and those who have spoken upon this question must remember that we have been passing through a singularly abnormal period in the history of this country, that the time of this House has been almost monopolised by the great Irish question, and I altogether deny the main premiss of my hon. and learned Friend that the House of Commons is a mere legislative machine. My hon. and learned Friend said there was not time for passing measures, and referred to the great waste of time in talk. What I contend is this, that primarily—or at any rate it is hardly of secondary importance—the function of this House is to debate serious questions

    1705
    and so bring them into a condition ripe for legislative treatment. Has my hon. and learned Friend considered what the establishment of a local Parliament in Scotland means? Does he consider that it means a Parliament with an Executive responsible to the Crown, does he consider that it means a Parliament which will have its alter ego in this Parliament and that it will undoubtedly make this Parliament a battle-ground for continual exactions, for continual fresh concessions? Undoubtedly the whole of the integrity, continuity, and symmetry of the domestic policy which is pursued by this country, would be utterly and entirely destroyed. I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend, and those who think with him, what would become of this Parliament when domestic Parliaments had been established in the three Kingdoms and the Principality of Wales for the purpose of dealing with all those domestic questions which pertain to Home Government? What I conceive would be left to this Parliament would be a wrangling for further concessions to those various countries, and a mischievous and unnecessary interference with the affairs of our Colonies and with foreign affairs. I am bound to say that I do not look with anything but dismay to the idea of establishing four effective Parliaments in the United Kingdom with four effective Executives, depending upon the Sovereign of this country. I think the proposition only requires to be stated in order to show its absurdity. On the other hand I well recognise the desirability of the devolution of Business.
    MR. R. T. REID: How?
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Well, I think the suggestion made by the late Mr. Bright was a very excellent suggestion, and that is the creation of Grand Committees for Scotland and for Wales. I altogether sever and differentiate the case of Ireland from that of Scotland and Wales.
    MR. R. T. REID: Why not Ireland?
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Let my hon. and learned Friend show that there is any strong desire on the part of the people of Scotland or the people of Wales for a local Parliament. Why, this very Debate comes off to-night only by the most strenuous and factitious exertions of hon. Members, and already we are threatened with
    1706
    extinction. My hon. and learned Friend says why not for Ireland? Because Ireland has had a history altogether different from the history of Scotland or of Wales in relation to this country. I am not going to discuss the question of Home Rule in Ireland. Theoretically the question may be open to very grave and perhaps doubtful arguments. But I am dealing with the question as a question of practical politics, and I say that there is no doubt that as a matter of practical politics, if my hon. and learned Friend can prove to demonstration such a volume of public opinion extending over such a long series of years, in spite of every effort, both conciliatory and anti-conciliatory, on the part of the Government of England for the concession of a local Parliament, then I say he might have made out a case worthy of the consideration of this House. It is for this reason that I support the Motion of my hon. Friend. I support it in the sense in which I understand it to be, not a declaration in favour of the establishment of separate Parliaments, but a declaration in favour of the devolution of peculiarly Scotch business to Committees and bodies appinted for dealing effectively with those matters which at present are so much neglected.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has concluded as he has done, and that he is going to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Caithness. I also, in voting for this Motion, share the views of the hon. Member for Durham, and claim the same amount of liberty. I intend to vote for it as I read it, or rather, perhaps I should say, as I choose to read it. I am very glad that this question has been raised. At any rate, for one thing it has elicited the expression from the Scotch Members that they also desire Home Rule, and I am very glad of that expression upon their part, because I think it will strengthen the Irish demand. I am glad also that the hon. Member for Caithness said that he thought the minimum amount of Home Rule that should be given, either to Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom, was that expressed in the Motion on the Paper before the House, that is the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Armagh. So that in many respects I consider this Motion a satisfactory one, as ventilating an important question.

    1707
    However, I may fairly say, having some experience of the history of Home Rule in this House, and possibly out of this House, that it must be allowed on all hands that the demand from Scotland has not been up to the present as strong and as urgent as it has been from Ireland; but there is also no doubt that the demand for some sort of Home Rule—not necessarily the same as in Ireland but some sort of Home Rule—in Scotland is a growing one. I have no right to speak from what I know of the Scotch people; but certainly from what I know of the Scotch Members—having been for 20 years in the House—I must say that every year a larger and larger number of Scotch Members seem to be anxious that some sort of Home Rule should be established for Scotland. So far as Ireland is concerned, I must, to a slight degree, differ from the hon. Member for Caithness. He seems to think that Ireland is especially enamoured of the Federal principle. I have no right to put myself forward as the exponent of the opinion of the whole of Ireland; but I give my own opinion and the opinion of my constituents in the West of Ireland. They do not reject repeal of the Union. They would be very glad to have repeal of the Union; but, of course, if they had repeal of the Union, their position would be extremely anomalous—they could not then have a Regent and could not have an Executive. The Irish people accepted the Bill of 1886 as an honest solution of the question, though not all that they wished or desired, but as an honest, fair solution of the question. The Federal system, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Caithness, is an excellent one. He gave an excellent example of it in relation to New York and the rest of the United States. We should be very glad to take the position Canada has in regard to the United Kingdom. That, perhaps, is asking far too much, or at least more than we are likely to get; but without being particularly in love with the Federal system, I think it is a good one, and I think any one who desires Home Rule can very properly and fairly vote for this Resolution. The hon. Member for Caithness has done one thing in framing his Motion; he has put Ireland first. As he fairly said, Ireland has brought this question to the
    1708
    front, has worked for it for a long time, and four-fifths of the Irish Members have repeatedly voted for something in that direction. The hon. Member for Dumfries shared the views of the hon. Member for Caithness. He said that the case of Ireland ought to come even before that of Scotland and for the same reason, that Ireland had made many sacrifices and had worked strenuously for the last 18 years. I think the Scotch Members have brought forward this question in a perfectly fair and legitimate way, and I think they ought to receive all support from the Irish Home Rule Members. The English Members are apt to make light of this question of Home Rule, and to say that this question is of no importance; but the explanation is a very simple one. The English people have got Home Rule at present. The English Members are about two to one of all the other Members put together, and they could carry any question they liked through the House. There was only one dread I had with respect to this Resolution, and that has been, I must say, completely removed by the speeches of the hon. Member for Caithness and the hon. Member for Dumfries. I was afraid that it might possibly be taken as a pretext to put off Home Rule in the next Parliament, and that a Party might spring up and say, "Let us elaborate a complete Federal system before we give Home Rule to Ireland." That would be very dangerous, for it has already taken 18 years to bring the Irish question to the front, and to thoroughly thresh out and ventilate the question.
    MR. MARK J. STEWART: My hon. Friend the Member for the Dumfries Burghs has made the congestion of Scotch business the gravamen of his complaint. He has said that there are many Bills like the Liquor Veto (Scotland) Bill and the Land Transfer Bill which have been before the House for many years, and for which no time could be found for discussion. If the question of Home Rule for Ireland had not been started and carried on in the way in which it has been by hon. Gentlemen opposite, there would have been ample time for the discussion of these and other interesting Scotch measures; but so long as hon. Members choose to indulge in hobbies that can never be realised, so long will

    1709
    they prevent real business being done. The system of devolution is undoubtedly a valuable help. The Grand Committees on the Public Health Act, the Bankruptcy Bill, and other measures have saved endless hours of discussion in the House, and good legislation has been the result. As far as local business is concerned, I have always thought that the present Government have done more than any preceding Government. They have brought in and passed measures of Local Government for England and Scotland, and it is therefore absurd to say that nothing is being done, and that nothing has been done in this direction. The congestion of business comes through many Members on both sides of the House not wishing Bills to be carried. Although the House does not pass a great amount of Scotch legislation, when any Scotch question comes up for discussion, and it is felt that it ought to be dealt with, the Government in power are bound to take it up, and this is to a large extent now done. Many questions are decided in this House, which, though they cannot be called exclusively Scotch questions, have a strong bearing on Scotland; and, on the whole, I consider that Scotch business is well attended to. That is, indeed, the opinion of the Scotch people, who would not care to have a Parliament in Scotland. They would sooner send to London a man who had time to attend to questions of an Imperial character than send him to Edinburgh to attend to local matters, and it would be extremely difficult to get gentlemen of leisure to attend a provincial Parliament held in Edinburgh and the Imperial Parliament held in London. If, on the other hand, they paid their Members, what would the ratepayers say? For these and other reasons I need not go into, I am satisfied that there is no real feeling on this question in Scotland, and that the agitation for Home Rule is propagated and maintained by agitators. The empty Benches to-night, especially the Front Opposition Bench, which is deserted by all save the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), proves that no real interest is taken in the question.
    MR. BARTON: I desire that there shall be no mistake or misunderstanding as to the attitude which the Ulster Members take up on this question. We are opposed to any
    1710
    interference with the legislative authority of the House, and we object to this Resolution because it is undoubtedly intended to enlarge the demand for Home Rule. I was astonished to hear hon. Members say that Ireland was more entitled in this matter to separate treatment than Scotland. For hundreds of years Scotland had a separate King, a separate Army, and a separate Navy, as well as the power of sending her own Ambassadors to other Courts. But nothing of the kind has ever occurred in Ireland. Almost from first to last the history of Ireland has been one of feuds and factions, and the only continuity Ireland has received has been from the Union. There is, however, one part of Ireland which has had a continuous history, and which, if racial and historical differences are considered, would be entitled to separate treatment—a part of Ireland which will have to be counted with if this question of Federalism is taken up—and that part is Ulster. This Debate, however, can hardly be regarded as serious, except that everything Scotch is serious to some extent.
    MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I desire to strongly support this Motion, because the number of social, industrial, and political questions which have arisen has produced a congestion of business in this House which can only be increased in future years. The late Mr. Parnell took as keen a measure as any man of the possibilities and capacities of the House, and he said that it was impossible for it to do the work of four Assemblies. The Motion we are now considering indicates a step which must be taken in a few years. The arguments used about Scotland are equally applicable to the case of Wales. The vast majority of the Representatives of Wales are constantly being voted down, and their actually unanimous voice is repeatedly being overwhelmed by the voices of Members for other parts of the Kingdom. It is for these reasons that I support the Motion of my hon. Friend, and I hope to be able to follow him into the Division Lobby.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I do not think it will be necessary for me to trouble the House at any length. As the hon. Member for Mid Armagh said,

    1711
    it is really difficult to treat this Motion quite seriously, looking at the condition of the House. It is evident, from the small number of Members present, that no great demand exists for Home Rule in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales, and it is impossible for me to come to the conclusion that the statements in the Resolution can at all be borne out. The thinness of the House shows that the interest in the matter is extremely small in three of the nationalities. Last year the hon. Member for Caithness brought forward a Resolution in almost the same terms, and the result was that not 40 faithful Members could be found to assist in carrying the Debate to a conclusion. So it was on Tuesday night last, when a Bill was before the House dealing with the same question; again not 40 faithful Members would support the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to bring the Debate to a conclusion.
    MR. R. T. REID: There are only 40 Scotch Liberal Members.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes; but there are the Irish Members, and surely that remark comes with a bad grace from a Member of the Party which attaches most importance to this question, as it affects Ireland, and says Ireland must come first. Judging from the fact that there is not a single Member from Ireland on the opposite Benches; that there are very few from Scotland, and only two from Wales, I think there is pretty good evidence of the fact that a demand for Home Rule does not find expression in this House. It will be admitted that a proposal of such a vast and drastic character is only warranted by two things—the existence of grievances which cannot otherwise be remedied, or the existence of a demand so general as to render it necessary that it should be considered. Even if we were to admit the justice of every single complaint that has been made by hon. Members opposite, no unprejudiced person would say that anything like a case has been made out for trying an experiment so dangerous as that proposed. What do the complaints amount to? The hon. Member for Dundee cited names from a list of Bills, and said—
    "The Access to Mountains Bill has not been passed; that is a reason why we should have a separate Parliament."
    He named other Bills of trivial importance, and said that the failure to make progress with them was an argument for
    1712
    the creation of five Parliaments. No doubt there has been delay in Scotch business, as in other business, so far as legislation is concerned, but what has been the reason? The hon. Member for Dundee frankly stated that the reason of it was that if there were a Parliament for Scotland the Scotch Bills would be passed in a short space of time; but I could not help thinking what a terrible thing it would be for Scotland if the result contemplated were realised. The House of Commons does not exist simply for the purpose of legislation; it exists largely for the ventilation of grievances and debates upon topics that are ripe for discussion. It must not be supposed that because a Bill is not passed, discussion upon it is wasted, or the object of its promoters is not advanced. So it is with regard to Motions—a cause may be advanced by a Debate which appears to come to nothing. Many measures have been passed unanimously which at one time it was difficult to get a small majority to support. Never was so great a change as this proposed upon such small and trivial grounds. The hon. Member for Dundee said that very wisely no details have been given of the plan proposed in the Resolution. No doubt it was wise from the Mover's point of view, and from the point of view of those who desired to support this abstract proposition; but if ever there was a question which ought to be put before the House in detail, it is this question of separate Parliaments for Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. The practical difficulties of the question are enormous. It would be extremely difficult to get a sufficient number of good men to fulfil the functions of Imperial and National Parliaments, and also of the County Councils which happily exist in England and Scotland, and which we hope will soon exist in Ireland. Then there might be enormous friction between the Imperial and the National Parliaments. You might have an Imperial Parliament of a totally different complexion, politically, from the Parliaments in Ireland, or Wales or Scotland.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. RITCHIE: When the interruption took place I was venturing to point out the inconvenience, to say the least of

    1713
    it, that would propably arise in cases where the Imperial Parliament and Executive were of different political constitution from the local Parliaments. It would not require much elaboration to show that in cases of that kind there might be much and frequent friction; and especially in the case where a local Parliament was not satisfied with the limited power conferred upon it, every opportunity would be taken to demonstrate to the Imperial Parliament that more power ought to be given to it and further duties imposed upon it. And so with regard to all the various Imperial questions, all the matters connected with the Colonies, Foreign Affairs, Imperial Finance, and Customs and Excise—these would all give opportunities to gentlemen from all parts of the country to ventilate grievances of which they might think they had just cause of complaint. While hon. Members spoke mostly with regard to Scotland, they undoubtedly felt that of all parts of the United Kingdom Ireland was the one to which attention would have to be first directed. And, great as would be the difficulties in connection with any local Parliament, I think hon. Members will admit that the difficulties of the situation would be infinitely greater in relation to Ireland than in regard to any other part of the Kingdom. While it is impossible to night to enter into the many technical points connected with this subject, it is certain, however, that nothing short of the most complete freedom for dealing with the land, with the administration of justice, and with the constabulary will satisfy the demand of the Irish people; and although we have not, up to the present, got any plan from the Leader of the Opposition, and although we all know his original proposal has been dropped, would not be accepted, and is not likely to be revived, yet we do know that he has pledged himself that whatever scheme of Home Rule he brings forward should be a scheme which should receive the acceptance of the majority of the Irish Representatives and of the Irish people. Consequently we know that the concession must be to confer the administration of Ireland on those who have been elected by people the majority of whom possess sentiments certainly not friendly to this country, and that they would have the control of the most loyal and prosperous part of Ireland. I want to
    1714
    know whether those who propose these things imagine for a moment that the people of Ulster would rest contentedly under a Parliament elected largely under the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood? ("No, no!") Well, I do not wish to enter upon that question now; but I defy contradiction when I assert that under the late elections which have taken place the Roman Catholic priests have exerted their influence to the utmost, both inside and outside the polling booth, in order to induce people to vote for the candidate they chose. I assert that the people of Ulster would never submit to any Parliament elected under such conditions as those. All I can say is that while we are prepared to consider all reasonable grievances, while prepared to extend the system of Local Government in all three countries—as we have done in Scotland, in England, and as we hope to do in Ireland—and that while prepared, when necessity arises, to increase the powers and responsibilities which have already been given to Local Bodies, we shall, whether in office or out of office, offer the most determined, energetic, and continuous opposition to any such proposal as that before us to-night.
    (8.10.) Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 74.—(Div. List, No. 92.)
    Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SUPPLY.—Committee upon Monday next.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (PURCHASE) BILL.—(No. 213.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    DR. TANNER: I wish to call attention to the recent peculiar attitude of the Government in the Lobby in preventing us entering the House. The Government

    1715
    Whips were at the door calling upon us not to enter in order to secure a count out. I think this attempt to proceed with Government business is absolutely impudent after they have been defeated in their object. ("Order, order!") To give them an opportunity of defending the attitude they have assumed, I move that you do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I have seen many incidents in this House caused by the attitude of Her Majesty's Government; but I never saw more determined impudence than this attempt to do business now after they have only sncceeded in defeating the Home Rule movement by 20 votes.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    DR. TANNER: I always bow to your ruling, Sir; because we are here to do the business of the country. We do not go home and leave others to do the work. We bring these gentlemen up to the mark, and now they try to seize the opportunity and proceed with Public Business in a way which I consider is lowering to the dignity of this House, in a manner which is unworthy on the part of common-sense business men at this period of the 19th century. I have much pleasure in moving that you do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has said nothing to convince me that this is anything but an abuse of the Forms of the House.
    MR. KNOX: I think, while we are on Clause 1, I might move to insert a clause which would make this Bill applicable to other countries. In the first line of Clause 1——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Question has been put that the clause stand part of the Bill.
    DR. TANNER: I move, then, this clause do not stand part of the Bill. I wish people to take these matters seriously. It is unfair that Members of this House should have been literally turned away by Government officials at the door.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Question before the Committee—that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
    DR. TANNER: As objecting to the substance of the Bill and on other grounds than those presented by the
    1716
    Bill, I thought I should have the opportunity of expressing myself. I naturally feel indignant at the attitude the Government have followed, and it is for that reason I object to the measure. I object to the clause, and I shall certainly divide the House upon it. I hope that every hon. Member who is possessed of conscientious principle will support me in this vindication of the rights of the House of Commons.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause do not stand part of the Bill."—(Dr. Tanner)
    The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Chairman stated that he thought the Ayes had it, and on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was frivolously claimed; and he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and Nine Members having stood up the Chairman declared the Ayes had it.
    Clause 2.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    THE CHAIRMANthen left the Chair. On his return,
    DR. TANNERsaid: There are many points in connection with this Bill which are deserving of attention. I wish, however, to move just one Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Question was put before I left the House.
    DR. TANNER: Then am I to understand that I cannot move an Amendment to this clause? I have not had an opportunity——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Question is, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. KNOX: In order that equal justice may be done to Ireland I have to move an Amendment. In the town of Cavan and another town which I know, the Town Commissioners had to give their personal security before they

    1717
    could borrow money for public purposes. That is a burden which ought to be thrown on the town, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this reasonable Amendment, which will only apply to Ireland the same conditions which now exist in England.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 17, to leave out the words "or Ireland," and add "This Act shall extend to Ireland with the following modifications, that is to say, the council or town commissioners of every corporate town in Ireland shall be the local authority for the purposes of this Act, and shall have the same powers as the council of a county or borough in England under this Act, and for that purpose may borrow money under the 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878.'"—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'or Ireland' stand part of the Clause."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I am sorry I cannot agree to this offhand. If the ordinary law applying to Ireland will permit of the alteration the hon. Member proposes, I shall be perfectly willing to accept the Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment now I will make inquiries.
    MR. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to apply to Ireland the particular provision which will enable Town Commissioners to borrow under the Public Health (Ireland) Act for the purpose of buying the markets?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That is exactly the point on which I must inquire. I have no objection to their buying the rights, but I cannot say whether I could give them the power to borrow.
    MR. KNOX: The power is given to the same authorities in England, and I only propose that equal powers should be given to Ireland. At present the Town Commissioners have not the power, and I have quoted two cases in which the Town Commissioners had to give personal security before they could borrow money which was required far public purposes. That, I contend, is very improper, and if the right hon. Gentleman has followed what I have said he can have no difficulty in finding out what is the ordinary law. But what he has said is so vague that I am afraid it is hard to see how far he would
    1718
    go. There is a Public Health Act in Ireland and a corporate authority, and why the corporate authority should not be allowed to borrow for the purpose I have named under this Act, as is the case in England, is more than I can understand.
    (9.10.) Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 41.—(Div. List, No. 94.)
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    DR. TANNER: I have another Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Question is that the clause stand part of the Bill.
    DR. CLARK: There are objections to the clause passing in its present form, and I should like the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether he cannot allow it to apply to Scotland and Ireland.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will consider before the Report stage whether the Bill can with advantage be extended to Scotland and Ireland.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  SHORT TITLES BILL.—(No. 227.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 12th April.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Schedule 2.
  Amendment proposed, in page 74, after line 9, insert—
  The Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Acts, 1854 to 1860.
  17 and 18 Vic, c. 80.
  The Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1854.
  18 and 19 Vic, c. 29.
  The Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1855.
  23 and 24 Vic, e. 85.
  The Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1860.—(The Attorney General, Sir B. Webster, Isle of Wight.)
  DR. TANNER: I think we ought to have some explanation of this matter. It is not enough that an Amendment of this kind should be moved by a simple nod of the head.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Perhaps the hon. Member has forgotten that this second

  1719
  Schedule was intended merely to give a short title to a certain class of Acts. Instead of using the full titles of seven or eight lines, the Acts can be cited in a few words; but I would remind the hon. Member that if he prefers to use the long titles he may do so.
  DR. TANNER: Not being a lawyer, I shall suffer no inconvenience in the matter, and I think it is hardly proper or dignified for one of the first Law Officers of the Crown to indulge in these silly and trivial remarks.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion of Sir R. WEBSTER, the following Amendments were agreed to:—In page 77, leave out lines 2 to 7; page 89, after line 15, insert—
  The Police (Scotland) Acts, 1857 to 1890.
  20 and 21 Vic, c. 72.
  The Police (Scotland) Act, 1857.
  21 and 22 Vic, c. 65.
  The Police (Scotland) Act, 1858.
  53 and 54 Vic, c. 67.
  The Police (Scotland) Act, 1890.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I beg to move, in page 90, line 40, to leave out "banks," and insert "bank."
  DR. TANNER: There are so many of these Bills that it seems impossible that they can all be considered under one short title. That arises from the extraordinary way in which the Bill has been drafted, and there is one part of this particular portion of the Bill with which we are now dealing that does not seem to read correctly.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The words Post Office Savings Bank, 1874, should read Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1874.
  DR. TANNER: I accept the explanation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR R. WEBSTER*SIR R. WEBSTER moved to omit the 3rd Schedule.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: It seems to me that the effect of this Schedule is to repeal several Acts of Parliament.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: This Amendment is consequent on the striking out of Clause 2 of the Bill, with the object of making it a permissive measure.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I am obliged for the explanation, but I do not see why we should repeal Acts recently passed.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: There are no Acts repealed by this Bill. There was a proposition of that kind, but it has been removed.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I am not quite sure that this House would be less usefully occupied if, instead of proposing new legislation, it set itself to repeal old Acts; but it strikes me as a little peculiar that we should repeal Acts which were passed so recently as last Session.
  MR. KNOX: I think the Act will lose very materially by leaving out the 2nd clause, and I apprehend that it will be possible to amend this on the Report stage.
  THE CHAIRMAN: On the Report stage it would be competent for the hon. Member to propose any Amendment he likes of the kind he indicates; but we cannot do now something which would undo what the Committee has already done. The Committee must be consistent.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 230.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 12th April.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 340.
  DR. CAMERON: These Sanitary Clauses contain the chief point of objection to the Bill, and the arguments against them are very strong. This part of the Bill is objected to by the Association of Medical Officers of Health in Scotland, and since the Bill was last in Committee the Association has sent up a very strong memorial against the clauses, of which I have given notice to move the omission. These officers are chiefly appointed under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, and they are gentlemen of experience; they are required in every case to hold a special diploma, and are forbidden by the terms of their appointment from engaging in private practice. They devote their whole time and energy to the preservation of public health in Scotland, and are recognised by the Government, which in the Local Government Act made pro-

  1721
  vision for assisting in the payment of their salaries. These officers say they are satisfied that the passing of the Bill in its present form would be in the highest degree detrimental to the public health. Such a strong expression of opinion from gentlemen well qualified to give one, justifies the strenuous opposition on the part of myself and my hon. Friends. I do not blame the Government, who have taken an old Bill and have not taken the trouble to modify it to meet existing circumstances. These Medical Officers say that no better illustration of the injurious effect of these clauses can be found than in the initial clause of Part V. of the Bill, which provides for the compulsory notification of disease. That was, they say, all very well in 1888; but since then an Imperial measure designed for the same purpose—the Infectious Diseases Notification Act—has been passed, and has been adopted by burgh as well as county sanitary districts throughout the country, and the provisions of this Bill are utterly at variance with that Act. They go on to say that the machinery of that Act has been brought into a condition of working smoothly, and that this Bill would upset what has been done, and would establish two systems of notification side by side. Under the Bill jealousies would arise between the medical officers of health and private practitioners, and it would render nugatory the object you have in view, which object would be better carried out by the Act which has been in force for three years. I think this is a convenient time for asking the Government whether they intend to press these Sanitary Clauses or not. They must see that the highest medical opinion in Scotland is against them, and that the only effect of proceeding with the clauses will be to confuse and muddle the law of Scotland to an injurious extent. The Medical Officers of Health appointed under the Local Government Act are men of the highest qualifications, and the small burghs cannot expect, in the great majority of cases, to be able to appoint men of equal qualifications; they will have to appoint a local practitioner, and as he will have to look for the greater part of his income to private practice his utility as a Medical Officer of Health will be almost nil. The Association to which I have referred says that the
  1722
  tendency of modern legislation has been in the direction of recognising the solidarity of questions affecting the public health, but that this Bill proceeds in the direction of dispersion and confusion. The Association has not come to the conclusion to oppose these clauses without great reluctance. One member of it wrote to me to the effect that, after long and earnest endeavour to see if he could not devise some governing clause which would meet the objections of the Association, he was very reluctantly forced to the conclusion that he and the Association must confine themselves to destructive criticism, and not attempt to amend the Bill. What the Association suggests is that you should drop these clauses, and adapt to Scotland the two Public Health Acts passed for England in the last couple of years, which course would accomplish everything that is desired. The Acts would apply to all Scotland, and would save us from the injurious effects of having one kind of Sanitary Law in the burghs, and another in the counties round it. Such a state of confusion would make it impossible to bring about that improved condition of sanitation which is desirable in any civilised country. The highest Sanitary Authority in Scotland is against the clauses; no evidence was taken on them before the Committee; and, whatever was the case years ago, they are inapplicable now. Since these clauses were drafted there has been important legislation on the subject; the Infectious Diseases Notification Act has been passed; there is an organisation for sanitary work in the counties which has made their condition of sanitation one considerably in advance of that in even the large towns. If these clauses be dropped, the Bill, as a Police Bill, will grant all the powers the burghs can reasonably desire, as to police, bye-laws, and so on; and then the question of Sanitary Laws for Scotland, not for the burghs only, but for Scotland as a whole, can be left to be dealt with by some more comprehensive and better-devised measure. I move, Sir, the omission of the clause.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "To leave out the Clause."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The hon. Member for the

  1723
  College Division said that I had, on a former occasion, expressed myself as having a poor opinion of the Medical Officers of Health in Scotland. I rise to say I have no recollection of saying that. What I did say, and what I say now, is that, with all respect to the Medical Officers of Health in counties, in passing a Bill like this, the Municipal Authorities cannot safely put themselves in the hands of the Medical Officers of Health of the counties and say that the laws shall be made applicable to them without any respect for the popular wants and experience of the burghs. The hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) represents a constituency outside the purview of this Bill, for Glasgow and the large cities came forward and said they were so advanced in municipal law and matters of health that they preferred to work under their own Acts with regard to sanitary matters, and they were accordingly excluded from the purview of the Bill. Does my hon. Friend suppose that the experience of the officers appointed last year in the counties is sufficient to discount all the experience of the Medical Officers of Health who have been appointed in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dumfries, Aberdeen, and other large towns of over 50,000 inhabitants for the last ten years? I may, I think, claim to have some interest in sanitary affairs. In the town of which I have been Chief Magistrate we had great difficulty in introducing a Medical Officer of Health at all, but public opinion changed, and we have now in all our large cities Medical Officers of Health, men of great experience, to administer the law. These are not the men who have come forward to object to these clauses; but they are the men on whose opinion we passed the clauses in the Committee. There is no objection to my hon. Friend extending the County Sanitary Regulations to the burghs if they are found to be more applicable than these clauses. We who support the Bill say that in sanitation these small burghs are far behind, and these clauses would greatly improve the present state of things; that is also the opinion of the burghs themselves. My hon. Friend proposes to destroy the individual Home Rule of the burghs, and put them under the County Councils, which has very strong objections on the face of it. The Bill has between 500 and 600 clauses;
  1724
  and the Government knows, the burghs know, and Scotland knows that if we discuss all these clauses it will be impossible to give the Scotch burghs the benefit of the Act. We appeal to our Friends to make such Amendments as are possible and which the Government will accept, and to pass the rest without discussion; then, when we come to apply the Public Health Act of England to Scotland, there will be no more difficulty than exists now. Taking the Bill as it stands, I think it would be well not to disregard the opinion of Medical Officers of Health who have had some experience in municipal affairs. I can remember my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness pressing this Bill a short time ago, and saying that the Sanitary Clauses were most needed. If these Medical Officers had had the courage of their convictions, instead of saying, "Omit the clauses till we can give you another Bill," they would have sent up the Amendments they desired to see made.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL (: The majority of the Scotch Members were in favour of this Bill as it stands, until certain Amendments were suggested by the Medical Officers of Health. I appeal to the Government to consider these suggestions, which deserve attention, and can be met by Amendments which can be readily drafted. If the Government desire that the Bill should pass—and there is no question that Scotland desires that it should be passed—it should be referred to a large Committee, and then Amendments, which would meet the reasonable objections which have been pointed out by these officers, could be submitted. If such a course were adopted, the Government would see the Bill pass this Session.
  DR. CLARK: To put the discussion of these clauses in order I move to report Progress. I think if we had not had these speeches we should have got through about 200 clauses by this time. I have been looking over these Sanitary Clauses, and I think they will all require amendment. In Clause 340 the words,
  "Unless it be found on diagnosis that such practitioner was incorrect,"
  will require to be left out, as they will create bad feeling, and the medical man's certificate is sufficient. In the

  1725
  same sub-section you compel a medical man to send in reports up to seven days, and do not give any fees. I shall propose that no report be required for seven days, so that if you want them you will have to pay for them. The sub-section would make medical men give unnecessary reports without being paid for them. The easiest course would be to treat these clauses as contentious clauses, and it would be found easier in a Bill of a few clauses to incorporate the English Act of 1890 and apply is to Scotland with such alterations as the differences of administration require. I think if that were done, you could get through the other 250 clauses, including the codifying clauses, to-night, and then you could begin on some other occasion with the contentious clauses. By this means you will be able to give the Bill a chance of passing; but if you begin fighting now on the Public Health Clauses, it would take a great deal too much time, and prevent the Bill passing. I have said—and I say so still—that so far as the public health in Scotland is concerned, both in the burghs and the country, I believe there are tens of thousands of cases where disease and death could have been prevented if there had been a proper Public Health Act, and if it had been properly applied. Hence, I desire to see the Public Health Clauses better than they are here, and applied generally, not only to the burghs, but to the counties. In many cases the small burghs will not have a medical officer themselves, and they will get that work done by the county officer; and the county officer will be in the position of having to apply one Act to one portion of the county and another to another; one Act on one side of the street and another on the other. I think the proposal I have made is a very fair one—namely, that the Police Clause, having nothing to do with public health, but more to do with the apprehension of prisoners, should be dropped out of the Bill for the present, and let the Government consider the comments of the Press on the matter. I think in last week's Lancet one of the strongest articles I ever read appeared with regard to this Bill. I beg to move that you do now report Progress, in order to obtain some explanation as to the course which the Government propose to take.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Clark.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I greatly regret that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow should have taken the course which they have taken with regard to this Bill. Undoubtedly, it is in the power of these gentlemen, if they devote their abilities to the task, to wreck the Bill; but if, happily, we should be able to purchase their forbearance by a concession on the declaratory clauses, or on what the hon. Member describes as the contentious part of the Bill, I should be willing to accept or consider the suggestion of the hon. Member. But I hope the two hon. Gentlemen, if we adopt this compromise, will meet us half-way, and that they will not be too strict in their definition of what is a Sanitary Clause and what is a Police Clause, and, at all events, that the Police Clause may be allowed to pass without any prolonged discussion. I do not deny the force of what has fallen from both hon. Gentlemen who represent the opinion of a very large and important body of the people of Scotland—the medical officers of Scotland. I should be the last to depreciate the opinion of these gentlemen; and though I regret that they have come to the decision that nothing short of amendment on a very large scale of the clauses dealing with sanitary matters will content them, yet I think it would be worth while to defer the discussion on the Sanitary Clauses, and to content ourselves with passing into law the clauses as regards what are in the main unobjectionable improvement. But I think it would be impossible for us to-night to arrive at a definite conclusion as to whether a compromise such as has been adumbrated ought or ought not to be accepted. We cannot really decide that question on the floor of the House; and, therefore, I concur with this view: that we should pass the uncontroversial portion of the Bill, and that we should defer to another occasion the discussion of the Sanitary Clauses. But I hope that when the hon. Gentlemen consider what course should be adopted on the subject, they will feel that if it is decided to make this very important concession—if that concession is made—some concession should be made by them with regard

  1727
  to the discussion on the police portion of the Bill, and that it should be passed without any unduly prolonged discussion. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, and that we should proceed to pass through Committee those remaining portions of the Bill which do not deal with sanitary matters, and which, therefore, are not of a contentious character.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to withdraw my Motion. So far as I can see, the only other clauses that are controversial, and that would require to be postponed, are Clauses 383, 388, 389, 402, and 415, which are all really Assessment Clauses. The 450th clause is one of the Penalty Clauses, and I think it will require to be postponed; and the 480th clause, by which we are to have one law for the pawnbrokers and marine store dealers in one place and another in another. I do not care much about that. It is a question for the Government themselves to consider. But these are the only clauses that require to be postponed, so far as I can see—six, and three of them are consequential. We might take all the other clauses as they stand.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CAMERON: These are the clauses which are described in the Memorandum which has been circulated as the clauses that should be postponed. In one of the clauses it is provided that if a man break a lamp-post through carelessness he may be brought up before a Magistrate and fined. It is perfectly right to enforce some fine, but what is objectionable is that there should be a different remedy for the recovery of a civil debt in the case of a Public Body as compared with a private individual. As regards the Pawnbroking Clause, pawn-broking in Scotland is regulated by a general Act; and if it is advisable to amend that Act, I have nothing to press upon that point, though it appears a very curious thing that such a provision should be introduced here. But if the Government like to indulge in this futile form of legislation, and the pawnbrokers do not object, I do not object. As to the penalties, discussion would be required as to what should be considered the maximum. The Sheriff at the present time in summary cases has only the
  1728
  power of inflicting a maximum of two months' imprisonment; and according to some clauses of this Bill a Police Magistrate, who has no legal training, can give three months' imprisonment, or one month more than the Sheriff, who is a trained lawyer and an experienced Judge. I think if heavy penalties are to be given, at least they ought to be given by a trained Judge. I should certainly never dream of offering an opinion of my own against that of the majority; but the reason why I have made a stand upon the Sanitary Clauses is that I was convinced that my friends had not looked into the matter as closely as that matter required to be looked into, and that it required a certain amount of discussion to represent the bearings of the proposed legislation to the House in its true light.
  MR. LENG: I can assure the Committee and the Government that it will be extremely regretted in the police burghs generally if the Health Clauses should be withdrawn. It is now eleven years since this Bill first came before the House, and the great fear is that if it is cut in two—if there is to be a Health Bill as well as a Police Bill—eleven years more may elapse before a Health Bill is passed. If we were to adopt that line at the present time it would be very much to be regretted. Recognising the very conciliatory tone of the First Lord of the Treasury, and the desire that exists that the Bill should be passed, I would say to hon. Members let them use the time between this and the further stages of this Bill for the purpose of drafting reasonable Amendments for it. Do not let it be spoiled by passing it as it now stands. I trust that while the Government are conciliatory in their attitude they will not give way to the opposition which emanates from a limited class.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I wish to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for Dundee, and to state that my constituents are very anxious that this Bill should not be any longer delayed. I am sure that the passing of the Bill will give universal satisfaction throughout Scotland.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I think that a very reasonable offer has been made by the right hon.

  1729
  Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and I hope that it will have the effect of getting a certain portion of the Bill through Committee. The opposition of hon. Members who speak for the medical profession is founded solely on the desire to put all systems of sanitary administration in Scotland upon one and the best level. If there is one thing to be avoided more than another in sanitary administration it is to have two different systems of arrangement in contiguous areas. It is for the sake of securing uniformity that my hon. Friend below the Gangway has raised this discussion.
  MR. MARK J. STEWART: Unless we can come to some compromise with regard to this Bill, it is absolutely impossible that it can get through Committee. I am not in favour of every clause in it; for there are certain things in it which must be amended before it can be made a successful measure; but I am anxious that it should go through Committee, and I will not stand in the way of its doing so. I would venture to express the hope that the compromise which has been suggested will be carried out.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I quite agree that it is a matter for great regret that the Health Clauses in the Bill should not be passed along with the Police Clauses. This is a very important Bill on the whole, and there is practical unanimity on both sides of the House with regard to the Police Clauses; but, unfortunately, there is not that unanimity in regard to the Health Clauses. The same arguments that apply to the Police Clauses do not apply to the Health Clauses. My hon. Friends who object to the Health Clauses undoubtedly have something like a primâ facie case against them; and if they persevere in their opposition, they can no doubt defeat the Bill. I do not say that their opposition is well founded on every point, but it certainly seems to me that it would be advantageous to Scotland to have the Police Clauses passed even without the Health Clauses. I hope that hon. Members for Scotland will treat the matter in a spirit of fair compromise.
  DR. TANNER: The Committee appear to me in a very sensible frame of mind. I can see no difficulty in the way of settling this matter. I think that the Bill might be
  1730
  divided into two parts; and that if the Scotch people wish to have the Health portion pushed forward, it should be the duty of hon. Members to promote the welfare of the people of Scotland in that direction.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 383.
  DR. CLARK: Clauses 383, 388, and 389 are contentious. The only other clauses which will require to be postponed are 402, 415, which are chiefly Assessment Clauses, 450, which is a Penalty Clause, and Clause 480, under which there is one law for your pawnbrokers and marine store dealers in one place, and another for those engaged in those businesses elsewhere.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 384 to 387, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 388 and 389 postponed.
  Clauses 390 to 395, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 396.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I suggest that in the interests of poor people unable to pay the police rates that permission should be given to the Magistrate before issuing the warrant to relieve these poor people from the expense and trouble they may be put to in order to raise the money. I find in the Poor Law Act a provision whereby the poor can be relieved of the rates by coming before the Magistrate and pleading poverty. I think it would be wise to save the infliction and annoyance of a warrant in such cases.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,: Although I should be willing to give the utmost consideration to any suggestion based upon those grounds, I must point out that the question has nothing whatever to do with this clause. This is not a clause to relieve anyone; it is a clause to provide for appeal where the collector has done something that causes anyone to feel aggrieved.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 397 to 401, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 402.
  DR. CLARK: This clause is out of its place. It is like 140 and 141, and should, therefore, follow them.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: It is among the Assessment Clauses, and is quite in its proper place.
  DR. CLARK: The proposals of Clauses 141 and 142 relate to the upkeep and maintenance of the pavements. The present law is that they are maintained by the landlords. If these clauses pass, then they will be maintained by the Town Councils or the Commissioners as the case may be; so that when we discuss Clause 140 it will govern and rule this 402.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 403 to 406, inclusive, postponed.
  Clauses 407 to 414, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 415.
  DR. CLARK: This is also one of the Assessment Clauses.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I think that is true to a certain extent, but I must not be considered as acquiescing in the previous clause or the one under discussion. I think the hon. Member is mistaken, but as the one is postponed I do not object to the other being similarly treated.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 416.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I desire to omit the words beginning with "other than," inline 7, and ending with "provided," in line 9. It is a matter of considerable importance, and yet I do not think there is any risk of its being contentious. A recent decision in the Court of Session raised the question whether public authorities were disabled from borrowing for the purpose of making, enlarging, ventilating and re-constructing sewers. Public authorities have been in the habit of doing so, and that there may be no doubt as to their power I propose to omit the words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 417 to 421, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 422.
  DR. CAMERON: This clause renders persons liable to a fine of £10 or 60 days' imprisonment, to be inflicted by an untrained Magistrate, although two months' imprisonment is as long a term of imprisonment as can be inflicted by a
  1732
  Sheriff. In certain instances the terms of punishment are longer, because a man may be sentenced to 60 days' imprisonment, and, failing a fine, to another 30 days. That confers upon the Magistrate power of very summary treatment. I desire the right hon. Gentleman to look into the matter, and consider whether it would not be safer to provide that the Sheriff should deal with the persons.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: This power has been always in the hands of the Burgh Magistrates, and I know of no case in which it has been abused. It is true there is a good deal said against unpaid Magistrates altogether, but that is a different question from the one now before the House.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I rather think the hon. Member will find that under this Bill all the penalties to which he objects are of 60 days or under, or if they do exceed that it is only in exceptional cases. It must not be regarded absolutely as a £10 fine or 60 days' imprisonment whenever this Bill mentions those penalties. In every case, as far as I recollect, it is a penalty "not exceeding" the one or the other, and I think we may well trust the Magistrates to award such penalties as, in their opinion, are fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. As to the proposal that these offences should be relegated to the Sheriff, I am surprised to hear that suggestion from the hon. Member, and at the same time it is not one that I can accept. To relegate these offences to the Sheriff would overwhelm those hard-working officers with additional work; and, in the second place, it would take away from the Burgh Magistrates a class of offences which I think they are more competent to deal with than the Sheriffs.
  DR. CAMERON: I do not wish to say a word against bailies and Burgh Magistrates, but what I say is that unpaid and untrained Magistrates should be restricted to small penalties.
  MR. LENG: If this clause errs at all, I think it is in the direction of leniency. There are a number of human brutes who care little for the imposition of a fine, and I think the only thing likely to have a deterrent effect would be the power of imprisoning the offender. In my opinion, therefore, the alternative of imprisonment might with advantage be added to some of the clauses of the Bill.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I believe hon. Members must agree that the penalties proposed in the Bill are only fair and reasonable.
  DR. CAMERON: I do not say the penalties are too heavy, but what I should be opposed to would be increasing the powers of these Burgh Magistrates in the way of inflicting long terms of imprisonment.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Sixty days is the outside limit, with a further limit for caution, but I have never heard of this being used, or of any complaints being made on the point.
  DR. CAMERON: I move that the clause be postponed.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 423 agreed to.
  Clause 424 postponed.
  Clause 425 agreed to.
  Clause 426 postponed.
  Clauses 427 to 449, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 450.
  DR. CLARK: This clause refers to begging, and I should like to know if it introduces any alteration into the law of Scotland as it stands now. Does it introduce any new punishment?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: It is substantially the same as the old Act.
  DR. CAMERON: Is it the same in respect to persons conducting themselves as vagrants?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: Yes, substantially the same.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 451 to 469, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 470.
  DR. CAMERON: I think these clauses ought to be postponed.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: No doubt these clauses are very closely connected with the policing of our large towns, but they scarcely seem to me to be Public Health Clauses.
  DR. CAMERON: I did not understand that all the postponed clauses are Public Health Clauses. I think it would be better if we could in some way follow the clauses as they are put down in the Memorandum which we have received, and then, when we come to talk them over quietly after-
  1734
  wards, we shall easily be able to arrive at an agreement.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I have not gathered previously that the hon. Member intends to consider all these clauses as Public Health Clauses. It is perfectly plain that some of these go a long way beyond what is called Public Health.
  DR. CAMERON: The First Lord of the Treasury distinctly informed us that the Government did not wish to force these clauses through if we were not ready.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government have no desire to press any clause to which the Scotch Members make any objection, and if on consideration they think there is a primâ facie case for objecting, I do not desire to ask the Committee to accept it as part of the Bill at present. If they adhere to the view that has been expressed, we shall not endeavour to force the clauses through Committee.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 471 to 476, inclusive, postponed.
  Clauses 477 and 478 agreed to.
  Clause 479 postponed.
  Clauses 480 to 534, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 535.
  DR. CAMERON: I wish to direct the Lord Advocate's attention to this clause. It says—
  "It shall be lawful for a Magistrate in case of any offence committed by a child of not more than twelve, to summon the parent or guardian of such child to appear in Court, and ordain such parent or guardian to find caution for the good behaviour of such child as aforesaid, and to sentence the person ordained to find such caution to imprisonment till such caution be found."
  If a boy commits an offence, the Magistrate does not punish him, but punishes the parent if he cannot find caution. Surely that is not intended?
  MR. ESSLEMONT: By the proviso you have to show that the child is under the control of the parent before calling on him to find caution. I have had before me cases where parents aided and abetted the crime in order to get the child sent to a reformatory or industrial school. The object of the clause is not to punish such a child sent out to steal, but to punish the parent who sent it out. The clause proposes to punish parents

  1735
  when they have responsibility, but they will not be punished unless they are guilty to such an extent as I have mentioned. I know of no clause which is more needed.
  DR. CAMERON: If anything were required to make me more dubious than ever of the sagacity of unpaid Magistrates, even if they have been chief Magistrates of a great city, it is the defence my hon. Friend has got up for the proposal to punish the parent, who has committed no crime whatever, for a crime committed by his child, if he is so poor that he cannot find caution.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I said the desire was to punish the parent for the crime of sending out the child to steal, as I have known to be done. Nothing has convinced me more of the incapacity of my hon. Friend than his having supposed that poverty was a crime under the clause.
  DR. CLARK: The clause says nothing about the fault of the parent or guardian, but faults on their part can be punished under the innumerable offences created by the Bill. I think the punishment of a parent sending his child out to beg is provided for in the Vagrancy Clause just passed. This clause calls upon the parent to find security instead of punishing the child. That is a capital provision constantly adopted in first offences. If the parent cannot find security, however, he is liable to imprisonment.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The last part of the clause shows that if the parent has exercised all due caution there can be no offence.
  DR. CAMERON: That is during the six months which the security runs. My point is that if the parent cannot find security he may be sent to prison, and surely that is not intended.
  DR. CLARK: I think there is some change in the first part of this clause since we passed it in the Committee, as it stands if a man, from poverty, cannot find the security he can be imprisoned till he has found it.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I think it would be wiser to postpone this clause, and I will undertake to give it my very careful attention.
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 536 to 547 inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 548 postponed.
  Clauses 549 to 558, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 559.
  DR. CAMERON; My Amendment is to substitute the "Secretary for Scotland" for "Lord Advocate." The analogous minister to the English Home Secretary is the Secretary for Scotland, and he would be the proper person to put the Court in motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 204, line 11, to leave out "Lord Advocate," and insert "Secretary for Scotland."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That 'Lord Advocate' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: The objections to the Amendment are that the Lord Advocate has always made the applications in the High Court of Justiciary, and it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of Scotland to appear there to make motions. Secondly, the Lord Advocate has been the official, so far as I understand the practice in Scotland, who has to initiate any proceedings for fixing forms of procedure even in Police Courts. It is expedient that should be done from time to time to secure uniformity, and I see no reason why the rule should be altered.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 560 to 562, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 563.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I can relieve the Committee of one clause. This is a purely Departmental clause, and is I think unnecessary in this Bill. I move that it be omitted.
  Clause omitted.
  Postponed clauses further postponed till after the Schedules.
  Schedule I agreed to.
  DR. CLARK: I think Schedules 2 and 3 should be postponed, as they will require Amendment if they are retained.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: It was my intention to move the postponement of the Schedules, as it would not do to pass them till we have decided whether they should include the Police and Public Health Acts or not.
  Schedules 2 and 3 postponed.
  Schedule 4.
  DR. CLARK: The other Schedules, I think, may be considered non-contentious, although they occupy many pages.
  DR. CAMERON: In connection with the clauses I think they may require a little modification; but I do not press the postponement if the right hon. Gentleman thinks differently. Some details, h ay want modification. I thought the right hon. Gentleman agreed to postpone all the Schedules?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I have no objection to the postponement of all the Schedules, and to do so will probably conduce to brevity afterwards. They will have to be gone over carefully in consequence of alterations made in the Bill.
  Schedules 4 to 11, inclusive, postponed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  ACCUMULATIONS BILL.—(No. 277.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I have to say it only touches a few cases and a very small part of a subject which has received a good deal of attention in past years. There are a few cases in which directions have been given, by will or otherwise, for the accumulation of the rents or profits from property, and the investment of such profits in the purchase of land. Owing to the alteration of the circumstances under which land is held, from those obtaining when the direction was given, very great inconvenience is found to arise there from, and it is proposed to limit the accumulations for the purchase of land to the period of the minority of the person who, under the trusts of the instrument directing the accumulation, would be entitled to receive the rents, issues, profits, or income of the property if of full age. The Bill will touch only a limited number of cases, and I now ask the House to read it a second time, for I think no question arises that may not be dealt with on the Committee stage.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir R. Webster.)
    MR. HALDANE: I hope the House will consent to the Second Reading. The Bill has a useful purpose, and deals with a need much felt in the country. Although, as the Attorney General is well aware, it does not go to the full extent of the evil to be remedied, certainly it is a Bill which ought not to be opposed.
    MR. KELLY: I am not surprised at the praise given to the Bill by the hon. and learned Member opposite; but I am surprised that this Bill should have been brought in by the Government. The Bill certainly has a rather misleading name. I should have thought it would have been better described as an "Accumulations in Land Prohibition" Bill. But it may occur to hon. Members to wonder why people may accumulate everything else out land. The day, I suppose, has gone by when the wishes of a testator received respect and consideration, and I suppose it would be considered an anachronism now to say that some regard ought to be paid to the wishes of a man who made sacrifices in his lifetime for the benefit of his successors, and to get back the land which had gone from the possession of his family. I am not interested in the possession of land, but I do say that nothing can be more calculated to destroy the value of land than such a Bill as this. We are told there are some cases in which the Bill might be useful; we are told of the altered conditions of land; but those who made arrangements for their property after their death on behalf of those they wished to benefit must be supposed to have had some knowledge that land might rise or fall in value. It seems to me there is no reason, because land has now fallen in value, why all the wishes, all the sacrifices men have thought it right to make during their lives for those they loved and wished to benefit, should be completely ignored and disregarded. Of course, I know it is not in my power to stop the progress of the Bill, and therefore I confine myself to suggesting a slight alteration which I trust the Government may agree to. The offence aimed at by the Bill is the dire offence of attempting to accumulate land. Now, if it is an offence—and I will

    1739
    suppose it is a gross offence—I cannot see why the offence which is created by the instrument under which the land is accumulated requires a provision such as this in the Bill. A man may not leave the rents and profits of property to be accumulated for the increase of the area of his land. By law the profits are not to be used to buy land; but why, if land is not to be accumulated, may not the rents and profits be allowed to be accumulated in some other form? You allow a man by any instrument to provide that after his death the accumulation of profits shall be invested in stocks of all kinds; but you say this shall not be the case in the matter of land; but why should not the rents and profits from land be accumulated in the way of investment in stocks? That would prevent the mischief—if it be mischief, though I cannot conceive how it is so—at which the Bill aims. I wish to ask the Attorney General if he will consent to a slight Amendment putting an end to accumulations in the way of land, but allowing people who happen to die possessed of land, and wish to increase their property for the benefit of those who are interested in the same way us those who have been more fortunate and have invested in stocks, to re-invest the interest and profits derived, if not in land, in certain specified stocks? I express my regret that the Bill has been brought forward, and I cannot understand what is the great mischief that is deemed to be met by it. I think it is lamentable that the wishes of those who during their lives have made great sacrifices for the purpose of accumulating property for the benefit of those in whom they are interested should be utterly disregarded and ignored.
    MR. MORTON: I am glad on this occasion to support the Government in what I believe to be a step in the right direction, and I trust that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not allow the Bill to become a farce by accepting such an Amendment as that which has been suggested. Although this is a very small Bill, it is a step in the direction of free trade in land, and I hope it will be carried into law without being mutilated as proposed.
    MR. TOMLINSON: This Bill is of a very peculiar character, and deserves, I think, a little
    1740
    more explanation than has been given to it. The Thellusson Act has been in force for a long time, and I think it is only right, before we are asked to alter an Act which has been so long in existence, and which on the whole has worked well, that we should have some explanation of the cases which have arisen, and which make it necessary to introduce these alterations. I am not aware that there are any greater objections to instruments directing the accumulation of profits to be invested in land than to the accumulation of funds to be invested in any other way. We are entitled to some kind of explanation why this particular form of investment is objectionable. But I specially call attention to Clause 2, and, assuming that there is something obnoxious in investing accumulations in land, and that it would be proper to direct that trusts, so far as they require this particular kind of investment only, should be void in the future, that is not the way to treat existing trusts. The fault, so far as we can judge from the Bill, is not that accumulations are wrong, but the mode in which the accumulations are directed to be invested is objectionable. The remedy, then, is not to declare that the direction for accumulation shall be void, but that the direction for this particular form of investing the accumulations shall be inoperative. Surely it is a sound principle to say you ought not to affect trusts more than is necessary to carry out the object of this Bill; and the object of this Bill is, for some unknown reason, to declare that accumulations shall not beyond a certain period be invested in land. Then why not limit the change to preventing the mischief which is supposed to arise, directing that trusts shall be so far modified as to allow investment in other ways to which there is not this great objection? I hope we may hear from the Attorney General that he will be prepared in Committee to consider whether the Bill can be modified to this extent.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I think explanation is sorely needed both by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), and also by the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Kelly), and I think it is just as well that some explanation should be attempted to be furnished from this side

    1741
    of the House, as none appears to be forthcoming from the Treasury Bench. My own view of the reasons which have led to the introduction of this Bill a Bill to which I do not object—is this: that, emanating from a Tory Government, we may naturally suppose it is an emanation from those who have landlord interests at heart, and not only these, but the interests of landlords' descendants. What I believe has induced right hon. Gentlemen to introduce the Bill is this: they say the pestilent Radicalism of modern times is certain to reduce the value of land; and they say that it will be a very horrible thing if, as time goes on, noble Lords and those who possess a great deal of land will go on making wills, as they have continued for generations to do, directing that profits shall be invested in the accumulation of more land. The result will be that noble Lords and their descendants will be compelled to go on buying land in what right hon. Gentlemen know very well will be a falling market, until the Radicalism of modern legislation, the coming legislation, has the effect, in the near future, of reducing land to its real agricultural value in contradistinction to the fictitious value it has hitherto possessed, and which to some degree it possesses at present. In the absence of all voice from the Government, this is the explanation I, from below the Gangway, venture to offer to hon. Gentlemen behind the Treasury Bench.
    SIR W. FOSTER: Some explanation is required of Clause 2. It appears to be retrospective in its operation, and we ought to know whether that is intended or not? I have no objection myself to either of the clauses; but I think we should pass the Bill with our eyes open, knowing whether or not it will affect trusts created many years ago.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Only by the indulgence of the House can I answer the questions which have been put. First, in reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Kelly), of course, it he proposes an Amendment in Committee stage in reference to any direction to be given as to what is to be done with the money which otherwise ought to be invested in land according to the will or instrument, that Amendment will be carefully considered; but it is difficult to
    1742
    say off-hand whether we could accept until we see the way the condition is imposed, and how far it agrees with the object of the Bill, which is to alter the law, and put an end to the accumulations of land by trusts created for that purpose. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) asks what is the necessity for the introduction of the Bill, and perhaps I ought to apology for not having made a longer statement in moving the Second Reading; but when I remembered how this matter has been discussed twice in the last two Sessions on a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Cozens-Hardy), and by my hon, and learned Friend the Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset (Mr. Elton), when the matter was gone into very thoroughly, I could not conceive that hon. Members had forgotten these discussions; but had I known there was any wish for further information, I would have endeavoured to have fulfilled that wish by making a more lengthened explanation. My hon. Friend also raises the question as to the disposition of the income which otherwise would be invested in land. It is a question for the House to decide whether, accumulations in land being no longer permitted in the way provided by the testator, the profits should take some other form of investment, or should go to the person who would be entitled thereto, had there been no such direction. It is part of the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell. The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Sir W. Foster) asks whether the second clause is retrospective in its action, and, as I understand, it is so intended. If, however, in the view of the House it ought not to apply to trusts other than those created after the passing of the Act, then the operation of the clause may be so limited; but I frankly say that the clause as it stands will take effect against all future accumulations even though they might arise under trusts created before the passing of the Act. Should the view be taken that the claues should not be retrospective, that view may be developed by Amendments in Committee. I would have directed my explanation more to details if I had thought that had been expected; but I thought, in view of what has taken place before, that was not necessary.
    Motion Agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL).—(No. 114.)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th February],"That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: Here I think I may fairly ask for some explanation. So far as I am concerned, I should be glad to see any proper scheme formulated by which Industrial and Provident Societies may acquire the freehold leaseholds; but I do not understand at safeguards the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seale-Hayne) proposes to secure that the Bill should apply only to those whom it is intended to benefit. I am quite well aware that this matter formed the subject of discussion before a Committee upstairs—the Town Holdings Committee, I think—and that it is upon the result of that discussion the Bill is introduced; but that does not seem to me a sufficient explanation when we are asked to deal with only one branch of that inquiry. I think the House should have some explanation, so that we may judge of the principle which has been adopted before we assent to the Second Reading. I do not think you ought to take out any particular part of the subject without saying if you are able to separate it from those evils some of us think accompany it. I have not the slightest objection to discuss the Bill, but it must have a fair discussion. The Second Reading cannot be taken pro formâ, and possibly the House will consider it will be more convenient to adjourn the debate now.
    MR. SEALE-HAYNE: The Bill simply carries out a unanimous recommendation of the Town Holdings Committee that Provident Societies should be empowered to purchase the reversion of their leases; it does nothing more than carry out that recommendation. The
    1744
    Bill has nothing of a Party character about it, hon. Members from either side of the House having set their names to it. The Bill is earnestly desired by Provident and Industrial Societies throughout the country, and I trust that the Attorney General will consent to the Second Reading, allowing points of detail to stand over for the Committee stage, which I will appoint for any day he pleases, allowing ample time for the consideration of Amendments.
    MR. TOMLINSON: I do not happen to know the grounds upon which the Town Holdings Committee made their recommendations, and the hon. Member has not enlightened us. But I assume there were some cases of hardship in reference to Societies of this kind upon which this recommendation was made. But this, I understand, was not the only recommendation made by the Town Holdings Committee, and I very much doubt the expediency of taking one kind of property here and another kind of property there, and dealing with them in separate Bills. As to this Bill being very much desired by these Societies, I may mention that I received a request from gentlemen representing a Co-operative Society that I would support the Bill, and I wrote to them asking them in what way they expected the Bill would benefit them, for I had a strong impression that they did not know whether the provisions of the Bill would be of any use to them, but I have received no reply.——
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  TREES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 80.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Objection taken.
    MR. KNOX: I ask the hon. Member (Mr. Kelly) to withdraw his objection. Last year the Government assented to the principle by allowing the Second Reading of a precisely similar Bill.
    MR. KELLY: I am perfectly well aware what the Bill is, and if the promoters of it will agree to accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Mr.

    1745
    Macartney) there will be no difficulty in getting the Bill through.
    MR. KNOX: If the hon. Member had taken occasion to mention this Amendment we should have been very glad to have considered it.
    MR. KELLY: The Amendments have been down on the Paper two successive years, I believe, and I am perfectly sure that some were actually discussed in Committee last year.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 266.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 267.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 268.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER [MILNATHORT WATER] BILL.—(No. 280.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  PUBLIC ANALYSTS IN POLICE BURGHS BILL.—(No. 225.)

    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.
    Leave given to present another Bill instead thereof.

    PUBLIC ANALYSTS IN POLICE BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 225.]
  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 Urban Sanitary Districts of Halifax, Milford, Northampton, Rochdale, Tenterden, and Wigan, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 305.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Urban Sanitary
    1746
    Districts of Dover, Merthyr Tydvil, Plymouth, and Torquay, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 306.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO.6) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Boroughs of Chard and Henley-upon-Thames, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 307.]

    ALLOTMENTS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the County Council of Gloucester under the Allotments Act, 1887, relating to the Parish of Abson-with-wick, in the Rural Sanitary District of the Chipping Sodbury Union, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 308.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. CRILLY: May I ask the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) who has charge of the Assistant County Surveyors (Ireland) Bill, and has set the Bill down for Monday, not to move the Second Reading then. I have inquired at the Bill Office and I am informed that it has not yet been printed.
  MR. JOHNSTON: The Bill will be further postponed from Monday.
  DR. TANNER: I had occasion to-day to put a distinct question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reference to the treatment in prison of the convict, Mrs. Montagu, whether she is wearing her own dress or the prison dress; and strange to say, owing to the extraordinary answers, the embarrassing answers I received to-day, and on a former occasion, from the right hon. Gentleman a misunderstanding on the point remains, and many journals in the country have been led astray, and have led their readers to suppose that Mrs. Montagu is wearing prison clothes. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to-day to answer me in plain and simple language whether Mrs. Montagu is wearing prison clothes or her own attire. I have also called attention to the fact that when the prisoner was removed to Derry Prison she were a silk dress and mantilla, was conveyed first-class, and had every possible attention paid to her;

  1747
  and I also endeavoured, in my questions, to indicate the contrast to the treatment we received when we were political prisoners, every indignity being heaped upon us. But this woman, this murderess of her own child, and for whom none of her Antrim supporters will stand up to say a single word, has been treated with the highest consideration, taken first class from one prison to another, accompanied by her maid and allowed to dress in her own attire. Yesterday I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question couched in the plainest possible terms, and again this afternoon I repeated my question, seeing that in different sections of the Press the answers given were not understood. Once more I ask the right hon. Gentleman by his answer to clear away these doubts, and say, is this woman to receive better treatment than my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), or any of our friends received? Is this rich woman, who murdered her own child, to receive the lenient treatment awarded to the Belfast forgers, to suit the exigencies of their station, while we, imprisoned for political offences on behalf of our land and people, suffered all the indignities our political adversaries thought proper to inflict? Will the Chief Secretary settle the matter once for all, and say whether Mrs. Montagu is required while in prison to wear a prisoner's dress?
  COLONEL NOLAN: I must say a word. I know nothing of Mrs. Montagu, but I do protest against my hon. Friend using the expression "murder." She committed an act of folly—of gross folly—but she had not the faintest intention of causing the death of her child. Another thing I may mention. Mrs. Montagu is a Catholic, and she did not have a fair trial, because Catholics were struck off the jury. I believe this lady, who has been foolish, criminally foolish, has not been fairly treated. She was a Catholic living in the North of Ireland, and a great deal of Protestant prejudice was excited against her. I believe she has been too severely punished. She incurred, and no doubt deserved, public censure, and this alone was sufficient punishment, a year's imprisonment is altogether too much. I wish to dissociate myself altogether from what the hon. Member for Mid Cork has said, and I really think he ought to get up and withdraw
  1748
  the expression "murderess." There is nothing in the evidence, the finding of the jury, or the speech of the Judge to justify the horrible imputation. It is a terrible responsibility to level this accusation of murder without a shadow of foundation, and certainly when this unfortunate woman has suffered heavy punishment this should not be added.
  DR. TANNER: If I may be allowed a word of explanation, let me say in this matter I do not stand alone, and that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's friend and colleague, the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. Patrick O'Brien), joined with me in raising this question. I have nothing to withdraw, and this lady—this woman, I must still call a murderess.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,: I do not propose to do more than simply answer the question of the hon. Member for Mid Cork. I thought I had made the matter clear. I endeavoured to explain that there had been no exceptional treatment in this case. A rule was laid down after very careful consideration, and amended in 1889, giving power to the Prison Commissioners to permit prisoners to wear their own clothes upon application made. I said application had been made, and that the Commissioners acted within their discretion, as they had a right to do; and I think, if the rule is carefully studied, we must even go so far as to say that in the circumstances under which the rule was framed it was contemplated that, unless there were sufficient reasons to the contrary, such permission need not be refused. No exception was made in this case, and I should regret if there had been. I think it must be clear from my answer, and I hoped I had made it clear yesterday, that permission to this prisoner to wear her own clothes was given by the Prisons Board. I do not see how there can be any doubt after the answer I gave yesterday and to-day. To the other questions it is quite unnecessary to go into them, and I feel sure that it will not be consonant to the feeling of the House to refer to matters which may make this painful case still more painful.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.