Commons Sitting of 20 May 1892

Preamble
The House met at a quarter after Ten of the clock.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have agreed to—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Sunderland's Charity Bill, without Amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:—
The House went; and being returned—
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—Poor Law (Ireland) Act, 1892; Colonial Probates Act, 1892; Hares Preservation Act, 1892; Gaming Act, 1892; Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1892; Short Titles Act, 1892; Pilotage Order Confirmation Act, 1892; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1892; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1892; Samuel Sunderland's Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1892.
House adjourned till Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  PROMOTION IN THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the average service of clerks employed at the Central Telegraph Office who were promoted to the Senior Class prior to the issue of the Raikes scheme in 1890 was eighteen years; whether he is aware that there are now clerks with over twenty years' service whose prospects of promotion are remote, and whose annual leave is ten days less than the Senior Class; and whether he will make some arrangement whereby the amount of annual leave may in future depend on the number of years' service?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): At the time of the last revision of the Central Telegraph Office, which took place in 1890, the average service of those who were promoted from the First to the Senior Class was between eighteen and nineteen years. Out of six hundred persons now standing on the First Class, only twenty are of more than twenty years' service, and of these some have been passed over as ineligible for promotion. Not one of the six hundred has yet reached the maximum of the First Class. The period of annual leave of absence is, in the case of the Senior Class, one month; and, in the case of the First Class, three weeks. It is not considered advisable to regulate the annual leave by length of service.

  GLASGOW POSTMEN'S WAGES.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General for what reason have the wages of twenty-one appointed postmen in Glasgow been reduced from 18s. to 17s. per week; and whether established postmen in Glasgow received 20s. a week fifteen years ago for the same class of work performed by those who now receive 17s. a week?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The men in question were not "appointed," that is as permanent postmen, but temporarily employed at the minimum of the old scale—namely, 18s. a week. The scale of wages for postmen was altered from 18s. rising to 28s. to 17s. rising to 30s., and these men receiving established appointments before they had been employed for a full year were required by the Rules of the Service to commence at the minimum or else to defer their appointment to the end of the year. They were allowed the choice, and preferred the former arrangement. While the minimum of the new scale is lower than that of the old, the postmen receive with it certain new benefits—namely, extra payment for all Sunday duty, an allowance for boots, payment in proportion to their wages for extra duty, and a higher maximum. The minimum of the postmen's scale at Glasgow has never been permanently raised above 18s. a week, although about the period
  1432
  mentioned it was necessary for a time to pay 20s. a week to new entrants on account of the then state of the labour market. The maximum, however, at that time was only 26s. a week.

  WEXFORD POST OFFICE.
  MR. THOMAS HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if there was any increase in the percentage of letters which passed through the Wexford Post Office last year as compared with seven years ago; and if there has been any acceleration of the mails during that period?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There has been an increase of about forty-six per cent. in the correspondence passing through the Wexford Post Office during the last seven years. The increase arose mainly from the inclusion in the Wexford Postal District of a number of country post offices which were formerly in other districts, though served by the same line of railway. During the period mentioned there has been no acceleration of the mail trains, but in the autumn of 1884, just before the beginning of that period, a considerable acceleration was effected.
  MR. THOMAS HEALY: Since this, forty-six per cent. increase there has been no acceleration?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No.

  CADASTRAL SURVEY OF BEHAR.
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether one result of the commencement of a cadastral survey of Behar will be the creation of a large number of new appointments, at a heavy cost to the cultivators of the districts affected; whether his attention has been drawn to the representations of the Board of Revenue and other responsible officials to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal that the appointment of these strange officials will probably be productive of much extortion and litigation; whether an English officer has already been appointed, on a large salary, to direct survey operations, which, it is now stated, will not commence till October or until after the present distress has abated; and whether further appointments will be delayed, until it is known

  1433
  whether the monsoon that is expected in June will mitigate or intensify the famine?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GURZON,): (1) The Secretary of State has heard nothing of the creation of a large number of new appointments. The survey work will be undertaken for the most part by Behar village officials. The total cost, it is expected, will be within the estimated limit of eight annas per acre. (2) It is considered that the employment of the agency of village officials under a system of careful inspection will prevent extortion and oppression. Landholders and cultivators have been publicly invited to bring any complaints to notice. (3) Lieutenant Colonel Sandeman, a first grade Deputy Superintendent of Survey, has been appointed to direct the operations, with an allowance of Bs.400 a month in addition to his former salary, and is now engaged in making the preliminary arrangements. (4) It is not expected that any additional staff will be employed till the commencement of operations in October.
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the Secretary of State is aware that appointments have been made of officers from the North-West Provinces and other parts of India who are entirely strange to the country, and further, whether the Secretary of State will telegraph for full information on this and other points connected with the survey?
  *MR. CURZON: I shall be much obliged if the hon. Gentleman will place before me the information on which he bases his first question, and upon that must depend my ability to give an answer to the second.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN PERTH.
  SIR J. KINLOCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether information has reached him that the Local Authority of the County of Perth, at their recent meeting, resolved, with only one dissentient, to express their dissatisfaction with the way in which they were ignored by him in reference to the formation of the recent foot-and-mouth
  1434
  disease zone, he having stated that he acted on the representation of two gentlemen connected with the county, while the Executive Committee considered they should have been consulted; whether it has been brought to his knowledge that the scheduling of so large a county as Perth as an infected zone caused inconvenience and loss to many farmers and breeders in localities far remote from that really infected; and whether, if occasion should again arise, he will consult the Local Authority, established by law in the county, and constituted by the representatives of the ratepayers?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The assumption contained in the question of the hon. Baronet, that the recent foot-and-mouth zone in Perthshire was formed upon the representations of two gentlemen connected with the county, while the Local Authority was not consulted, is incorrect. The boundaries of that zone were defined upon the information at the disposal of the Board, and upon their own responsibility. What was determined, partly by the representations of the two gentlemen referred to, was the date of the application of the Order, and its substitution for the severer restrictions which embraced the whole of the county. The hon. Member will recollect pressing on me, in company with the hon. Member for Perth, that, whatever relaxations I might be able to make with respect to the restrictions existing in Perthshire, they should be made with the least possible delay, and I admit that I gave effect to that suggestion without waiting to consult the Local Authority, which would have entailed a delay of some days. In answer to the second paragraph of the question, I am quite aware of the losses necessarily entailed by the foot-and-mouth restrictions where they are in force, and that Perthshire was no exception to the rule; but they have been small as compared with the losses which would have resulted from the spread of the disease through the whole county, and they were inseparable from any effective measures for checking it. In reply to the third paragraph, I am always willing and anxious to avail myself of local knowledge and to

  1435
  consult with Local Authorities whenever it seems to me to be expedient, but I have never regarded it, and I do not and I cannot regard it, as an obligation incumbent upon me to do so, and for these reasons. In the first place, in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease the utmost promptitude is frequently essential to success; and, in the second place, the interests of the locality and of the community may frequently be in conflict; and where that is the case it is my duty to protect the community from the spread of disease, quite irrespective of the views of any particular locality. For these reasons, I must respectfully decline to give the undertaking for the future which the hon. Baronet desires.

  EXTRA POLICE IN ROSCOMMON.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the refusal last Friday by the Roscommon County at Large Presentment Sessions, chiefly constituted of Magistrates, to pass a presentment for extra police; after such an expression of opinion, do the Government intend to continue this taxation for extra police; what is the number of constabulary, including extra men stationed in the county; what is the number of the free quota; and how many of the free quota are stationed in the county and how many in the depôt?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): It is the case that at the recent Roscommon County at Large Presentment Sessions disapproval of the claim for extra police was expressed, on the ground of the present condition of the county. Since the period, however, covered by that claim, a considerable reduction appears to have been made in the extra force serving in the county, it having been reduced within the past year by one-half—namely, from twenty to ten; and this number will be further reduced as soon as the responsible authorities are of opinion that this can be done with safety to the peace of the county. The police establishment of Roscommon consists at present of 323 free quota and ten extra force; in all, 333 sergeants and
  1436
  constables, of whom, on April 30th, 1892, 322 were stationed in the county and eleven were in training at the depôt.
  MR. HAYDEN: Who is the responsible authority to decide as to the necessary force?
  MR. MADDEN: Those who are responsible for the peace of the district.

  BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE SUPERVISORS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that expectant supervisors have proved that for some time past they have been working Excise districts with expense to themselves owing to the inadequate allowances granted, he will authorise the Board of Inland Revenue to make the general order of the 11th ult. retrospective for twelve months?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,): I do not admit that expectant supervisors have proved that for some time past they have been working Excise districts with expense to themselves, or that reason has been shown for taking the most unusual course of making the recent concession retrospective.

  RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO VISIT PRISONS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Members of Parliament are entitled, as such, to visit and inspect prisons in Ireland, and to visit and question prisoners as to their treatment, on satisfying the Governors that they are Members of Parliament?
  MR. MADDEN: The General Prisons Board for Ireland report that no such privilege as that suggested in the question is accorded to Members of Parliament either by Statute or under the Prison Rules.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Members of Parliament are entitled, as such, to visit and inspect prisons in Great Britain, and to visit and question prisoners as to their treatment, on satisfying the Governors that they are Members of Parliament?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): No, Sir, this exceptional right suggested in the question is not possessed by Members of this House.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I am informed that a Member of this House was informed not long since by the Governor of a prison that Members were allowed such visits.

  TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LEGISLATION.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when he expects to be able to bring in the general Bill relating to telephones and telegraphs; and whether he is aware that progress in many important mercantile directions is being retarded by the want of legislation in the matter?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am not able to name the precise date for the introduction of this Bill, but I hope it will be introduced almost immediately.

  THE PRIVILEGES OF AFRICAN COMPANIES.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could see his way to appoint a resident Inspector in each of the territories of the great Chartered Companies in Africa; if an Annual Report to Parliament from the Crown official could be furnished; if an assigned date for the termination of their privileges could be made, in order to open Parliamentary inspection and consideration; if he contemplates imposing any tribute to the Imperial Exchequer on these companies, and if there is any reason for delegating the Imperial authority in Africa to these companies, entirely composed of unofficial persons?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): I am afraid I am not able to give the hon. Member a reply to his question. It only appeared this morning, and it raises a great many new points that require very full consideration before any useful answer could be given.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: When will it be convenient to the hon. Gentleman for me to repeat the question?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: If the hon. Member will put it down for Monday, I hope then to be able to give him an answer. At the same time, though, I ought to warn the hon. Member that it seems to me that the question raises points of a very debatable character difficult to be dealt with within the limits of a reply to a question; but I will do my best to give the hon. Gentleman an answer that will satisfy him.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I will put down the question for Monday. Upon one point, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman may be able to give me an answer now. I think it is a fact that the Charter of the Niger Company provides that the Secretary of State shall examine the accounts of the Company. Has this been done, and could the Secretary of State lay these accounts or any information on the Table of the House?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I think the question is one I have already answered in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. W. H. Cross). I do not carry in my memory the date of the answer, but if the hon. Gentleman will kindly refer to Hansard, I think he will find a reply to the question he has just put.

  FINES UNDER THE MEDICINE STAMP ACTS.
  MR. H. S. WEIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the case of a conviction under the Medicine Stamp Acts, what proportion of the fine is paid to the person giving information of the breach of the Act which leads to such conviction?
  MR. MATTHEWS: By the 44 George III., c. 98, fines and penalties under the Medicine Stamp Acts go wholly to Her Majesty. The Commissioners of Stamps are, however, allowed at their discretion to pay to informers any proportion of the fine or penalty which was given to the informer under earlier Statutes; and it is the practice of the Commissioners to be governed by the circumstances of each case in deciding whether they

  1439
  shall give any and what part of the fine to informers.

  CLERKS IN THE OFFICE OF WOODS AND FORESTS.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to the decision of the Treasury some time ago that the junior clerks in the Office of Woods and Forests should be abolished and the staff recruited from the Second Division clerks, will he explain why on a vacancy occurring in the junior class last year the Treasury very reluctantly allowed the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to procure a junior clerk, but only on the distinct understanding that no further appointments would be made to that class; and whether he will state the reason for the declaration of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, authorised by the Treasury, that the Second Division clerks are to be redundant, notwithstanding the fact that they have served for many years in such office, and not only are well acquainted with the work, but have, indeed, in many cases been entrusted in the absence of responsible officials with the discharge of the duties of the latter?
  SIR J. GORST: The Treasury permitted a competitive examination for a junior clerkship in the Office of Woods to take place because they were satisfied that there was sufficient reason for filling up the vacancy. The subject of the establishment of the Woods Office has been discussed in connection with the adoption of seven hours. Some Second Division clerks will be transferred as opportunity offers, and some will be replaced, also as opportunity offers, by employees of a lower class.

  WATERFORD AND LIMERICK RAILWAY.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give any assurance that the agreement said to have been signed between the Government and the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company is likely to be carried out by the said Company and the Government; if so, will he say when the work will commence;
  1440
  and will he lay upon the Table of the House the terms of the arrangement?
  MR. MADDEN (who replied): It will be necessary to have any agreement with the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company confirmed by an Order in Council, and when that is done the Order in Council will, according to practice, be laid on the Table of the House. There is no reason to suppose there will be any delay in the proceedings as soon as the Order in Council is obtained.
  MR. JORDAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before the Order in Council is obtained?
  MR. MADDEN: That is not a matter upon which I have any knowledge. It is not a rapid proceeding, but it will not take any great length of time.
  MR. JORDAN: The right hon. Gentleman observed the last clause of my question?
  MR. MADDEN: The Order in Council will be laid on the Table as a matter of course.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of his statement in January of this year—
  "I am well aware that all classes in Ireland with but few exceptions share with me the desire that the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill should become law,"
  would he say what facilities or assistance he is now prepared to give for the passing of this Bill?
  MR. JORDAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the question may I ask him if he did not say last year that the present state of this question is "disgraceful in the highest degree;" and will he allow the present Session to close without making some effort to remedy the anomalous state of affairs in relation to this matter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have not present to my mind the quotation, if it be a quotation, to which the hon. Member refers, though I believe I have commented more than once upon the unsatisfactory position in which this matter stands. In regard to the question of the hon. Member for

  1441
  Londonderry, he has very correctly quoted words I have used in regard to this Bill, but I would point out to him that although I believe it to be true generally speaking that all classes in Ireland share in the desire that the Bill should become law, there is an important section, I will not say of Irish opinion, but of Irish representatives, who not only take a different view, but are prepared to back that view with all those powers of debate with which they are largely endowed. Under the circumstances I am afraid it would not be possible for the Government to find time for the discussion of the Bill, though if we could do so I should be extremely glad.
  SIR W. LAWSON: If as the right hon. Gentleman says the Bill cannot go forward on account of the opposition of a section of Irish Members, why will the same course not be pursued towards the Irish Local Government Bill, to which all the Irish Members are opposed?
  [No answer was given.]

  PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended to grant the improvement in pay and allowances to prison warders who joined the service previous to the passing of the Prisons Act, 1877, which have been granted to those who joined after 1877; whether he is aware that in some prisons warders and other officers are on duty for over one hundred hours per week, this being, it is asserted, due to the system of sleeping in the prisons, under which men who have been on active duty for sixteen hours are confined to the prison all night, and during the night have to get up and attend to active duties; and whether he will inquire into this matter with a view to its remedy?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The question of leveling up the pay and allowances of warblers who joined the service before 1877 is now before the Treasury, and a decision will shortly be arrived at. The average hours of active duty for warders is sixty-three hours a week.
  1442
  About once a week they are required to sleep in the prison, and they remain there from 8.30 p.m. till 6 a.m. the next morning, but during these hours they are not called upon to do active duty except in cases of emergency, which rarely occur. The grievance suggested in the hon. Member's question does not therefore exist.

  THE POST OFFICE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that Mr. W. H. Preece, the chief electrical engineer at the Post Office, is in the habit of taking private practice in electrical work; and whether, in view of the fact that he is a Civil servant in receipt of an annual salary, this is in accordance with the Rules of the Civil Service?
  MR. HENNIKERHEATON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the question of my genial but misinformed friend, I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that Mr. Preece has a high European reputation as an electrical specialist, that he could command double the salary he now receives from the Government if he would devote himself exclusively to private practice, and that in the work he now does in his spare moments for the furtherance of electrical science he is rendering substantial service to the community?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The case of Mr. Preece is exceptional. Before he entered Her Majesty's Service twenty-two years ago he held certain paid employments besides his appointment as Engineer of the Electric Telegraph Company. Those employments he relinquished as being incompatible with his appointment at the Post Office; but, with the knowledge of the Department, he has continued to advise on great electrical questions outside of his regular duty, he being an expert of the highest standing. Such advice has been generally afforded to Public Bodies. For instance, in the lighting of the House of Commons, of the British Museum, the Dublin Museum, and the principal cities. His action in this respect has been quite public, and his Reports have been published.

  1443
  As an Electrician of European eminence he takes part in the development of electrical science. I am informed that he never turns to any work, other than Departmental, during office hours, without special permission. But his official work is by no means confined to those hours. It is performed unsparingly early and late, and even on Sundays. As I have said, his case is altogether exceptional and cannot form a precedent.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to ask if Mr. Preece received separate fees for the assistance he rendered in connection with the electric lighting of the House of Commons?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think it is highly probable that he did, and that he has also received separate fees for the assistance he has given to various Public Bodies.

  BRITISH EMIGRANTS TO BRAZIL.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Walter T. Lyall, Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Santos, in reference to the misfortunes of British emigrants to Brazil; whether, in his opinion, there is just ground for the conclusions at which Mr. Lyall has arrived, amongst which is the statement that—
  "The Brazilian Agents, though instructed to recruit agricultural labour only, and receiving a commission for each emigrant engaged, eventually registered any individual who said he was an agriculturist";
  and whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to take, or to recommend, any steps for bringing to book the Agents who have been the means of causing misery, disaster, and death to the unfortunate British subjects who became their victims?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: My attention has been called to the Report referred to. The conclusion to which Mr. Lyall comes is probably correct, but it is not easily susceptible of verification. The Brazilian Minister informed us on the 28th March last that the Brazilian Government had no agency in England at that date; and the so-called "Colonisation Office" has ceased to act as the Agent of the
  1444
  Brazilian Government, which on the 18th April, 1891, it professed to be. Many of those who emigrated from Bradford to Brazil were induced to do so through the agency of a man named Naylor, who, we are informed, has left the country. Even supposing that the parties responsible be found, it is difficult to say for what offence they should be prosecuted.

  RETURN OF ELECTORS IN EACH CONSTITUENCY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Return of the registered number of electors in each constituency at the present time, which was ordered by the House on 10th March last, will be presented?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I hope that the Return will be presented in ten days' time, or thereabouts.

  LOANING PICTURES FROM THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that an application has been made to the Trustees of the National Gallery for the loan of a picture or pictures for the coming Centenary Exhibition to be held at Southport to illustrate the Art of the century; and whether such a loan could be granted, considering that the pictures would be placed in the permanent Art Gallery of the town, and not be subject to the risks of an ordinary temporary exhibition?
  SIR J. GORST (who replied): My right hon. Friend has no information with regard to the application to which the hon. Member refers. The matter would be one for the Trustees to determine, and it would not fall in any way under his administration.

  SCOTCH LANDLORDS AND CORN MILLS.
  MR. CALDWELL(for Mr. FRASER-MACKINTOSH,): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether landlords in Scotland are bound to uphold corn mills, used from time immemorial by the tenants; and, if not, whether he will introduce a measure dealing with such cases as

  1445
  those of Arisaig, where, from the discontinuance of the mill by a former owner, the tenants have to send their grinding corn to the Island of Eigg, many miles distant, and where they are often detained a week from stress of weather?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I am not aware of any obligation on the part of landlords to uphold corn mills. So far as I can ascertain, no grievance exists, and no corn is grown in the district referred to with the view of being ground in Eigg or elsewhere.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AGE PENSIONS.
  COLONEL HUGHES: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why the Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, presented by the Select Committee on Greenwich Hospital Age Pensions, and ordered to be printed on the 7th April, have not yet been issued; and when will they be issued?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,): They will be in the hands of candidates in the course of next week.

  IRISH REGIMENTS AND HOME SERVICE.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the 1st Battalion Connaught Rangers (late 88th), now stationed at Pembroke Dock, which is recruited entirely from the Province of Connaught, went to the Cape, May, 1877, from there went on to India at the end of 1879, returned home, December, 1891, and is under orders to move, in the autumn, to Portsmouth; and, if so, whether, considering that the battalion has not served in Ireland for several years, instead of being moved from Pembroke Dock so soon, it could be sent to Mullingar, which station will be then vacant?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): The facts are practically as stated in the question. The battalion, however, went abroad from
  1446
  Ireland, and although on its return it was decided to station it in England, it will probably proceed to Ireland in its turn. I may add that out of eight Irish battalions now serving at home five are in Ireland.

  ALLEGED SUB-CONTRACTING AT THE ALBANY BARRACKS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has received communications from the London Building Trade Committee in reference to alleged subletting of contract work at the Albany Street Barracks and elsewhere, asking him to receive a deputation from the Committee on the subject at an early date; and what decision he has come to in the matter? I beg also to ask the hon. Gentleman whether any of the bricklaying work being done under contract at the Albany Street Barracks has been sub-let; whether the sub-contractor has been, and is, paying the recognised rate of wages to the men he employs; whether he is aware that sixty-one of the bricklayers employed by him have struck work because the sub-contractor declines to carry out the conditions of employment recognised by the trade; and whether the War Office will make inquiries into the matter?
  MR. BRODRICK: The London Building Trade Committee have made an application to the Secretary of State in connection with work at Albany Street Barracks, and the facts are being investigated. I am afraid, as the notice only appeared on the Paper this morning, I must ask the hon. Member to allow time for an inquiry into the matter. As to receiving a deputation, I may say that before any decision is come to by the Secretary of State I wish to know what the facts are.

  THE HURRICANE AT MAURITIUS.
  MR. H. S. WRIGHT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any information as to the hurricane in the Mauritius?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Acting Governor of

  1447
  Mauritius has telegraphed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies the following facts:—
  "Hurricane devastated Mauritius 29th April. One-third Port Louis destroyed. Royal College, twenty-four churches and chapels and many sugar mills in country completely wrecked. Over 600 deaths in Port Louis, over 300 deaths in country, over 1,000 wounded; in Port Louis district returns incomplete; probably same amount. No loss among the military. Estimated reduction of crop one-half. Destruction to property enormous. No famine apprehended. All relief measures taken. Relief Committees appointed. Panic allayed, order and quiet reign, but in presence of thousands of homeless people pecuniary assistance urgently needed."
  I may add that the Secretary of State has communicated with the Lord Mayor with a view to the opening of a relief fund.

  IMPORT DUTIES ON LINEN YARNS IN SPAIN.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question on which I have given him private notice—whether Her Majesty's Government has received any reply to their representation respecting import duties on linen yarns in Spain in view of the expiry of the Treaty before the 30th June.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: We have received a telegram this morning from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid, in which he states that the Spanish Government are prepared to charge the same rate of duty which has up to the present been paid upon linen yarns, and that it will be continued until the 30th June, and after that date the new tariff will come into force.

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House can give any indication as to when the Bill dealing with alien immigration is likely to be brought forward?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think, Sir, it will be better if my right hon. Friend gives notice of the question. The Bill is in an advanced state of preparation.

  PUBLICATION OF OLD STATE RECORDS.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the great interest which attaches to the official correspondence and papers of Thomas Pelham-Holles, Duke of Newcastle, covering the whole period of his long career in the Public Service, and especially that portion during which he was Prime Minister, between 1754 and 1762, and now included among the "Additional Manuscripts" in the British Museum, he will consider the possibility, for the aid of students of both national and local history, of having calendars of the collection prepared, in the same form as those of the State Papers in the Record Office, issued under the direction of the Master of the Rolls?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have communicated with the Record Office, with whom rests the responsibility of publications of this character, and the answer I have received is that the Newcastle correspondence in the British Museum occupies more than three hundred volumes. I am informed that they cannot say off-hand whether or not the correspondence deserves to be made accessible at an earlier date than other important manuscripts of the same period.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND): I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he cannot see his way to postpone the consideration of the Irish Local Government Bill in order that the House may at once enter upon the consideration of the Irish Education Bill, a measure desired by all classes in Ireland, and a measure of much more interest to the Irish people than the Local Government Bill now before the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware that there was a unanimous desire on the part of the Irish Representatives for the Education Bill in its present shape. However, I hope that before we take the next stage of the Local Government Bill we shall be able to make substantial progress with the

  1449
  measure which he desires to see pass into law.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give the date, as nearly as possible, when he will take up the Irish Education Bill, and will he also say whether that measure will be gone on with and carried through before the next stage of the Local Government Bill is taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some indication of a more definite character as to the fate of the Education Bill. I wish to ask him whether, assuming that the issue on the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill is determined early next week, what steps are proposed to be taken before Whitsuntide with respect to the Irish Education Bill, and whether he is going to proceed beyond the Second Reading?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it very unlikely that we shall be able to proceed beyond the Second Reading before Whitsuntide. We are now approaching the Vote on Account. The Treasury informs me that the Vote should be passed next Thursday, and I am anxious to finish the Report stage of the Small Holdings Bill, in order that it may be sent up to another place.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman again, but it is a matter of considerable interest to the Irish people to know definitely what are the intentions of the Government with respect to the Education Bill. Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with that measure during the present Session, and to take the Committee stage of that Bill before taking the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, since there is a unanimous opinion in favour of the Education Bill, and a unanimous opinion against the Local Government Bill, he will withdraw the latter?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the hon. Gentleman I am most anxious
  1450
  that the Education Bill shall be proceeded with, and I can give him a pledge that the Committee stage of it will be taken before the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: Then we may assume that the Second Reading of the Education Bill will be taken before Whitsuntide?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I earnestly hope so.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Are we to gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he pledges himself to take the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill this Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that we should go through the Committee stage of the Education Bill before we entered upon the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to take the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill at all?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That largely depends on the progress of Public Business.

  MOTION.

    STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, &c. (SITTINGS OF THE COMMITTEE).
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I beg to move—
    "That, until the conclusion of the consideration of the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill [Lords], the Standing Committee on Law, &c, have leave to sit every day during the sitting, and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House."
    The House will see that the Motion is not without justification when I state that whereas, according to ordinary precedent and the teaching of experience, a Bill of this kind might be expected to go through Grand Committee easily in the course of two Sittings, yet, as a matter of fact, three Sittings have already taken place, and only nineteen lines of the first clause have, been dealt with, while the clause itself has not yet been passed. I am informed that on those nineteen lines thirty-three Amendments have been moved, chiefly by three gentlemen, and that a very large number still remain on the Paper

    1451
    to be discussed. It is evident, therefore, that if the Committee is to make any progress, as the House desires it should, in dealing with the Committee stage of the Bill, some further facilities must be given to the Committee for discussing it. At present they can only meet practically twice a week, and they cannot sit to discuss business while this House is sitting. The Resolution which I now venture to commend for the approval of the House simply gives the power to sit, although this House is sitting, and even in cases when this House may be adjourned. I hope that with these additional facilities the Committee will get through the work which this House has entrusted to it, which without them I see no prospect of their being able to accomplish within a reasonable period.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, until the conclusion of the consideration of the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill [Lords], the Standing Committee on Law, &c, have leave to sit every day during the sitting, and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. PHILIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has omitted to say one or two things in the statement he has just made to the House. He did not tell the House that those Members of the Committee who have put down a few Amendments to this Bill have facilitated the Sittings of the Committee in always attending and forming a quorum. The Attorney General, who is in charge of the Bill, will, I am sure, bear me out in this, and he has expressed his regret that the supporters of the Government have not attended better. Then, Sir, the Leader of the House has not stated that of the Amendments already discussed—some of which were consequential—five or six were of so excellent a character that the Government accepted them with pleasure. Now, Sir, I want to say one word on this proposal, which, although I welcome it, I think requires amending in one respect, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-George) proposes to move an Amendment presently to carry out the object we have in view. It seems to me necessary that these Grand Committees should have greater facilities for discussing Bills
    1452
    than they have at present. Three hours twice a week do not appear to me to allow them sufficient time to get through the work before them. I hope next year that the Grand Committee will be engaged on more important measures than have been submitted to us this year, and I hope the Committee will facilitate Radical legislation in times to come. As to the character of the discussions in the Committee, there is only one thing that I regret, and that is that pressure has been put upon some of us who dissent from some of the provisions of this Bill of a kind which I, for one, most strenuously resent. Our Amendments have been of a reasonable character; many of them have been accepted, and many of them, I believe, will be accepted, and hon. Members should be made aware of the fact that every Amendment we have put down has been with the object of strengthening the Bill. I was opposed to the Bill at the beginning, because I believe that there is much more important legislation which should occupy the time of the House. But the Bill has got into the Grand Committee, and we accepted the position loyally, and we do not want to be bothered with other legislation at the same time, but should be allowed to make the Bill with which we are dealing thorough and complete. One of the Amendments which was proposed with this object was that every clergyman who is found drunk in a public place twice, and convicted, should be turned out of his living without further discussion. That was not accepted by the Government, but several other Amendments of a similar character—but not quite so strong—have been accepted; and the House, I am sure, will therefore understand that we have considerably improved the Bill; and that, with the further facilities in the way of time the Government are now offering, we shall be able to make the Bill a much more thorough and useful Bill than it was when it was sent to the Grand Committee. Therefore, although I shall presently vote for an Amendment which will still further add to the merit of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, I shall, at any rate, be able to support on principle the Motion that he has made.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This Motion is an excellent one, and I shall support it generally, with an Amendment which I propose to move to it. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made out a case for specially extending the Motion to the Clergy Discipline Bill. We have only discussed this Bill for something like eight hours, which is equivalent to one Sitting of the House. I do not think that is extravagant discussion of a Bill which the Government consider of enormous importance, and I may mention in justification of the Welsh Members that not one long speech was delivered during the whole of the three days. The longest speech was delivered by the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler), who has consistently supported this Bill, who supported the Second Reading, and has done his best to support its progress during the Sittings of the Grand Committee. On the Amendment which he supported the longest discussion took place, and the Amendment was merely a matter of sentiment and was of no real importance in connection with the practical working of the measure. That discussion occupied an hour and a half, whereas Amendments of real importance, which were designed to purge the Church of criminous clerks, did not exceed half an hour in discussion. For instance, an Amendment that was moved by the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan was to the effect that if a clergyman was found guilty of treason or felony, or misdemeanour, and imprisoned for a period of not less than six months, with or without hard labour, his living should be ipso facto declared vacant. That is a reasonable Amendment, and it was only debated about twenty or twenty-five minutes. We were opposed by the Attorney General and all those who are in sympathy with the Bill, and we were told that we were moving trivial and frivolous Amendments. I challenge any hon. Member who is supporting the Bill to point out a single frivolous Amendment moved by us at any stage of the Bill, and yet after eight hours' discussion a special Resolution must be passed with respect to this Bill, and the First Lord of the Treasury has gone so far as to say that
    1454
    the length of the discussion was unprecedented.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I did not.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: About seven years ago a Bill was discussed before this Committee on the subject of establishing a Court of Criminal Appeal, and on that occasion the discussion was kept going for twelve days by the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. Gorst), and a gentleman who is not at present a Member of the House, Mr. Warton. Another Bill was brought in at the same time; and after it had also been discussed at great length, the Committee came to the conclusion that they could not pass it that Session, and the Order was discharged. This was the result of the labours of the Member for Paddington and of a gentleman who is now a Member of the Government, and yet, after three days' discussion of this Bill, a Resolution of this extraordinary character is presented to the House. I move to omit the words "until the conclusion of the consideration of the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill (Lords)."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "until the conclusion of the consideration of the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill [Lords]."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: When the constitution of this Committee was originally considered and fixed upon, it was thought, and I believe it was generally admitted by the House, that it would, not be expedient to allow these Committees, as a matter of course, or by any action of their own, to sit during the Sittings of this House. The Amendment which has just been moved appears to me to be open to the very great objection that it would without any notice, or without any possibility of any adequate discussion, be at variance with that very carefully - considered and deliberated decision. I do not think we can proceed upon the consideration of the Amendment in its details with advantage.

    1455
    It is a question of such importance that it would deserve consideration quite apart from the examination we might have to make of a special case. I should be quite satisfied with this Motion as it is set out by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House if it had not been for one single expression used in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Lloyd-George). He thought it expedient to deliver a challenge to the House and to all the Members of the House to contradict him if they were not prepared to assent to his assertion that all the Amendments moved in Committee had been so far reasonable, and that they were not open to the charge of being frivolous. I feel myself placed in so much difficulty by that challenge that I am obliged to notice, and I am bound to point out, that if this were the time for discussing the matter it might lead to a good deal of debate. I would suggest that that question had better stand over until the Amendments which have been moved in Committee are made the subject of debate in this House. But the right hon. Gentleman did not make these Amendments on their merits the subject of the present Debate. The Motion was made, so far as I understand, without any imputation on the conduct of any hon. Gentleman on the Committee. It is made upon grounds of general policy; and it is to the effect that, viewing the greater magnitude of the task before the Committee as it has now been opened, it is expedient to give increased facilities for the performance of this task. This is a Motion the general reasonableness of which has not been denied, and, if so, I should think the proper course for us to pursue is to dispose of it at once. It could not be convenient for us to allow discussion in regard to a Resolution which makes no imputation upon anybody, and which is generally fit and reasonable, to interfere considerably with the progress that we may make with the Debate, of to-day. If we are to go into controversial matter let it come in its own time, but there is no need to anticipate it. Let us, therefore, dispose if we can of that which does not give any reason for dissent.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I am glad to hear that no imputation
    1456
    is made on any Member of the Committee and we accept that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), although we certainly understood both from the tone and manner of the speech of the Leader of the House that very serious allegations were made against us with respect to the character and the number of Amendments which we have placed down for discussion in the Standing Committee on Law. I have not heard sufficient grounds for the acceptance of this Resolution as a precedent; and although I do not see much against the Resolution itself I do say that no ground has been made out for a Resolution of this kind with respect to this special measure. A series of Amendments were moved in Committee; and as they involved questions of principle, of course they required discussion, and it was for that reason that we objected to the reference of the Bill to a Standing Committee at all. We wished that the Bill should be discussed in a full House, and the Amendments carefully considered, and I venture to say that the discussions in the Standing Committee have not been too long. On the contrary, the discussions have been short with one exception, which has been referred to. I proposed an Amendment which was interesting from a theoretical and theological point of view, but did not deal with the practical question, and we did not attach much importance to it. That discussion brought out so great an authority as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) who delivered by far the longest speech in that Committee, a speech that was characterised by the Attorney General as a repetition pure and simple of a speech which had been delivered by an hon. Member on a previous Amendment. The Motion of the Leader of the House is a very sweeping one; and if it is carried, the Committee will go on during the Sittings notwithstanding any adjournment of the House. I believe it was the right hon. Member for Midlothian who established this Standing Committee, and he said it was the intention of Parliament that this Committee should not sit at the same time as the

    1457
    House, and he is still of opinion that that is the proper course. It is proposed now that we shall not only sit day by day, but also that we shall be allowed—which, of course, means that we must—to continue our Sittings whilst this House is sitting. I do not object to sitting day by day in Committee, though it is hard on many of us. The Attorney General and others are paid for what they do, but there are Members of that Committee who have to work for their living. Still there are many of us who, in the interests of the Church of England, are self-sacrificing enough to sit four or five days a week if necessary; but, as a Member of this House, I protest against being compelled to sit up there when there may be important business in this Chamber to which I desire to attend. I say it is not fair that any hon. Member who desires to attend to his business in this House should be detained upstairs with a Bill of this character, and I shall move an Amendment which will prevent the Committee from sitting after the House has commenced its real business. It is proposed that we should sit day by day, which I suppose includes Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, for it would surely not be inappropriate to be engaged with a Church of England Bill on Sunday. Well, I do not object to sit on Wednesdays and Saturdays, but the Resolution also says that we may sit on notwithstanding any adjournment of the House. I do not know whether hon. Members on the other side are prepared to spend their Whitsuntide holidays in attempting to purify the Church of England of criminous clerks, but I must protest against being called upon to sit in Committee on questions of this character after the House has adjourned. In the meantime I hope the House will not say that the Committee upstairs, which has worked very hard and very thoroughly up to now, is to be punished, as it were, by having to neglect its duties in this House, and further by having to sit during the Whitsuntide holidays and any adjournment of the House.
    MR. THOMAS ELLIS: The right hon. Member for Midlothian says that there
    1458
    is no imputation that my hon. Friends who are Members of the Committee have at all frivolously moved Amendments or wasted the time of the Committee; but if the right hon. Gentleman insists on the insertion of these words, the Motion does make the imputation. I am not a Member of this Committee, but when I compare the number of Amendments moved and the discussions on them in the Grand Committee with those moved on the Bill which has occupied the House during the past three or four weeks, I find that the progress made is far greater in the Grand Committee than on the Small Holdings Bill. In most of these Bills the first clause is far and away the most important. On the Small Holdings Bill the discussion on the first clause took four or five days, but difficult points were elucidated and progress was made with the later clauses. The first clause in the Clergy Discipline Bill bristles with difficulties, and after careful examination of the Amendments moved by my hon. Friend and the discussions on them, I venture to say that the discussions were carried on very concisely and very shortly, and that, even if some of them were frivolous, which I completely deny, there was every disposition on the part of my hon. Friend to withdraw less important Amendments, and to insist, but shortly, on what he considered to be fundamental Amendments. That the Amendments were thoroughly good is evidenced by the fact that the learned Attorney General (Sir R. Webster), with the consent of the Committee, accepted several of them, and has shown also in the discussion that the Amendments of my hon. Friend have elucidated many difficult points in Clause 2 and the later Clauses of the Bill. Unless the Leader of the House withdraws these words, which refer to a special Bill, and makes it a matter of general policy that these Committees should sit from day to day and to any hour which the Committee may decide upon, I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Unless the imputation distinctly made by the inclusion of these words is withdrawn, I hope a large number of Members on this side will also vote for the excision of these words.
    Question put.
    (3.13.) The House divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 40.—(Div. List, No. 136.)
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg now to move, Sir, in a very few words, an Amendment which I think will have the sympathy of the House. I move, Sir, to leave out all the words after "day," in order to insert the words—
    "Except Wednesday and Saturday, during the sitting of the House, but not later than half-past Three."
    I venture to think the Government have no right to expect us to sit six days a week. We are willing to sit four days a week if necessary, but it would be a great disadvantage to Members to have to sit on Wednesdays and Saturdays. I hope the Amendment will meet the approval of the House. I have already given my reasons for objecting to sit on the Committee when the real business commences in this House. If we extend the time to half-past three o'clock, it means that on Tuesday and Friday there is an extension of an hour and a half, and half an hour on the other days. Another effect of the Amendment would be to leave out the words "notwithstanding any adjournment of the House," and I think the desirability of leaving out those words does not require any argument.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "day" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "except Wednesday and Saturday, during the sitting of the House, but not later than half-past Three."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a great burden to ask the Committee to meet on those days; but who is responsible for that burden I do not care now to inquire. I would point out that, as the Resolution now stands, they are not obliged to sit on Wednesday or Saturday, or obliged to sit after half-past three. Therefore, if the Committe deliberately think they must sit on those very inconvenient days, and after that very inconvenient hour, it will be
    1460
    because they think it is obligatory upon them. I hope that will not prove to be the case, and if it does not prove to be the case, the Committee will have it in its power not to require its Members to sit on those days, and not to throw any unnecessary burden on them. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    MR. THOMAS ELLISa: I think it is monstrous that the First Lord of the Treasury should now try to throw on my hon. Friend the responsibility for having such a Motion as this referred to the House. I venture to say that the right hon. Member for Midlothian in his speech took what was the fairest and most reasonable view of the matter; and when a fair Amendment is proposed, by which the Government will gain four hours a week, as well as two days, they ought to meet my hon. Friend by accepting it. I hope a large number of Members on this side who are already serving on a number of Committees, as well as attending to their private business, will make a strong protest against this ruthless way of compelling Members to attend long hours each day in the service of the House. The right hon. Gentleman by the course he has taken is doing nothing to preserve the free discussion of this Bill, and if he insists upon his methods he will find that he will gain nothing. The Bill will be thoroughly discussed. My hon. Friends will never submit to any pressure in this House, or elsewhere, which will prevent them from giving a fair and ample discussion to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman by his attempt to place the responsibility for obstruction upon my hon. Friends is only doing what has been tried several times before with regard to general questions on this side of the House by him and other Leaders of the House. I venture to say it is not a fair way of dealing with those who have discussed this Bill fairly, and who desire still to do their business, not only in this Committee, but in the House as well.
    MR. BARTLEY: As one of the Members of the Committee I must protest against what has been said by the hon. Member who has just sat down. There is no good mincing matters. This is an attempt to put down the most reckless obstruction.

    1461
    The obstruction is from four Members who are on that Committee, and who are determined to stop this Bill passing. To talk of adding an hour or an hour and a half to the time seems to me to be simply childish. They may talk of adding another hour or two, or three or four, or even five hours; but what I say is that having referred this Bill to the Grand Committee, that Committee should get through with it, if they should sit from Monday noon till twelve o'clock at night, to put down obstruction. Then the hon. Gentleman says, to show how bona fide were these Amendments, that there was an Amendment moved by which a clergyman found drunk twice on the street was to be punished, which was not recognised to be a proper Amendment. That is not a correct statement of the facts. I asked the question myself, and it is clear from the Bill that a clergyman who is found intoxicated once on the street will of course be turned out of his benefice. ("No, no!") I say "Yes." It is under Clause 2. There is no question whatever about it; but we are not permitted to get to Clause 2. I defy anybody who reads the records of the Committee to say that this is not a most gross piece of absolute obstruction. If four Members are to be allowed to talk out and stop a Bill of this sort, all I can say is this, that Parliament must alter its Rules completely. I do hope that this Motion will be carried, and that we shall sit next Monday, not only during three hours, but the whole time up to twelve o'clock at night, to show these four hon. Members that we are determined to pass this Bill.
    MR. ROBERTSON: The tone and language of the hon. Member who has just sat down has imported into this Debate an element which had better have been left out. I had no intention of supporting my hon. Friends below the Gangway on this occasion, and I had no intention of taking part in the Debate but for the few words which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite; and I wish to say at once that I am not an opponent of this Bill. I have never voted against this Bill, and I have taken no part in the Debate on the Bill. I
    1462
    neither commend nor condemn the course taken by the Welsh Members below the Gangway in this House and in the Committee. But I wish to say this—and this has been directly brought out by what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite—that if this Motion is an attempt to put down obstruction in the Grand Committee, I venture to say there ought to be no such thing possible as obstruction in the Grand Committee, and no Bill ought ever to be referred to a Grand Committee that is capable of being obstructed—("Oh, oh!")—which is in its nature contentious. ("Oh, oh!") The First Lord of the Treasury assents to that proposition. I do not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury has sat on a Grand Committee. I have sat on Grand Committees during the last six years. I recognise the utility of these institutions; I recognise the usefulness of the mixed system; but there is no part of our procedure which is susceptible of more dangerous development than this Grand Committee system. I have come to this most definite conclusion, with which I believe that all Members who have experience on Grand Committees will concur, that they are a useful instrument for Bills of a technical character or that require the consideration of Members who are more or less experts; but if Bills involve contentious matter, then they ought not to be sent to a Grand Committee at all. We had a Bill of this sort four or five years ago before a Grand Committee, the Light Railways Bill, with regard to which the same sort of charge was made. I am not charging the Welsh Members with obstruction, I am not disposed very much to favour their methods; but I believe they have done what they conscientiously believed to be right. The first mistake was made late at night when this Bill was first of all closured to the Second Reading, and when the reference to the Grand Committee was carried without discussion. The very fact of this Bill having been closured to a Second Reading rendered it unfit to be sent to a Grand Committee. I shall vote against the substantive Motion when it comes back, because I believe it to be a Motion in aid of this reference

    1463
    to a Grand Committee of a Bill which ought not to have been so referred.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Of course, personally I do not care very much whether a clergyman is found once or twice drunk on the street. I merely wish to say that I differ from the hon. Member who has just sat down in what he has said about the tone and language which have been imported into this Debate. I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman who made use of that language for introducing that tone. I cannot say that I would have adopted it myself, but I must say that if you want to have the attention of the public fixed upon a matter like this, it is by importing a tone of acrimony into a Debate that you can most effectually fix it. There is one other point on which I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee was right; that was when he said that no Bill should be referred to a Grand Committee which it is possible to obstruct. I do not know how far I have myself obstructed since I have been in this House, but I hope at some future time to inflict my obstruction and tedious-ness on the House. But I may remind my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee and other Members of the House, that this is a question on which there is a keen feeling in Wales; and if the hon. Members from Wales have been in earnest in what they were bringing before that Committee, and if they obstructed in the Grand Committee or in the House, they did what I hope they will do on other questions, because I know perfectly well that all the electorate of Wales will stand any amount of obstruction on this question, either in this House or in the Grand Committee.
    SIR W. LAWSON: I do not wish to imitate the hon. Member who has just sat down.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I quite absolve you.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: There has been a new tone introduced into this Debate. It appears from speakers on the other side that this Motion is intended distinctly to put down obstruction, and it has been clearly pointed out that
    1464
    four Members sitting here are the guilty parties. When I think of that, it reminds me of old times. It is four Welsh Members who are the four obstructors; but I see four other Members sitting here to whom in obstructing these Welshmen could not hold a candle. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will he deny that he is sitting there now because he obstructed with skill? I think it is rather too late in the day for his friends to get up and say they are actuated by a holy horror of obstruction. I do not know now how this Debate will end; I do not know when it will end; but I think there is one thing clear, and that is that the country will read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest what is going on. I am not seeking to blame anybody; I am only going to point out the uncertainty of this House.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    SIR W. LAWSON: Mr. Speaker, as I see you are going to call me to order, I shall sit down.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I was not so much going to call the hon. Baronet to order as to observe that the Debate generally was getting rather wide of the particular Amendment before the House.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I do not intend to stand between the House and the Division for more than a moment. I only want to say one word. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has not seen fit to accept this Amendment, which is an Amendment, I think, of an exceedingly moderate character. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, I think he is sufficiently answered by the fact that he or any Member of the Grand Committee on Law has been challenged to put his finger on any one of these Amendments and say which Amendment is obstructive, which Amendment would not strengthen the Bill. There is not a single Amendment either in the name of myself or any of my hon. Friends that anybody could say is obstructive or that would not strengthen the Bill. We have given that challenge, and hon. Members, opposite have absolutely refused to meet it. I think we below the Gangway here are to-day in an unfortunate

    1465
    position, and I ask the House to sympathise with us. We are in an unfortunate position because we are a small minority, and we have no leader. Where is my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton? Even he has left off leading us below the Gangway. I regret his absence. All we want is a leader.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is whether Wednesday and Saturday should be excepted. The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I had hoped to have heard the views of some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench on this Wednesday and Saturday question. I had hoped to have heard what the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Clitheroe Division would have told us; whether he thinks we ought to sit on Wednesday and Saturday. It will be in the recollection of all the Members of the Grand Committee on Law that yesterday afternoon the right hon. Baronet the Member for Clitheroe took or attempted to take the leadership of my hon. Friends and myself. He was directing our operations and I think I have a right of complaint against the right hon. Baronet that after attempting to lead us on the Grand Committee on Law, he will not even express his opinion upon matters in which we have a deep interest when he comes down to the House.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I do not rise to complain of the language or manner of the hon. Member for Islington, but to take note of the fact that when he spoke about obstruction in the Standing Committee his words were hailed with a universal cheer from that side of the House. I would suggest to the consideration of the House whether if the charge made by the hon. Gentleman is true, the Resolution which is before the House is the proper mode of dealing with the mischief. I should myself be inclined to think that it is an unreasonable thing that because a well-known and recognised Parliamentary offence is committed by a small number of Gentlemen either in the House or in the Grand Committee, a measure should be taken
    1466
    which should be punitive not only in respect of these individuals, but also of every Member of the Committee. When we consider what that involves to a large number of Members of the House upon whose time there is already so much pressure, I say I think the House ought to pause before it comes to such a decision. I recollect some years ago I was on the Standing Committee on Law, when the Bankruptcy Bill of 1883 came before the Committee. The proceedings were exceedingly protracted. I myself moved 147 Amendments, and carried forty-two of them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, who was co-operating with us, repeatedly expressed his conviction that the proceedings in that Committee, if they were not obstructive, were at any rate closely bordering upon obstruction; but nobody proposed that we should sit even four days in the week, and such a proposal never entered anybody's mind. It appears to me that there is very great danger in establishing a precedent of this kind, and that if an offence has been committed it ought to be dealt with in a different way. This particular way is unreasonable and unjust.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I venture to remind the hon. Member (Mr. A. O'Connor) that we on the Grand Committee are not prisoners, as he has suggestion this Resolution, which is purely permissive and not mandatory. The Resolution only gives the Committee further powers than it now possesses, but its hours are entirely within its own will. I do not think the number of Members on the Committee against whom any charge of unduly prolonging the discussions is as high as four. I am not one of the supporters of the Bill now before the Committee, but having been present at the Committee during all its Sittings, and having helped the Government rather better than they sometimes have helped themselves at making a quorum, I venture to say that the question before the House is really the efficiency of these Grand Committees to carry on their business, and I support this Resolution, believing that in so doing I am supporting that efficiency.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I am curious to know whether I am one of the Members whom the hon. Gentleman thinks unduly protract the proceedings of the Committee. I think the Welsh Members have every reason to complain of the tone of this Debate. What could we possibly gain by obstructing the passage of this Bill upstairs? Even were we so minded we could only delay it for a day or two; but the House is not ready yet to consider the Report stage of the Bill, and, therefore, a couple of days more or less occupied in Committee will not in the smallest degree prejudice the passing of the Bill this Session. I would suggest an answer to the question by the First Lord of the Treasury as to who is responsible for the protracted proceedings. The Attorney General said in the case of one Amendment he could not accept it, because to do so would be a breach of faith with the Bishops. Things have come to a pretty pass when Bills coming down from the Lords are not to be amended or discussed because of some agreement which has been entered into between the Government and the Bishops.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not wish to go into the merits of the Bill, or into the question whether there has been obstruction upstairs. It certainly seems rather a strong measure that the Grand Committee should be called upon to sit during the hours that a discussion is proceeding in this House. We are sent here by our constituents to profit by all the wisdom that falls from Members in the House; but here you would have thirty or forty Members who could not listen to the speeches. But there is another objection. It might be said that although Members did not fulfil their duty of hearing the speeches at least they might vote; but by this Resolution voting might be proceeding upstairs in the Committee and here in the House at the same time. I do not give much weight to the question whether the Grand Committee should sit on a Wednesday, but we ought to
    1468
    have a clear understanding as to the business of these Grand Committees. Under these circumstances, I certainly should feel myself bound to vote against the Grand Committee being called upon by a Rule of this House to sit while this House is engaged in a discussion.
    MR. CRAWFORD: It would be a great pity if there was any considerable expression of objection by Members on this side-against this Resolution, which I believe in the circumstances to be absolutely necessary. My friends below the Gangway have said that they do not desire to obstruct the Bill, and that, on the contrary, their object is to improve it. Of course I accept that statement, but we must form our own judgment as to the effect of the course they have taken of repeating Amendment after Amendment on the same principle after a Division was taken. Their efforts to improve the Bill would have made it impossible for the measure to pass; and they thereby would have inflicted a deep wound upon one of the most useful and pleasant institutions connected with this House—I mean the Grand Committees, where we can discuss Bills in a friendly manner with an absence of all Party spirit. The course which is being followed would fatally damage the Grand Committee, as well as prove fatal to the Bill. We have no power of closuring in the Grand Committees, and therefore it is necessary to provide the remedy of prolonged powers of sitting which may or may not be exercised. For that reason I consider the Resolution is absolutely necessary, and I trust it will be supported from this side of the House.
    Question put.
    (3.45.) The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 233.—(Div. List, No. 137.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That, until the conclusion of the consideration of the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) [Lords], the Standing Committee on Law, &c, have leave to sit every day during the sitting and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL (No. 174.)

      SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [19th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Sexton.)
      Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
      Debate resumed.
      MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I rise to a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, when asked whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Committee stage of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, gave an answer which left no doubt in the minds of hon. Members that the Government do not propose to go into Committee on the Bill.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I never said so.
      *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I wish to know whether it is in Order to continue the discussion upon the Motion for the Second Reading of a Bill which the responsible Minister of the Crown admits is not to be carried into Committee.
      *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
      *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
      *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must decline to allow such a Question to be put.
      MR. MACARTNEY: In the discussion upon this Bill, the hon. Member for West Belfast said that he had been unable to discover what the County Councils in Ireland would do under its provisions. I am not surprised at his failure, because the hon. Member is lacking in the essential quality necessary to enable him to form an adequate judgment on
      1470
      the provisions of this Bill. He, no doubt, subjected the measure to a searching examination; but the whole tone of his remarks showed that he had no knowledge of the business which is transacted at the Baronial Sessions and before Grand Juries in Ireland. From the standpoint of the hon. Member, the business at the Baronial Sessions and before a Grand Jury is of a humdrum character. Necessarily so. The sittings do not provide the exciting scenes and mutual invective which make some meetings so interesting to the public. The hon. Member said that the people of Ireland would not accept this measure; but I entirely refuse to take the hon. Member as the mouthpiece of the Irish people in regard to this Bill. I am not aware that he is even entitled to speak for the smallest section of hon. Members opposite. We have heard this sort of declamation before. It is part of the stock-in-trade of hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House to say that the people of Ireland will refuse to accept any measure coming from this side of the House. I want to draw the attention of the House to the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite and to the character of the attack which they have made upon this Bill. Their arguments were not only conflicting in character, but they were absolutely self-destructive of each other. Now the hon. Member for Northampton charged the Government with having neglected their pledges, and the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. H. Gladstone) accused them first of all of delay, and then, abandoning that charge, he proceeded to assert that they had had no mandate for the production of this Bill. Then the hon. Member for Newcastle said this was a reactionary measure—more reactionary than that produced in 1879. The Bill of 1879 may have been of a more liberal and less reactionary character than the present Bill, according to the views of the young men who dream dreams and the old men who see visions on the opposite side of the House; but I should be sorry to see any Member on this side of the House introduce a Bill of the character of that which was introduced in 1879. The hon. Member for Carnarvon called the

      1471
      attention of the House to the proceedings of the Committee which sat in 1879; but I must remind hon. Members that that Committee was not appointed to consider the question of Local Government in the counties of Ireland, but that of the Local Government and the taxation of the towns of Ireland. Then, again, the hon. Member for the City of Waterford wrote an article in the Fortnightly Review in the month of May, in which he attacked this Bill from beginning to end, and most of his points were repeated yesterday by the hon. Member for West Belfast. The hon. Member for the City of Waterford said the Bill was based on a distrust of the Irish people, and that it was insulting and vicious in principle. I ask how far he can possibly maintain that criticism. What is there in the limits of this Bill that is insulting or vicious? So far as the question of the franchise is concerned, there is nothing in the Bill to warrant the charges brought by the Member for the City of Waterford against it. It is not an insult to the Irish people, and it is not vicious when compared with the measure relating to England and Scotland. Take the Baronial Councils and the County Councils. They are to have elected members. So far, therefore, as those Bodies are concerned, the Bill is far from being insulting to the Irish people or vicious in principle. So far, therefore, I am at issue with the hon. Member for the City of Water-fore and the hon. Member for West Belfast. I also say that the County Councils are not "cribbed, cabined, and confined," under this Bill I assert that the County Council exercises an absolutely free and unfettered control over the annual expenditure of the county, and that the only body in connection with this Local Government Bill that is fettered is the Joint Committee. In considering the question of Local Government in Ireland, it is necessary to recollect the position of Local Government at the present moment. Hon. Members have, inside and outside the House, dealt with the Grand Juries as if they were omnipotent. They are nothing of the kind, and anybody who knows anything of the Grand Jury system knows that the Grand Jury are not the initiating body;
      1472
      that they have no power to deal with county expenditure in Ireland except that which is sent to them from the lower body of the Baronial Sessions. And the Joint Committee has really conferred upon it much smaller powers than the Grand Juries have at the present moment. I desire to consider fully what are the powers of the Council. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) said the Bill preserved intact the powers of the Grand Jury, and he said it gave the control, particularly of finance, to the Joint Committee. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) said the Council would be the mere drudge of the Joint Committee, and that the Committee would be able to vote down the Council. I protest against that view being taken of the probable action of the Committee. It is not in accordance with the facts of Local Government in Ireland. In the first place, I will take the conduct of affairs at the Baronial Sessions, than which there could be no more popular assembly for the transaction of county business. The whole neighbourhood attend, and with little check from the presiding Magistrate state their opinions. And although the Sessions are carried on by Magistrates and cess payers selected by what I believe to be a cumbersome method, the decision arrived at by the Baronial Session is a popular conclusion, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred reflects popular opinion on the matter. There is no practice in Ireland which the hon. Member can allege in support of his statement that the representatives of the Grand Jury upon the Joint Committee would be likely or would necessarily or perpetually vote down the representatives of the cess payers; and I protest against that view being taken either by the House or by the country as a fair representation of what would occur upon these Committees. Then as to the question whether the Council is to be the drudge of the Committee, let me remind the House that, under this Bill, the Joint Committee is only given powers over capital expenditure. I will take the clause with the interpretation put upon it by the hon. Member himself, and will draw the attention of the House

      1473
      to the fact that the capital expenditure of the county, as interpreted by the hon. Gentleman, forms a very small percentage indeed of the whole expenditure, which, as I maintain, is under the free and unfettered control of the County Council. I have here a return dealing with the expenditure of the County of Antrim for the last five years, discriminating between capital expenditure as it will be under the provisions of this measure, and total expenditure under the total presentments of the county. In 1887 the capital expenditure was only 13 per cent. of the total expenditure; in 1888 it was only 12 per cent.; in 1889, 16½ per cent.; in 1890, 20½ per cent.; in 1891, 17½ per cent. of the total, making an average for the five years of 15¾ per cent. And it must be remembered that the County of Antrim shows a higher ratio than any other county in Ireland. I have also a return for the County Down for the same number of years, and in only one of the five years was the capital expenditure one per cent. of the total expenditure of the county. The average for the five years was ·82 per cent., so that in County Down only an infinitesimal proportion of the capital expenditure would be drawn from the free and unfettered control of the County Council. I take next a county with which I am intimately connected—the county in which I live—Tyrone. That county is a fair example, and it is a county which has the two rate guarantees which are given under the clause, and one that meets in every respect the provisions of this clause withholding from the County Councils certain control. The proportion of the capital expenditure of the County of Tyrone during the last five years was only 3·04. I will just give one more instance to complete the argument which I want to draw from this. I will take the total sum of the presentments for the whole of Ireland for 1889, and I will take that year because it is the last year available in Thom's Almanac. I will ask the House to listen to the result which shows how infinitesimal is the point which the hon. Member for West Belfast is making against the Bill upon
      1474
      this clause. The gross presentment in Ireland for 1889 was £1,320,464. I will draw the attention of the House to two items—one is the item for new roads, new bridges, and the repair of roads and bridges about the county, which comes to £654,576, and the other deals with the buildings under the control of the Grand Jury, amounting to £8,060. These items make together £662,636. Now the proportion of that particular sum, taking the County Tyrone as an average county, that would be withdrawn from the absolutely free and unfettered control of the County Council would be £19,879. That is to say, that out of the whole sum under the control of the County Council by this Bill, £1,322,464, the control of only a sum of less than £20,000 would have to meet with the approval of the Joint Committees in the counties of Ireland.
      MR. SEXTON: What about the officers' salaries?
      MR. MACARTNEY: The officers' salaries are not capital expenditure.
      MR. SEXTON: They are under the control of the Standing Joint Committee.
      MR. MACARTNEY: They do not come within the provisions of the clause, and I contest altogether the point which the hon. Member makes. The whole of the salaries of the officers only amount to £190,000, and the hon. Member will see that if worked out that will hardly be one per cent., and will not make it five per cent. of the calculation I have made. It will not affect the argument at all. The figures on this question are entirely against the view which he has presented to the House that this Bill mutilates the power of the County Councils by withdrawing control. I say, and I have shown, that the items which are withdrawn from the control of the County Councils, and which must come under the approval of the Joint Committee, form practically an insignificant proportion of the expenditure of any county in Ireland. I wish to say a word upon the constitution of the Joint Committee. I admit, as was admitted by my right hon. Friend in introducing the measure, that the provisions of the Bill with

      1475
      regard to the Chairman of this Joint Committee are not satisfactory. An attack has been made on the Sheriff as the Chairman by the hon. Member for the City of Waterford, who has clearly manifested thereby his entire lack of knowledge of the Grand Jury system. He objects to the Sheriff as being one of the hardened sinners on the Grand Jury. As a matter of fact the Sheriffs are generally the youngest members of the Grand Juries, the most inexperienced, and therefore from my point of view the least proper persons on the Grand Juries to be appointed Chairmen of these Joint Committees. But I understand it is not a provision to which the Government are absolutely pledged; because they themselves say they experienced difficulty in settling it. There are no officers in Ireland who correspond to the Sheriff in Scotland. I do not believe it will be possible to substitute the County Court Judges, for reasons which are apparent to anybody who knows Ireland. They are not connected with merely one county, and therefore they would not suit the convenience of the Joint Committee or of the public administration of business. Then there is the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and I discard him for other reasons which I need not discuss now. I have, however, a suggestion to make as to the Chairman—either let the senior member of the elected representatives of the Grand Jury be the Chairman, or let the foreman of the Grand Jury preside. If you took the foreman of the Grand Jury the interests of public business would be served; and in Ireland it is a question of the adequate transaction of public business. In the case of England and Scotland the Government recognised this by putting in the position men who were acquainted with the discharge of public business, that the County Councils might be informed of their duties. If that was required in the case of England and Scotland, it is certainly necessary in the case of Ireland. I do not attach any value to the charge of the hon. Member for West Belfast that the seven Grand Jurymen and the Sheriff would vote down the other seven representatives of the County Council. It is a charge that can be made in this
      1476
      House with great freedom; but it is a charge discredited in Ireland, and it is a charge devoid of weight or substance. I do not care to discuss whether the Joint Committee is to consist of fourteen, or of even or uneven proportions; but I do admit that there is weight in the objection to choosing the Sheriff as Chairman, and I believe that either the foreman of the Grand Jury or the senior member of the Grand Jury would be most useful. The hon. Member said that a great principle had been destroyed1 when the illiterate voters were not given the privileges of the Ballot Act.
      MR. SEXTON: No, I contend that a new electoral test has been imposed.
      MR. MACARTNEY: The hon. Member said it was a shabby expedient, and he went on to say that a man who contributes has a right to possess a voice in the expenditure of local taxation. Yes, the whole question at issue is whether the man who is an illiterate voter at the present moment would have any voice whatever. I say he would have no voice, and I make that statement deliberately. I have had a longer experience of elections in Ireland than any hon. Member sitting opposite. Before the hon. Member for West Belfast came into public life at all, I was, in 1873, personating agent, and in 1874 and 1881 I was head polling agent in one of the largest polling districts in South Tyrone. I saw every illiterate voter come there to record his, vote. I was there during the triangular election when Mr. Parnell ran a candidate against the recognised Liberal candidate. I do not believe that on that occasion two per cent. who gave their votes as illiterates gave them in the way they desired. They wished to give their votes in favour of Mr. Parnell's candidate, but the local organisation of the National League brought their pressure to bear in support of the Liberal candidate who is now sitting as hon. Member for the City of Dublin. In the minds of anybody who knows anything of the interior of an Irish polling booth, there cannot exist any doubt as to the fact that illiterate voters do not record their votes freely and openly. And if under this Act you allowed the illiterate voter to have the privileges of the Ballot Act he would

      1477
      still have no voice; his vote would have to be given according to the views of the political organisation which has him in tow. Therefore I say my right hon. Friend is quite right in excluding the illiterate voters from the privileges of the Ballot Act, and in so doing he is securing that the votes given under this Bill will be tendered in accordance with the ideas of the elector. I now come to the question of the police. The police of Ireland have always been on a different footing from the English police. The Irish counties have never contributed to the support of their own police, and the Governing Bodies of Irish counties have never had control of their police, and I should certainly view this Bill with the greatest apprehension if it placed the control of the police in the hands of the County Councils. I should view it with equal apprehension in my own City of Cork. It would be a dangerous matter to introduce into Irish politics, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has deemed it right not to depart from the principles upon which this Bill was supposed to be framed—namely, that it should be a Bill for the transference to elected Councils in Ireland that business which has been carried on by non-elected bodies—and that he did not adopt the principle of conferring upon these newly-elected bodies powers which would be dangerous to themselves and certainly dangerous to the communities over which they were to have control. I now come to the clause upon which the strongest attack has been made. I allude to the clause which provides for the appeal of twenty cess payers against the action of the County Council, and gives them the remedy before two Judges at law. This clause has been introduced, as the Attorney General stated, for the purpose of providing adequate and efficient protection of the cess payers of Ireland; and I suppose that nobody will deny the presence of ample grounds for the introduction of protective provisions, in the interests of cess payers, against apprehended extravagance or misconduct on the part of the popularly-elected county bodies in Ireland. I think my right hon. Friend was
      1478
      amply justified in inserting in the Bill a provision of this sort. The Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) has said that it might be argued from our point of view that the clause might be left in the Bill, because if County Councils do not commit acts of oppression and are not guilty of misconduct it would be inoperative. But I go a step further than that, and say that if the County Councils are guilty of acts of oppression and of such misconduct as would bring them within the purview of the clause, it would be equally inoperative. Therefore, while I agree that the authors of this Bill had sufficient justification for introducing a clause to protect the cess payers in Ireland, I myself do not think this clause is a necessity, and I should not be at all sorry to see it disappear from the Bill, and, I believe, a great many hon. Members on this side concur in the views I am now stating. Now, Sir, I have to say one word of disagreement with certain expressions which have fallen from right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House with regard to this Bill. The Attorney General for Ireland said that in his opinion this is a comparatively unimportant Bill, and remarks of a similar character have been made by the Leader of the House. I do not agree at all with that view. Speaking as an Irishman, and representing cess payers of Ireland, I look upon this as one of the most important Bills the present Government have introduced, and I am delighted that the cess payers will receive from a Unionist Government that which they have long desired to have—complete and unfettered control of the annual expenditure of their counties. I believe this Bill will do as much as any Bill the Government have introduced to create good feeling between the different sections of the Irish people, and I am not so apprehensive as some are that these County Councils or Baronial Sessions will be turned into mere arenas of political discord. The views of the hon. Member for Belfast that the members of the Joint Committee who represent the Grand Juries will be found consistently voting down the representatives of the County Councils are,

      1479
      in my opinion, incorrect. I believe that in nine cases out of ten the gentlemen who compose these Committees will be experienced men of business, and that whatever their political differences may be, when they meet for county purposes they will impartially deal with the local matters that come before them. In conclusion let me say that I cordially support this Bill, believing it will be productive of the greatest possible good to every class and section of my country.
      MR. THOMAS HEALY): I have to congratulate the hon. Member who has just sat down on the remarkable clearness with which he has dealt with a measure which we believe to be a perfect sham, and which we are aware the Government have not the smallest intention of proceeding with. What they hope to gain by bringing it in is one of those things I am unable to understand. When the Bill was introduced the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did everything in his power by speech and manner to show that he was performing an uncongenial task. The only explanation I can give for the introduction of this measure is that the near approach of the General Election has stirred the Unionist conscience and has induced them to put pressure on the Government to fulfil one, at least, of the many promises by which they got into power. Well, Sir, I have carefully studied this Bill, and I maintain that every section and every line of it is based on suspicion, dread, and hostility, and is a rooted insult to the Irish people. To my mind it is a curious commentary on the Unionist speeches we have been listening to for the past four or five years. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have been going about the country telling audiences that under the beneficent influence of the Unionist Government Ireland is now in a state of absolute peace and quiet, that law-abiding citizens are now able to go about their duties without fear of being molested by anybody, and that the people of Ireland are only too anxious to obey the law. If these speeches are true, why is this. Bill framed in the manner it is? If the people of Ireland
      1480
      are simply yearning to obey the law, how is it this Bill is framed to take away from them some of the few privileges they possess at the present time? One clause of it will deprive the Irish people of a right they have enjoyed since the reign of William IV.—the right to deal with cases of malicious injury. Now, we were told about a month ago, in this House, by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that there was now no person in Ireland who was either partially or wholly boycotted. If that is the truth, where is the necessity for introducing this clause, when the very persons it is apparently intended to benefit do not exist? Clause 6 of this Bill not only takes away that right from the Irish people which they have enjoyed for so long, but it provides that they are to have no power dealing with criminal matters in Ireland, and the County Councils to be formed under this Bill will not be allowed to administer the oath. I maintain that Section 6 of this Bill gives the lie to every Unionist speech that has been made during the past six years. The provisions of this Bill have been so completely riddled and blown out of the water by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that I do not intend to go through them in detail, but there is one matter to which I should like to allude. I refer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macartney), as to what goes on at Presentment Sessions in Ireland. Now, I have had some experience in connection with these sessions, and I have never seen anything but a fair and impartial hearing given by the men from whom this Bill proposes to take away the right of dealing with cases of malicious injury. Every case that comes before them is decided on its merits. It will not do for any man to come before them and merely say he is boycotted or objectionable to his neighbour; that will not ensure his application being entertained. If I want to look for corruption in the Boards of Ireland, I should not look to these Presentment Sessions, but rather to the immaculate Grand Juries. I have seen over and over again that no case coming before these men is too

      1481
      weak. No matter how flimsy a man's case might be, or how bad his character, if he could get up and swear that he was boycotted, or in any way obnoxious, he was certain to have his application considered favourably, and every penny he might ask for given him. It is not very long ago since the wife of a Grand Juryman in County Cork got twelve months with hard labour for setting fire to her house. On two or three previous occasions her husband had obtained compensation for the burning down of his premises, and I have not the slightest doubt that if the woman had not been caught at last in the very act, her husband would have again gone before the Grand Jury, and received compensation for the destruction of his property. This is one of the bodies that it is proposed should be allowed to deal with the question of malicious injuries; and the inferior body, which in one case that came under my own knowledge took a view that was subsequently taken by a learned Judge, are not to be trusted. I have no hesitation in voting against this Bill as I should against any Bill which is based on hostility to the Irish people, and which gives to a Judge of Assize the power to disfranchise a county and to place the elected representatives of the people in the dock; and, further than that, allows an unrepresentative and unsympathetic body like that which exists at Dublin Castle to override an election, and place other people in the position of the representatives of the ratepayers. We want a Home Rule Bill, but this is a cross between a Coercion Bill and a Bill for the glorification of Boards of Guardians. One other remark I make with reluctance, and that has reference to the speech of the Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane). He said—and I was glad to hear him as a patriotic Irishman make the remark—that the Protestant majority had nothing to fear from the oppression of the Catholic majority, and he, for one, would protest with all his power against any such oppression wherever he met with it. The Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) got up in his place and said that when he spoke of the oppression of the Protestant minority he made
      1482
      no allusion to the section of the Nationalist Party to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Blane) belongs. I suppose, therefore, he pointed at the section to which I belong. A man's nature is best shown by his spontaneous actions. I do not happen to be a large employer of labour, but I employ three men; and it may relieve the mind of the hon. Member for South Belfast to know that, although I am a Catholic, and my family are Catholics, and nineteen - twentieths of my friends are Catholics, yet of those three men two are Protestants. I think that will show hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have as little to fear from the section to which I belong as from the section to which the hon. Member for South Armagh belongs. I am sorry this question was brought up, because I do not believe there is the smallest fear that anybody in Ireland will be persecuted on account of his religion. No Irish Catholic will be any party to persecuting anyone because of a difference of religious opinion; and it was well said by a great Englishman, the late Cardinal Manning, that he had no fear that the Irish Catholics would ever persecute any religious creed, because, he added touchingly, "the children of the martyrs are never persecutors." I can assure hon. Gentlemen that they have nothing to fear from the Irish Catholics; and my constant hope and fervent prayer is that the day may be close at hand when every section of the Irish people will be found sitting side by side in a Parliament in College Green working in harmony for the common good of their country.
      MR. BARTON: I desire to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Thomas Healy) on what I believe was his maiden speech. He dealt with the question from a practical point of view, and I propose to follow his example. He must not suppose that we entertain any fears that he would personally display any intolerance towards his fellow-subjects in Ireland; but if he asks me to go further, and to say that the loyal majority are in no danger of oppression at the hands of the majority, I regret to say that I am unable to

      1483
      agree with him, and I propose to offer some reasons for my opinion before I sit down. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that this Bill with its safeguards is an insult to Irish sentiment. I think the Bill without its safeguards would have been an insult to British common sense. An hon. Member, yesterday, said that there is something unreal about this Debate. What is the unreality?
      An hon. MEMBER: The Bill.
      MR. BARTON: No; the Bill is real enough. It is here in substantial form. It is the opposition to the Bill which is unreal. The indignation is feigned; the fury is simulated; the opposition was preconcerted before the Bill was introduced. The provisions of this Bill were prejudged before they were printed. The night before the Bill was introduced the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), speaking in the congenial atmosphere of White-chapel, said of this Bill that it was a sham and a futile measure. The people of Whitechapel were evidently astonished at that statement; and, seeing their astonishment, he proceeded—
      "You may say I ought not to judge it before I have seen it; but I have a taste for gardening, and I know you cannot get grapes from thorns or figs from thistles."
      It is plain that the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind beforehand to oppose this Bill, and I say this Bill has not had a fair hearing or a fair trial in this House. We are told, amongst other things, that the Government ought to have introduced this Bill before; but I will ask hon. Members to carry their minds back ten years, and in 1882, when the Liberals were in power, the Member for Longford placed on the Paper a Motion in these words:—
      "That this House regrets that the promises Several times made of amendment of the Grand Jury system in Ireland have not been carried out."
      It had been promised by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the Queen's Speech in 1881, and in 1882 we find the Nationalist Party complaining that the promise had not been acted upon; and now, when this Government attempts to carry out the reform of the Grand Jury system, both sections opposite
      1484
      unite to defeat their intention. It will be found, if you look at this Bill, that it will be convenient to distinguish between two separate portions of the Bill—the enfranchising portion and the safeguarding portion. It is by an ingenious confusion of these two portions that a plausible case is made on the other side. The enfranchising portion of the Bill follows the lines of the English and Scotch Bills, and can hardly be criticised; but objection is taken to the safeguarding portions. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) described ten points in the Bill as ten insults to Ireland. I represent a constituency in which there is a Unionist majority, and where there would be a Unionist majority in a County Council. If these points in the Bill are insults, they must be insults to my supporters. But I find that these insults melt away on examination and on comparison with a very interesting document—a County Government Bill for Ireland, which was brought forward by the Irish Party in 1888. That Bill contained almost all of these ten insults—some of them in a worse shape than in the Bill before the House. What were these ten alleged insults? The first was the withdrawing of a privilege in the case of the illiterate voter which had been abused. How can they call it an insult to withdraw in the case of Ireland a privilege which the House of Commons has lately declared by a large majority should be withdrawn throughout the whole of the United Kingdom? What hon. Gentlemen opposite ask for is not equality, but ascendency. The second insult is the cumulative vote. In my constituency it is for the protection of the Nationalist minority, and I cannot look upon it as an insult to support a Bill which contains a provision for giving representation to my Nationalist opponents. The next supposed insult to Ireland refers to the fixing of boundaries, which is left to the Lord Lieutenant. It was suggested that they should be dealt with as in England, where it was said that in the cities it is left to the Corporations and in counties to Quarter Sessions. If that suggestion were

      1485
      adopted in Belfast, it would be left to the Tory Corporation, and in the counties to the Grand Juries, which correspond to English Quarter Sessions, and yet the hon. Member complains that the Lord Lieutenant is selected in the Bill. Whatever the Lord Lieutenant does can be criticised in this House, and he can be held responsible. In the Bill of the hon. Members opposite in 1888, will the House believe, the fixing of the areas of the baronies was to be left to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council, and yet they ask the House to say that the same provision in this Bill is an insult to Ireland. The next alleged insult to Ireland is that Belfast and Dublin are not treated like other cities. The hon. Member in his adroit way pointed out that these cities had not been dealt with specially in the Bill, but he did not point out that by this Bill all the other municipal boroughs have been enfranchised, and instead of a £10 rating franchise, householders have been given the Parliamentary franchise for municipal purposes. He did not refer to that, but he did refer to the fact that, for particular reasons which I can well understand, Belfast and Dublin are not dealt with in this Bill. They have different machinery for municipal and registration purposes, and they are dealt with by different Acts which have recently been passed by this House extending their franchise; and if you were to deal with those cities in the Bill, it would take two or three pages to deal with their special requirements. I can well understand why that should be left to be dealt with afterwards. But I would remind the House that the Bill enfranchises all the other municipal boroughs, and meets the claim they have made for so many years. Under these circumstances, I think I am en-entitled to say that the treatment of these cities is no insult to Ireland. The next of these insults to Ireland is that the Grand Juries are left in possession of jurisdiction in claims for malicious injuries. The Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) admitted that that was a matter on which the Government were willing to meet the views of the House. I venture
      1486
      to say that the Grand Juries do not wish to keep the settlement of these cases; we all want to find an independent tribunal to settle them. The question did not arise on the English and Scotch Bills. Mrs. Lewis's case is always trotted out when Grand Juries are under discussion. Frauds in cases of this kind may occur before any tribunal. There have been many cases of fraud on Insurance Companies, and there was recently in England a case of conspiracy to defraud Insurance Companies. The Grand Jury system in Ireland, however, guards as carefully as possible the interests of the ratepayers from fraud. The hon. Member who just spoke said there was a case of great injustice before a Grand Jury. But I would point out that that case went before the Judge, who heard it, and decided against the Grand Jury. The Judge removed the grievance, and in such cases always will do so. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) in his article in the Fortnightly Review complains that Grand Juries can still file indictments, and the same complaint has been made in this Debate. But the House ought to be informed that the very same provision was in the Nationalist County Council Bill of 1888. The next insult is that the police are not put under the control of the County Council. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) in his article does not suggest that the police should be under the control of the County Councils, and the Nationalist County Government Bill did not suggest it. I am surprised that they should now suggest it after their experience of the last few years. In view of contemporary facts it is idle to suggest that the police should be under the control of the County Councils. The next insult to Ireland is that it is said there is a control vested by the Bill in the Joint Committee over the litigation of the County Councils. I do not know how that is; but I hope it is so. When the Borough Fund Act was passed in the House of Lords, Lord Fitzgerald pointed out the necessity of preventing small Municipalities in Ireland yielding to temptation in the direction of excessive and unnecessary litigation. To illustrate the necessity

      1487
      of control over litigation I will refer to a case in the Land Judge's Court in Dublin in 1888. The Guardians refused to sue the tenants who were liable for the rates and able to pay them; and they sued the landlord. What did the Judge do? He referred to the facts, and said—
      "This was an instance of what might be expected from the Guardians, and what they would do in the same direction if their privileges and powers were extended."
      He made a conditional order of attachment against them for contempt of Court. There we have a Board of Guardians actually under judgment for contempt of Court for bringing an action which they had no right to bring under the law. I desire, next, to deal with the objections which have been so strongly urged against the controlling power given to the Joint Committee. I find that all the protests of hon. Gentlemen opposite are only the faint echoes of the protests of the Scottish Members when the Local Government Bill for Scotland was before the House. The hon. Member for Caithness said the Joint Committee was
      "An absolute majority composed of the Sheriff of the county and a member of the Commissioners of Supply."
      The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) said—
      "Why not trust the County Council? Will the Lord Advocate, or any Scotchman sitting beside him say they cannot trust their countrymen in these matters?"
      The hon. Member for Aberdeen said the clause was—
      "An unfounded imputation on their country.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan) described it as a "practical insult to the rest of Scotland." I, for one, as an Ulster Member, do not regard as an insult that which was thought good enough for England and Scotland. The hon. Members opposite set up a superior right over Englishmen and Scotchmen. The next alleged insult is with regard to the appointment of officers; and I think this is the weakest of all the objections to the Bill. I venture to
      1488
      say that the provision of this Bill with regard to officers gives just as wide powers as are exercised by County Councils in England, and it actually gives wider powers than the Nationalist Bill of 1888. If this is an insult to Irishmen, there was a worse insult in their own Bill in 1888. The Secretary to the County Council in Ireland is to be appointed and removed by the Joint Committee. The Clerk to the Council—the corresponding officer in England—is in precisely the same position. Then, the County Surveyor by this Bill is to be appointed by the County Council, but he cannot be removed without the sanction of the Joint Committee. The County Councils are by this provision to have stronger powers with reference to the County Surveyor than the Grand Jury ever had, for the Lord Lieutenant has the power of appointing and dismissing the County Surveyor at present. I say that the Government would be neglecting their duty if they did not provide this control with regard to the County Surveyor. There is a reported case in which the late Chief Baron Pigott pointed out the importance of safeguarding the power of dismissing the County Surveyor. Why is it of vital importance? Because the County Surveyor has to deal with the contractors; and it is essential that his position should be one of independence. Then this Bill gives the County Councils the appointment of all the other officers without any control. Will the House believe it, that in the Nationalist Bill of 1888, in Section 14, they did not give the County Councils the power of appointing a single officer without the approval of the Local Government Board? How can these provisions be represented as insulting? With reference to the Secretary of the County Council, the powers of the Council are to be the same as in England; with reference to their County Surveyor, their powers are to be greater than those of the Grand Jury; and with regard to the other officers they are given absolute powers, while in their own Bill they proposed that the appointments should be all subjected to the sanction of the Local Government

      1489
      Board. I regret that there is no control over the making of these appointments, and I shall move in Committee to have a control established in these cases.
      An hon. MEMBER: The Bill will never go to Committee.
      MR. BARTON: We shall see about that. I shall just give one illustration of the reason which exists for some such control. The elected Guardians of the Ennis Union held a meeting with reference to the appointment of a relieving officer, when a resolution was passed to the following effect:—
      "That in every future election to any office under the Board no candidate shall be supported by the Nationalist Guardians unless he be a member of the National League for at least six months previous to the date of the election, and produces his certificate signed by the chairman and secretary of the branch; and further that when selecting a candidate to be put forward for election, the minority of the Nationalist Guardians should be bound to act and vote with the majority present and voting."
      That is the Ennis test. Surely some control ought to be exercisable over such tactics. Then, we come to what has been called the "Put-them-m-the-dock" clause. But why that name? There is not a single feature of criminal law in the clause. There is no dock, no indictment on a criminal charge, no punishment, no fine, no imprisonment. It is not a criminal clause; the nickname is a misnomer. Is it an insult to Ireland that corruption should be dealt with by the Courts? In 1889 this House passed the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, which makes corruption on the part of a member of a Public Body a misdemeanour punishable by two years' imprisonment with hard labour or £500 fine or both. That Act was passed in consequence of some corruption on the part of a Public Body in London; and that is the law of the land. Clause 21 of the Nationalist Local Government Bill made a similar offence punishable by a fine of £100, recoverable by one ratepayer. That is more worthy of the name of a "Put-them-in-the-dock" clause. I was surprised to hear an hon. Member opposite say that he could not see the analogy of an Election
      1490
      Petition, because an Election Petition could only set aside an election, while this Bill proposes that the Lord Lieutenant should nominate a new Council. But an Election Petition can not only set aside an election, but it can seat a new Member, and the very Member who was rejected by the constituency. Is it the power of removal which is an insult? That power has been in force in Ireland for something like forty years. The Poor Law Guardians are capable of being removed by the Local Government Board; and that power has been frequently exercised in Ireland during the last ten or eleven years, and it has not been suggested that the power of removal was a special insult to Ireland. Hon. Members opposite proposed in their own County Government Bill that the District Councils should be removable by the Local Government Board. I will go further. When the Cork Board of Guardians was suspended I read an article in the Pall Mall Gazette which contained this sentence:—
      "We express our satisfaction with the action taken by the Local Government Board in Ireland in suspending the Cork Board of Guardians."
      If it is the law of the land that the members of Public Bodies may be made amenable to the law for corruption, I do not think it can be said that this clause goes too far in including malversation and oppression. What is malversation and oppression? I will give four instances of malversation. In 1884, during one of the Coercion Acts; of the hon. Members opposite, the Roscommon Board of Guardians gave outdoor relief of £1 a week to the families of the suspects. The nominal relief rate at the time was 1s. 6d. to 3s. At the time they received this pay most of families were in possession of horses, sheep and cattle, as well as land. This was stopped, however, by a sealed Order from the Local Government Board. What was the second example of malversation? When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), in 1886, was Chief Secretary for Ireland he obtained from Parliament £20,000 for the relief of certain Unions in the West of Ireland. In six weeks the number

      1491
      of people in receipt of out-door relief rose from one thousand to one hundred thousand, and £36,000 was spent on the security of the £20,000. Men with large herds of cattle and sheep were relieved; a gombeen money-lender was relieved; a contractor to the Board Was relieved; a farmer holding over one thousand acres of land was treated as a pauper, and in some districts there were more persons on the relief list than were living in the district. If that is not malversation of public money, I do not know what is; and if hon. Members opposite suggest that the place in which that occurred within the last five or six years is fit to be trusted with Local Government powers without some control, I do not fancy that it is the opinion of the general body of Members. When the Seed Supply Act was passed, men who had been absent ten or twelve years in America, and were not in Ireland at all, were returned as having been supplied with seed; others who had been dead many years, and women who did not own, and who had never owned land were also On the list I will give one more example of malversation—I think it is the worst—which approaches to oppression. Boards of Guardians, under the power of the Local Government Board, were dissolved for applying the funds of the ratepayers to illegal objects such as the relief of Plan of Campaign tenants.
      MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman mention to us any one case in which a victim of the Plan of Campaign has received out-door relief from any Union in Ireland, because I declare to this House that it is an absolute misstatement.
      *MR. BARTON: I would greatly like to hear the hon. Member upon this subject. These four examples of malversation justify the provision of the Bill dealing with malversation. Now I come to deal with "oppression." I believe there is danger of oppression. Is there in the South and West of Ireland a spirit prevalent which tends to beget oppression? I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the
      1492
      Member for Bridge ton is present. On the 30th June, 1886, the right hon. Member said—
      "Nothing but the fact that the police and Resident Magistrates were in the hands of astrong Central Government preserved certain districts in the South and West of Ireland from wholesale massacre."
      I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what has happened since 1886 to alter that opinion? But some may say that, although this spirit of oppression exists, it never has been shown in the operations of any Board of Guardians. I will give a clear example to prove that this spirit has been manifested during the last two or three years by a Board of Guardians. In September, 1890, the Tipperary Board of Guardians unanimously passed a resolution expressing unqualified approval of boycotting and the Plan of Campaign, which was quite a usual proceeding, and the Guardian who proposed the resolution, in describing these two things said:—
      "They were poor weapons in place of what Tipperary held in past times, when we met the tyrants at Ballycoby and Ballydavid, and at Tipperary here in the hotel."
      What happened at these three places? At Ballycoby two bailiffs and a constable were killed, and a landlord and two constables were wounded. At Ballydavid in 1870 Mr. Cole Baker, a landlord, was shot while taking his morning walk, and at the Tipperary hotel Mr. Bredall, while collecting his rents, was shot, and died afterwards.
      MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: We will save you the reiteration of all that.
      *MR. BARTON: I am glad to hear the hon. Member interrupt, for he must do one of two things. He must either deny these things or defend them. All I ask him as a Member of this House and a Representative of Ireland to answer is, whether, if such things exist, this House is justified in passing a Local Government Bill without strict and strenuous safeguards? The right hon. Member for Bridgeton was right in 1886, and I regret to say that in the South and West of Ireland there still remains the spirit of those days. Then I ask this further question: Have there been cases of oppression with regard

      1493
      to Boards of Guardians? What do Poor Law Guardians do under the Labourers Act? That was an Act which gave the Board of Guardians power to erect labourers' cottages upon land and to take land for the purpose. Luckily for the unfortunate owners of land and farmers, there was provided an appeal to the Privy Council. There were 227 appeals, of which 196 were successful. The grounds of these successful appeals were that the selection of the land was vexatious, not bonâ fide, for purposes of annoyance, punishment, or revenge. Cottages were put on the land of boycotted men and landgrabbers, and other unpopular persons. Will hon. Members justify Boards of Guardians in so selecting lands, or disapprove the Privy Council for preventing them doing so? And will they disapprove this Bill for trying to put some check on practices of this kind? Let me give a case, that of Mrs. Bolton—I believe a relative of Mr. Bolton, whose name has often been attacked by hon. Members opposite. Five cottages were proposed to be put upon one farm of forty acres, on which there were already two cottages. Would the House be surprised that the Privy Council upset that scheme? Then would the Government be discharging its duty if it did not deal with such a subject as this? The only fault I have to find is, I would like to see a more effective provision to deal with it. A word more about this oppression. We are told that it is a new crime. I challenge any lawyer in the House—I see the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) in his place—to say it is a new crime. It is a crime as old as the law of this land. You can find precedents of indictments for oppression in Chitty's Criminal Law. In the State trials you will find a Chief Justice impeached for oppression in this House. You will find a definition of it in every law book from Blackstone down to Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law. If you apply it to this particular form of oppression you can define it thus:—"A public officer under colour of his public office doing injury to another from an improper motive, which may be inferred from the nature of the act
      1494
      or the circumstances of the case." It has been urged that we ought to trust the Irish people, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite only trust them when it is a question of the abandonment of the rights and the liberties of Irish Loyalists. We have been taunted that the Government came into power on a policy of no coercion; but now hon. Gentlemen opposite are approaching the General Election with a cry for the coercion of Ulster. In this Bill I am supporting safeguards which will protect my opponents and not my supporters in my constituency. How, then, can it be said that Ulster men want ascendency. What they want is to remove ascendency, and to live with equal laws under an Imperial Parliament. The hon. Member for Waterford wrote in his recent article that the Grand Jury system is the last remnant of the old power and ascendency of the landlord class. Well, we are asking hon. Gentlemen opposite to remove it. It is they who wish to keep up that ascendancy in order that they may have an excuse for Home Rule. The alternative which they would set up to this Bill and to the whole policy of the Unionist Party is by establishing Home Rule to set up in Ireland a permanent ascendency, so cruel and tyrannous that no British subject has ever yet consented to endure it.
      MR. BRYCE: I quite agree with one remark of the hon. Member who has just sat down that there is a great deal of unreality in this Debate. Even the warmth of the hon. Member has failed to impart any reality into it. Yet I think that neither the Bill nor the Debate will be altogether useless, because in the Bill there is a declaration of policy by Her Majesty's Government, and its real importance consists in this—that it is a statement of the view they take of the remedial measures which they would like to apply to Ireland. I have a great deal of doubt as to the policy of the Government in some respects. We do not know whether bi-metallism is part of their policy, but we have reason to believe that Protection is, judging by the

      1495
      speech of the Prime Minister the other day. As regards Ireland, however, there is no doubt that their policy, which began with coercion in 1886, is to receive its crown and confirmation in this Local Government Bill of 1892. Therefore, we ought not to confine ourselves to minute details of the Bill, but to take it in its wide sense and ask ourselves whether it holds out any prospect that, if passed, it would do good to Ireland. There are five tests which may be applied to a measure of this kind. In the first place, to be successful the Bill ought to be similar in its provisions to those which have been passed for England and Scotland. In the next place, it ought to be a Bill which would satisfy Ireland; in the third place, it ought to tend to pacify Ireland; in the fourth place, it should cause the Local Authority to work in harmony with the Central Authority; and fifthly, it should, if possible, be so framed as to teach the Irish people the mode of self-government, and to fit them for exercising such powers as may be conferred upon them by any larger measure of self-government that Parliament may think fit to pass. Now, I do not think that the tests I propose are unfair ones. Take the first test. No one will deny that this measure is entirely dissimilar to the Acts that have been passed for the Local Government of England and Scotland. There are six points of difference between this measure and the English and Scotch Acts. In the first place, the Joint Committee that is proposed by this Bill, and which would have the effect of checking the Irish County Councils, has no place in the English and Scotch Acts. In the second place, the Sheriff who is to be appointed the Chairman under this Bill will be a totally different person from the English Chairman or the Scotch Sheriff. Then there is the question of the control of the police, which in England and Scotland is left in the hands of the Local Authority, but which is dealt with on an entirely different principle in this measure. There is, again, nothing like the cumulative voting in this Bill to be found in the English and Scotch Acts. The illiterate voter is also dealt with upon an entirely
      1496
      different principle in this Bill from the others. The sixth point of difference is the power which this Bill proposes to give to remove members of the County Council, and which is not to be found in the English and Scotch Acts. The existence of these important differences between this measure and the English and Scotch Acts prevents the Bill from being in the least degree a fulfilment of the pledge which has been given by the Government that the legislation on this subject should be on the same lines for the three Kingdoms. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland has said that the object of the Government is to legislate for each part of the United Kingdom by means of measures adapted to each of the three countries. That is an elastic phrase, and will cover every Coercion Act that has ever been passed. Therefore, as far as equal legislation for the three countries is concerned, this Bill has not advanced a single step in the right direction. Then I ask whether it can be satisfactory to the Irish people. A sufficient answer to that question was given on the night of the First Reading of the Bill, when, out of 101 Irish Members, only fifteen went into the Division Lobby in support of it. As the Irish Members have, therefore, rejected it, I would point out to the House the absurdity of forcing the Bill upon them. The Irish Members say:—"We prefer to go on with our Grand Juries rather than have this machinery imposed upon us, which we think will work worse—will gall and annoy us." In that respect how unlike the position we in Scotland took when English and Scotch Local Government Bills were brought in! We did not regard them as perfect, but we endeavoured to amend them; and I think I may say with safety that there was a general desire in the House to take them as the basis of the system, and to put forward honest and sincere endeavours to make the very best of them so that they would work well for the country. Can it be supposed that anything of the kind will happen in this case? And the absurdity goes further. In the case of the English Bill we had a profitable discussion, because we knew what we were talking about. A

      1497
      large number of English Members had practical experience of the working of English County Government, and the rest of us knew the outline of it. In the case of Scotland, the discussion was similarly profitable. What would be the case if we were sure of getting into Committee on this Bill? The Irish members would no doubt know a good deal about it; but the Irish Members would be outvoted. They would conduct the discussions in the House, which would present very much the same appearance as at present. The Treasury Bench would be occupied by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General, who would give more or less perfunctory answers to the objections of the Irish Members. The Division bell would ring, and the English majority would vote down the Irish Members without even having heard their arguments and the answers given. We know perfectly well from past experience how Irish matters are dealt with. We English and Scotch Members are not in a position to help Irish Members, because we are ignorant of the facts. How many English and Scotch Members can explain what is the incidence and function of baronial cess? This Bill requires interpretation and explanation on the part of somebody who understands Local Government in Ireland to enable us to properly value its effects. Therefore, I say that the Irish Members are in a worse position than even the Scotch Members were, because they could appeal to and count on a certain amount of knowledge on the part of Englishmen which does not exist in this case. The fact is, that what we shall have will be a repetition of the old duel between Dublin Castle and the Representatives of the Irish nation. The latter will be over-ruled, and those whose cause will prevail are those who do not know anything of the facts. We might almost as well give a commission to the Government to employ the assistance of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for all the effect which the opinions and views of Irish Members are likely to have. We might as well assent to the Local Government of Ireland being controlled by a code of rules to be drawn up by the Lord
      1498
      Lieutenant without the intervention of Parliament at all. If that does not strike the House as absurd, I am afraid that no words will make it appear absurd; and the only fact that prevents it from being so ridiculous is that we have done it so often before. And here I am obliged to fall back on the dictum of the First Lord of the Treasury when he brought in this Bill, and to say that not only is the particular section to which he referred, but that the Bill as a whole, is an instance of the tendency of Legislative Bodies to do a stupid thing only because it has been done before. Then I come to ask whether the Bill will tend to pacify Ireland? We have all been accustomed to agree that the difficulty in Ireland is largely of a social order, arising from the alienation of the people from the law, from suspicion and distrust felt towards the agents of the law, and felt particularly towards the Central Authorities of the Government. Will this Bill tend to remove these evils? So far as I can follow it, it will tend to accentuate and exasperate them. And I can tell you why: It will divide every Local Body into hostile parts. We shall have the representatives of the people looking upon the County Council as their authority, and the County Council anxious to pose on every occasion as the representatives of the majority of the people. We shall have, on the other hand, the representatives of the Grand Jury on the Joint Committee resisting what the County Council proposes, regarding themselves as called upon to resist, and receiving their functions as a sort of fortress or entrenchment from which the landlord class can defend itself. And I apprehend the facts that the two bodies are not left to face each other in equal proportions, and that the Sheriff is forced upon them as a Chairman, are indications of the intention of the Government to let the scales incline in favour of the landlord class and in favour of the non-representative body. Then I pass over the other safeguards and come to the question of the Judges trying the County Councils, as I view this as the most important. Surely, remembering

      1499
      the past history of Ireland, there is no body of persons in that country whose position it is more desirable to safeguard and to remove from suspicion of political partisanship than the Irish Judges. The House knows there have been some instances in which the Irish Judges have shown political partisanship. I have no doubt everyone will remember the case of Chief Justice May and the charge which he delivered in the beginning of 1880, or the end of 1879, and which was of so strong a partisan nature that public opinion, even in Dublin, insisted upon his withdrawal from further conduct of the case. However much Judges desire to avoid imputation of this kind, it is one to which they are often exposed, and therefore the Government ought to take every means of removing them from suspicion. Can anyone imagine a cause more likely to renew that suspicion and to aggravate the distrust felt towards the administrators of the law than their introduction into political cases of this kind? The Attorney General made an ingenious comparison between the trial of the County Councils and the trial of Election Petitions by the Judges, and the hon. Member for Mid Armagh (Mr. Barton) recurred to that analogy with a view of defending the proposals. But there are several large distinctions. In the first place, an Election Petition is a trial between parties, between diverse opinions, and therefore it is in the nature of an ordinary civil suit. In the next place, it is to be tried upon definite law. Our election law is now well set; we know what the law is, and therefore the Judges have a definite base on which to go. They are not left merely to their own discretion in creating law for themselves, because the law in regard to one case immediately becomes applicable to another, and to both Political Parties. But in this case we have a law which is evidently to be applied to one class—the County Councils, the representatives of the people, and in favour of those who allege malversation or oppression. Why is this? Here I fall back upon the instances which were given by the hon. Member for Mid Armagh to show
      1500
      what he considered cases of malversation and oppression. I ask whether his cases of malversation and oppression were not rather cases of political partisanship. Every one of the cases which the hon. Member cited was a case in which a Political Party was involved; they were not cases in which people had tried to enrich themselves—not cases of corruption like the cases alleged against the officers of the Metropolitan Board of Works. They were only political disputes, in which a Local Body was charged with using its Local Authority in order to take sides in a political contention. These, however, are not cases to which the ordinary law is to be applied, but are cases of a purely political nature, in which the Judges will generally become involved as political partisans. The hon. Member for Mid Armagh gave another illustration with regard to corruption. He said that was already punishable by law. Why, then, is it not left to the law? Why introduce provisions into the law of Ireland which do not exist in the law of England if you have in the latter law a provision which is employed to cover the case of Ireland? Hon. Members have complained that we have talked of this as if it were a criminal prosecution, but it will be remembered that when the First Lord of the Treasury introduced the Bill he spoke of County Councils being "found guilty," and whether it was intended or not, this marked the animus of the intention with which the provision was inserted. Now I come to the question, "What is oppression?" The hon. Member for Mid. Armagh has endeavoured to deal with that. He has told us the effect of the law, but the instances he gave did not seem to me to have much relevance to the proceedings of a County Council. The House will have observed that the hon. Member implied some criminal act done, some bodily harm inflicted.
      MR. BARTON: I said that an act of oppression meant injury done. I admit that in the majority of cases it was bodily harm.
      MR. BRYCE: Well, I should have liked to have heard other instances. I am bound to say that there was

      1501
      nothing in the cases cited, and I heard nothing in the Debate on the First Reading tending to throw light on the vague and general term "oppression," though much has been said about safeguards against the possible action of Local Bodies in Ireland. The cases which would probably arise in Ireland would be those in which some political issue would be involved, some Party difference arising, attempts at boycotting or favourable contracts given for political reasons, or someone chosen for an appointment because he belonged to a particular political Party, or the use of the power of the Council in one instance and not in another to the advantage of one person and disadvantage of another. So far as I can see, and looking at what happens, they are cases of this kind which are contemplated as within the purview of the Bill, and it appears to me that the words in the Bill leave open the widest possible margin to the Judges to act according to their discretion—permitting, in fact, a Judge to take a political view in the creation of a new class of offences, and to enforce the law against those offences. I cannot conceive a more odious, a more dangerous duty to impose upon a Judge, and I earnestly hope that the Judges themselves will refuse to undertake such duty. In any case, I think it is a part of the Bill which we are bound to resist to the last. Now I come to my fourth question, "What are the relations which will be established between the Central Authority and the Local Authorities?" It has been asked, "Is there any friction in the relations in Scotland under the Local Government Act?" No, there is not, because in Scotland we have not got that severance of classes which unhappily exists in Ireland; there is no animosity between classes. There are men on the County Councils in Scotland belonging to both the landlord and occupying classes, and there is no disposition to oppose anyone because he does not belong to a particular Party. But is that so in Ireland? Will not Party animosities be strengthened
      1502
      by the Bill? The whole tenour of the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh shows how different is the condition of things in Ireland, and his whole argument was to show the necessity of safeguards to protect one class from the attacks of the other. That is why we feel the danger of the conflict between the Local and the Central Authority under this Bill. It is well known in Ireland—it is a tradition—that the Central Authority sympathises with the class from which it springs, and supports that class—the landlord class—represented by the Grand Juries. Therefore County Councils will not expect to have justice from the Central Authority in Dublin; they will not look to this as an impartial authority in the sense that we in Scotland look to our Central Authority as impartial between two sections or parties. It is, unfortunately, the fact that in Ireland the division of classes is such that the one is suspicious of the other, and this constitutes the great difficulty of local administration in Ireland, for actions naturally take a tinge of colour from these local circumstances. ("Hear, hear!") The Chief Secretary cheers that statement, and I am reminded of the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, who carried his argument in favour of safeguards so far as to show that if these were so much wanted then you ought not to have this Bill at all. The way in which I would like to put it is this. I believe that to have this Bill without popular representation on the Central Authority with a strength that can only come from the will of the people will be to aggravate the conflict of classes in Ireland, will make government from a Central Authority more difficult, and provoke more dissension than there has existed in the past. The conclusion I draw is this: in forming a scheme of Local Government we should form a Central Authority also, a Central Body strong and trusted by the people to exercise that control which Local Bodies no doubt do sometimes require. We do not deny that control is required. I might take an illustration from the United States and show that in every State of the Union a great many safeguards are imposed upon the Local Authority. They are

      1503
      imposed by the people of the State with the desire to mark out precisely the path for their own Local Authority, and to subject them to the general law. They can trust the application of the general law when the action of their Local Authority has to be controlled. So will it be in Ireland when there is a strong Central Authority in which the people have confidence. I will not dwell on the last of the points I intended to refer to that the Bill will not in any way promote the fitness of the people of Ireland for self-government. A scheme of Local Government like this, "cribbed, cabined, and confined," will afford the people no training, no teaching towards that self - government they desire, for the Local Bodies, in the exercise of the circumscribed powers allotted to them, will be threatened on every side with the power of appeal against them to control and dissolve them. If they exercise the powers which are left to them they will have the temptation held out to them to take rash and ill-considered steps, knowing that these steps can be checked and stopped, knowing that they have comparatively little responsibility for their own actions. Responsibility should accompany power; it is a safeguard to power, and when you narrow power and destroy responsibility you can have no efficient self-government. I agree with the First Lord of the Treasury that the Bill has little value. I am not surprised that he has put it lower in importance than the Land Purchase scheme, though, judging from the state of things in Ulster, that Act needs much amendment if it is to have any great result. Who is this Bill intended to please? I do not think it very much pleases the loyal minority, though one or two Members of that Party have screwed themselves up to the point of giving the Bill a qualified approval. We know it does not please the bulk of the Tory Party, if we may judge from what passed at the Birmingham meeting of Conservative Associations. I do not suppose it gives much pleasure to Members on this side of the House who retain the name of Liberals and are opposed to Home Rule, for they can hardly think it is a
      1504
      satisfactory redemption of the pledges they have given that Ireland shall have equality of treatment to England. A Bill like this "keeps the word of promise to the ear and breaks it to the hope." The Bill reminds me of the proposals for Constitutional Government for Japan, full of declarations of popular rights and recognition of the principle of representative government, with the right of elected representatives to pass legislation and vote supplies, and then at the end a clause giving to the Mikado the right in urgent cases, he being sole judge of urgency, to supersede the action of the Legislature, make his own laws, and raise his own supplies. As I look at the Bill I recall the sentiment in regard to the revolutionary Government of France, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la mêmechose." The more Bills you pass against the wishes of the people, the more appears the folly of the mistaken policy. It is time, after all our experience, that we should see this. This Bill, if passed, will only add one more to a long list of measures forced upon reluctant Ireland by an English Government, sometimes in honest ignorance, sometimes in conscious craft and insincerity; and if ever this Bill comes into operation, it will supply another proof that the only reform that will ever succeed in Ireland and bear the fruit of success in the peace and contentment of Ireland will be a reform enacted by Irishmen themselves for the better government of their own country.
      (6.48.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. William O'Brien.)
      Motion agreed to.
      Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) LAW AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 261.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      MR. CRAWFORD: I do not think there is any objection to the Second Reading of this Bill, which merely applies to Scotland the provisions of the Day Industrial Act for England.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): The Bill deals with a matter which comes under the cognizance of the Home Office, and as I think has already been explained, the Secretary of State has under his consideration a measure which includes the proposals to be found in this Bill. Pending the introduction of that Bill I understood the Second Reading of this was to be indefinitely postponed.
      MR. CRAWFORD: Not at all.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): I hope the hon. Member will postpone the Bill for a few days. The Bill my right hon. Friend hopes to introduce is in an advanced stage of preparation.
      Second Reading deferred till Friday next, at Two of the clock.

    PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 224.)

      COMMITTEE.
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—(Dr. Tanner.)
      MR. F. S. POWELL: I hope the hon. Member will allow the Committee to proceed.
      MR. BRUNNER: I join in the appeal, having my name on the back of what I believe to be an excellent Bill.
      DR. TANNER: There is plenty of time to deal with the Bill, and no necessity now to rush it through in a few minutes.
      SIR A. ROLLIT: I think there is general agreement in favour of the Bill.
      MR. F. S. POWELL: The hon. Member must know as a Member of the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee that what this Bill proposes has been approved over and over again by that Committee, and this is to embody it in the general law.
      DR. TANNER: It is precisely from being a Member of that Committee I recognise the importance of dealing with such a matter as this deliberately.
      Motion agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    ALLOTMENTS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 308.)
    Read the third time, and passsd.
    LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTON FEN) BILL.—(No. 314.)
    Read the third time, and passed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 256.)
    Read the third time, and passed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 268.)
    Read the third time, and passed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 305.)
    Read the third time, and passed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.—(No. 306.)
    Read the third time, and passed.
    METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 274.)
    Read the third time, and passed.
    GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL. (No. 295.)
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 267.)
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 304.)
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.— (No. 299.)
    Read a second time, and committed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 307.)
    Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

    CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT [REMUNERATION].
    Resolution [19th May] reported, and agreed to.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir JOHN MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged Mr. Hobhouse from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, and had appointed in substitution: Viscount Baring.
    Ordered, That the Report do lie upon the Table.

    PRIVATE BILLS.
    (Standing Order 62 complied with).
    Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with—namely, Garve and Ullapool Railway Bill.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

    PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
    (No Standing Order Applicable).
    Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Order is applicable—namely, Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Bathgate Water) Bill.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

    MOTIONS.

      POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS BILLS.
      Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do add Two Members to the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills; that, from time to time, they do divide the Committee, so augmented, into two Committees, and apportion the Bills committed to the original Committee and not already disposed of between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the orders and instructions in force in the case of the undivided Committee.
      Ordered, That Three be the quorum of each Committee.—(Mr. Stuart Wortley.)

      NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL.
      Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Naval Knights of Windsor Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Lord G. Hamilton.)

      SHOP HOURS BILL COMMITTEE.
      Ordered, That Mr. Fenwick be discharged from further attendance on the Select Committee on the Shop Hours Bill.
      Ordered, That Mr. John Wilson (Durham) be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Arnold Morley.)

    EVENING SITTING.
    Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
    House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock.