Commons Sitting of 1 March 1894

NEW INITIAL PROCEDURE FOR PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.

  NEW REGULATIONS.
  MR. SPEAKER: It may be for the convenience of the House that I should read the few short Regulations which I have thought it necessary to draw up for the purpose of carrying out the change which was proposed the other evening in the system of ballotting in connection with private Members' Bills in the early part of the Session. I propose—
  "That, to save the time of the House, the Ballot, at the commencement of next Session to determine the precedence of Notices to bring in Bills, other than Government Bills, shall be held on the second day of the Session instead of the first, in Grand Committee Room E at noon. Members are reminded that only those Notices which have been handed in at the Table during the Sitting of the House on the first day of the Session will be entitled to be included in the first Ballot to be so held. It is proposed to
  1130
  print with the Votes the Notices for Bills handed in on the first day, so that all that will have to be settled by the Ballot will be the order inter se in which the Motions for Bills are to appear on the third day of Session when the introduction, first reading, and appointing a day for the second reading on the Motion of the Member in charge of the Bill, will take place with the Speaker in the Chair as heretofore. The Ballot for Notices (other than for Bills) for the first four Tuesdays will take place in the House as usual. Members are reminded that until the Committee of Supply is set up at the conclusion of the Debate on the Address no Notices can be received for Friday on Supply."
  Subsequently—
  MR. SEXTONsubmitted, with all respect for the scheme of altered procedure, that though it, aimed at the general convenience of the House, it—as it appeared to him—would diminish the rights of private Members. Under the present system a Member could give notice before the Ballot, and might be interested in more than one Bill, any of which ho might give notice of. At the Ballot a Member might draw the most important Bill, but it would still be open to any Member to give notice as to the Bill he deemed next in importance. But the consequence of the new Rule would be that several Members would give notice of the same Bill, and when the name of one Member connected with that Bill was drawn all the other Members would be placed in this position—that they would not be able to make any use of the place they obtained by the Ballot. Croups of Members might be interested in numbers of Bills. If each Member gave notice of the Bill which he considered of most importance, only one Bill could be brought in, and the other notices would fall to the ground. He ventured to suggest that the scheme would be as convenient as the Speaker proposed it to be, and at the same time the rights of Members remain undiminished, if notice were given in that House at the Table on the first day of the new Session simply of the name of the Member, and that Member should have the right to reserve until the Ballot next day the title of the Bill which he proposed to introduce.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward a matter of such importance. I am not quite sure that the practice to which the hon. Member has alluded has not been rather abused, the Forms of the

  1131
  House originally, I believe, being that a Member can only give one notice of a Bill at the Ballot, but a number of Members have coalesced for the purpose of giving an extra chance to a particular Bill. But what the hon. Member asks, that several Members should combine for a group of Bills, would defeat the Rule that each Member should only give one notice at the Ballot. Still, I should be very happy to consult the general convenience of the House, which is my only desire.
  MR. SEXTONasked if the effect of the new plan would not be that Members would give notice of not one, but of every Bill in which they were interested, and thereby produce an inconvenient multiplicity of notices?
  *SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)thought there was another point of very great importance to be borne in mind. Many hon. Members might wish to give notice of only one Bill, and thus those who did not enter into combination with another set of Members would be placed at great disadvantage. He therefore asked the Speaker whether he would not revert to the ancient practice of putting all Members on perfect equality?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): May I suggest that as the question raises matters of considerable importance and difficulty, and as there are also matters which can hardly be carried to a satisfactory conclusion in a prolonged conversation between the Chair and Members of the House, some other method of communication might with advantage be adopted, when I have no doubt that some method of meeting the general sense of the equity of the case will, under Mr. Speaker's auspices and the guidance of his judgment, be readily attained?
  [The subject then dropped.]

QUESTIONS.

  THE REVOLUTION AT RIO.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews, &c.): On behalf of the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanark, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can yet answer the question as to the alleged
  1132
  custom of the insurgent vessels in Rio Harbour taking refuge behind British merchantmen and drawing the Government fire upon them; and whether he is prepared to give any instructions to the officer in command of the British Squadron on the subject?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask, at the same time, whether it is not a fact that the Brazilian naval officers, who head the revolt against the Marshal Dictator, have always shown themselves, as far as the conditions of civil war permitted, friendly to British interests?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GHEY,): In answer to the last question, I have to say that I am not aware that the Brazilian naval officers in question have shown anything else than impartiality as between different nations. Of course, their attention has been greatly engaged by their own affairs. In answer to the first question put to me, I have to say that reference has been made on this point to Captain Lang, who is now home, and he states that he never observed the insurgents' launches sheltering themselves under the foreign merchant vessels at the assigned anchorage, but that it is possible that they did so in the Gamboa, where merchant vessels were advised not to go. The present British senior naval officer, who was instructed to report on the subject by telegraph,denies that it is the practice for the insurgents' launches so to shelter themselves.

  THE "NASMYTH."
  MR. ANSTRUTHER: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Partick Division, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that the Liverpool steamer Nasmyth, now detained at Rio, having run out of fresh water, her captain applied to the Commander of the British Squadron for escort in carrying water to his vessel but was refused, and thereupon the United States Commander sent his steam launch as escort, and under the protection of the United States flag the Nasmyth obtained the necessary supplies; why the British Commander did not give protection under such circumstances to the British ship; and whether he will

  1133
  send instructions to the British Commander that such protection shall be given in future?
  SIR E. GREY: The statement referred to was brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government by the Clyde Sailing Shipowners' Association in the form of extracts from American newspapers, but no confirmation of such a report has been received from any other quarter, and it is desirable, more especially in the case of news which does not reach us direct from Rio, to receive more certain information before giving implicit credence to what is reported in the Press. The instructions to Her Majesty's Representatives at Rio would certainly cover such a case as that referred to. I have to add that, in view of the outbreak of yellow fever, the senior naval officer has thought it imperative, on the ground of health, to reduce the number of British warships in the harbour, and that for the same reason all the other foreign warships have left except those of the United States and one Portuguese. As long as the present conflict continues the officers and crews of merchant vessels sent to Rio run the risk of great delay in discharging their cargoes, and of very serious exposure to the fever.

  INJURIES TO BRITISH MEN AND SHIPS AT RIO
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that most of the news reaching this country from South America is cabled via New York; and if he is in a position to state the number of British ships entering and clearing Rio de Janeiro since the outbreak of the Brazilian civil war on the 6th September, and the number which have been injured by the frequent cannonade in the bay between the 24 insurgent vessels and the Government forts of Santa Cruz and Lage, or the Republican shore batteries at Nictheroy?
  SIR E. GREY: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. With reference to the second question, the annual Shipping Returns have not yet been received from Rio, and even these would not give the number of ships for any particular month. A few instances only of injury to British vessels have been reported to the Foreign Office, and
  1134
  those not of a serious nature; but one British seaman was killed by a shell when taking refuge in a shed on shore, where a Brazilian soldier was killed by the same shell; and another British sailor, when in a boat in the harbour, was wounded in the leg by a rifle bullet.

  ACTION OF FOREIGN FLEETS AT RIO.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is a fact that Lord Rosebery and Her Majesty's Government authorised the British Minister and senior naval officer at Rio de Janeiro to associate themselves last October with their foreign colleagues in preventing the threatened bombardment of the business quarter of Rio de Janeiro, replete with British interests, and that all foreign nations, with the exception of Germany, joined in the action thus initiated by Great Britain and saved the city from material damage?
  SIR E. GREY: At the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government instructions were given to the naval commanders at Rio of France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and the United States to concert with the British naval commander measures to prevent the ships of the Brazilian insurgents from destroying the lives and property of foreigners at Rio, and Rear Admiral de Mello, who threatened to bombard the town, was warned that any attack on the city would be prevented by the ships of those Powers by force if necessary. The German Government considered such action on the part of foreign naval commanders as incompatible with the attitude of strict neutrality which Germany desired to maintain, and the German naval commander did not join in the intimation made to M. de Mello.

  THE COTTON TRADE AND THE PRICE OF SILVER.
  MR. WHITELEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the serious dislocation and injury which the cotton trade in Lancashire and Cheshire is suffering owing to the recent heavy fall in the gold price of silver; and whether the Government will consider the advisability, or otherwise, of inviting the re-assembly of the International Monetary Conference?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The Government have received no intimation of the desire of any Foreign Government to assemble an International Monetary Conference, and they have no intention themselves of making a proposal of that kind, in which they see no advantage.

  SANDGATE SEA WALL.
  MR. GROVE: T beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on Sandgate by the delay in the repair of its sea wall, and of the national as well as local injury which may be incurred if another storm breaks upon that part of the coast before the damage is made good, will he at once take steps to decide whether the County Council of the locality is answerable for the repair of the aforesaid damages?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): The Local Board of Sandgate claimed, under Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1888, to retain their powers and duties with regard to the maintenance and repair of the main road referred to in the question; and, assuming that the protection of this road from the sea by a sea wall is to be regarded as maintenance of the road within the terms of the Statute, the duty devolves on the Local Board. The question, however, arises whether the County Council are liable to repay to the Local Board the cost of such works, or any part thereof; and the Local Government Board have had referred to them for arbitration a claim which has been made against the County Council for expenses incurred by the Local Board in respect of the protection of the road from the sea during the four years ended March 31, 1893. The Board have promised to hold an inquiry in the matter, but the inquiry was deferred at the request of both parties. The Board are now awaiting the receipt of certain particulars of expenditure for which they have asked, and when these have been received arrangements will be made for the holding of the inquiry.

  FREE BOOKS IN SCOTCH SCHOOLS.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland
  1136
  whether it is the duty of School Boards to provide free books for the use of children attending the schools; and why the School Board of Kilbrandon and Kilchattan has not done so?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The practice of the Department has been to regard this question in connection with administration; and in this connection the Department does not hold a school to be efficient where the supply of books is, for any reason, inadequate; while it is also held that a fixed charge for the use of these books is not consistent with Regulations which provide for the relief of fees. The practice of the Kilbraudon and Kilchattan School Board has not been made the subject of correspondence with the Department.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire why the practice is not pursued in this school?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: If any complaint reaches us from any one on this matter we will look into it?
  MR. JACKS: Is not great hardship caused to parents who move from one district to another by the fact that different books are used in different schools, and that removal often means the purchase of new books?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have received no complaint to that effect. I hold it to be important that a good deal of local latitude should be allowed to local School Boards.

  YORKSHIRE PROVIDENT LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received from the Belfast United Trades Council a statement concerning the system pursued by the Yorkshire Provident Life Assurance Company; and whether, in the interest of persons of the industrial classes who have taken out policies of insurance, he will cause the circumstances of this company to be investigated with a view to ascertaining its position and solvency?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUSDELLA,): Yes, Sir; I have had a communication from the Belfast United Trades Council on the subject referred to; but I have no power to order an

  1137
  inquiry into the affairs of the company, except on an application made to me under the provisions of Section 56 of the Companies Act, 1862, by the specified proportion of the shareholders.

  THE "FOXHOUND" AND THE STEAM TRAWLERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that numerous steam trawlers were engaged in Loch Roag and other parts around the Island of Lewis, within the three-mile limit, during the 33 days (out of 41) in which the Foxhound was lying at anchor in Stornoway Harbour, he will state how the officer in command ascertained that no trawlers were at work on the other side of the island; and whether the condition of the Foxhound is such that she cannot venture to sea during weather in which trawlers can prosecute their work without difficulty?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTEEWORTH,): The officer in command of the Foxhound reported a week ago that the Sheriff Substitute informed him that he had heard nothing of any trawlers being seen about the islands since February 7, and that there was no chance of any coming anywhere near at this time. None were seen on several days when the Foxhound was out. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.
  *MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 25 or 30 miles separated the Foxhound at Stornoway from Loch Roag and other places on the opposite side of the island? How could the Commander of the vessel see whether any trawlers were there?
  SIR U. KAY-SITLTTLEWORTH: I have said the information was obtained from the Sheriff Substitute.

  SCOTCH OFFICIALS AND THE GAELIC LANGUAGE.
  *MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether Sheriff Hill, of Dingwall, Ross-shire, has a knowledge of the Gaelic language?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.): Sheriff Hill informs me that he has not a knowledge of the Gaelic language, but that he has never found the want of it to
  1138
  occasion any difficulty in the discharge of his duties.
  MR. REN SHAW: Is it not the case that at the last General Election the voters of Ross and Cromarty itself chose as their Representative a gentleman who did not speak the Gaelic language?
  *MR. WEIR: May I be allowed to say that I am not a paid servant, whereas Sheriff Hill is?
  DR.MACGREGOR: Is it not the case that non-speaking Gaelic County Councillors have been elected because the Gaelic-speaking electors are unable to afford the expenditure of' choosing Gaelic-speaking Councillors?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The question addressed to me had no relation to the County Council. I have answered that which appears on the Paper.
  *MR. WEIR: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sir Colin Scott Moncrieff, in his evidence before the Welsh Land Commission, in answer to Question 27,122, said that Gaelic is unquestionably the language of the people, and did he not also say in answer to Question 27,123—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order That is not a question to which an answer can reasonably be expected without notice being given.

  THE LOSS OF THE "PORT YAEROCK.'
  MR. J. O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has seen in the Irish papers of 2nd February the report of an inquest held at Stradbally, on the coast of Kerry, on the bodies of Captain Forbes, first mate, charles Albert Boyle, and a Norwegian, name unknown, all of the barque Port Yarrock, which was wrecked at Brandon Bay on Monday 29th January, and 20 lives lost; whether he has read the evidence of Pilot Lynch, who stated that Captain Forbes refused the assistance of a Limerick pilot to conduct the Port Tarrock to the Shannon, and also the offer of the tug boat the Flying Huntsman to tow the Port Yarrock to safe anchorage at Fenit, on the Shannon; whether he has read the evidence of William M'Cowen, Lloyd's agent at Tralee, who deposed that when Captain Forbes reached Tralee on the 20th January, he (M'Cowen) told the captain that Brandon was not a safe anchorage, and

  1139
  offered two steamers to tow the vessel to Fenit; that M'Cowen read at the inquest copies of telegrams which he had sent to the owners and to Lloyd's warning them of the dangerous position of the Port Yarrock; that he received no reply to his messages; and that from the 20th to the 28th of January, the day of the wreck, neither Lloyd's nor the owners sent any assistance to the vessel; whether he is aware that the Fenit lifeboat failed to render any help to the crew of the Yarrock; whether M'Cowen further stated that the lifeboat at Fenit was utterly useless, and had never saved a life; whether the coroner's jury stated that within the last 40 years 23 vessels have been wrecked at Brandon Bay, and their crews lost, and that a coastguard station, with an efficient crew and life-saving apparatus, should be established at Brandon, and that a telegraph station at Castlogregory is absolutely indispensable in view of the frequent shipwrecks and loss of life on that part of the coast of Kerry; whether the owners of the Port Yarrock have been asked to explain their failure to send the promised tug boat to the assistance of Captain Forbes; and whether any steps will be taken by the Board of Trade to give practical effect to the suggestions of the coroner's Jury?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have already informed the House on two previous occasions that I have ordered a formal inquiry to be held into the loss of the Port Yarrock, and that, pending the result of that inquiry, I think it only right that I should defer making any definite statement with regard to the several points raised in the question. I may, however, add that, according to Board of Trade records, only seven vessels have been wrecked and eight lives lost in Brandon Bay since January 1, 1865.

  THE CLERICAL STAFF AT THE ADMIRALTY.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an inquiry is about to be held on the clerical staff of the Accountant General's and each of the other Departments of the Admiralty, in order to determine the normal establishment; and, if so, whether he will cause the clerks of the Second Division (who comprise
  1140
  more than two-thirds of the entire permanent clerical staff) to be represented on the Committee of Inquiry by one of their number?
  *SIR U. KAY-SIIUTTLEWORTH: The Admiralty are considering the question of the normal clerical establishment of the various Admiralty Departments. Any such inquiry will be conducted by officers of administrative experience in the Civil Service. In so far as the inquiry may affect the position of Second Division clerks in the Admiralty, full consideration will be shown for their interests.

  WELSH CENSUS RETURNS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the Census Returns, in which it is reported that the instruction as to language issued by the Commissioners was either misunderstood or set at naught by a large number of Welshmen; that, though children under two years were excluded from the language tables, nevertheless in one parish 59 and in another 87 babies were returned as monoglot Welsh; that there are good grounds for regarding with much suspicion the trustworthiness of the statements as to persons of riper years; and whether, considering the importance attached to the subject, and the opinion of the Commissioners that the number of monoglot Welsh persons is considerably overstated, he will cause a fresh inquiry to be made, and take steps for the punishment both of those who have wilfully made false Returns, and of those who, by persuading the people to falsify the Returns, have become accessory to the violation of the Statute?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am aware of the observations contained in the Report on the Census of 1891 with respect to the subject referred to in the question; but I have no power to direct a fresh inquiry to be made as to the number of persons speaking Welsh. The Registrar General informs me that he has no evidence of persons having wilfully and knowingly made false Returns in Wales, and even if evidence wore forthcoming the time within which proceedings could be taken under the Census Act,. 1891, against persons for

  1141
  wilfully making false Returns has long since expired.
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.): May I ask whether there is not good ground for believing or suspecting that the objections raised by the hon. Member for Oswestry to the Welsh Census Returns apply equally to persons therein returned as English monoglots? Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that any inquiry he may direct will cover these cases?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon, &c.)also asked a question on the subject.
  MR.H.H. FOWLERpromised to give his attention to the points raised by the hon. Members.

  PROPOSED FEVER HOSPITAL AT CHINGFORD.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is true that; the Walthamstow Local Board have acquired a site for a fever hospital in the adjoining parish of Chingford, and that the purchase has been sanctioned by the Local Government Board, although there are available sites within the Walthamstow area; and if he is aware that the inhabitants of Chingford were never consulted as to the purchase of this site, and that no opportunity has been afforded them of lodging an objection, the Local Government Board having refused to receive a deputation from Chingford on the matter?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is the case that the Local Government Board have sanctioned a loan to enable the Walthamstow Local Board to purchase a site for a fever hospital at Chingford; but I have no information to show that there were available sites within the district of the Local Board. A local inquiry was held by one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board before the loan was sanctioned, and all persons interested were at liberty to attend and be hoard at the inquiry. No application as to the attendance of a deputation from Chingford on this subject was received by the Local Government Board until after the loan had been sanctioned. So far as the Board were concerned, the matter was then at an end.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I may state that my constituents had no knowledge of the inquiry referred to being held, and
  1142
  were therefore unable to be represented at it. Are they, under these circumstances, to have no chance of being heard at all?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Full notice by advertisement was given of the inquiry, and I can therefore hardly understand how they could be in total ignorance. My experience is, that such notices usually bring large numbers of persons to the inquiries.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: It would be hard if, under the circumstances, my constituents were debarred from being heard on the question by the Local Government Board.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Of course, I desire that all persons interested shall be hoard on the matter. I will ask the hon. Member to put down the question again, and in the meantime will make special inquiry.

  MONITORS' EXAMINATIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Roscommon, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in what cases, and for what periods, are schools deprived of their teaching services of monitors by reason of the failure of such monitors to pass the 1st of July examination; and will he recommend that for the future the appointment or apportionment of monitors to schools for each year shall take place after the monitors have passed these examinations, so that the schools may run no risk of being deprived of the assistance to which their attendance entitles them?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEV, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): The examinations which are held in Jul)' are for the third year of service, or in the extended course for the fifth year. If the monitor failed at either, the Commissioners of National Education take all the circumstances into consideration when determining whether a new appointment, or any appointment, shall be made. The appointment, or apportionment, of monitors to schools is determined some time prior to July in anticipation of the probable number of vacancies that will occur on the 1st July when the monitorial year commences. Should a monitor of the third year of service fail at the July examination, which failure

  1143
  could not, of course, be anticipated by the Inspector, a successor cannot be appointed for 12 months—i.e., the appointment, if approved, would be from the 1st July following. Failure indicates, unless otherwise satisfactorily explained, a lack of training capacity on the part of the teacher. The Commissioners are not prepared to make any change in their rule on this subject, and no change has been recommended to them by any of their Inspectors or other educational authorities.

  NEWTOWNBUTLER PETTY SESSIONAL BENCH.
  MR. SEXTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the Magisterial Bench in Newtownbutler, County Fermanagh; whether in view of the fact that on the last Petty Sessions day, 20th instant, a number of people were greatly disappointed that their cases could not be gone into on account of there being no Magistrate to deal with them, he will direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter, so that some of the long-promised appointments to the Bench in this district may be made at once; whether he is aware that the Lord Chancellor has had a number of names submitted for his consideration sometime ago; and whether he is aware that in this district, although Catholics form one-half of the population, they have hitherto been excluded from the Magistracy?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: No Magistrate attended at these Petty Sessions on the day in question. The Lord Chancellor informs mo the names of two Roman Catholic gentlemen have been submitted to him for appointment. One has been appointed, and the other will be as soon as the necessary formalities are completed.

  EARLY TRAINS FOE WORKWOMEN.
  MR. A. C.MOJKTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that places of business where women are largely employed in the Metropolis do not open until 8 in the morning, and that, consequently, women using, as they are obliged to do, the early workmen's trains, are compelled to wait about the
  1144
  railway stations and in the streets for an hour until their places of business open, he will endeavour to arrange, by representation to the Railway Companies or otherwise, that workwomen shall have the privilege of travelling by train at workmen's trains' fares up to 8 o'clock in the morning?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have had no complaints as to any deficiency of accommodation provided for workwomen employed in the Metropolis. As a matter of fact, I am aware that the arrangement referred to by the hon. Member is in force on several of the lines entering London.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give notice to the Railway Companies with a view to their following the example set by some of them?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think the Railway Companies generally are doing it. If there are any causes of complaint to which my hon. Friend can draw attention, I shall be very glad to look into, the matter.

  OVERTIME FOR WORKGIRLS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Workshops and Factory Acts sanction the employment of young girls, 16 years of age and upwards, in envelope manufactories for 12 hours every day of the week (excepting Saturday), and for two hours additional as overtime (making 14 hours a-day) on 48 days in every 12 months; and whether he will be prepared to favourably consider any proposal for modifying the Code regulating the hours of labour in such manufactories that may be brought forward especially as to abolishing overtime where long hours are already worked?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): By the 53rd section and 3rd Schedule, Part 3, of the Factory Act, 1878, not only girls above 16 years of age, but all young persons can work two hours' overtime with an extra half-hour for meals for five days in the week on not more than 48 days in the year, not only in envelope making, but in dressmaking, letter-press printing, bookbinding, and sundry other trades. I hope in an amending Bill to reduce the number

  1145
  of days per week on which overtime can be worked.

  THE FIGHTING IN WEST AFRICA.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BAETLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received any further information about the recent fighting in West Africa?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Admiralty received a telegram yesterday from Admiral Bedford, dated Bathurst, February 28, giving the following views: —
  "The wounded are making favourable progress and are comfortably housed on shore. Generally speaking, the condition of affairs remains unchanged. The Phoebe, with 50 marines, sailed from Simon's Town on Tuesday."
  I may add that other arrangements to add to the forces at the disposal of Admiral Bedford at Bathurst have been made by the Admiralty.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
    That they do not insist on certain of their last Amendments to the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill, to which this House has disagreed; but have made Amendments in lieu thereof, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; and insist on one other of their said Amendments, for which they assign their Reason; and do not insist on the rest of their said Amendments; and agree to the further Consequential Amendments made by this House to the Hill without any Amendment; and agree to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the Amendments last made by the Lords without any Amendment; and agree to the rest of the said Amendments made by this House with Amendments and with Consequential Amendments to the Bill, to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Ordered, that the Lords Reasons and Lords Amendments to Amendments last made by the Commons, and further Consequential Amendments to the Bill, be printed. [Bill 487.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Lords Reasons, and the Lords Amendments to the Amendments last made by the Commons, and the further Consequential Amendments to the Bill, be considered forthwith."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, the more usual course in this House in dealing with the Lords Amendments to a Bill which has been sent by us to the Lords is to take the Amendments seriatim, but on the present occasion it has been found necessary by the Government to regard them as a whole, and to arrive at their own decision upon them as a whole. Therefore, I think it more convenient that, as far as we are concerned, we should inform the House of what we propose and what we advise with regard to those Amendments jointly rather than proceed to consider them one by one. Now, since the sitting of the House of Lords yesterday, the Government have had a question to consider of very considerable difficulty. Two Amendments have been made in the Bill by the Lords; on both of them the Government strongly dissent from the House of Lords. They dissent so strongly that they could under no circumstances be party to a final arrangement for incorporating them into the law of the country as a settled matter which was to be regarded as placed beyond the reach of future alteration and amendment. The first thing that has occurred to us is this: that this operation of sending and re-sending and again re-sending backwards and forwards between the two Houses this particular Bill is an operation which has continued long enough. I am very far, Sir, from making that observation in the interest of one House or of the other House in particular, because I confess it appears to me, and it does appear to us, that if we were to prolong this operation the result would be a considerable loss of dignity to both. Houses, approaching, at a certain point, in the face of the country, almost to the ridiculous. We have concluded with respect to this Bill that the operation should cease and that we should adopt a decisive course. The Lords' decision that I have mentioned constituted for us

  1147
  no difficulty. The next question, however, was one of very considerable difficulty. The choice before us was to reject the Amendments of the Lords, and with the rejection of the Amendments of the Lords to give up practically the hope of passing the Bill. The other alternative was to accept them, as I have said, under protest, with the hope and intention, as far as the present Ministers are concerned, that on some future opportunity, which they hope will be an early one, those Amendments, and especially the second Amendment, would be reversed and effaced. The first Amendment touches the question as between a population of 200 and a population of 300 as the qualification for a Parish Council. In raising the number from 200 to 300 the House of Lords, we think, have been ill-advised in disregarding a decision which was arrived at in this House by a very considerable majority, by no means confined to the usual supporters of the Government. We regret that decision very much, but the second Amendment is of a more serious character still. The Debates have been long, and need not, I think, be renewed, upon our several views with respect to the mode of determining the constitution of the parish trusts; but we have frankly adopted the principle, which has also been adopted and has been repeatedly stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, that the charities are the property of the parish community. We have thought, and we still think, that the conclusive direction and management of the charities ought to remain, and remain permanently, with the representatives of the parish community. We have had many Debates in the House upon that subject; but the course which the Lords have taken has been with the intention, perhaps, of circumventing or avoiding the difficulty, but it appears to us that it has landed us in another difficulty of the most serious kind. The question whether a majority of the representatives of the parish are to have a commanding control over the charities is, for us, a question of principle. The Charity Commissioners may be conveniently the authority to prevent the undue multiplication of trustees, and to prevent, therefore, the trust from becoming what is termed unworkable. Nor
  1148
  have I, for one, and I do not think my colleagues have, any jealousy of the spirit in which the Charity Commissioners discharge their trust; but to hand over to the Charity Commissioners the business of deciding this great question—whether the controlling influence and authority in the management of these charities is to be given or not to the parochial community—is, in our opinion, the transfer to them of a duty of a very high class, and one that it behaves Parliament, and Parliament only, to deal with, and in principle to settle. Then we have to come to another question—what is the alternative? We cannot doubt, after what has happened, that the alternative is the loss of the Bill. We acquiesced in the loss of an important Bill the other day on account of an objectionable Amendment, but the reason why we took that course was because we thought the objectionable Amendment tended to vitiate the whole working and operation of the Bill. Now, here it is not so. The character of this Amendment, however objectionable it may be, is limited to the particular subject-matter. It does not interfere with the great extension of the principles of local government, which the Bill contemplates, and which it affects. It is a mischief. In our opinion it is a gross mischief. In our opinion it is a mischief which will have to be removed upon an opportunity as early as can reasonably be found for the purpose; but, at the same time, it is a mischief limited to this portion of the objects and purposes of the Bill, and it leaves all the rest of the Bill to work freely and undisturbed. Under these circumstances, we have arrived at the conclusion that it would not be well to wreck the whole work of the Session. Except this Bill, nearly the whole work of the Session has been wrecked. This Bill touches matters of such great importance and such lively interest to the whole rural population of the country that we could not make up our minds to part with the opportunity which it offered us of placing it upon the Statute Book. We have therefore reluctantly determined, in reference to these Amendments, which we think so objectionable, to withdraw our opposition to them for a time, but to withdraw it under protest. We cannot consent to be understood as accepting these Amendments, and especially the

  1149
  second Amendment, as a settled matter; but, on the contrary, we look to a reversal, and we hope an early reversal, of the unfortunate decision which has been arrived at by the House of Lords. I have no doubt there are many—and I sympathise with them in many respects—who would have been ready even to sacrifice the Bill rather than allow the Amendments to go forward, and at any rate temporarily to take their place upon the Statute Book. Still, I must observe that the sacrifice of the Bill forms part of a most serious question—a question which has long been serious, which, I am sorry to say, has grown more and more serious with the lapse of time, and which during the present Session has arrived at a stage of peculiar acuteness and peculiar magnitude. We look, therefore, Sir at the question of the acceptance of these Amendments as part of a whole. We look at the acceptance of them, not as closing a controversy, except for the moment, but as handing on that prolonged controversy, which in our judgment it will be the duty of Parliament to continue until it has arrived at a satisfactory settlement. But if we were prepared to attempt to destroy what I call the whole work of the Session by consigning this Bill to the temporary oblivion to which the Irish Government Bill—[Interruption, and ironical Opposition laughter] I do not join, and I am pleased to see the large majority of those who sit opposite do not join, in the manifestation that escaped from some hon. Members. Sir, the fact is that these Amendments, and the treatment of several Bills of great importance, which this House has sent to the House of Lords after unexampled labour, raises a question of the gravest character. Two of these Bills—the Irish Government Bill and the Employers' Liability Bill— occupied this House for more than 100 days, and Ave meet here at the end of a Session which has doubled almost any Session upon record in the amount and intensity of its labours for the purposes of what we thought, and what the majority thought, beneficial legislation. This is a very old question. As long ago as the year 1880 a small work was published— small but of importance far out of proportion to its size—called Fifty Years of the House of Lords. It was published under the auspices of, I believe, Members
  1150
  of this House of great authority. But the matter of that book left upon the mind, I think, of every gentleman associated with the Liberal Party who read it the painful but firm conviction that the case of the House of Lords for these 50 years in the exercise of its legislative functions was a case, upon the whole, grievously unsatisfactory. NOW, Sir, Ave have come to a more acute stage of the controversy. The question is whether the work of the House of Lords is not merely to modify, but to annihilate the whole work of the House of Common?, work which has been performed at an amount of sacrifice—of time, of labour, of convenience, and perhaps of health— but at any rate an amount of sacrifice totally unknown to the House of Lords? Well, Sir, we have not been anxious—I believe I speak for my colleagues, I know I speak my who convictions—Ave have not been desirous to precipitate or unduly to accentuate a crisis. We have been desirous to save something from the wreek of the Session's work. We feel that this Bill is a Bill of such value that, upon the whole, great as Ave admit the objections to be to the acceptance of these Amendments, the objections are still greater and weightier to a course which would lead to the rejection of the Bill. We are compelled to accompany that acceptance with the sorrowful declaration that the differences, not of a temporary or casual nature merely, but differences of conviction, differences of prepossession, differences of mental habit, and differences of fundamental tendency, between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, appear to have reached a development in the present year such as to create a state of things of which we are compelled to say that, in our judgment, it cannot continue. Sir, I do not wish to use hard words, which are easily employed and as easily retorted—it is a game that two can play at—but without using hard words, without presuming to judge of motives, without desiring or venturing to allege imputations, I have felt it a duty to state what appeared to me to be indisputable facts. The issue which is raised between a deliberative Assembly, elected by the votes of more than 6,000,000 people, and a deliberative Assembly occupied by many men of virtue, by many men of talent, of course

  1151
  with considerable diversities and varieties, is a controversy which, when once raised, must go forward to an issue. The issue has been postponed, long postponed, I rejoice to say; it has been postponed, in many cases to a considerable degree, by that discretion, circumspection, and reserve in the use of enormous privileges which the House of Lords, on various occasions in my recollection, in the time of the Duke of Wellington, Lord Aberdeen, and other periods, have shown; but I am afraid, Sir, that the epoch, the age of that reserve and circumspection, may have gone by. I will not abandon all hope of it, but I must say of the present, I do not like to say that the situation is intolerable, because that is a hard and, may seem, a dictatorial word—but I think hon. Gentlemen opposite must feel, as I feel, that in some way or other a solution will have to be found for this tremendous contrariety and incessant conflict upon matters of high principle and profound importance between the Representatives of the people and those who fill a nominated or non-elected Chamber. It is not with the House of Commons to pronounce a judgment on this subject. The House of Commons is itself a party in the case. I have no difficulty in pronouncing a judgment on behalf of the Ministry in issues that have been raised throughout this year between the two Houses. We take frankly, fully, and finally, the side of the House of Commons. The House of Commons could not be a final judge in its own case, and I am by no means anxious to preeipitate proceedings of that kind, however they may be invited by an impatience most natural in the circumstances of the case. No doubt, Sir, there is a higher authority than the House of Commons. It is the authority of the nation which must in the last resort decide. [An hon. MEMBER: At once.] Happily, we know that we, all of us, are sufficiently trained in the habits of Constitutional freedom to regard that issue as absolutely final upon one and upon all alike of every one of these subjects. The time when that judgment is to be invited, and the circumstances under which it is to be invited, of course, constitute a question of the gravest character, and one which the Executive Government of the day can alone consider and decide. My duty terminates by
  1152
  calling the attention of the House to the fact, which it is really impossible to set aside, that in considering these Amendments—limited as their scope may seem to some to be— we are considering apart, an essential and inseparable part, of a question enormously large, a question which has become profoundly acute, which will demand a settlement, and must receive at an early date that settlement, from the highest authority. In these circumstances, the House will understand that we have not dealt lightly with this matter; that if we give advice to accept the Bill as it comes to us, undoubtedly a damaged and a mutilated Bill, we have given that advice under the gravest sense of our responsibility; and that, considering the nature of the issue to which we have adverted, we are unwilling to do anything in our power for the purpose of unnecessarily stimulating the sharpness of the crisis, by consigning to destruction the only important, the only very important and truly national portion remaining of the arduous work of the Session now expiring. Having said this, and thanking the House for the attention they have given me, I have only to signify that it is the intention of the Government to acquiesce in the Amendments which have been made by the House of Lords.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Sir, as regards the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech—the least important part and the most relevant part—I have very little to say. The right hon. Gentleman has announced in moderate language the very wise decision, in my judgment, at which the Government have arrived. He has told us, and I am sure every man will agree with him, on whatever side of the House he sits, that the idea of abandoning a Bill of the magnitude of the Parish Councils Bill, which has taken up so much Parliamentary time, and on which so much of our work has been expended, and to abandon it for no other reason than that in one corner of one clause the House of Lords have re-introduced, in a very qualified form, the original clause of the Government, would have been a course so grotesquely absurd that no hope, if hope were entertained, of deriving electoral advantage from it could possibly induce any responsible Government to adopt it, or think seriously of doing so. The right hon.

  1153
  Gentleman has told us that, though under protest he agrees to the Amendments sent down from the House of Lords, he regards the second Amendment especially as so essentially a question of principle that he intends to re-open it. Why, Sir, it became a principle of the Government on the 17th of November last. It became a principle of the Government about 10 o'clock on that night. At 6 o'clock on the same day they had quite a different principle, which it now appears they have wholly abandoned. On that day, and at that hour, the Member in charge of the Bill, representing the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite, came down and told this House that the provision, not the amended, modified, and qualified provision which the Lords have now sent down to us, but the Amendment sent down by them two days ago, represented the distinct statement of policy made by the Government, and that it was impossible as a matter of honour and principle of political wisdom for the Government to recede from it. Well, Sir, it has been frankly admitted that, in declining to wreck and smash the Bill because we had adhered to their honour and to their political wisdom, it would have been an absurdity beyond all the legislative absurdities ever attempted or committed in this House. After all, it was not the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which created most interest in the House. It was the second part. And what was that second part? Veiled, no doubt, in the dignified language which the right hon. Gentleman always has at his command, it was nothing else than a declaration of war against the ancient Constitution of these realms. The right hon. Gentleman has made this the occasion of a brief survey of the history of the House of Lords for the last 50 years, and especially of the history of the House of Lords during the last few months. Of the last 50 years I will say nothing. It is a subject on which I could speak; but it would be irrelevant to the question before us. It is more to the purpose to discuss the particular issues which have been raised, and which the right hon. Gentleman, speaking with his responsibility, thinks afford an adequate cause for the utterance of these vague, these covert threats. [An hon. MEMBER:
  1154
  Not covert.] What is the offence of the House of Lords as regards this Bill? That is the matter with which we are primarily concerned. It is that on a subject on which they were by training and knowledge especially qualified to speak —[Ironical cheers]—as well qualified to speak as the hon. Gentleman from Ireland who has interrupted me with that ironical cheer—on a Bill on which they were specially qualified to speak—a very long and complicated Bill—they have sent down to this House two Amendments which in no sense deal with the personal interests of any Member of the House of Lords, which concern matters of public moment, which do not touch a vital principle of the Bill, which are essentially, in their relation to the Bill, matters of detail — the House of Lords actually dared, on a question of such character and on such a Bill, to express an opinion. The right hon. Gentleman thinks this is an offence so serious—I do not know against whom, but I suppose against this House—that he tolls us he and his friends are going to start an agitation in favour of a domestic revolution. I do not know what alternative scheme for our present Constitution is going to be proposed by these gentlemen. I presume the majority of them will still adhere to the view pretty universally accepted by civilised people —namely, that legislation cannot be safely and wisely conducted except by the existence of a Second Chamber. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] I did not say it was right: I said it was universally accepted; so it is. [Mr. LABOCCIIEKE was understood to dissent.] I am not speaking of the hon. Member for Northampton; I am saying that the civilised world, which does not necessarily include the hon. Member for Northampton, has hitherto been of opinion that two Chambers are necessary to wise legislation. I say that whatever, in your wisdom, you are going to substitute for the House of Lords, you will never find a Chamber that will be content not to exorcise the very modest amount of control over the details of our legislation which the House of Lords has exercised in relation to the Parish Councils Bill. The idea of starting an agitation against the House of Lords because the House of Lords wishes to introduce the Charity Commission as: a body to which to refer charity trusts,

  1155
  is really so humorous that nobody but the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) can fittingly deal with it on a platform. I admit that, although an attack on the House of Lords in regard to this Bill would be exceedingly absurd, the action they have taken on the other Bill referred to by the right hon. Gentleman is, undoubtedly, of a serious character. Undoubtedly, the summary rejection of the Home Rule Bill was an act on the part of the House of Lords which proved the value of the part they are called upon to play in the Constitution of the country. I do not know whether it is on the rejection of the Home Rule Bill that the agitation is going to take place. [Ministerial cheer s.] That I can understand. That really was an important piece of legislative, or rather anti-legislative, work; that really was a great exercise of the authority and privilege given them by the Constitution. Are you going to denounce them for it to the country? If you denounce them in the country, are you going to get large audiences? Do you anticipate the agitation you promise yourselves so much advantage from will have much fuel supplied to it by the really important action taken by the House of Lords during the last two years? If that is your prophecy you read the signs of the times very differently from what we do. My belief is that, so far from the action of the House of Lords in the last year and a half having diminished their power with the people of this country, or convinced the people of this country that they could do without the House of Lords, I believe that for the first time you have brought home to the great masses of Englishmen and Scotchmen that their interests are not safe in the hands of a Party majority, unless that majority be controlled by another Assembly whensoever it betrays the interests of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has told us to-night that he is not closing a controversy—he is carrying it on; but he told us that it has reached an acuter stage than it ever did before. His whole 'speech, however moderate in tone, was in substance a declaration of war. Let me tell him that Ave, against whom that war is declared—we who do still believe in the ancient Constitution of these realms—look forward without dismay to the fight. We are not perturbed by these
  1156
  obscure threats. We know, or at least we most firmly believe, that the tribunal to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and which he truly said is the ultimate Court of Appeal before whom all these great suits must be decided—we firmly believe that that tribunal, the people who sent us here, share with us the conviction that the House of Lords, so far from abusing the trust committed to it—a trust which it not less than we owe to the people of this country—has vindicated its continued claim to the confidence of the country. And, for my part, I wish for nothing better than to see hon. Gentlemen opposite attempting to stir up the country on the issue which will be laid before it—namely, that the House of Lords was or was not rightly guarding the interests of the majority of English men and Scotchmen by exercising its power of veto over the Home Rule proposals of the Government.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I cannot express the admiration with which I have listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend, and also my admiration of the vigour and eloquence with which the First Lord of the Treasury addressed us. If at this period of the Session we are commencing a battle royal on the Constitution of the country and the disestablishment of the House of Lords, I fear we shall never get to the Newcastle Programme and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. I think the Prime Minister has attached undue importance to the Amendments on this Bill sent down by the House of Lords. Even if the Amendments made by the House of Lords were unnecessary, they seem to me to furnish a very slender basis on which to rest a declaration of war against the House of Lords; yet, if the House of Lords had not passed these two Amendments, the right hon. Gentleman would not have proposed the destruction of the House of Lords. Are you to destroy the Lords for insisting upon these Amendments? I think, however, they were not necessary for the perfection of the Bill. But if it be the case that the Amendments are not necessary for the actual finishing off of the Bill, I do not see how the destruction of the House of Lords is to be based upon them. They seem to form a slender basis for a declaration of

  1157
  war against the House of Lords. What I would draw special attention to is that if the House of Lords had not passed these two Amendments the right hon. Gentleman would not have proposed the destruction of that House. I do not gather that the right hon. Gentleman would destroy the House of Lords for rejecting the Home Rule Bill, and I do not think he would destroy it for insisting on the insurance arrangement in the Employers' Liability Bill, though I admit that I was sorry they did so. These are not matters for which you destroy and level to the ground a second Chamber. I must point out to the Leader of the House that there are some Bills which the House of Lords is bound to examine and amend, and in regard to which it is sometimes bound to insist on its Amendments to a certain extent. I should like to mention the kind of Bills that I think the House of Lords is really entitled to amend. There are Bills which involve great national questions—great English questions and great Irish questions. They may be of largo extent, and may involve very large changes, and they may be very novel in their form. I will give the right hon. Gentleman some instances of Bills of that character. There was the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. That Bill when it went to the House of Lords was amended largely. All the Amendments were not accepted, hut the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will recollect that the dexterity and skill of Lord Cairns persuaded him and his advisers to accept many of them. I will take another Bill of great magnitude—namely, the Land Bill of 1871. That Bill was amended by the House of Lords, and the First Lord of the Treasury accepted many of the Amendments. Then I will take the Land Bill of 1881, also a large measure, and a very novel one. The House of Lords made Amendments in that Bill, and many of them were accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. There was no outcry at the times I refer to that the House of Lords was violating the Constitution by amending those Bills. The Amendments were subject to a Conference between the two Houses, and there was no agitation got up in the country, because the House of Lords had passed them. The Bills were large and novel, proposing changes in the laws of
  1158
  the country that had never been made or suggested before. But let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a great change in the composition of the House of Lords since the period between 1868 and 1880. There was not in those days the tremendous disparity between the numbers of Parties which marks the House of Lords now. What that is due to I cannot say, but it certainly creates peculiar effects, and it renders it more difficult undoubtedly for a very large part of the House of Lords to discriminate so carefully between Bills like those which the House has been occupied with during the autumn and winter and the large Constitutional measures which it is the duty of the House of Lords to examine most carefully and to amend. It is desirable to bear in mind that the House of Lords on these few Amendments was by no means unanimous, and the majorities were small. One majority was only five, and the other was only 32, while on each occasion the minority was over 50. It is absurd to take the whole of the House of Lords and denounce them in a, speech like that which we have heard this evening and to proclaim a long-protracted agitation throughout the country for the abolition of the House of Lords simply because on one Amendment 50 Beers voted one way and 55 another, while on another I think 51 voted on one side and 83 on the other. I confess I would have liked to have the Local Government Bill finished on Monday night. I thought that all dispute was over. I would have liked to see the Employers' Liability Bill passed into law, because of the 2,000,000 of working men—of miners, artisans, operatives, and workmen of every class— who would thereby have obtained the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. I regret what has happened to those Bills, but I say they form no foundation for revolutionary changes, and I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can, without notice and without any foundation for his tremendous edifice of denunciation, pile Pelion on Ossa in holding up the House of Lords to the execration of the nation. I think the House of Lords has great rights, and I do not believe it is in the power of any statesman to abrogate or limit those rights, but I own that the rights must be

  1159
  used for great legislative and constitutional purposes. It has generally been the custom of the House of Lords to use them in that way, and I think the custom has not been widely departed from on the present occasion. I associate myself entirely with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) in the sentiments he expressed when he said that no more hopeless, no more futile scheme could a Party embark upon than that of trying to destroy the House of Lords. I have been ranch about the country, particularly in the course of last year— perhaps more than any Member of the House has been—and I have found that the House of Lords could not be more popular than it is. The action of the House of Lords, on the Home Rule Bill particularly, will always be remembered with gratitude in the country. I think the immemorial service which the House of Lords rendered to the nation with regard to that Bill will not be obliterated by faults which I admit, and which I would rather for the sake of the legislative business of Parliament had not been committed, but which are faults that cannot be seen in the blaze of the rejection of the Home Rule Bill by so enormous a majority. With these words I leave the great Constitutional question —a question which ought never to have been raised. If the Government like to raise next Session the question of the abolition of the House of Lords there is not a man on this side of the House who will not be ready to take part in the Debate. If the Government think that it is likely to conduce to the success of the Newcastle Programme, to conduce to the progress of the business of the Session, and to conduce to the strengthening of the Navy to raise this Constitutional question on the top of the immense Constitutional question of the Union, I invite them to act upon that opinion. Nothing could be more satisfactory to us, or more likely to conduce to a transference of our forces from this side of the House to that; and if the right hon. Gentleman will continue in that line of Constitutional reform I think he will find no more willing opponents than those who sit in this part of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 1, line 10, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose, in lieu thereof, the following Amendment:—In page 1, line 10, leave out "two," and insert "three."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  MR. STOREYsaid, he understood this to be the Amendment which would prevent parishes with less than 300 inhabitants necessarily having Parish Councils. As the House knew, he never voted against a thing simply because the House of Lords had proposed it, nor did he accept a thing simply because the House of Lords insisted on it. His view upon the merits of this particular case was that a parish with less than 300 inhabitants had as much right to have a Parish Council by law as a parish with more than 300 inhabitants. His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed to agree to the Amendment because the House of Lords insisted upon it. But he (Mr. Storey) asked the House, and he thought he might ask the country, in what proportion had the House of Lords insisted upon it? Sixty Members voted for insisting on it, and 55 against. Even in his own House the Tory Leader could not carry his own Party with him; on the contrary, the Liberal Party had been reinforced by a very considerable number of Tories and Unionists. If he thought the Prime Minister had been right in one observation, he would not vote against him. The right hon. Gentleman had said they had to choose between accepting the Amendment and losing the Bill. He would, however, point out that this was a new Amendment, and consequently it could have been considered and sent back to the Lords. No doubt this would have involved the loss of another day, but he did not believe the other House would have insisted upon the Amendment. The Prime Minister had made a very powerful speech upon the relations between the two Houses. He (Mr. Storey) hoped that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government were in earnest. He had heard such speeches before, though they had not been quite so pronounced. If the Government were in earnest, and if

  1161
  the present Leader or any future Leader would be resolute in the matter, they would have plenty of men behind them in the country. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman's speech were but as the sound of heavy artillery to cover a retreat, a crusade against the House of Lords would be an impossibility. He had a strong view that when there was a division of opinion between an elected House and a House—
  MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the discussion must now be confined to the particular Amendment of the Lords. We have passed from the general discussion of the consideration of the Lords Amendments.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he quite understood that, but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had, amongst other reasons for agreeing to the Amendment, given the reason he was just alluding to. Because he thought the House of Lords wrong and the Government right he held it to be the duty of the House to divide against the Amendment, to show that it did not agree with the House of Lords.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords proposals agreed to—
  The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 3, line 40, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose, in lieu thereof, the following Amendment:—
  In page 3, line 40, after "meetings," insert" convened by the chairman of the parish meeting, or by the Parish Council, or if as to allotments in the manner prescribed by 'The Allotments Act, 1890,' or otherwise as the Local Government Board may by rule prescribe."
  The Lords agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 9, line 21, with the following Amendments:—
  In line 2 of Sub-section (5), leave out "representation be made by," and insert "proceeding is taken on the petition of:"—and at the end of the said sub-section, add "Any Order made under this sub-section overruling the decision of the County Council shall be laid before Parliament by the Local Government Board."
  In line 4 of Sub-section (6), as amended by the Commons, leave out "shall be," and insert "by some person interested is."
  At the end of Sub-section (16), add "and the Parish Council shall have the like power of petitioning the County Council as is given to six Parliamentary electors by Section 2 of 'The Allotments Act, 1890.'"
  The Lords propose, as Consequential Amendments:—In Clause 10, page 10, line 29, after
  1162
  "fourteen years," to insert "nor more than thirty-live years," and at the end of Sub-section (l),as amended, to insert "and that section shall apply as if it were herein re-enacted, with the substitution of 'hiring' for 'purchase,' and with the other necessary modifications."
  In page 11, line 38, leave out the whole of Sub-section (5).
  Clause 10, page 12, line 7, insert "County Council or," before "Local Government Board."
  In page 12, leave out lines 11 to 13 (Subsection (8)).
  Further Lords proposal read—
  The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 14, line 37, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—Page 15, leave out lines 1 to 23, Sub-section (3), and insert,— '? Where the Governing Body of a parochial charity other than an ecclesiastical charity does not include any persons elected by the ratepayers or parochial electors, or inhabitants of the parish or appointed by the Parish Council or parish meeting, the Parish Council may appoint additional members of that Governing Body not exceeding the number allowed by the Charity Commissioners in each case, and if the management of any such charity is vested in a sole trustee, the number of trustees may, with the approval of the Charity Commissioners, be increased to three, one of whom may be nominated by such sole trustee, and one by the Parish Council or parish meeting. Nothing in this sub-section shall prejudicially affect the power or authority of the Charity Commissioners, under any of the Acts relating to charities, to settle or alter schemes for the better administration of any charity."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  MR. STOREYsaid, that those of them who dissented from the course taken this afternoon made, of course, every consideration for the views of the Government and the difficulties of the time; but they did not think it desirable that so important a matter as this should pass without protest from those who felt strongly on the matter. The point was this: The House of Commons had insisted from the first upon the elective element having control over charities. There were some on that (the Ministerial) side of the House who thought the Government never went far enough. Many of them had thought that inasmuch as the charities belonged to the people of the parish the management of the charities should be under the control of the people of the parish. Those Members were content to accept the Amendment which was finally settled

  1163
  by the House of Commons. The House of Lords had now proposed that the control of the charities need not be necessarily under the management of the people at all. The judgment of himself and his friends was that that was a serious invasion of the rights of the parishes and of the poor people of the country districts. Although they did not wish in any way to indicate that they were at variance with Her Majesty's Government they thought it their duty to their constituents to make a protest by way of a Division.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, he would appeal to his hon. Friend not to put the House to the trouble of a Division. Every Member who represented an Agricultural Division in the House, and who listened to the speech of the Prime Minister, must know that the care of this question and of all other questions which were to be dealt with in the future were safe in his hands and of those of Her Majesty's Ministers. They knew what the history of the Bill had been. They knew that the reiteration of this Amendment in different forms by the House of Lords was part of a concerted plan to destroy the Bill—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not in Order in referring to the proceedings of the House of Lords. The particular Motion before the House is to agree to the Lords Amendment.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, Mr. Speaker had misunderstood him—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member was clearly out of Order in what he said.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, his observations had been specifically directed to this Amendment. ["Order!"] Well, he had endeavoured so to direct them. Ho wished merely to say that the Amendment had been drafted merely to destroy the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the course which had been recommended by the Prime Minister in the historic speech to which they had listened would not be challenged by a Division on a point which was of no consequence whatever.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he was one who, on this point and every other point, would disagree absolutely with the House of Lords. Looking at the urgency of the present occasion, however, he thought it expedient not to go to a
  1164
  Division, although, no doubt, a protest was desirable.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 273; Noes 37.—(Division List, No. 450.)
  Lords proposal agreed to—
  The Lords insist on their Amendment in page 28, line 3, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason:—Because the insertion of the words "for parishes" is necessary to avoid ambiguity.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next at half after One of the clock.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)

  ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Monday. I take this opportunity of saying that the Government on Monday will advise a Prorogation until Monday March 12.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—((Mr. Marjoribanks,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next.