Commons Sitting of 23 June 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the Clock.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Durham, in the room of Matthew Fowler, Esquire, deceased.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
SHERINGHAM AND BEESTON PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
(Queen's Consent signified); read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
WIRRAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

WINDSOR DOCK, CARDIFF, BILL.
Ordered, That Standing Order CCXLIII. be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
(Queen's Consent signified); Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed.
FILEY WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed.

NEWTOWN WATER BILL.
On the order for the Second Reading of the Newtown Water Bill. [H.L.]
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I have upon the Paper a notice of Motion of an Instruction after the Second Reading of this Bill, and I ask the indulgence of the House while I state the reasons why I do not propose to move

1185
it. I originally put down the Motion in no hostility to the Bill, but for the prevention of an injustice which might, as the Bill stands, be imposed upon certain ratepayers of the urban district. Under the provisions of the Bill these ratepayers would have had to make good any deficiency in regard to the expenses of the water undertaking—although they could not possibly obtain any benefit from the water supply. However, since I have put down my Instruction I have received, on the part of those who are interested in the Bill, an assurance as to the intention of the urban council (who are the promoters of the Bill) which justified me in thinking that there is now practical security that the ratepayers, in whose interests I am concerned, will not be saddled with any deficiency caused by any falling off of revenue. I therefore do not move the Instruction, but I may be allowed to add, as there is a considerable misapprehension in the locality as to the nature of this Instruction, that as this is moved after the Second Reading, and not on the Second Reading, it is clear that my intervention was caused entirety by the wish to prevent a possible injustice which is now recognised in that light by the promoters themselves, and was not caused by any hostility to the Bill, which I consider is in the main a good one.
Question put, and Motion made—
"That the Bill be read a second time."
Agreed to, and Bill committed.

GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY BILL.
Order [6th June] that the Great Northern and City Railway Bill be committed read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL.
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the Kilpatrick Dock Bill of Session 1897 be referred to the Committee on the Renfrew Burgh and Harbour Extension Bill.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

HIGHAM AND HUNDRED OF HOO WATER BILL.
Considered, as amended.
MR. CAREW: I rise to a point of order, Sir. These clauses, which are to be proposed by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, are important Amendments of the general law which is applicable to water companies.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not see any irregularity; perhaps the honourable Member will tell me what his point is.
MR. CAREW: These are Amendments of the general public law, and they override what has been done upstairs; and I should like to know, Sir, whether it is right to move Amendments at this stage of a private Bill which ought to be the subject of a public Bill? These clauses are an Amendment of the general law applicable to water undertakings. I do not think there is any question as to that.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): On the point of order, Sir, I think I shall be able to show that these proposals will not override the decision of the Committee upstairs, and I think I can also show that the course which is being adopted is taken after consultation with the Chairman of Committees in both Houses of Parliament.
MR. SPEAKER: I will hear the explanation by the right honourable Gentleman in introducing the clauses. At present I am not in a position to say that they are out of order.

NEW CLAUSE.
Amendment proposed—
"Add the following clause:—
"(1) If the company fail to provide and keep such a supply of pure and wholesome water as is required by section 35 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, they shall, unless prevented by frost, unusual drought, or other unavoidable cause or accident, be liable for the first offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, and to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for every day on which the offence is continued after conviction. (2) Any offence under this section may be prosecuted by any local authority acting in the execution of the Public Health Acts in any part of whoso district the company supply water for domestic purposes, or by any person supplied

1187
by the company with water for domestic purposes."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
Motion made for Second Reading.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: In moving the Motion which stands in my name, I desire in the first place to say that various representations have been made to me since these clauses were placed upon the Paper, to the effect that in certain quarters objection had been taken to them mainly on two grounds: firstly, as to the matter and effect of the clauses inserted, and, secondly, as to the time and method of their introduction. I think, under these circumstances, it may be well, therefore, that I should explain, in the first place, how it is that these clauses are being introduced and pressed on behalf of the Local Government Board at the present time, and then I will deal with the clauses themselves, and the objects which we seek to accomplish in moving them. The House will recollect the terrible disaster which occurred at Maidstone in the early part of last year in connection with the water supply, but unfortunately in this respect Maid-stone does not stand alone. There have been similar troubles at Lynn, Cam-borne, and other places from which we have had complaints, and the time has come when, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, some action was desirable upon the matter. Accordingly we addressed from the offices of the Local Government Board two circulars to all the different local authorities throughout the country, the first inquiring by whom their water was supplied, whether by local authorities or by public water companies, and the second impressing upon them the necessity of seeing that their supplies were pure and wholesome, and urging the responsibility which rested upon them in the matter. We did this early in the year, and meantime various Water Bills were delivered and received by us, in several of which, but not in all of which, new clauses were introduced for the purpose of preventing pollution of the sources of supply. In connection with these Bills I may remind the House that the practice of the Board for many years has been to make Reports to the various Committees, to whom they are submitted on all the
1188
different Bills which are brought before them, and the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament provide that these Reports shall be considered by the Committees, and also that the House shall be advised by those Committees as to the course which the Committees propose to take upon these Reports which they receive from the Local Government Board. In all these cases which we are discussing this afternoon the new clauses generally were for the purpose of obtaining further powers of preventing pollution of the sources of supply, but the clauses differed in many respects, and in some cases were open to objection; and although we agree generally with the objects in view, we had to consider whether and what alternative proposals could be made in this respect—proposals which would be suitable for all the different Bills which were before Parliament. But, apart altogether from the proposals contained in the Bills, we have had complaints in certain cases of the quality of the water which is at present being supplied by various local water authorities, and the views of the Department generally, both with reference to the supply of pure and wholesome water and also with respect to the means of preventing pollution, were embodied in the Reports which were sent to the Committees many months ago. Some of the Bills were dealt with by Committees in the Commons, others in the Lords, and the Committees of the Commons so far accepted the Board's Reports as to omit the clauses to which objection had been taken, and in their Reports to the House they stated that they had not inserted other clauses in the place of them, pending the settlement of general clauses, which should be applicable to all the different Bills. In the Lords the Committees were not appointed until after the Easter Recess, with the express view of affording time for the settlement of the general clauses, and clauses of that character accordingly were prepared by the counsel to the Chairman of Committees. They were subsequently considered by the Chairmen of Committees in both Houses of Parliament, and the principle of the clauses was agreed to. Subsequently to this the Parliamentary agents for all the different Bills were invited by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords

1189
to consider them, and I am permitted to say that he had hoped that clauses would have been framed in which there would have been a general concurrence on the part of the promoters of the Bills, but when he found there was some considerable difference of opinion as to the clauses in their then shape, he felt that he could not of his own motion require the introduction of the clauses, on the ground that it would be alleged that at that time sufficient notice had not been given, and that the question was one of general importance, and not limited to the particular authorities promoting these particular Bills. Both he and the Chairman of Ways and Means, however, in this House agreed to the clauses being proceeded with, provided the Local Government Board gave notice of them before the Whitsuntide Recess, and this accordingly was done. Since that time, I may add, the clauses have been considerably modified, so as to meet as far as possible the objections which had been taken to them in various quarters as originally drafted, and in which we hope, and in which we have reason to believe, we have to a considerable extent succeeded. Now, these are the circumstances, as briefly as I can recapitulate them, under which I am asking leave to introduce these clauses at the present time. Having said that, with the permission of the House I will turn to the consideration of the nature and merits of the clauses themselves. At the commencement of my observations I reminded the House of great disasters which had occurred at Maidstone and elsewhere. In reference to Maidstone in particular, it is very difficult to exaggerate the gravity and the importance of the circumstances which arose at that time, and the object which I have had in view has been to take further precautions which, as far as possible, may be effective in preventing the recurrence of similar disasters in the future in other parts of the country. For this purpose, it seems to us, two conditions are essential: in the first place the consumer must be protected against any shortcomings and neglect of duty on the part of the water authority, and, secondly, these authorities themselves must be invested with sufficient powers to protect themselves from pollution of the sources of supply from which they
1190
draw the water, which they in turn hand to the consumer. There is a third point I must refer to, which appears somehow or other to have been overlooked in existing legislation, as to the obligation of the different water companies to provide a pure and wholesome supply of water, and that is this: that the failure to fulfil existing obligations to provide a pure and wholesome supply of water is to be liable to a definite penalty. This is not in existence at present, but it is one which we provide for in the first clause on the Paper which has been circulated this morning. With regard to the other two points, we endeavour to protect the consumer from any failure of duty on the part of the water authority as follows: in the first place, we empower the medical officer of health, or any officer authorised by the local authority, on producing the certificate of his authority, to enter the premises of the water authority and the corporation supplying water, and to take samples of the water supplied. That is the first thing we do, and the second is this: that, on certain conditions, we enable any water consumer to take the same course. It has been represented to me, however, from various quarters that to give an indiscriminate power of entry to any water consumer throughout the country might, and probably would, be to entail very great and needless annoyance on the water authorities, and I am bound to say, on further reflection, that I think there is much weight in these objections. We, therefore, attach to the power of entry in the case of every consumer the following conditions: we require him, as a preliminary condition, to obtain from a justice of the peace exercising jurisdiction in the district an order authorising him to enter upon the premises and take samples, but the justice is not to grant this order—and I beg the House to observe this, and especially the representatives of the water authorities in this House—unless the consumer has given reasonable notice to the water authority stating when and where he means to make his application for the order; and, secondly, he shows before the justice a full and reasonable cause for making his application. In addition to this, supposing the order is granted, he is required to give not less than six hours' notice

1191
of when, and where he proposes to take the samples. By these conditions we think, if they are adequately fulfilled, the water authority will be protected against vexatious action and needless annoyance on the part of any consumer.
MR. J. SAMUEL: I should like to ask whether the consumer will be able to take a sample from his own supply in his own house?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: Of course he can take a sample of the supply in his own house. I am now pointing out the conditions under which he can take samples from the premises of the Water Company.
MR. J. SAMUEL: I understood the right honourable Gentleman to be speaking—
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: Then the honourable Member understood me wrong. I was dealing with conditions attached to taking samples from the premises of the water authorities. There remains the case of the water authorities themselves which require protection from the pollution of their sources of supply, and it is proposed to give to the officers of the water authority or the medical officer of the local authority power to enter on lands or premises from which water is supplied, and in the words of the clause they are empowered—
"to take and carry away samples of any water, or of any matter, substance, or liquid which may appear likely to cause pollution to the water of the company or the sources of supply whereby such water may be fouled, and if the right or entry is obstructed or refused then a justice in the district after notice and reasonable cause may require admission by order."
On this point again it has been represented to me that the rights of the owners of property and of land may be in danger. That is a matter which has received my careful consideration, and we have endeavoured to provide for it, and I think we have successfully provided for it in this way. The right of entry may be obstructed or it may be refused. But if that is the case, then the justices in the district can be ap-
1192
pealed to, and after reasonable notice and reasonable cause has been shown, he may be empowered to require their admission by giving an order for that purpose. Those, Sir, are the general provisions of the clause by which we hope that it will be possible to make a better provision for the supply of pure and wholesome water in districts throughout the country in the future. Of course I am aware that some objections have been taken to these proposals, and the chief of them are these: It is said in some quarters that the clauses are unnecessary altogether, and that if they are necessary then they should be embodied in a public and not in a private Bill. Another objection urged against them is to this effect: The powers given to the consumer ought to be eliminated entirely from the clauses. Further, it is said that the clauses ought not to apply in any case to corporations. One of my correspondents, agreeing with the cheer of the honourable Member behind me, expressed the opinion that while the clauses were undoubtedly admirably adapted to all water companies, they certainly ought not, under any circumstances, to apply to corporations like his own. Now, I frankly admit that the position of corporations which only supply their own constituents is altogether different from that of water companies; but then they are in a very small minority, and as the great majority of corporations supply others as well as themselves, I have not been able to perceive any valid reason in the interests of a supply of pure and wholesome water where that is the case why these clauses should not equally apply to them. With regard to the elimination of the consumer, those who maintain that that ought to be done have apparently forgotten the course we adopted last year in the Bill of last Session dealing with the London Water Companies. Not only did we give to the consumer power to make complaints and take the water companies before the new tribunal, but we empowered the local authorities to come to his aid and assistance, if called upon to do so, and if so called upon they were empowered to assist with funds derived from the rates. And as to the idea that these clauses should be introduced in a public and not in a private Bill, I may say that it would have been quite impossible

1193
for me during this Session, considering the pressure of business, to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole of the question. On the other hand, the House will remember that there are no less than some 21 different Bills dealing with the water question, affecting the health of millions of people, during the present Session, and in view of the disasters which have recently occurred, and to which I have referred, I have been most anxious not to allow the present Session to pass without making some effort, at all events, to effect some improvements in the present condition of affairs. Such an opportunity is offered, in my judgment, at the present time. It is a question directly affecting the public health; it cannot be denied, I think, in any quarter that there is room, and indeed necessity, for some reform in this matter. I believe there is absolutely nothing in these clauses in their present form to which any solid or reasonable objection can, I think, be taken, and if experience should show that revision is required, of course these clauses will be open to revision in the future. I can only say in conclusion that I hope the House, having heard the general statement which I have made upon the main points which I consider to be now under consideration, will support me in moving the modern, but at the same time, as I believe them to be, the useful and highly beneficial proposals which are contained in the clause, which I beg leave now formally to move.
MR. MELLOR: The right honourable Gentleman has very clearly stated the substance of the proposed clauses. Those clauses are in themselves drastic, and for anything I know, they may be necessary. But I am not going to criticise these clauses in detail, because the objection that I have to them is one of a totally different character. There are two kinds of legislation which are sometimes attempted in this House, both of which, in my view, ought not to be permitted. The first is the attempt to repeal a public Act, or part of a public Act, by putting provisions into a private Bill, and the other is to alter the general law of the land by inserting provisions in a private Bill at a stage when the persons who might
1194
object to those provisions have not the opportunity of coming before a Committee of this House, and of having those provisions thoroughly examined. But whether they are examined or not, the first objection I take is this—that this is a remarkable attempt to alter the general law of the land by inserting provisions on Report into a Private Bill; I submit to the House that, however hard the case may be, such attempts make bad legislation, and I hope that this House will not agree to the course proposed to be taken by the right honourable Gentleman. This is no mere technicality, it is a matter of real importance. I will take first the case I mentioned just now, of attempting to repeal some public Statute by means of a private Bill. If it succeeds, what will be the consequence? For one thing, it will produce general uncertainty in the law, because private Bills are kept in what I may call a roll of this House, and it is very difficult sometimes to find a private Bill. There is no index to show what they contain, and if you have to search through all the private Bills in this House in order to see whether a clause in a public Statute is repealed, then I say that that is a labour which no one ought to be called upon to undertake. This would be, in my opinion, a bad course to adopt, because matters are easily inserted in a private Bill which are not looked at so closely as they would be if they were placed in a public Bill. The right honourable Gentleman says that it would be very difficult to carry a public Bill, considering the congested state of the work of the House. I daresay that may be so—I do not know—I cannot tell. The right honourable Gentleman knows that better than I do; I should have thought that with a majority of over 140 they might have got through a simple Bill embodying something in the nature of these clauses. Why not? Why should not the right honourable Gentleman take that course? He says there is no time. Why did not the Government, then, begin earlier? Surely it is not an unreasonable thing to say that with all the time at their disposal they might have brought in some Bill which would have contained something of the clauses he now proposed, and so produced a satisfactory

1195
Bill. But the Government has not troubled to do that. But there is something far more than that. The rule of this House with regard to the private Bill is that they should go before a Committee and be thoroughly examined. That Committee has power to hear witnesses and to inquire into all the details of the various schemes. Upon that view of the question I would point out that it is now proposed to refer all Scotch private business to a local inquiry, in order to obtain a more full and searching inquiry into the substance and clauses of these Bills. What has happened in the cases of these Bills we are now discussing? The right honourable Gentleman says that his Department sent a Report, as no doubt it was the duty of the Department to do, to the Committees that were to consider these Bills. But I would ask: Have these Committees adopted that Report? If they have, why have they inserted no provision in these Bills in order to carry out the recommendations contained in that Report, or anything of the kind? Under these circumstances we are driven to the conclusion that either these clauses have not been examined by the Committees at all, or else they have examined them, and after examination have rejected them. To-day we are on the Report stage of these Bills. New clauses proposed in public Bills at the Report stage require some consideration, but when you come upon the Report stage of a private Bill, not only to give the go-by to what the Committees have done, but to insert in a private Bill clauses altering the public law, then I submit that that is bad legislation, and, if these clauses are necessary, they ought unquestionably to be embodied in a public Bill, and not in a private Bill. The right honourable Gentleman says that these clauses are necessary. If so, why not insert them in a public Bill? I am sure that Members of this House would throw no impediment in the way of such a public Bill; on the contrary, if the right honourable Gentleman thought that these clauses ought to be accepted by the House, I am perfectly certain that every assistance would be rendered to him in passing them if he embodied them in a public Bill of a satisfactory nature. But that is quite
1196
a different thing to asking the House, at the last moment, after the Bills have passed through Committee, and upon the Report stage, to accept the introduction of new clauses. I sincerely hope that the House will not agree to that. There is another point. These clauses go beyond the notice which was originally given to the promoters of these Bills. That is rather a serious matter, because, as the clauses have gone beyond the scope of the notice, the people who have promoted these Bills have gone to the Committees only prepared to inquire into the actual scope contained in the notices. The Bills have passed the Committees without these clauses the promoters have now no longer any opportunity of altering these clauses before the Committees, and when the promoters are no longer in condition to make a proper and fair investigation, it seems hard that these clauses should be attempted to be inserted by the Government, and that the promoters should be placed in a position in which all the older water companies, in existence have not been placed. If these provisions are good and necessary for these companies, then they are good and necessary for all, and the one reason why I suggest to the House that it is most desirable that there should be a public Bill of this kind is that, if these clauses are approved of, they ought to be applicable to the whole water legislation of the country. That is what we ought to do. At the present time it cannot be done, because these clauses, according to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, are only necessary for water Bills of the future. I must confess that to introduce legislation of a public nature into the private Bills of this House is a somewhat dangerous course. For these reasons I hope that the House will not agree to these clauses. I cannot help expressing my regret that the right honourable Gentleman has taken this course in the matter, and I hope that he will come to the conclusion that it will be far better to withdraw these clauses now, and, if they are necessary in the public interest, to insert them in a public Bill.
MR. CORNWALLIS: As my constituency is the unfortunate

1197
constituency which has been referred to in this Debate, I think I may be allowed, perhaps, to offer a few observations upon a subject of such importance and interest to my constituents and myself. We are extremely grateful to the right honourable Gentleman for the clauses he has brought forward, but we do not think that they go far enough. We believe that there can be no adequate protection to consumers unless there is a constant and regular analysis taken by some authority or another, and we think that the proper authority for the purpose is the water company. Referring to what has been said by the right honourable Gentleman on the other side of the House, I may say that I am at one with him in thinking that these matters ought to be dealt with by a public Bill, so that adequate protection shall be given to every water consumer throughout the country. I feel that I am entitled to say this, because we have suffered very grievously indeed through the pollution of our water supply, and in my district we feel most strongly that we shall not have adequate protection unless we have constant and regular analyses taken by an official of the water authority, which analyses shall be open to public inspection.
SIR J. PEASE: The question really before us is whether there is any reason for departing from what ought to be, I think, the action of the House upon this class of question. There is no proverb, I think, more true than this, that "Hard cases make bad laws," and because there has been in one district a great outburst of fever, and because there was something wrong with the water supply, the right honourable Gentleman, with the best possible intentions (and good intentions make a very doubtful permanent way), comes down to this House to try to cure the state of things in one district, or in two or three districts, by introducing special clauses into the 20 or 21 water Bills of this Session, whilst the great mass of the water supply of the country is left entirely untouched. I have been trying to find out whether these clauses were discussed in Committee or not. I believe that they were not discussed at all in Committee—that is what I am informed. I am open to correction,
1198
because it is difficult on occasions like this to discover where these clauses have come from. But I cannot help thinking that if we allow the general Statute law to be altered in every case by inserting clauses to meet the exigencies of some particular private Bill, we shall get our legislation into a troubled and chaotic state. I have had almost as much experience as any Member of the House of water Bills, and, so far as I can recollect, in almost every case the public law—that is the present existing law—gives enormous power to the local authorities to deal with these questions. If these powers are not sufficient to keep bad water away from the towns and communities, by all means let us have a general law, not a special and individual law of this character. The powers granted here to the individual consumers are granted with a very lavish hand. They allow, on the order of the magistrates, any consumer or consumers to go into a place where the water is gathered, and have a public inspection of the source of the supply. But the question of the quality of the water, which this Bill endeavours to deal with, is not found by looking at the source of the supply. That has to be found in a very different manner.
MR. SPEAKER: The only question now before the House is the first clause, but I have assumed that the House would wish that the discussion on the first clause should be a general discussion upon all the clauses.
SIR J. PEASE: If these clauses were right in themselves, they should be, and ought to be, incorporated in a public Bill applicable to all water works. My right honourable Friend says that in this clause all the corporations are to be included. I am not sure whether any of these Bills are corporation Bills, but the large corporations, such as Glasgow, Liverpool, and so on, which have had powers granted to them in the last few years, will not be included in these clauses. So that these enormous communities would not share in any of the advantages which may arise from these clauses, and would not receive any of the protection afforded by these clauses—that would be the case in 99 towns out of 100. I object to the principle of adding in the Report stage of private Bills, clauses which were not

1199
contemplated in their original development on the plea that here or there there is an outbreak of fever, and that, therefore, there must be a special clause attached to it. If that argument holds good at all, then the whole community should be protected from the possibility of an outbreak by universal legislation. I really hope that my right honourable Friend will not persevere with other clauses of this character. The sole question is whether, if the time is ripe for such legislation, we had better not have a short Bill which can be made applicable everywhere, and afford protection to water consumers all over the country.
SIR W. HART DYKE: I should like to say one or two words with regard to these clauses, because I am in a difficulty. In the first place, I long represented a district of Kent in which county this grievous outbreak occurred, and in the second place, I happen to be a director of the Kent Water Company. I have always been, uncomfortable when water questions came before this House, and on this occasion I say at once that if these clauses go to a Division, I shall not oppose them. I have, however, risen in order to put pressure upon my right honourable Friend to relieve himself, and the Government, and the House of a difficulty. It is perfectly obvious to all what has happened. In the town of Maidstone a most fearful outbreak occurred which ravaged the town like a scourge. I believe I am not wrong in saying that that outbreak has put back the trade of the town for many years. Is it not natural and obvious that when water legislation takes place in other portions of Kent, the local authorities should appeal to the Local Government Board to protect them from a like scourge? The Department has been subjected to great pressure not to wait to give this protection by means of a public Bill, but immediately, and at once, to relieve them from the possibility of a like scourge by adding clauses of this kind to private Bills. To my mind that is the whole question; and the right honourable Gentleman has submitted to this pressure, and has said that whenever he can lay his hands upon a Measure dealing with water, he will put in clauses
1200
which will absolutely protect the consumer. Then what does the right honourable Gentleman propose to do? I am connected with water companies, and I have no objection, so far as these clauses are concerned. We are glad to advertise our water, and the more its source of supply is investigated the better. Therefore, I do not think that so far as the clauses are concerned there can be much objection on the part of the water companies. Nevertheless, grievous mischief can be done by the passing of these clauses as proposed. There will be a gross unfairness, to my mind, if we once allow the Government to adopt the practice of inserting in private Bills, and by a side wind, as it were, important public legislation of this kind, and it will be a bad precedent. A public remedy should be secured by a public Act. Besides, clauses of such a character as these should have been brought before the Committee who had to consider this question, so that those who were spending large sums of money in promoting these Bills should have had an opportunity of properly considering them. Either that should have been done or these clauses should have been incorporated in a public Measure. I earnestly appeal to my right honourable Friend, not from any miserable, paltry grounds of my happening to be connected with a water company, but on the broader and better issue to consider the matter, and it will be far better to bring in next Session a public Act dealing with the matter comprehensively, and to withdraw these proposals this afternoon, which not only cast a slur on our private Bill legislation, but will ultimately place that private Bill legislation in a mass of entanglements and difficulties.
MR. BUXTON: I do not propose to enter upon the discussion of the principle of these clauses, which has been so ably dealt with. I just want to say that I for one am glad that the right honourable Gentleman has brought this matter forward, but I think it is perfectly obvious what the feeling of the House is, and that the Government will be well advised in withdrawing these clauses. Still, I think that the speeches have shown that the House itself

1201
is fully cognisant as to the necessity for some action being taken by the Local Government Board in order to ensure greater purity and wholesomeness of water, especially, perhaps, among the smaller companies; and, therefore, it will be a very distinct encouragement to the right honourable Gentleman and the Government to introduce a Bill during next Session; and I think that the House has practically pledged itself to give the Bill their sanction. Under these circumstances, I do not wish to detain the House by arguing the matter, but I only hope that this discussion may result in the production of a public Bill at an early date, giving all local authorities these very necessary powers.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER: As my right honourable Friend, in moving these clauses, referred to the action which I have taken, I think it is only right that I should tell the House frankly what has taken place, so far as I am concerned. At the beginning of the Session there were several Reports from the Local Government Board dealing with this question. Some of the Bills were unopposed Bills, and came before the Unopposed Bills Committee. I was then brought face to face with the Report of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and then, bearing in mind the terrible state of things which had existed in Maidstone, and other districts, which has been referred to by my right honourable Friend the Member for Dartford, I thought the House would take some action upon the lines indicated by the President of the Local Government Board. I am not sure that it would not have been possible for me to have drafted clauses myself, and to have inserted them in these unopposed Bills, and have taken the responsibility for them, but I felt that that would be rather a serious responsibility to take upon my shoulders, and that I ought not to do so without having the assent of the House in so doing. I was, therefore, careful to warn all the promoters of these different Bills, at the beginning of the Session, that it was very probable that clauses of the nature of those which are before the House would be inserted in their Bills. The Chairmen also of the Committees, before whom the opposed water Bills came, took the same action
1202
as I did. They warned the promoters of these Bills that, although the clauses were not at that time ready for insertion, because the draft had not been completed, something of this kind would be introduced this Session, and therefore, whatever objection may be taken to these clauses, it cannot now be said that they are sprung upon the promoters of these Bills. They were fully aware of what was likely to happen several months ago. A discussion took place between the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and myself, and the President of the Local Government Board, and these clauses were very carefully considered. If I have any objections to them at all, it is that I think they do not go quite far enough to please me. They were carefully considered with a view to meeting the wishes and views of all parties, and if any blame is to be attached to anybody for having asked the House to insert these clauses at the present time in these water Bills, I am quite prepared to take my full share. I did think, and still think, that in the pressure of public business this Session it would be really quite impossible for the right honourable Gentleman to propose a Bill amending the Waterworks Clauses Act, and introducing not only these clauses, but other clauses. I thought it only right, in the interests of the public health of the country, that clauses somewhat of this nature should be introduced into whatever water Bills came before the House this Session; and I confess that it did not seem to me to be a very serious responsibility to place upon a water company to ask them to supply pure and wholesome water, because, after all, that is what the water companies exist for. It really does not seem to be asking too much to ask them to supply that for the supply of which they exist. With regard to the subjects which the clauses deal with, one is to protect the water consumer, and the other is to assist the water company to find out where the pollution comes from. I see, as my right honourable Friend opposite has pointed out, that the view of the House is that this matter should be dealt with in a public Bill, and therefore, under those circumstances, I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of urging my right honourable Friend to press the clauses upon the House now.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: If I may be allowed by the indulgence of the House I should like to say that when I moved these clauses I was certainly not prepared for the reception which greeted them, and which reception was quite unmistakable. I quite understand, so far as I can collect from the various speakers who have taken part in the discussion, that the objection which is taken is not to the clauses or to the proposals, but is founded upon this principle, that where a grave and important question such as this is to be dealt with it ought to be dealt with in a public Bill rather than in a private Bill. Knowing, perhaps, more of the circumstances than most of the Members of the House, I own that I have been very anxious to endeavour to deal, even if only partially, with this question during the present Session. At the same time, I quite recognise that the general sense of the House upon this subject is quite unmistakable, and I should be committing a very serious error of judgment, if I were not guilty of something worse, if I endeavoured to press my proposals against that general sense, which has evinced itself in so marked a manner. Under the circumstances I believe I shall best fulfil my duty to the nation and to the House if I ask the House to permit me to withdraw the clause.
MR. COURTNEY: I am not surprised at the action taken by my right honourable Friend the President of the Local Government Board, but I think that the House has been moved by something like what I must call a spirit of pedantry. If my right honourable Friend had been proposing his clauses to-day as part of a public Bill no objection could be raised to them. It is not suggested that any solid argument has been used against the principles of these proposals. Objection is taken to them that they do not apply to all companies, but to certain companies which have come to this House this Session for increased powers. It is argued that, though it may be proper to discuss the question of these clauses if they were part of a public Bill, yet because they are proposed to be inserted in Bills of private
1204
companies, who are asking for further powers, it must not be done, because they introduce new legislation, and because they have not been considered by Committees upstairs. With respect to the objection that to pass these clauses would be a derogation of the Standing Orders, let me point out, speaking with all respect, that the House is in danger if it adopts that view of being deceived by a similarity of form. Our Standing Orders are for the purpose of protecting persons who are to be affected by private Bills, proposed to be introduced, not for the purpose of protecting the promoters; and when a company brings in a Bill here and the House, for the protection of the public, inserts some provision which may affect the interests of the promoters, the promoters cannot say that they have been deceived. Cases might be pointed out—railway Bills, dock Bills, and what not—into which, against the wishes of the promoters, there have been inserted clauses for the public benefit. Take the clause about the labouring classes. There is no public Bill on the subject, but that is a provision which has been brought in, against the wishes of promoters of Bills, for the protection of working men, so many times that it has become of common form to insert it now in all cases where the houses of the working classes are required for public purposes. That great public benefit has not been done by public legislation, it has grown up in private Bills. We have to gradually educate the public in these matters, and one of the best means of doing so is by the introduction gradually of experimental proposals. I assent entirely to the wisdom and prudence of the conduct of my right honourable Friend in withdrawing these Bills, but I could not see what has happened, especially after the speech of the Chairman of Ways and Means, without rising to say that I think the House has acted with rather too mechanical a regard for precedent, and I think it would have been well to allow my right honourable Friend to proceed with this very useful legislation.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill ordered to be read the third time.

MID-KENT WATER BILL.
(By Order), as amended, considered; to be read the third time.
WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
(By Order), as amended, considered; to be read the third time.
MALDON WATER BILL.
(By Order), as amended, considered; to be read the third time.
BELFAST HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
STIRLING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL AND GLOUCESTER GAS BILL,
with Amendments.
NEWHAVEN HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to authorise and provide for the construction of certain sea defence works between Newhaven and Seaford, in the county of Sussex, and to enable the Newhaven Harbour Company to raise additional capital, and the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company to guarantee dividend thereon; and for other purposes."
ISLE OF WIGHT RAILWAY (BRADING HARBOUR AND RAILWAY) BILL. [H.L.]
And also a Bill intituled "An Act for vesting in the Isle of Wight Railway Company the undertaking of the Brading Harbour and Railway Company; and for other purposes."
NEWHAVEN HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ISLE OF WIGHT RAILWAY (BRADING HARBOUR AND RAILWAY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
PETITIONS.
  COMPANIES ACT (1867) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  For alteration: Of Pharmaceutical Society for Ireland; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
In favour: From Saltcoats; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
In favour: From Bothwell; to lie upon the Table.
PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
In favour: From Watten; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
In favour: From West Ham, Bristol, Torrington, and Stevington; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ISLE OF MAN.
  Account presented of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1898, with the Report of the Controller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 249.]
LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
Copy presented of the Annual Returns for 1896–7, Part I. (Poor Rate Return and Valuation for the Poor Rate) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 250.]
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2130 to 2132 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 466 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 8, 1898).
Copy presented of Convention between the United Kingdom and Belgium referring to arbitration the case of Mr. Ben Tillett. Signed at Brussels, 19th March, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 9, 1898).
Copy presented of Convention between the United Kingdom, France, Greece, and Russia to facilitate the conclusion of a Loan by the Greek Government. Signed at Paris, 29th March, 1898. Ratifications deposited at Paris, 18th May, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
Copy presented of Order, dated 20th June, 1898, revoking Order No. 5744, which prohibited the conveyance of animals by the steamship Alfalfa [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (CANTONMENTS ACT AND REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of the Cantonments Act, 1897, and of the Cantonment Regulations, published 15th October, 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1897.
Copy ordered "of Tables showing the progress of British Merchant Shipping."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 251.]

TRAWLER NELLIE.
Copy ordered "of Report of the Court of Inquiry held to investigate the wreck, of the Trawler Nellie, near Rattray Head."—(Mr. Crombie.)
EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
Return ordered, "under administrative counties and county boroughs of particulars with respect to the Evening Continuation Schools inspected for the respective years ended the 30th days of April, 1897, and 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 114 of Session 1897)."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
QUESTIONS.

  TELEGRAPHISTS AND CONVALESCENT DUTIES.
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the privilege of permitting members of the staff of the Central Telegraph Office and metropolitan districts to be allowed to perform convalescent duties at seaside towns has been discontinued; and, if so, whether, owing to the great advantage arising from such practice to the service as well as to the individuals concerned, he can see his way to reinstitute this privilege?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The privilege of permitting members of the staff of the Central Telegraph Office and metropolitan districts to perform convalescent duties at seaside towns had been inadvertently extended to classes and persons to whom it was not intended originally to apply, and the Postmaster General has suspended it in order that arrangements might be made with the Treasury for putting the whole matter on a proper footing. He has been in communication with the Treasury on the subject, and if the honourable Member will repeat the Question next week, I shall be glad to tell him the result.

OSPREY FEATHERS IN MILITARY PLUMES.
SIR J. LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the so-called osprey feathers worn
1210
as plumes by certain regiments are only developed by, and are stripped from, the birds during the breeding season; that the destruction of the old birds involves the starvation of the young ones; and if he will consider the desirability of abandoning the use of a decoration which involves the slaughter of birds under circumstances now shown to involve such cruelty?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): Orders have been given that plumes composed otherwise than of so-called "osprey" feathers shall be prepared with a view to obtaining the sanction of Her Majesty to the abolition of the "osprey" plumes worn by the commissioned officers in certain regiments. The selection of a satisfactory substitute is difficult, and some delay may occur in effecting the change.

PLAGUE IN WESTERN INDIA.
SIR M. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government intend to recognise in any special manner the services rendered during the last 18 months by the civil and military officers and troops, both British and native, who so nobly responded to the call made upon them, in many cases at the risk of their lives, to stamp out the plague in Bombay, Poona, Kurrachee, and other places in Western India; as well as the services of those who took a prominent part in quelling the disturbances that took place in consequence of the plague?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): As my honourable Friend is aware, various temporary concessions in the shape of leave or special pay or both have already been granted to civil and military officers and to soldiers engaged on the work of suppressing the plague. The authorities in India are fully aware of the excellent service that has been rendered for India by civil, by medical, and by military officials, as well as by many non-officials, in the arduous campaign against the plague, and the work so done will not be forgotten.

THE GUARDS.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he could state what was the strength of the 3rd Battalions of Coldstreams and Scots Regiments of Guards on 1st March, 1896; and how many men are transfers or Reservists, and how many recruits?
MR. BRODRICK: Assuming that the date intended is March 1st, 1898, the strength of the 3rd Battalion of the Coldstream Guards was on that date 266 (non-commissioned officers and men). These did not include any men from the Reserve. The 3rd Battalion of the Scots Guards has not yet been formed.

PARISH CHARITIES IN SCOTLAND.
MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that disputes have arisen, and are still unsettled, between parish councils and kirk sessions over the transference of parish charities under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, section 30, owing to the claim of the kirk sessions that the bequest applies to natives and not to inhabitants of the parish; and whether he can hold out any hope of altering the law so as to meet this difficulty?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. G. MURRAY,): I am informed that the Local Government Board have heard of only one instance in which a difference of opinion has arisen between a parish council and a kirk session as to the application of section 30 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, to a trust for the benefit of natives of a parish. This case of itself does not appear to call for a change in the law.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE MALLOW UNION.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between the Local
1212
Government Board and the Mallow Board of Guardians respecting the improvement scheme for the erection of additional labourers' cottages in the union; (2) is he aware that of the sites for 33 cottages sanctioned by the local authority, the Local Government Board inspector, Mr. Richard Bourke, objected to all but nine; also that the Board of Guardians state that the greater number of the reasons given by the inspector for rejecting the sites are contrary to fact; and (3) whether, in view of the great need for decent cottages in the union, and seeing that on a former occasion, when the Guardians called for it, a re-inspection was granted, the Local Government Board will order a re-inspection of the sites rejected by Mr. Richard Bourke.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): In the absence, through indisposition, of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the questions addressed to him. The reply to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. The Local Government Board have carefully considered the circumstances of each of the cases mentioned by the Guardians, and they see no reason for a re-inspection of the sites. A re-inspection could only affect the few cases in which the cottages were rejected solely on the ground of the unsuitability of the sites selected, and not for other reasons, and the re-inspection of the sites stated in the question to have taken place subsequent to a former inquiry was made wholly on account of sites reported against on the ground of the absence of a proper water supply. 165 cottages have already been authorised in this Union, and as a result of this inquiry nine more have been recommended by the inspector.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to the report of the Local Government Inspector, Mr. Richard Bourke, in respect to the latest proposed scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages in the Mallow Union, in which he states that four sites on the lands of Carrigacunna (East Division of

1213
Monanimy), upwards of 2,000 acres in extent, were rejected on the grounds that the owner objected that the sites are too near his entrance gate, whereas they are 300 yards distant at least, and the present cottages, which have been condemned by the medical officer as unfit for human habitation are much nearer to the entrance gate; and, whether, in view of these circumstances the Local Government Board will order a reconsideration of the matter?
MR. ATKINSON: I am informed that the sites selected for the erection of the cottages in question are about 200 yards distant from the owner's gate lodge and that the owner objected to the acquisition of the land on the ground that the erection of cottages on these sites would interfere with his amenity of residence. The Local Government Board concur in opinion with the inspector that the objection is reasonable, and see no sufficient reason for reconsidering the matter. The present cottages, condemned as unfit for habitation, are situate, I understand, not between the proposed sites and the property mentioned, but in an opposite direction, and on a different property.

MILITARY HOSPITAL STOPPAGES.
Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what will be the amount of the hospital stoppage in the case of soldiers who have accepted the new messing allowance when the medical officer has certified that the soldier is in hospital owing to illness or injury incurred by reasons of the performance of his duty, and when the medical officer has not so certified; and, by what amount the hospital stoppage in the cases referred to will exceed or be less than the stoppage in the case of soldiers who have not accepted the new messing allowance?
MR. BRODRICK: The hospital stoppage is normally sevenpence a day, and is applicable equally to those who have and those who have not accepted the new messing allowance. In cases where the disability is certified to be the direct result of military service, the
1214
General officer may remit one-half of the stoppage, and he may remit the whole if the disability is due to an injury received at drill or manœuvres.

BELFAST POST OFFICE.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in view of the fact that the Dublin Post Office is kept open on Sunday for the despatch of letters by the evening mail to England, he will make arrangements whereby letters can be received, stamped, and despatched from the Belfast Post Office up to midday on Sundays, and despatched by the 2 o'clock train to Dublin.
MR. HANBURY: This question was considered about two years ago, and an arrangement was made, which is still in force, whereby letters for England bearing an extra postage of ½d. can be posted in a box at Belfast Railway Station to within a few minutes of the departure of the 2 p.m. train to Dublin. It was understood that this would meet the wishes of those specially interested in the matter, and it involves a minimum of additional Sunday labour. The ordinary collections for the day mails are suspended on Sunday both in Ireland and England, and the Postmaster General is not prepared to open the Belfast office for business at midday on Sunday and bring the staff on duty in order to give further facilities for the despatch of letters by the 2 p.m. train to Dublin.

SECRECY OF TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGES.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that at the Clapham Common, Northern District, South Kensington, and Camden Road Post Offices telegraph instruments of the sounder type are worked near or on the public counters after 8 p.m., so that the contents

1215
of telegrams are disclosed to the members of the general public having a knowledge of the Morse code; whether he will state why the practice was instituted; and whether he will take steps to protect the secrecy of telegraphic messages?
MR. HANBURY: The telegraph instruments at the offices mentioned in the honourable Member's Question are worked at night and on Sundays near the public counter, but only an expert could gather any information as to the contents of the telegrams. At night and on Sundays the telegrams handed in at the offices in question are comparatively few, and the practice was instituted to avoid waste of force. The advantages of the arrangement are so clear and the risk so small that it is not considered necessary to make any alteration in it.

IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' PENSION FUND.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the amount originally allocated by Parliament to the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund, and from what source did this money come; what is the present amount of this fund, and from what source did this increase arise; and what was the amount of the receipts and expenditure respectively for last year?
MR. HANBURY: The Teachers' Pension Fund was constituted under the provisions of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, and was endowed under the same Act with a sum of £1,300,000, drawn from the surplus of the Irish Church funds. The assets of the fund amounted on the 31st December, 1897, to £1,910,867 0s. 1d. The increase has been derived from two sources, namely:—(1) the surplus of annual income (consisting of interest on investments and premiums deducted from teachers' salaries) over annual expenditure (consisting of gratuities and pensions paid), such surplus income being carried to the capital of the fund; and (2) amounts voted by Parliament towards securing the 'ultimate solvency of the
1216
fund—£90,000 in 1891–92, £95,434 in. 1896–97, and £18,000 in 1897–98. The receipts of the fund in the year 1897, including the two last-mentioned grants of Parliament, amounted to £177,132 9s. 1d.; the expenditure amounted to £49,341 2s. 10d. But with regard to this, and to the apparent increase of capital, it must be borne in mind that, as the system has only been 18 years in operation, the claims on the fund have not yet reached their normal amount, as only a comparatively small proportion of the teachers have been pensioned.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the sum voted by Parliament for superannuating Irish National teachers in 1878, and what was the amount for the past year; whether teachers of ordinary National schools who did not join the pension scheme obtained their share of the arrears of fee grant in a similar manner to the teachers of convent and monastery schools; at whose expense and at what cost was the amount of arrears due to each teacher respectively calculated; and if the money has not been paid, what is the cause of the delay?
MR. HANBURY: The amount voted by Parliament in 1878–79 for gratuities to incapacitated teachers on retirement (including teachers in model schools) was £7,200. The amount voted in the last financial year for gratuities and pensions to those teachers was £18,500. Government have no information as to any teachers in National schools who, having declined to enter the pension scheme, might put forward a claim in respect of "arrears of grant." If there be any such they should apply to the Board of Education. With regard to convent and monastery schools, the amount voted by Parliament was handed over to the managers, and Government have no information whether any portion of it went to individual teachers; but probably it did not do so, as most of such teachers are monks or nuns. The calculations referred to cost about £650, mostly charged to the Vote for National education. These calculations were directed to be made in consequence of a letter addressed to the

1217
Chancellor of the Exchequer by representatives of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation in July last, in which they expressed their willingness, if the question of the payment of the so-called "arrears" could be re-opened, that part of any such payment should go to make up the deficiency in the premiums for pensions paid by the teachers since 1885, and that for the future the teachers should bear one-fourth of the total cost of their pensions. As this letter was subsequently withdrawn by its writers, no further steps were taken in the matter.

BALLINAHINCH RIOTS.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been tailed to the reports of the proceedings at the trial of the rioters at Ballinahinch Petty Sessions, county Down, on Tuesday last; whether he is aware that the Crown solicitor stated that on the night of the riot the town had been delivered into the hands of the mob for nearly three hours, and the sergeant of police had to arm his men and place them in front of the barracks, and that notwithstanding the evidence of rioting and the part taken therein by the accused, the Ballinahinch justices refused to send the accused forward for trial; whether the resident magistrate protested against this decision, and strongly expressed his dissent; and what course the Government propose to adopt under the circumstances?
MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The facts are substantially as stated in the Question, save that the accused, with the exception of three, were bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 12 months. It was, I think, the duty of the justices to have returned some of the accused for trial, but having regard to the fact that the accused have entered into the required sureties, and that the Government are advised that, in the result, the course adopted will probably conduce more to the preservation of the public peace than if the accused had been returned for
1218
trial, it is not intended to proceed further with the prosecution at present.
MR. DILLON: In consequence of the answer I have received, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this Question when the Chief Secretary's salary conies up for consideration.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE IN IRELAND.
MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Metge versus the Chairman and Justices of the County Meath in Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, deciding that, by reason of the non-publication in the Dublin Gazette of the average price of corn during the last seven years, courts of quarter sessions now possess no jurisdiction to vary tithe rent-charge in Ireland; whether he is aware that the Irish Land Commission, consequent upon the above decision, now decline to vary perpetuity rents reserved by ecclesiastical grants; and whether, having regard to the great hardship thereby inflicted on many landowners holding lands subject to tithe rents, whose rents, owing to the fall in the price of corn, have now become excessive, the Government will upon an early day introduce a Measure dealing with the subject?
MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): My attention has been called to the decision referred to, and the action of the Land Commission consequent upon it. Notwithstanding the importance of the subject, legislation upon it is impossible this Session. The Government have under consideration the question whether it may not be possible to make provision to secure the publication forthwith in the Dublin Gazette of the average prices of corn in the manner contemplated by the Statutes dealing with the revision of tithe rent-charge, such publication to be made the basis for legislation next Session.

POSTMEN AND THE STRIPE QUESTION.
SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in accordance with his statement on 21st March last respecting postmen's prior auxiliary or unestablished service counting towards stripes, a telegraph messenger who, previous to his appointment as letter carrier, acted as rural postman, stamper, and head stamper for four years and ten months, is entitled to have that time counted towards good conduct stripes?
MR. HANBURY: A telegraph messenger is not allowed, as such, to count his service for stripes. A telegraph messenger, however, appointed to act as a rural postman or stamper, and ceasing on such appointment to be borne on the books of the Department as a telegraph messenger, would be allowed to count such service towards stripes. It is difficult, however, to believe that any telegraph messenger could be so acting for four years and ten months, as it is the usual rule of the Department that no one under 16 years of age should handle letters, and it is also the rule that all telegraph messengers shall cease to be employed as such on completing their 19th year.

FEAKLE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS.
MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) what was the reason the Lord Lieutenant appointed over the heads of the Scariff Guardians a registrar of births and deaths for the Feakle District of the Scariff Union; (2) why Dr. Donworth, who was appointed by the Guardians, was not sanctioned by the Registrar General; and (3) whether the attention of the Government has been called to the resolution passed upon the subject by the Scariff Guardians?
MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): Dr. Donworth was removed from the office mentioned because of his frequent neglect of duty and insubordinate conduct. The guardians
1220
were thereupon required to make a fresh, appointment, and instead of nominating a suitable person within the statutory period prescribed by section 25 of the Act 26 and 27 Vic., cap. 11, they proposed the reappointment of Dr. Don-worth, who, as they were well aware, was ineligible for the office in consequence of his previous removal there-from. The answer to the third paragraph, is in the affirmative.
MR. W. REDMOND: Was the nature of Dr. Donworth's misconduct ever stated before this?
MR. ATKINSONwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

SCARIFF WATERWORKS SCHEME.
MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in putting the Scariff Waterworks scheme into operation; and whether he will communicate with the Local Government Board on the subject?
MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): An examination, by the engineer, of the site of the reservoir for the waterworks showed that some alterations would be necessary in the original plans. When the amended plans have been furnished the Board will signify their approval of the scheme.

SUPERIOR POSTAL APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiry regarding the rectification of the number of superior appointments in the provinces which was promised by His Grace in the Post Office Circular of the 10th August last; and whether, in consideration of the fact that 10 months have elapsed since the promise was made, the Postmaster General will, in the event of his inquiry being a favourable one, consider

1221
the propriety of ante-dating the appointments so as to compensate for the delay which has occurred?
MR. HANBURY: Readjustments of the numbers of superior appointments in the provinces in accordance with the promises made by the Postmaster General and myself in August last have already been carried out at many of the larger Post Offices; and within the last few days the authority of the Treasury has been received for further revisions on the same lines at several other offices. The remaining offices are being dealt with as speedily as possible. As personal inquiry is necessary in each case, and no avoidable delay has taken place in carrying out the promised revision, the Postmaster General does not propose to ante-date the new appointments. They will take effect, according to rule, from the respective dates of Treasury authority.

PROMOTION RULES IN THE POST OFFICE.
MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain the circumstances under which an officer, formerly a travelling inspector in the north-west district, who in September last was reduced to the rank of a telegraphist on account of misbehaviour, was placed at the head of the sorting clerks and telegraphists at Liverpool, thus giving him preferential claim for promotion over 350 members of the Liverpool staff and to their prejudice in the matter of promotion; whether in cases of voluntary transfer, care is taken to avoid similar injury to the interests of other members of the staff; and, if so, whether the Postmaster General will extend the same principle in the case of disciplinary transfer?
MR. HANBURY: It is the practice of the Department when an officer is reduced from one class to another to place him at the top of the class to which he is reduced, and this practice was followed in the case to which the honourable Member refers; but it gives no preferen-
1222
tial claim to promotion. In the cases of voluntary transfer, it is the rule that each officer enter at the bottom of the class in the office to which he is so transferred. But the Postmaster General is not prepared to apply the rule to all cases of disciplinary reduction, as doing so would in many cases seriously increase the severity of the punishment.

SALE OF ICE CREAMS IN THE STREETS.
SIR H. MAXWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to recent deaths of children owing, as is alleged, to their having eaten so-called "ice creams" sold by Italians in. the streets; whether he is aware that several samples of these creams have been reported on by Dr. Klein to the effect that all of them were swarming with colonies of the bacilli characteristic either of sewage matter or putrescence, or both; whether, in addition, attention has been, drawn to the danger of mouth-to-mouth infection to children sucking ices successively out of the same glass; and whether the provisions of the Public Health Acts and the Food and Drugs Acts are inefficient to control or prohibit the sale of poisonous compounds such as these ices?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): My attention has been drawn to this subject, and I am aware of the fact that two children recently suffered from vomiting and diarrhœa after eating ice cream, one of them dying, and that the coroner's jury attributed the death to the consumption of ice creams. I understand that Dr. Klein in 1894 made some investigations for one of the London vestries of specimens of water and ice cream submitted to him, and that he discovered numerous organisms. As to the third question, the practice referred to is obviously objectionable, but I have no evidence of actual' mischief having resulted. I am advised that these ices would come within the provisions of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, section 47, and also under the Public Health Acts Amendment Act,

1223
1890, where that Act has been adopted. But I am making further inquiries into the circumstances of these lamentable occurrences, and if it should prove to me necessary I shall have to consider whether any, and what, alterations of the law may be desirable.
SIR H. MAXWELL: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he has considered the question of regarding these so-called ice creams as dairy products, and therefore subjecting the premises in which they are prepared to inspection in the same way as dairies?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I should be sorry to regard them as in the nature of dairies, but there is no doubt from what I know that the conditions under which these ices are produced are discreditable in the extreme.
MR. J. LOWTHER: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that these articles are made and purveyed by aliens?
[No Reply.]

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, seeing that Her Majesty's Inspectors are not permitted to examine the children in elementary schools in religious knowledge, it is possible to make an authoritative comparison between the attainments of scholars in Board and Voluntary schools on such subjects?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): No official comparison of the relative attainments of the children is possible.
MR. TALBOT: Then why did the Vice-President make such a comparison in his speech on Friday?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

ARMY ENLISTMENTS.
Mr. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the important changes in enlistment for the Army inaugurated this year, the Government will furnish to the House, early in July, a Return showing the number of men enlisted during the three months ending 30th June, specifying how many are specials for height or physique, and comparing these numbers with similar figures for the same three months of last year, and also stating the number of reservists in each of the three arms who have rejoined during this period of this year, so that the country may be given, before the recess, the opportunity of judging the effect on enlistment of recent Army reforms?
MR. BRODRICK: It is unusual to give a Return for isolated periods; but a statement can be made, either when the War Office Vote is under discussion or in reply to a Question.

HIGHER GRADE SCHOOL STATISTICS.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, as the parties concerned are understood to entertain no objection to such publication, he will cause to be presented as a common Paper the summary of statistics concerning higher grade Board schools and public secondary schools, which was prepared for the use of a conference between representatives of the Incorporated Association of Head Masters and of the Association of Head Masters of Higher Grade Schools, held at the Education Department in November last?
SIR J. GORST: Yes, Sir.

BELFAST RIOTS COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of claims already made

1225
for compensation for damage done to property in the city of Belfast during the recent riots there; and if he can give the aggregate amount of the sums so claimed?
MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The number of claims referred to is 83, and the amount of compensation claimed is £1,360.

BALLINAHINCH RIOT CLAIMS.
Mr. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the number of the claims made up to the present for compensation for damage to property arising out of the recent riot at Ballinahinch, county Down; and if he will state the total amount of the claims lodged in connection with this riot?
MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): Only one such claim has been made, for a sum of £55.
MR. MCCARTAN: Can the right honourable Gentleman say when these claims will be dealt with?
MR. ATKINSON: That rests with the local authorities. I cannot interfere with them.

COUNTY MONAGHAN GRAND JURORS.
Mr. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that grand jurors of county Monaghan have relieved themselves from county cess on evicted farms in their possession for several years past; (2) whether he can give the names of the grand jurors of Monaghan who benefited by not paying county cess on their evicted farms, and the amounts during the past five years; and (3) whether he will take any steps at the coming July Assizes to prevent the grand jury of county Monaghan from relevying on the county at large the cess of evicted farms in the possession of grand jurors?
MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The secretary to the grand jury states it is not a fact that members of that body have relieved themselves from county cess on vacant farms. Applications, however, have been made occasionally to the grand jury by barony constables to have county cess re-presented which they have been unable to levy off vacant premises, and in dealing with such applications the grand jury have been advised by counsel as to the cases in which re-presentments should be made. It has already been more than once pointed out to the honourable Member that the executive have no control over the action of the grand jury in such matters, and the Government do not propose, therefore, to take any steps in the direction suggested in the Question. It is, of course, open to any ratepayer to appear before the grand jury and object to any re-presentment, or to traverse it before the judge of assize.
MR. DALY: Can the right honourable Gentleman answer the first part of the second paragraph of my Question? Can he give me the names of the grand jurors who have benefited by not paying county cess?
MR. ATKINSON: I did answer that. The Secretary to the grand jury says that no members of that body have relieved themselves from county cess on vacant farms.

LAGOS.
MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the Report asked for from the Governor of Lagos as to the alleged impressment and consequent suicide of a native trader from Abeokuta, and as to the employment of compulsory labour in that Colony; and whether effective steps have now been taken to prevent the unauthorised exaction of such labour by officials in Lagos and its protectorate?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The Question refers to one of those numerous reports which

1227
come from West Africa, which, turn out on inquiry to be absolutely groundless. The Governor has reported that, as the result of inquiries, it has been ascertained that the suicide of an Abeokuta trader, reported in one of the local papers, never occurred. With regard to compulsory labour, he has reported that in October last it was found necessary, in order to provide transport for the West India Regiment, in connection with the recent operations, to call upon the native chiefs to provide carriers in accordance with native custom, but this was only a temporary expedient, and each man received the full wage of 1s. 3d. a day. He adds that, when the men returned to Lagos, and were paid off, they expressed their desire to serve again on the same conditions, as soon as they had spent the wages which had accrued to them.
MR. J. A. PEASErose to ask whether the charges in another case were equally groundless, but Mr. Speaker ruled that notice must be given.

DEATH OF JOHN LEONARD, OF ALFRETON.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings of a medical gentleman in making a post-mortem examination on the body of one John Leonard, who died at Alfreton; is he aware that Leonard was attended by two qualified doctors before death, and that a certificate of the usual kind, showing the cause of death, was given on the 9th May; that on the same day, a few hours after the signing of this certificate, a medical practitioner, in no way concerned in the case, entered the room where the body lay, and performed the operation referred to without any authority from the coroner or the friends of the deceased; whether such conduct is a violation of the law; and what steps does he propose to take to stop such unwarranted proceedings in future?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RID- LEY,): Yes, my attention was called to this case some weeks ago, and I made inquiries. It appears that the examination was carried out by the son of the doctor who gave the certificate—one of the two mentioned in the Question, and at his request, the doctor being of opinion that his judgment as to the cause of death required verification. The only friends of the deceased who were known at the time were the people with whom he lodged, and they assented to the examination being made. I am advised it is by no means clear that there has been any violation of the law.
MR. DAVITT: Did the doctor have the permission of the coroner? Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the landlady of the house with whom Leonard died indignantly denies that she gave any permission?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Leave was not asked of the coroner, and, as I have explained, the post-mortem was made at the request of one of the doctors who gave the certificate. My information is that the friends of the deceased with whom he lodged did consent to the postmortem.

VACCINATION LYMPH.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the calves from which lymph will be taken for vaccination will be submitted to the tubercular test, and those calves excluded from use which are shown by the tubercular test to be suffering from tuberculosis?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I have considered this matter, and the proposal of the honourable Member will be unnecessary, because I am making arrangements by which each calf from which lymph has been taken will be slaughtered and examined by a competent expert, and no lymph will be issued from any calf until it has been ascertained and certified on post-mortem that the animal is not only free from all signs of tuberculosis, but that it is also healthy in other respects.

VAGRANT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the necessity for such legislation, an effort will be made to pass the Vagrancy Act Amendment Bill into law during the present Session.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I hope to be able to pass the Bill during the present Session.

MISCONDUCT ON AN IRISH RAILWAY.
Mr. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) has there been brought under his notice the report of a case at Monaghan Petty Sessions, where two men, named Boylan and M'Quaide, were prosecuted and fined for an alleged breach of the bye-laws of the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland), consisting of a simple effort to defend themselves against the violence of a man named Wheatfield, who behaved in a scandalous and immoral manner; (2) is he aware that it is stated in the report that Wheatfield used the most disgusting obscenities, behaving improperly with the women, and then assaulted Boylan and M'Quaide when they remonstrated with him, and although this was reported to the railway servants at Armagh, he was permitted to continue his journey; (3) has he observed that the presiding magistrate strongly censured the railway officials for permitting Wheatfield and the two women to remain in the carriage when complaint was made of their misconduct at Armagh; (4) will he explain why Wheatfield was not prosecuted, while the two men who were assaulted by him, and who merely defended themselves from his violence, were each convicted and fined; and (5) what steps does he propose to take in the matter?
MR. ATKINSON: At the request of my right honourable Friend I will reply to this Question. The facts are substantially as stated. With regard to the fourth paragraph, I understand that the stationmaster at Armagh did visit the
1230
carriage in which the parties were travelling, but that he saw nothing that would justify him in expelling them from the carriage. I am also informed that a summons was issued against Wheatfield, though, having left Ireland, it could not be served upon him. It devolves upon the railway company to take proceedings against Wheatfield, and the solicitor to the company states that every effort will be made by the company to bring him to justice. The police authorities will, of course, afford the railway company every assistance in their power in the matter.

RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THE CONVEYANCE OF VOLUNTEERS.
COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if all the railway companies have now withdrawn from the decision announced that they would no longer convey Volunteer corps upon Saturdays to the drills and musketry practice undertaken without payment for the service of the country; and, in the contrary case, if the Secretary of State will consider, in conjunction with the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Postmaster General, the desirability of diverting from any such company the public moneys heretofore paid for the conveyance of troops, sailors, marines, guns, stores, and mails; and, further, have inserted in railway Bills for new or extended powers provisions against an exercise of power prejudicial to the public interest?
MR. BRODRICK: Two companies make some difficulty about the Saturday preceding the August Bank Holiday; but all the others have reverted to the arrangements of former years. I hope, as regards one of the two companies, that a satisfactory arrangement may be made, but the South Eastern Railway still stands out.
COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I shall repeat the Question as to the South Eastern Railway this day week.

UNION RATES IN IRELAND.
MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether some arrangement can be made by which the Clare portion of the Limerick Union may be protected from a largely increased rate under the new condition of affairs under the Local Government (Ireland) Bill?
MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): Apart from the agricultural grant the rates, under the system of union rating, will necessarily be raised upon the Clare portion of the union, but having regard to the sum the union will receive from the grant the present rates in this portion of the union will not, it is believed, be increased as a result of the new condition of affairs.
MR. W. REDMOND: But, in view of the fact of the poverty of this portion of the union, cannot a special exemption be made in its favour?
MR. ATKINSONreplied in the negative, but repeated that it was not anticipated that the rates would be increased.

SCIENCE AND ART BUILDINGS AT SOUTH KENSINGTON.
SIR F. POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has received a memorial from the Royal Academy expressing their opinion that the proposed buildings at South Kensington ought to be so arranged that provision for art be made on the east side of Exhibition Road, exclusively, and for science on the west side thereof?
SIR J. GORST: A memorial of the kind referred to was addressed to the Prime Minister, and by him referred to the Committee of Council.

COAL SUPPLIES FOR THE NAVY.
MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that there are collieries in Scotland producing in all over 100,000 tons of coal per day, or a total of over 30
1232
millions of tons per annum, of which a considerable portion is steam coal, almost equal to Welsh coal in results, and which is used by the Atlantic steamers sailing from Glasgow to New York, and other more distant ports, and that the present price of such coal is not more than the normal price of Welsh coal; and if, in these circumstances, he will reconsider the decision to abandon the naval manœuvres, which only require about 50,000 tons of coal at the most?
MR. FENWICK: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman, having regard to the fact that experiments specially instituted by the Admiralty showed that the best results were obtained in the Navy by a mixture of Northumberland and Welsh coal, whether, with a view to permitting the naval manœuvres to be carried out this year, he would not deem it advisable to place additional orders with Northumberland coalowners?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): Trials have been made of Scotch coal at various times, and especially in 1888, of some descriptions of coal specially selected by the Scottish Coalmasters' Association. The result of these trials was to show that this coal was so inferior to South Wales coal as to render its general use in the Service unadvisable. Trials are made of any coal which may be considered to meet the requirements of the Fleet.
COLONEL GUNTERwas understood to ask if trials had been made with Yorkshire coal.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I think I may say that various kinds of coal have been tried. Smokeless coal is very important, because a great deal of the utility of the manœuvres consists in signalling, and this signalling is particularly interfered with by coal which emits smoke.
MR. J. WILSON: In regard to the right honourable Gentleman's statement that samples of Scotch coal had been tried with unsatisfactory results, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the results with the Scotch coal were only 10 per cent. inferior to the Welsh coal?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I am not aware of that, but I am aware that it was found so inferior that the Admiralty did not consider it advisable to introduce it generally into the Navy. That is my information.
MR. FENWICK: But is it not a fact that the experiments to which I have referred proved conclusively that the best results for the Navy were obtained from a mixture of Northumberland and Welsh steam coal? With a view to the manœuvres being carried out this year, does not the right honourable Gentleman deem it advisable to increase the Admiralty's purchases from the Northumberland steam coal companies?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No; I cannot undertake to say that it would have an effect upon the manœuvres this year, but certainly what we have seen of the difficulties with reference to Welsh coal will induce the Admiralty to renew the experiments in every possible direction, and to give every coal a chance of being used for the Navy according to its quality. That will be the natural result of the strike or lockout, which has so limited the use of Welsh coal. Naturally, we shall be anxious to make experiments in every direction.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: The right honourable Gentleman told me the other day that the naval manœuvres involved a consumption of 50,000 tons of coals, and I understood him to say that that included the refilling of the bunkers. Can the right honourable Gentleman now state what quantity of coal will be saved by not holding the manœuvres?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I have no other information than that which I gave the other day. I presume the bunkers would first have to be emptied of the coal in them.

SCOTCH SHERIFF-SUBSTITUTES' SALARIES.
COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is his intention to recommend to the Treasury an increase of salaries to Scotch sheriff-substitutes, in view of
1234
the discrepancy between their salaries and those paid for like work in England, and the fact that their duties have been largely increased, and are going to be still further added to when the Workmen's Compensation Act comes into operation?
MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have the matter under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

FATAL ACCIDENTS INQUIRY ACT.
COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is his intention to recommend a repeal of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Act; and whether he would consider if the saving thereby effected might be applied to the increase of salaries of sheriff-substitutes, so as to reduce the inequality which now exists between these legal officers and their confrères in England?
MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have no intention of recommending the repeal of the Act named; its utility has not been destroyed by the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

NORTH DUBLIN UNION.
MR. W. REDMOND: On behalf of the honourable Member for the College Green Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a resolution, unanimously adopted by the guardians of the North Dublin Union on the 8th instant, calling attention to the alleged unfair representation proposed to be given to the city wards as compared with the rural districts in the union under the new Local Government Bill; whether he is aware that, whilst the six city wards of the union, with a valuation of nearly £300,000, will have only six representatives on the board, the rural districts, with a valuation of only £120,000, will have 11; and whether he will introduce an Amendment correcting this

1235
disproportion by giving at least two representatives to each of the city wards?
MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): This resolution is based on a misconception. In urban electoral divisions the Local Government Board will be enabled, should it appear equitable, to order the election of more than one guardian for each division.

POKESDOWN BRITISH SCHOOL.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether the Education Department received before Easter, for its approval, plans for the erection of a British school at Pokesdown; and (2) whether, having regard to the pressing educational necessities of the locality, the decision of the Department will be made known without further delay?
SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The plans have been returned to the promoters of the school for alterations, as the site is not large enough for the numbers proposed.

HONG-KONG.
MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Contagious Diseases Ordinances which were in force in Hong-kong from 1858 to 1887 were repealed, in opposition to the wish of the colony, and that the repeal has been followed by a serious increase of disease, as alleged by the China Association in their memorial of 30th August, 1897; and whether, in view of the recent augmentation of our forces in Eastern waters, he will reconsider the refusal to sanction the re-enactment of these ordinances conveyed in his letter to the Association of 19th February, 1898?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I am aware of the
1236
facts referred to by the honourable Member, but I am not prepared to sanction the re-enactment of the Hong-kong Contagious Diseases Ordinances. I am, however, conferring with the Governor as to whether other measures can be adopted to check the spread of venereal diseases in the colony. The correspondence is not yet completed, but when completed it will be laid before the House.

IRISH PIG TRADE.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the regulation of immediate slaughter of pigs exported from Ireland to Great Britain prevents English and Scotch people from keeping Irish-bred pigs for fattening purposes, and causes great loss to pig rearers in Ireland; and whether he will advise the discontinuance of the regulation referred to in the future?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): No regulation has been made by the Board of Agriculture which would require the immediate slaughter of Irish pigs imported from Ireland into Great Britain. It is possible, however, that such a regulation may have been made by a local authority for the protection of the swine in its district, and, if so, it would be obviously very difficult for me to intervene. Perhaps the honourable Member may be able to supply me with more precise particulars of any case in which difficulty has arisen, so that I may be in a position to make further inquiry respecting it.

GUN PRACTICE IN THE NAVY.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is able to make any statement with regard to the accuracy of the disquieting reports as to the marksmanship of the captains of guns of Her Majesty's ships which have recently appeared in the Press; whether there is

1237
any foundation whatever for the allegations that portions of the ammunition directed to be expended in the quarterly target practice have occasionally been expended by being thrown overboard, instead of being fired at the target; that, when the floating target has been hit and destroyed, the gunners have been directed to aim at the horizon; and that occasionally, when directed to open fire at 3,000 yards, as judged by themselves, the captains of guns have actually opened fire at 6,000 yards; and whether, with a view to increasing the attention paid and the importance attached to accurate marksmanship in Her Majesty's fleet, he will consider the advisability of issuing an order that at each annual inspection by the admiral of the ships on foreign stations, and also more especially at each paying-off inspection, the inspection in respect of gunnery shall always include an inspection in marksmanship, to be carried out by target practice at sea, under the supervision of the admiral's flag captain, with a half-quarterly allowance of ammunition, and that it is to be understood that the admiral's report on the captain and officers of the ship will deal with the proficiency of the ship in marksmanship as shown at these inspections?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The Admiralty have no reason to believe that there is the slightest foundation for the allegations quoted in the Question. On the contrary, they are convinced that in the great majority of cases commanding officers take the greatest interest in the target practice of their ships. With reference to the particular suggestion contained in the last paragraph of my honourable Friend's Question, I will confine myself to saying that the Admiralty are giving their most earnest attention to the best means of improving the standard of marksmanship in the Navy, and are carefully considering whether any further regulations on the subject are necessary.

TRIALS OF THE NEW BATTLESHIPS.
MR. W. ALLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if Her Majesty's ships Powerful
1238
and Terrible have fulfilled their designed speeds and conditions of contract; and if these cruisers have been reported satisfactory in speed and consumption of fuel; if not, will the reason be given to the House?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The Powerful and Terrible at their trials fulfilled their designed speeds and conditions of contract. In the case of both ships there have since been defects in the engines, which have interfered with the development of their full powers. The defects have been made good in the case of the Powerful, and some small defects are now being made good in the Terrible. The reports about the Powerful have since been satisfactory. The Terrible will have further trials. The consumption of fuel has varied very much. The latest experiments made with the Terrible were satisfactory, the consumption at 10,000 horse-power being 1.69, which compared favourably with other ships, but the expenditure of fuel will continue larger than in those which have succeeded them, where so-called economisers have been successfully introduced.

DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been brought to his notice that considerable hardship is entailed upon a number of Government employees at Deptford Victualling Yard, owing to their being compelled to work in the South West India. Dock, to which the Naval Stores Department is being transferred, in the vicinity of which they are unable to obtain living accommodation, and are consequently put to an average weekly expenditure of about 2s. for travelling expenses out of their scanty wage of 20s. per week; whether he is aware that this hardship is aggravated in the eyes of the men by the fact that they work alongside of dockers who receive wages at the rate of 6d. per hour; and whether he will take steps to deal with this undesirable state of things?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN,): There is no reason to anticipate that these men will have any difficulty in finding houses near their work, but the superintendent at Deptford was informed early last month that applications for the re-payment of additional expenses would be favourably considered if submitted through the Naval Storekeeper.

CLYDE DEFENCE WORK.
MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the difficulty connected with the acquisition of land for the Clyde defence works, a scheme for which has been considered and approved of for over 10 years, is any nearer solution; what is the precise nature of the difficulties in securing a suitable position; and who is responsible for these difficulties?
MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State has undertaken to see a deputation on this question to-morrow. It would be undesirable to enter upon the subject previous to the discussion with the deputation.

FOG SIGNALS IN BELFAST LOUGH.
COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether serious complaints have been received from shipowners regarding the want of a fog signal on the Maidens, off the entrance to Belfast Lough; whether numerous wrecks have taken place on these rocks; and whether it is the intention of the Board to press for a signal being provided?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Board of Trade have received a complaint from Mr. Lawther, of Belfast, regarding the want of a fog signal on the Maidens. During the last 10 years five vessels have been wrecked in the neighbourhood of these rocks, but no loss of life has occurred. The Board of Trade will give careful consideration to any
1240
application which may be made to them on the subject by the Irish Lights Commissioners, who are the authority responsible for the safeguarding of this coast, but the Board have no power to initiate lights or fog signals.

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, SANDHURST.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided that the Staff Corps cadets at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, both of the intermediate and junior divisions, are to leave the college a term before their time, thus causing other cadets to lose six months' seniority, and some of them to be actually gazetted at the same time as those to whom they are senior by a term?
MR. BRODRICK: The whole of the intermediate and junior divisions of the cadets at Sandhurst, infantry, cavalry, and Indian Staff Corps, will pass out a term earlier than usual. In gazetting these cadets no change will be made in the usual rules. The cadets of the Indian Staff Corps of the elder batch will be gazetted senior to those of the junior batch.

ALBION LAUNCH DISASTER.
MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why, on the launch of H.M.S. Albion, proper precautions were not taken to prevent the lamentable accident which occurred?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: H.M.S. Albion is building by contract in a private shipbuilding yard, that of the Thames Iron Works Company, and, as is universally the custom in such cases, the arrangements for the presence of spectators at the launch remained entirely in the hands of the contractors. The honourable Gentleman will have noticed that an inquest is being held upon the deaths of the unfortunate victims by this deplorable accident, and all the circumstances attending the disaster will doubtless be brought to light.

IRISH MUNICIPAL TAXATION.
MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ash the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Municipal Taxation (Ireland) Return, ordered to be printed on 23rd May last, will be distributed to Members?
MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The distribution of this Return does not rest with the Irish Government. I am informed, however, that it will in all probability be circulated early next week.

BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state on what day the proposal as to financial aid to the Egyptian Government for the further military expedition into the Soudan will be brought before the House?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): On the question of the honourable Gentleman I propose to make a statement about business and about the changes which will be necessitated, I regret to say, by the indisposition of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There seems to be no prospect of my right honourable Friend being back in the House and able to resume his duties before Thursday next, and, in those cicumstances, I am afraid it will be impossible to proceed, as we had hoped, with the Irish Local Government Bill next Tuesday. In these circumstances I think it would probably be greatly to the convenience of Irish Members if, instead of beginning, or attempting to begin on Thursday of next week, we should put off all the Irish arrangements for one week, taking the Irish financial resolution not on Monday next, but on Monday week, and proceeding immediately afterwards with the discussion of the Report stage of the Irish Local Government Bill. I have taken all the pains I could to find out whether that arrangement would be convenient to honourable Gentlemen from Ireland, and
1242
I think that arrangement is one which will suit them best. This will leave next week free for other business, and I propose on Monday to take the Committee stage of the Indian Loan Bill, which ought to pass into law without further delay, and also the Egyptian proposals of my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On Tuesday I should propose to take the Third Reading of the Benefices Bill. I cannot as yet state what the business on Wednesday and Thursday will be, but on Friday I shall have to change the Supply, which was to have been Irish, and I propose to take the Scotch Estimates on that day.
SIR H. H. FOWLER: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether in his arrangement of Supply for the rest of the Session he would take care to allow ample time for the discussion of details of administration by the Home Office, Local Government Board, and the Board of Trade?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Home Office Vote has, I think, been under discussion.
SIR H. H. FOWLER: There are several more matters for discussion, and so also with the Local Government Board Vote.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will bear that in mind.

DEPUTY JUDGE ADVOCATE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what arrangements are contemplated in view of the probable retirement, owing to superannuation, of Mr. O'Dowd from the office of Deputy Judge Advocate General?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am informed by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War that Mr. O'Dowd will retire at the end of the present financial year, and that it has been arranged that Sir John Scott, late judicial adviser to the Khedive, shall succeed him. Sir John Scott will begin his duties in October in order to have six months' service with Mr. O'Dowd.

BELFAST RIOTS.
MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Belfast riots of 1886 recommended that the chief police officer of Belfast should have absolute control of the police force of the town and the sole responsibility of maintaining the peace, free from any magisterial or other control; (2) whether, notwithstanding this recommendation, the efforts of the police to keep the peace are still controlled by the local magistrates; and (3) whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to this recommendation of Mr. Justice Day's Commission?
MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The Commissioners on the Belfast riots of 1886 recommended that the chief officer of police in that city should have absolute control of the police force and the sole responsibility of maintaining the peace, free from any magisterial or other control, save that of the Executive Government and the Inspector General. It is the practice of the chief officer of police in Belfast to consult the Lord Mayor and magistrates with a view to their co-operation in suppressing disturbance, and the Commissioners of 1886 noticed, with an expression of approval, the existence of a machinery for bringing into communication the police and the municipality. The second paragraph of the honourable Member's Question is based on a misapprehension; the efforts of the Belfast police are in no way controlled by the local magistrates. This Government, like those Governments which preceded it, since 1886, have not seen their way to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners in their entirety. Most of the recommendations which were matters of police administration have been adopted.

WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received satisfactory replies from the railway companies in
1244
response to the appeal that has been made for an improved service of workmen's trains within the London area; and whether, if the companies do not meet the demand in a liberal spirit, ha would be prepared to order local inquiries to be held in the districts affected, in order to give the inhabitants an opportunity of substantiating to his satisfaction their demand for the improved services.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Board of Trade have not yet received replies from all the railway companies. In the event of any of the answers being unsatisfactory I shall, of course, be prepared to adopt the procedure laid down by the Cheap Trains Act with regard to the particular company, and to order an inquiry to give the inhabitants of a district full opportunity of showing the necessity for a specific train or trains.

CRUISE OF THE CHANNEL SQUADRON.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Irish people contribute largely towards the maintenance of the Navy, and that Queenstown is the chief Naval station in Ireland, steps will be taken to include a visit to Queenstown harbour in the forthcoming cruise of the Channel Squadron?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The programme of the cruise of the Channel Squadron has not yet been decided. In the meantime may I be allowed to say in reply to the Question of the honourable and gallant Member, and by way of anticipation to Questions which may be contemplated by other honourable Members representing seaport constituencies, that my stereotyped and impartial answer to all such Questions is, that the cruise will be determined simply by Naval considerations.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right honourable Gentleman endeavour to make a visit to Queenstown compatible with the interests of the Navy?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: That shall be impartially considered.

SWAZILAND.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information regarding the state of affairs in Swaziland, especially as to the entry of armed Boer forces into the country?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The High Commissioner for South Africa reported by telegrams of the 21st and 22nd instant that about 1,300 armed Volunteers from the Transvaal with two quick-firing guns, field telegraph and ambulance were on their way to Bremersdorp; that the paramount chief of Swaziland was at his mountain kraal with probably about 1,000 followers; that Bremersdorp had been put into a state of defence but that no acts of hostility had been committed on either side.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the right honourable Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government will take some steps to prevent the Swazis, who have been our allies on two occasions, from being destroyed by the invading Boer forces.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The relations between Swaziland and the Transvaal are settled by the Convention, and Her Majesty's Government intend that the Convention shall be observed.

MOULTON SCHOOL BOARD.
SIR J. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether he has received a letter
from the clerk to the Moulton School Board complaining that his Board is bound to provide for the education of all deaf and blind children in the school district, whilst the ratepayers of Moulton are at the same time bound to share in providing the cost of the education of all such children in the Poor Law Union within which Moulton is contained; and that the education of one blind boy is calculated to cost a penny in the £ on the Moulton School Board rate; and (2) whether he proposes to introduce a Bill to remove the grievance complained of; and, if so, whether he can exempt the Moulton School Board from the necessity of providing for the case of this one boy?
SIR J. GORST: The answer to paragraph 1 is in the affirmative. A Bill to remove the grievance is now under the consideration of the Committee of Council, but it is not, of course, possible to treat Moulton exceptionally.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL. [TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE SUSPENSION.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)formally moved that the proceedings on the Benefices (No. 2) Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order Sittings of the House.
  The House divided:—Ayes 246; Noes 128.—(Division List No. 163.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bethell, Commander

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Banes, Major George E.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Biddulph, Michael

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith- (Hunts)

  Bill, Charles

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Barry, F. Tress (Windsor)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Bond, Edward

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Beach, Rt Hon. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Brassey, Albert

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Gunter, Colonel

  Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hall, Sir Charles

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Murdoch Charles Townshend

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles W.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Myers, William Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Helder, Augustus

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Henderson Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs)

  Purvis, Robert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Rankin, James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hoare, Samuel (Norfolk)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Came

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Hornby, William Henry

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Howard, Joseph

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Cornwallis, F. S. W.

  Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Robinson, Brooke

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. L.

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rutherford, John

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew R.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

  Kemp, George

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kenrick, William

  Sharpe, William E. T.

  Dane, Richard H.

  Kenyon, James

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Denny, Colonel

  King, Sir H. Seymour

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

  Dorington, Sir J. Edward

  Knowles, Lees

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lafone, Alfred

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.)

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

  Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Ellis, J. Edward (Notts)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Finch, George H.

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUny.)

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swans'a)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Flower, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Foster, Col. (Lancaster)

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Fry, Lewis

  McCalmont, Maj-Gen (Ant'mN)

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Garfit, William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

  Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wylie, Alexander

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  Milner, Sir Fred. George

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Monk, Charles James

  Younger, William

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Gretton, John

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Greville, Captain

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Mount, William George

  1248

  1249

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Harwood, George

  Price, Robert John

  Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Provand, A. Dryburgh

  Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

  Holburn, J. G.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

  Robertson, E. (Dundee)

  Billson, Alfred

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn. Sir U.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shee, James John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Langley, Batty

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Spicer, Albert

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Strachey, Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Colville, John

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Thomas. D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Crombie, John William

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Tully, Jasper

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Ure, Alexander

  Daly, James

  McEwan, William

  Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  McKenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wayman, Thomas

  Dillon, John

  Maden, John Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mappin, Sir F. Thorpe

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Doughty, George

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wilson, C. Henry (Hull)

  Duckworth, James

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W. R.)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Norton, Capt. C. William

  Woodall, William

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Woods, Samuel

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Young, S. (Cavan, E.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, J. A. (North'mberland)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Warner and Mr. Thomas Bayley

  Gold, Charles

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  MR. S. EVANSmoved—
  "Page 3, line 32, to leave out sub-section 4 of clause 3."
  He said his objection to this sub-section was that it practically told the lord bishop of the diocese that he could do just as he pleased, and that ought not to be allowed after the decision of the judge of the High Court, sitting under the archbishop, that the presentee ought to be instituted.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR COURTNEY WARNERmoved—
  "Page 3, line 35, after the word 'other' to insert the word 'legal.'"
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I think this is not a logical clause, having regard to what the House has already passed. The whole discussion yesterday, raised principally by the Amendment of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, was whether or not

  1251
  the patron should have the right to go to the High Court of Justice, and the answer of the Government was that it was the intention of this Bill, and the intention of this clause, that the timehonoured right which the layman has to go into the High Court of Justice, and have the matter tried by a judge and jury, should not be taken away by this Bill. If you take away that right I can quite understand why you should introduce this clause, but, having regard to the general conception of this Measure, I venture to put it to the Attorney General whether it is absolutely necessary to take away any right of action in the High Court of Justice. Why, for instance, should not the patron, whose presentee is refused institution, have the alternative right to go before this new court, or before the High Court of Justice? And, therefore, it is in order to raise that question that I move—
  MR. SPEAKER: That is out of order.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I have only one other observation to address to the House in regard to this clause, and that is, Sir, that I am not quite clear whether the words are not too broad. Is it absolutely certain, for instance, that if the archbishop's court should exceed its jurisdiction the prohibition shall be taken away? Is it absolutely clear that, if this new court fails to hear and determine the question submitted to it in a proper and legal manner, there is any right to go to the High Court in the matter? The words are very broad. They read—
  "No proceeding in the nature of quare impedit or duplex querela shall be taken in any other court in respect of the refusal."
  There was some slight alteration made in the Standing Committee, and it may be that the point I am raising has no sufficient justification and no substance, but I should like to have it considered.
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this sub-section as it stands. It might be amended, but as it stands now there, is no reference to prohibition.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to move—
  "Page 3, line 36, leave out sub-section 5."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir R. FINLAY,): I hope the
  1252
  honourable Member will not press this Amendment, the objections to which I fully pointed out upon a previous Amendment.
  MR. S. EVANS: There is another very important action which is to be tried by the bishop, and, on the whole, by a more satisfactory tribunal, which must consist of 12 persons, six of them laymen and six ecclesiastics. Now, Sir, if you are abolishing these actions we might as well know what the effect will be.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): These proceedings do not in any way touch the acts of the bishops in such cases.
  MR. S. EVANS: Then the action is not touched?
  SIR R. FINLAY: No.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg leave to move—
  "Page 3, line 37, leave out from 'section' to 'in respect of' in line 39, and insert 'the patron and the presentee shall have the right of proceeding either under this Act or by way of quare impedit or duplex querela.'"
  The law officer of the Crown knows that it is not novel to give the appellant the choice of tribunals, because under the Clergy Discipline Act, section 4, the appellant has the option of going to Her Majesty in council or to the court of the diocese. In reference to this I observe that the Solicitor General referred to the existing method of quare impedit or duplex querela as being unsatisfactory. Now, I do not know upon what grounds it is unsatisfactory. In one case I understand that there is a trial before a judge and jury, and the other is the ecclesiastical court. Now, I do not see why if the presentee prefers that court he should not have the right to go there. Substantially, the point raised by this Amendment is whether or not it is right to take away the privilege which at present exists of going before a judge and jury if the patron and presentee so desire.
  SIR R. FINLAY: I hope my honourable Friend will not press this Amendment.
  Amendment negatived without a Division.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg leave to move—
  "Page 3, line 40, leave out from 'archbishop' to end of sub-section and insert 'three bishops nominated by the Queen under her sign manual, and having power to act by a majority of their number."
  It seems to me inconvenient and most absurd that where a presentation is made to an archbishop the archbishop of the other province, either Canterbury or York, should be called from his province to decide. I venture to suggest that the words of the sub-section should be restored, so as to restore it to the form in which it originally appeared before the Grand Committee.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I was not aware until the right honourable Gentleman rose that he was going to raise this question again. We have not a very strong view of the matter, but I think it would be better to leave it now as it stands. The grounds brought forward by the right honourable Gentleman are that it would not be consistent with the practice of the Church, when there was a case in the diocese of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that there should be an appeal to the Archbishop of York. Under these circumstances it would be a case with which the judge and the high ecclesiastical authority would be able to deal. Now, the alternative of my right honourable Friend is the sub-section as originally proposed. I have no very strong opinion about it, but I must point out that it means very great interference with duties; and, knowing that this is the case, there may be great difficulties in consulting the convenience of those concerned, or of getting suitable arrangements made. I cannot help thinking that unless there is some constitutional objection, from the point of view of convenience and the minimum of interference with duties, it would be, on the whole, better to maintain the sub-section as it stood.
  MR. MONK: My objection to this proposal is, I think, a very sound one—namely, that it would be calling away bishops from their respective
  1254
  dioceses, which would be very objectionable. In the case of the Amendment of my right honourable Friend I do not see why three bishops should be deemed the equivalent of one archbishop, and I do not see why one bishop should not take the place of an archbishop. I must protest altogether against bringing bishops all the way from their dioceses to sit in this court.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I may point out to the House that I raised this question on the Grand Committee, and I think the matter might be left over now for consideration in another place. I confess that the present condition of the Bill is not satisfactory, and I might, perhaps, remind my honourable and learned Friend that the proposal which was cut out of the Bill in the Grand Committee is the same proposal in the Bill for which he was responsible when a private Member, and one which we supported year after year under his able leadership. The real truth is that the argument as to the convenience of the bishops might be left to themselves to determine in another place. The matter has been discussed over and over again in Convocation, and they believe that the original proposal was the right one, because an appeal from one archbishop to another is contrary to the practice of the Church. I think it is very unfortunate that this provision was introduced. As to the question as to whether there should be two or three bishops, that is a mere detail. I think it would be better if my right honourable Friend would allow this question to be discussed and settled in the House of Lords, because a matter of this kind is one which concerns their own convenience, and perhaps that course might be advantageously adopted.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I hope that the House will reject the Amendment of my right honourable Friend. The House has been again and again appealed to to support the Grand Committee. The honourable Member for Shrewsbury raised this very question, and it was very

  1255
  fully discussed, and there was a Division, and I had the satisfaction of voting in the same Lobby as the representatives of the Government.
  MR. H. D. GEEENE: I should like to say a word or two upon this question. I respectfully protest against this matter being left by the House to be decided in another place. I have the greatest possible respect for all that is done in the House of Lords, but, at the tame time, I do not like to see the functions of this House entirely done by the other House. Sir, the reasons which I put forward were those, I think, which have been repeated here. First, I suggested that it would be a very great inconvenience, not to the bishops, but to the dioceses, that three of them should be taken away to assist one judge on any matter which arises throughout any part of England. Again, I do not know the reason why three bishops should be taken as equivalent to one archbishop. I do not yet understand the ecclesiastical rules of proportion which tell us that three bishops, rather than two, should be equal to one archbishop. There must be some calculation of ecclesiastical arithmetic with which we are not acquainted which makes one equal three. In answer to that the noble Lord said that the three bishops were to act together—they were to be one unit and the judge was to be the other unit—in this extraordinary and incomprehensible tribunal. I think it would work very unsatisfactorily, and the view which I take is the view taken by the majority of the Committee after very full discussion. I hope the House will accept the decision of the Standing Committee, and will not allow the matter to be left to the other House.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I have followed this Debate with some interest, and I find it very difficult indeed to know how to vote upon the matter, because, although on the one hand there
  1256
  may be something to be said in favour of sending three bishops into a particular diocese, it is very inconvenient on the other hand to establish a precedent that the Archbishop of York ought to sit on the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop of Canterbury holds a very high, office. There is no question at all as to his precedence over all the bishops and the other archbishops. I find he is the first Lord of the Realm, has precedence over every other person in the country except those of the Royal blood. But a bishop is a mere baron. He is nowhere. He is under the degree of a viscount, and a viscount is not very high up in the scale of peerage. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is an extraordinary thing to ask that three bishops—three ordinary bishops—should sit upon the decisions of the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of York. I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury has power to remove any of the bishops, and has the same jurisdiction and supremacy as the patriarchs of Constantinople. Well, Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest a way out of the difficulty. The figure three has been hit upon, and we have been told that three bishops are equal to one archbishop. There are three bishops of the Church who have precedence of the other bishops. After the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Arch, bishop of York come the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Durham, and the Bishop of Winchester. Would it not be a good way out of the difficulty if these three bishops were selected as the Court of Appeal, when the decision of an archbishop is in question?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 279; Noes 104.—(Division List No. 164.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Aird, John

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

  Hudson, G. Bickersteth

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Humphreys-Owen, A. C.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Denny, Colonel

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. L.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Atkinson, Et. Hon. John

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Doughty, George

  Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

  Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

  Kenrick, William

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Kenyon, James

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. Bevan

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith- (Hunts)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Barry, F. Tress (Windsor)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Kitson, Sir James

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Knowles, Lees

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Finch, George H.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Bethell, Commander

  Flower, Ernest

  Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Biddulph, Michael

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Bigwood. James

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Bill, Charles

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Fry, Lewis

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bond, Edward

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Garfit, William

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lowles, John

  Brassey, Albert

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. (C. of Lond)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

  McArthur. C. (Liverpool)

  Burt, Thomas

  Gordon, Hon. J. Edward

  McCalmont, Mj.-Gen (Ant'mN.)

  Butcher, John George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Carlile, William Walter

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mappin, Sir F. Thorpe

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)

  Cayzer, Sir C. William

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Camb)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H M.

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Gretton, John

  Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Greville, Captain

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Milton, Viscount

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gunter, Colonel

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hall, Sir Charles

  Monk, Charles James

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Holder, Augustus

  Mount, William George

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

  Murdoch, Charles Townshend

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hornby, William Henry

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Howard, Joseph

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  1258

  1259

  Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Spicer, Albert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Rankin, James

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Williams, J. C. (Notts)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Steadman, William Charles

  Williams, J. P. (Birm.)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W. R.)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Sturt, Hon. H. Napier

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Robinson, Brooke

  Thorburn, Walter

  Wyndham, George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Valentia, Viscount

  Younger, William

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Wallace, R. (Perth)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Sharpe, William E. T.

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfr'w)

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Randell, David

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Howorth, Sir H. Hoyle

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Allen, W. (Newc-under-Lyme)

  Hutton, A. E. (Morley)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth

  Shaw, C. E. (Stafford)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Langley, Batty

  Smith, J. P. (Lanarks)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Soames, A. Wellesley

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUny.)

  Cameron, R. (Durham)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  McEwan, William

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  McKenna, Reginald

  Tully, Jasper

  Colville, John

  Maddison, Fred.

  Ure, Alexander

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Maden, John Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Crombie, John William

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Wayman, Thomas

  Daly, James

  Moss, Samuel

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Myers, William Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Wilson, C. H. (Hull)

  Duckworth, James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pease, J. A. (North'mberland)

  Woodall, William

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Woods, Samuel

  Gold, Charles

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Harwood, George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir James Fergusson and Mr. Vicary Gibbs.

  Holburn, J. G.

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Provand, A. Dryburgh

  Holland, Hon. L. Raleigh

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 4, leave out clause 4."—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he put down the notice to omit clause 4 of the Bill by way of precaution, as he did not know how far clause 3 might be amended in course of consideration by the Committee. But having regard to the fact that the House had not seen fit to adopt any Amendment which had been suggested upon clause 3, and also having regard to the period which the Session had reached, and that there were many other important topics which there was a strong desire to discuss, he thought it was his duty not to move the Amendment.
  MR. H. S. FOSTERalso declined to move an Amendment to the same effect; and moved—
  "Page 4, line 35, after 'benefice' insert 'and, being an aged or infirm incumbent, has failed to provide adequately for the discharge of his duties.'"
  The honourable Member said that in moving his Amendment he was not sure whether the effect of the clause was that neglect of duty on the part of an infirm incumbent could be said to be negligence. If that was not the intention, his Amendment would not be necessary, but there was some fear expressed outside that infirmity might, under this clause, be regarded as negligence.
  SIR R. FINLAYsaid that cases of inadequate performance of duty owing to infirmity would be regarded as the misfortune of the incumbent, and not his fault.
  The clause was withdrawn.
  LORD H. CECILmoved—
  "Page 4, line 35, leave out from 'benefice' to 'if' in line 37, and insert 'the bishop may himself appoint a curate, as in the said section mentioned, without requiring the incumbent to do so, and may also.'"
  Agreed to.
  MR. CRIPPS, moved—
  "Page 4, line 39, at end, insert—
  "'(2) The power conferred by the said section, amended as aforesaid, and by this section, of appointing and requiring the appointment of a curate, may be exercised from time to time in case of any vacancy in the curacy.
  "'(3) Where a curate has, before the commencement of this Act, been appointed under the said section as so amended, the bishop may, if he sees reason to believe that the incumbent is negligent in the performance of the ecclesiastical duties of the benefice, issue a commission under the said section as so amended to inquire into the facts of the case, and if that commission reports that the incumbent is so negligent, the bishop may inhibit him from performing all or any of the said duties."
  He desired to make a verbal alteration in his Amendment; instead of the words "as so amended," to insert "as amended by the Pluralities Act of 1885."
  SIR R. FINLAYsuggested that the verbal alteration should be the insertion after "so amended" of the words "and by this Act."
  Agreed to.
  MR. H. S. FOSTERasked if the clause was to be retrospective.
  SIR R. FINLAYreplied that it would not be in any sense retrospective. The only way in which it would apply was this, that if the incumbent continued to neglect his duties, then the Commission would inquire into the matter.
  Agreed to.
  LORD H. CECILmoved—
  "Page 5, line 1, after 'Act' insert 'he shall not interfere with or control any curate in the performance of the ecclesiastical duties of the benefice, and.'"
  He said this was a very small Amendment, which he hoped the Government would accept. Its object was to make it quite clear that the incumbent would not be entitled to raise a scandal by interfering with the curate.
  MR. EVANSasked if anybody contended that the incumbent could now interfere with the curate.
  SIR R. FINLAYsaid the words were certainly very desirable.
  Agreed to.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENmoved—
  "Page 5, line 4, leave out 'archbishop of the province' and insert 'Lord Chancellor.'"
  He said the object of the Amendment, like those which had lately been moved and accepted by the other side, was to remedy a small deficiency in the Bill. The placing of patronage in the hands of the episcopate would not work well. It was desirable that the episcopal bench should be entirely free from even the suspicion of bias or self-interest. It was so in other courts. The most minute protection was thrown round the magistrates of even petty sessions courts to ensure that anyone having any possible partiality should be excluded from the bench. Now, under the Bill, they gave the episcopal bench power which they never had before. All courts should be raised above the suspicion of bias.
  SIR R. WEBSTERopposed the Amendment.
  Question put—
  "That the words 'archbishop of the province' stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. H. S. FOSTERmoved to leave out clause 10, providing that—
  "Every benefice for the cure of souls which at the commencement of this Act is donative shall as from that date be presentive."
  He did not think the abolition of donatives was altogether necessary, although there might be, in some cases, certain abuses.
  MR. EVANSreferred to the origin of donatives, and to the evidence that they were intended to provide a certain exemption from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It was perfectly clear, he thought, that this must be a valuable species of property vested in the patrons
  1264
  of these livings. He did not object to the clause, but he would point out that it would deprive the patron of his preferment without giving him any compensation at all. At the same time he must refer to the manner in which the House, and particularly the Conservative Members, had dealt with questions affecting the places of worship of the Nonconformists. He had, Session after Session, brought to the Second Reading, and even to further stages, a Bill for enabling the trustees of Nonconformist places of worship to acquire the control of the sites on which their chapels were built, while making full compensation to the owners of the land; yet the promoters of that Bill were not allowed to pass it, because, of course, it was in the interest of the Nonconformists altogether. For his own part, he did not object to the abolition of donatives, but he thought it advisable to point out the difference of action of honourable Members opposite in dealing with affairs touching the Church of England and those which affected the Nonconformists.
  MR. MOREsaid he should like the Solicitor General to explain why, if donatives were to be abolished, peculiars were to remain. He thought the House should have much further information upon that point, for he did not believe that many Members of the House understood what donatives were. He was reminded of a remark made by an honourable Member who first heard of Zulus in that House, and who said—
  "I don't know who the Zulus are, but I thank Heaven we have killed 500 of them."
  Similarly, there would be satisfaction in having discharged 100 donatives by those who did not know what they were. He was an owner of one which had asserted its independence of ecclesiastical control since the reign of Stephen. He summoned the congregation to choose their clerk, and submitted the name to the bishop, who was perfectly satisfied. One of his family served it for nothing for 53 years. The late Archbishop agreed with him that these livings were valuable as standing monuments of the continuity of the Church of England. This was a question controverted in this House, and

  1265
  out of it, and the Conservative Party proposed to abolish the grant, because donatives in some cases had been abused This was a dangerous doctrine. Then had been formerly cases of Welsh bishops neglecting their sees. Would they like the abolition of the episcopacy because one or two instances might be adduced of neglecting duty? He wished to ask the Solicitor General if he would state the difference between a peculiar and a donative, when each had the same exemption from ecclesiastical supervision?
  SIR R. FINLAYquite agreed with his honourable Friend that a change of this sort would not be wanted if the responsibilities of patrons were exercised as he had exercised them, and that no exceptional legislation would be required. But he thought it was well known that donatives had been used in some cases to withdraw delinquent incumbents from beyond the control and jurisdiction of the bishop. He quite agreed that the subject of donatives was interesting from an antiquarian point of view, but Commission after Commission had reported against their retention.
  MR. MOREdisputed the contention that frequent cases of maladministration in regard to donatives had been proved before Commissions. In the Report of one Commission the evidence given as to such malpractices was confined to a statement made by the secretary of the bishop that he had heard of it. Before another Commission two or throe cases were brought forward, but he asked whether, if malpractices in one or two cases were to justify the abolition of donatives, why the same principle should not be applied to both bishops and peers?
  MR. GEDGEsaid he should be in favour of giving compensation to the owners of donatives if they had a pecuniary value, but they could only have such a value in such cases of abuse as had been referred to. He should have a strong feeling in favour of giving compensation where a pecuniary wrong was done, but he thought that here there
  1266
  was nothing more than a sentiment grievance.
  Question put—
  "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Before the Amendments to this clause are entered upon I have to say that I have, on command from the Queen, to signify to the House that He Majesty has been pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament, for the purpose of the Benefices (No. 2) Bill, He Majesty's interest in benefices in the patronage of the Crown and of the Duchy of Lancaster.
MR. LEWIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask if shall be in order in moving the Amendment which stands in the name of my honourable Friend the Member for Denbighshire—
"Page 5, line 34, after 'all.' to insert the words 'cathedral deaneries, canonries, archdeaconries, minor canonries.'"
The object of the Amendment is to apply to the higher dignitaries of the Church the same rules as the Bill applies to the holders of livings. Under clause 2 the bishop may refuse to institute if the presentee is unfit for the discharge of his duties by reason of physical or mental infirmity, pecuniary embarrassment, grave misconduct, evil life, and so forth, and the question I wish to ask the Attorney General is, why should not these rules also apply to the holders of the higher ecclesiastical offices—deans, canons, archdeacons, and minor canons? It may be said that this Bill applies to benefices in the ordinary sense, and to benefices only, but I would ask, is there any reason whatever why the grounds for refusing to institute a clergyman to a benefice should not also apply to the higher clerical positions? The act of the matter is that a great many of these appointments are made by the bishops and the Crown, and I ask the House to apply the same rules to them as to the minor clergy.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid that a similar Amendment had already been considered by the Grand Committee. The circumstances surrounding the superior Church dignitaries were entirely different from those which surrounded the ordinary clergy. Many of them were appointed by the Crown, and there was no parish to consider. It would be very difficult at the present stage to insert the words proposed.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The reply which has been given by the learned Attorney General to my honourable Friend is a very extraordinary one. He says that circumstances are entirely different in respect to these superior Church dignitaries, that there is no parish to be considered, and that they were not appointed by patronage. Take the argument that there is no parish to be considered. Surely the influence of these functionaries is much wider than that of a mere parish priest, and consequently it is very much more important that the second clause of this Bill should be operative as far as they are concerned. The Attorney General says that a parish priest shall not be instituted if he suffers from mental or physical infirmity, or if he is guilty of grave misconduct, but that it is not material in the case of a prebendary or a dean.
SIR R. WEBSTERdissented.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right honourable Gentleman says that there is no parish to be considered, but what does it matter whether it is a parish or a diocese? The spiritual interests of the people within the sphere of influence of these functionaries will be seriously affected if they are guilty of grave misconduct. What does it matter whether they are presented by a bishop or not? The Solicitor General in his Amendment proposes to include the benefices in the patronage of the Crown. If these are to be included, why should not positions like that of a dean or prebendary and other positions in the gift of the Crown be also included? I do not suppose that any of these dignitaries would be guilty
1268
of grave misconduct, because the Crown would not appoint such persons, but the interpretation placed on the words by the Attorney General would include excessive ritual and doctrine, and these high officials are the very worst offenders in this respect. Take the speech of Canon Knox Little, in which he defied the House of Commons and everybody.
MR. GEDGE: I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. The whole scope of this Bill is to regulate the way in which a bishop may institute or admit to a benefice. Not one of the positions mentioned in the Amendment is a benefice, and to not one of them does a bishop admit or institute, except he is the patron.
MR. SPEAKER: I must say this Amendment does appear to me to be out of order. If these words were introduced into the Bill, it would leave them unworkable altogether, because the whole Bill deals with persons instituted only.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I fully see that, Mr. Speaker, and if these words are introduced it will be necessary to move a consequential Amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: It is not in order to put down an Amendment of this description, which requires new machinery to carry it out, without giving the House at the same time an opportunity of seeing the clauses which contain the whole of the proposed scheme. I must call on the next Amendment.
SIR R. FINLAYmoved—
"Page 5, line 38, after 'chapel,' insert 'and districts formed for ecclesiastical purposes by virtue of statutory authority, and includes benefices in the patronage of the Crown, but does not extend to any of Her Majesty's Royal Chapels, or to any Royal peculiar, nor to any cathedral or capitular preferment, or dignity, nor to any chapel belonging to any college, school, hospital, inns of court, asylum, or public or charitable institution.'"
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I move to omit the words, "nor to any cathedral or capitular preferment, or dignity," which I think will enable me to raise the point I was debating in another form, and also indicates the point which my honourable Friend proposed to come on

1269
the Amendment he put on the Paper. The learned Solicitor General evidently considers under the Bill as it stands that probably the word "benefices" might be construed to refer to these cathedral positions. I do not see why, if you are going to inhibit the institution of an ordinary parish priest because he is guilty of any of the offences mentioned in clause 2, you should protect deans, archdeacons, and canons. I move, Sir.
Question put.
SIR R. FINLAY: In the first place, the evils against which this Bill is directed have not been felt with reference to the cathedral and capitular appointments.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Offences against ritual are being constantly committed.
SIR R. FINLAY: The honourable and learned Gentleman must be aware that the particular evils against which this Bill is directed have not occurred among the dignitaries mentioned, and if the Amendment were accepted the whole machinery of the Bill would be rendered impracticable. I think it would be very undesirable to leave out these words.
MR. MONKasked if a capitular preferment would come within the operation of the Bill.
SIR R. FINLAYreplied in the negative.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Although there may not have been any gross cases in recent years in connection with these dignitaries, he would be a bold man who would say that deans, canons, or archdeacons have never been guilty not merely of ritualistic extravagances, but of graver offences, and he would be equally bold who would say that such offences will never occur again. It appears to mo, therefore, that
1270
the Solicitor General ought to accept this Amendment. I may say that it is within my own knowledge that one of the reasons why this Bill meets with hostility is that it is felt to be unfair to single out a portion of the clergy and to subject them alone to its operation.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: If the honourable Gentleman, at the beginning of the Report stage, had put down this Amendment, I should have been opposed to the alteration, but as the Amendment stands now it is absurd. I hope the honourable Gentleman will not persist.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The noble Lord forgets that this Amendment is quite voluntary, and I am bound to say that I think the suggestion of the honourable Gentleman opposite a reasonable one. This Amendment is a very peculiar one. First of all, a "benefice" is to include benefices—
"in the patronage of the Crown, but does not extend to any of Her Majesty's Royal chapels or to any Royal peculiar, nor to any cathedral or capitular preferment or dignity, nor to any chapel belonging to any college, school, hospital, inns of court, asylum, or public or charitable institution."
Is it feared that a dean may come out badly, or that a minor canon may fall?
MR. H. S. FOSTER: I am bound to sympathise with the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman opposite, but I feel it would he very difficult to insert it at this stage of the Bill. I think it a very unfortunate thing that if the Government proposes to deal with the purification of the Church, they should deal with those least able to help themselves. But for the fact that I have moved so many Amendments already, I should certainly have put down an Amendment to the same effect as the honourable Gentleman.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 227; Noes 90.—(Division List No. 165.)

AYES.

Allhusen, A. H. Eden

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Lowles, John

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Finch, George H.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fisher, William Hayes

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

Macaleese, Daniel

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Flannery, Fortescue

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, Sir Henry

McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

Baldwin, Alfred

Flower, Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

Folkestone, Viscount

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith- (Hunts)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Bartley, George C. T.

Fry, Lewis

Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Galloway, William Johnson

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

Garfit, William

Milton, Viscount

Beach, Rt Hon. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

Gedge, Sydney

Monk, Charles James

Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Beresford, Lord Charles

Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

More, Robert Jasper

Bethell, Commander

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Biddulph, Michael

Gordon, Hon. J. Edward

Mount, William George

Bigwood, James

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

Muntz, Philip A.

Bill, Charles

Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Blundell, Col. Henry

Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

Boulnois, Edmund

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Myers, William Henry

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

Nicholson, William Graham

Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

Gretton, John

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bullard, Sir Harry

Greville, Captain

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

Butcher, John George

Gull, Sir Cameron

O'Brien, P. (Kilkenny)

Carvill, P. G. Hamilton

Gunter, Colonel

O'Connor, A. (Donegal)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

Hall, Sir Charles

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

Pierpoint, Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pretyman, Ernest George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

Heaton, John Henniker

Pryce-Jones, Edward

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Helder, Augustus

Purvis, Robert

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. H.

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Charrington, Spencer

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Rankin, James

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hobhouse, Henry

Richards, Henry Charles

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Holland, Hon. L. Raleigh

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Colston, C. E. H. Athole

Howard, Joseph

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Howell, William Tudor

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

Howorth, Sir H. Hoyle

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chel'm)

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Rutherford, John

Cranborne, Viscount

Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Savory, Sir Joseph

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn. Sir U.

Seely, Charles Hilton

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Kemp, George

Seton-Karr, Henry

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Sharpe, William E. T.

Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

Kenrick, William

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon, James

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

Denny, Colonel

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

Knowles, Lees

Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Lafone, Alfred

Spencer, Ernest

Dorington, Sir J. Edward

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir W. Hart

Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

Strauss, Arthur

Edwards, Gen. Sir J. Bevan

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

Strutt, Hon. C. Hedley

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Sturt, Hon. H. Napier

Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

Loder, G. W. Erskine

Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'dUny.)

Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

Thorburn, Walter

1272

1273

Thornton, Percy M.

Whiteley, G. (Stockport)

Wylie, Alexander

Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

Wyndham, George

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Williams, J. P. (Birm.)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Valentia, Viscount

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Verney, Hon. R. Greville

Willox, Sir J. Archibald

Younger, William

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worc'rsh., N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Priestley, Briggs (Forks)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Holburn, J. G.

Randell, David

Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

Holden, Sir Angus

Reid, Sir Robert T.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Billson, Alfred

Humphreys-Owen, A. C.

Roberts, John B. (Eifion)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Robson, William Snowdon

Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Roche, Hon. J. (East Kerry)

Brigg, John

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Broadhurst, Henry

Kearley, Hudson E.

Schwann, Charles E.

Brunner, Sir John T.

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Burt, Thomas

Kitson, Sir James

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Knox, E. F. Vesey

Spicer, Albert

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Steadman, W. Charles

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Lambert, George

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Clough, Walter Owen

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Colville, John

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dalziel, James Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Tully, Jasper

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Lough, Thomas

Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)

Dillon, John

Maddison, Fred.

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Doogan, P. C.

Maden, John Henry

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Duckworth, James

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Walton, J. (Barnsley)

Dunn, Sir William

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Wayman, Thomas

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

Moss, Samuel

Wedderburn, Sir William

Fenwick, Charles

Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

Williams, John C. (Notts)

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

Paulton, James Mellor

Yoxall, James Henry

Grey, Sir E. (Berwick)

Pease, J. A. (North'mberland)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Philipps and Mr. Lloyd-George

Harwood, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Pirie, Duncan V.

Amendment proposed—
"As an Amendment to the Solicitor General's Amendment, to leave out the words 'nor to any chapel belonging to any college, school, hospital, inns of court, asylum, or other public or charitable institution.'"—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)
MR. EVANS: I might recommend this Amendment on two grounds—first of all, because it is the first Amendment I have moved on this Bill, and the only Amendment which I propose to move on this Bill; and secondly, I might recommend it on the same ground as that taken by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. With regard to the last Amendment of my honourable Friend behind me, I did not take part in the discussion upon it, but I voted for that Amendment practically as an abstract
1274
Resolution, because it expressed my view. But here, Sir, these benefices attaching to colleges and schools, hospitals, inns of court, asylums, and public and charitable institutions are not at all on the same footing. There is no reason whatever, if you apply this Bill to benefices, as the word is ordinarily understood, why you should not apply the same provisions to those who are appointed to similar ecclesiastical offices by masters and chapters of colleges, and authorities of that nature. I think the machinery of the Bill would be quite applicable to appointments of this kind, and that the Bill ought to be extended to them.
SIR R. FINLAYopposed the Amendment.
Amendment negatived, without a Division.
Report concluded.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg to give notice to fix the Third Reading stage for Tuesday.

EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHEE (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
(In the Committee.)
Amendment proposed—
"Page 1, line 12, leave out 'ten millions of pounds,' and insert 'three millions three hundred and eighty-four thousands of pounds.'"(Sir W. Wedderburn.)
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I have in the previous stages of this Bill given my reasons for objecting to the great railway programme, to cost some Rx.30,000,000, being hurried on, thereby adding additional burdens to the taxpayers, who are already too heavily laden, and so impoverished as to be unable to resist the first attacks of famine and plague. I think that the revenues which the Government has at its disposal should be used to lighten taxation, and, if possible, to carry out measures of sanitation to deal with the very serious outbreak of disease. The great evil from which India is now suffering is the excessive poverty of the people. The peasants have no stores of grain, money, or credit; in fact, they not only have nothing, but they have less than nothing, because they are hopelessly in debt to the money-lenders. My point is, that this question of the condition of the masses should be gone into, rather than a large scheme of railway communications undertaken. I admit that railways are good in many respects, but sometimes, instead of doing the people good, they actually do them harm. I will mention to the Committee a case which came under my own observation.
1276
I was, 20 years ago, in the Deccan district of Ahmednagar, at the time of the great famine, and I took occasion to look into the position of affairs, and the people were not very badly off before the railways, for this reason: The crops in that region are millet. When there are good natural rains there is an enormous crop, and this millet is not a marketable article. The people at these times have an abundance of food, and the crops which had remained over are stored up in granaries. But when the railway came this grain got a marketable value, and these cultivators were no longer able to store up the grain, because it was sold and carried away by the railway to foreign markets. Before the railway was made the grain was stored in the village, whereas when the railway came the creditors of these poor people found it worth their while to seize this grain out of their hands and send it away to Europe. Another way in which the peasantry were hit by the railway was this: they had to pay cash for their assessments, and there was great difficulty in getting cash. The way they did it was in hiring out their carts when they were not engaged in their ordinary duties, to carry away the grain from the Nizam's territory to the coast. When the railway came this profit was lost to them. I only give that as an instance which came within my own knowledge, and the result of the railway being brought into that district had actually deprived the people both of food and of the means of paying their obligations to the Government. In this very district of Ahmednagar the assessment was actually raised because the Government, not unnaturally, believing that they were conferring a great benefit on the people, thought the rents should be raised in these districts through which the railway passed. As a matter of fact, the railway has not benefited that class of people at all. The railway cut up their fields, and injured their local communications. I mention that case to show that what is really wanted is an inquiry, a detailed inquiry, showing the condition of the peasants; and if the Government, instead of spending money on railways, which have been carried out to a sufficient extent, were to

1277
give more attention to this vital question, the difficulty might be solved. I have already stated my views on this matter, and I do not wish to take up more time. I would only say that this is a business matter; and I really do not think it is one in which any heat need be imported at all. I was rather surprised that the noble Lord made some remarks that were naturally somewhat painful for me to listen to. I understand that he thought I had in some way imputed bad faith to him. That was not the case in the least. What I said was this—that he was ill-informed, and not provided with accurate information in regard to this great crisis. I think it should be the endeavour of the Government to be as far as possible on friendly terms with the people, and to say that I wished to subvert the British Empire—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The only question now before us is the Amendment of the honourable Member.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: The facts I propose to deal with have reference partly to the railway and partly to the funds placed at the disposal of the Government. It is in reference to the home charges that I made the observation that the Government of India should not be given a blank cheque, because it had not shown a sufficient foresight in the matter, and I say that when these proposals were made it should have been seen that they were based on a proper foundation. It is in reference to that that these observations were made. It was not necessary, however, to make a personal matter of it, as the Secretary of State appears to have done. I have no separate policy of my own. I have always been a follower of Lord Lawrence and Lord Ripon. Their policy avoided all this expenditure. They avoided war. They tried to make friendly neighbours on the Frontier, and to make the people of India a contented and prosperous people. My belief is that it is because we have abandoned that policy that we see the unfortunate condition of affairs in India which we now do.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Motion is that—
"Clause 4, page 1, lines 17 and 18, to leave out 'ten millions of pounds' and insert 'three
1278
millions three hundred and eighty-four thousands of pounds.'"
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Amendment has really nothing to do with the main object of the Bill, though it may have reference to the condition of the people of India. Therefore I would ask the honourable Baronet not to press his Motion. What this Bill is for is to put a certain sum of money at the disposal of the Indian Government, and one object of it is to enable us to prosecute a scheme of railroads. The honourable Baronet has made a speech in which he endeavoured to show that the crops are affected by the railroads through which they run. This is an extraordinary moment to advance a theory like that. So far as I am able to learn, the construction of these railroads, instead of burdening the people, as the honourable Baronet wants us to believe, has bettered their condition. His policy appears to be to oppose the great remedy which the construction of these railways provides, and he accuses the Indian Government of extravagance for applying it. His argument is obviously unsound. If the honourable Baronet's suggestion were adopted, we would be obliged to raise the necessary sums in the Indian money market, which would induce people outside India to come in and take up the loan in Calcutta, and the result would be that we would have to pay a far higher price for the money borrowed. The loans if so taken up would injure investors in this country; the Indian Government would have to pay a higher rate of interest, and it would leave the country, whose benefit it was intended to secure in precisely the same position. Therefore, for these reasons, I think the House should not assent to this proposal. It is also necessary, in asking for this money, to secure a reserve of borrowing power; and what I would ask is that I should have some measure of the same sympathy and assistance that was accorded to my predecessor when he obtained similar powers. If the honourable Baronet could see his way to withdraw his Amendment, and not push his views to

1279
such a point as would only tend to increase the burden of taxation in India, should be glad. If he will look once more into the facts, he will find that the railway in India has a tendency to reduce the burden of taxation and to assist h developing the resources of India.
THE CHAIRMANput the Amendment.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I agree to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, and withdraw my proposition. My only object was to enter my protest, and to emphasise the extreme importance of economy in our Indian expenditure at the present time.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported to the House.

PARISH FIRE ENGINES BILL.
Bill read a second time.

TELEGRAPHS [GRANT].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question put—
"That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of sums not exceeding £1,000,000 for the purpose of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1897, and to authorise the Treasury to borrow such sums by means of terminable annuities payable out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Agreed to.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Question put—
"That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
MR. KEARLEY: I merely wish to ask a question as to this clause, as to why it has been repealed. I find that the section referred to, about to be repealed, imposes some very beneficial restrictions as to the letting of property in connection with Greenwich Hospital, of which the Admiralty are trustees. If this clause is repealed it seems to me that it will give the Admiralty the freest possible power to sell their property whenever they like, and however they please. Now, there are at the present moment most beneficial restrictions. For example, they are unable to let their agricultural land upon leases enduring for less than 21 years; their building land, also, they are only able to let at 99 years, and so on. They are bound to let their property at yearly rentals, and to exact the best possible rental, and are not permitted in any way to take as a consideration a fine in lieu of rent. Well now, I think myself, seeing that this property is trust property, and is held for the benefit of seamen and marines, that we are entitled to hare some explanation as to why this clause, no doubt carefully thought out and discussed in times past, should be repealed. I am anxious that there should be given no power to repeal a clause of this class without we have an assurance that it is in pursuance of some beneficial purpose—that there is some beneficial purpose in view. I think we are entitled to some explanation as to why this clause should be repealed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The object of repealing this clause is, I think, that the reasons for which it was first enforced no longer have the same weight. The repeal of the clause will give the Admiralty greater power of turning their property to the beat advantage. The Act which contains this clause, placing this restriction on Green-

1281
wich Hospital property, was passed when the property was not under the control of the present trustees. It is now vested in the Lords of the Admiralty. It is found in practice that the restrictions imposed by the Act prevent our making the largest sum of money, whether by rental or fine, that can be obtained. That is particularly the case, Mr. Lowther, in regard to certain public house property which we hold in London, where the impossibility of exacting fines prevents our getting the full value of the public-houses. It is the custom of the trade for brewers to make advances to the tenants. They will not make advances on property which is rack-rented. If the rent is brought down by the payment of the fine, they are then willing to make advances to the tenants, and better tenants can be obtained. I think, Mr. Lowther, on general grounds the time has come when these restrictions may well be done away with. The whole tendency of legislation in recent times has been to remove restrictions on the management of such property as this. In the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I believe they are bound by no such restrictions at all. In the case of Crown lands the restrictions have been reduced to the lowest possible limits. The Lords of the Board of Admiralty, acting as trustees for Greenwich Hospital, have always the Greenwich interest in view in making the most of their property, and the honourable Member is probably aware that there is a further safeguard in that the consent of the Treasury is necessary to any sale of property before it can come into effect. I hope these reasons will satisfy the honourable Member that these were good grounds for repealing this clause, and that he will raise no objection to it.
Question put—
"That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed to.
Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with Amendments.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
(In the Committee.)

CLAUSE 1.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 1, line 6, leave out 'money,' and insert 'fines, pecuniary penalties, and forfeitures, or such part of any of them as is made so payable'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
MR. CALDWELL: Sir, the clause in this Bill which these words are intended to amend refers entirely to the fees. What you are proposing here is to use the word "money" instead of the word "fine." Now the fees of a court never can go into the Police fund.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): It may shorten the honourable Member's remarks if I say we are prepared to accept his words.
MR. CALDWELL: I thought so. This only shows that if I had not looked at it this Bill would have been just about as bad as it was last year.
MR. COLLINGS: I mean the words "fines, pecuniary penalties, and forfeitures."
MR. CALDWELL: I may mention the other part of the Amendment is to take in the words "or such part as is made so payable." Those are taken from the

1283
Statute, and they are necessary. I assure my honourable Friend these are absolutely right, and are taken from the previous Statute.
MR. COLLINGS: What my honourable Friend says is quite true. They are taken from a previous Statute. But if he will read the section in conjunction with the clause he will find it is neither grammar nor sense.
MR. CALDWELL: I will just read it in that way. It would be—
"Nothing in section 6 of the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1897, shall affect the application of fines, pecuniary penalties, and forfeitures, or such part or any of them as is made so payable, which under any other Act"—
And that is what the right honourable Gentleman has not adverted to. You must leave the sentence there. These words were carefully prepared. I assure the honourable Gentleman I wish to support his Bill. I assure him I prepared these words very carefully. I think he ought to insert these words.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. COLLINGSmoved—
"Page 1, line 7, after 'aggrieved' insert 'or to a police pension fund.'"
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This Bill as it stands is simply incomprehensible. I defy any Member of the Committee to read the clause and understand what it means, or to understand what the Amendment means. I desire simply to make a protest.
Motion put.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CALDWELLmoved—
"Page 1, line 9, leave out 'or Inland Revenue' and insert 'Excise or other branch
1284
of Her Majesty's Revenue, or to the Post Office, or Trade, or Navigation, or under the Factory Acts.'"
He said the clause simply excepted Customs and Excise, but if they referred to the previous Statute the Committee would find that it included Excise, Post Office, Trade or Navigation, and the Factory Acts.
MR. COLLINGSintimated that he could not accept the omission of "Inland Revenue."
MR. CALDWELL: You put in your Bill the words "Inland Revenue." Very well; the words in the previous Act are, "or other branches of Her Majesty's Revenue." It is simply a question of definition; the meaning is the same. I prefer the words of the former Statute to the words in this Bill. The Amendment will make it more comprehensive, and I think the right honourable Gentleman might accept it. We are not moved by any spirit of opposition.
MR. COLLINGSintimated that he could not accept "Excise."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
MR. CALDWELL: We will get it by degrees.
MR. COLLINGSmoved—
"Page 1, line 9, after 'revenue' add 'or which when recovered is to be applied as an Excise penalty.'"
MR. CALDWELLmoved—
"Page 1, line 9, after 'penalty' add 'or to be paid to the Crown or to the Exchequer.'"
He said: We have introduced, by Amendment, the Post Office and Trade or Navigation, and why impose a limit now? It is consequential upon what you have already done in the widening of the Bill to include the words—
"Or to be paid to the Crown or to the Exchequer."
MR. COLLINGS: The object of the Bill is that certain kinds of penalties shall go to pay salaries.
MR. CALDWELL: You are proposing to add the words "or which, when recovered, is to be applied as an Excise penalty." But you have adopted the words of the previous Statute, which refer to the Post Office, and Trade or Navigation, or Factory Acts. You have widened your Bill, and you must consequently widen your Amendment in accordance with the previous Act. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will accept this Amendment. I move it only with a desire to put the Bill right.
MR. COLLINGS: The honourable Member has not quite seen the point Under the Licences Act of 1877 there were certain penalties and fines which can only be recovered by an officer of the Inland Revenue, but after they have been recovered they are applied to Excise contributions.
MR. CALDWELL: I do not think I can make it clearer than I have done. Having widened the scope of the Bill by the previous Amendments, it necessarily follows that we should accept this Amendment. I never dreamed there would be the slightest objection to the addition of these words; but if the right honourable Gentleman does not wish to accept the Amendment I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. COLLINGSmoved—
"Page 1, line 12, after '1897,' add 'and shall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight.'"
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed.
SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS BILL. [H.L.]
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE BILL. [H.L.]
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
DOGS REGULATION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYformally moved the adjournment of the House.
MR. BROADHURST: I beg to protest against this Motion. We have a long list of questions on the Paper, and among them a specially important Bill, with regard to the abolition of common employment. In the earlier part of the evening the House gave the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury all he asked for, in order to get his own Measures through. The House has done its work exceedingly quickly, and I hope, as we have behaved ourselves so well, the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will allow us three or four hours for the discussion of this Bill, even if it is only by way of reciprocity. If the right honourable Gentleman persists in his Motion for the adjournment I shall divide the House against it, if anyone will support me.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As I moved the adjournment without any remark, I think I should make some explanation of the circumstances under which I made the Motion. The honourable Member for Leicester, I think, must be aware that the events of to-night have, to a certain extent, been a matter of surprise to all. The course taken in regard to private business was a matter of arrangement between the two sides of the House. A large number of Members on the other side of the House had been communicated with, and when the honourable Member says that all the Government business has been got through he is entirely mistaken, because, by the arrangement of which I have spoken, a good many Government Bills were, for the convenience of honourable Members opposite, not dealt with. As far as the Government are concerned, it intends to take that course, and if we had decided to have dealt with those Bills it would
1288
not have given the honourable Gentleman any chance of discussing the Measure which he had mentioned. Therefore, there is really no blame attached to the Government on that point, but there would have been great inconvenience if the House had followed the advice which the honourable Gentleman has given. No human being could have anticipated that these private Members' Bills would have come on to-night. So little was it expected that the business would be disposed of so rapidly that, as the House is aware, I moved the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule early in the evening, and I do not think it is improbable that the honourable Gentleman was one of those who voted against me on that occasion. If the honourable Member says he divided against the Motion because he thought it was unnecessary, and that he expected that the consideration of the Benefices Bill would be over by half-past seven, then I will accept his assurance. Well, now, Sir, I think he will agree with me that to take private Members' Bills on a Government night, dealing with subjects of enormous importance, when nobody could have anticipated that those Bills would have come on, would have been a most inconvenient process. I think I should not be consulting the wishes of honourable Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House, or fulfilling the deliberately expressed wishes of honourable Gentlemen on the other side, if I did not proceed with this Motion. I hope, therefore, that the honourable Gentleman will not press the House to a Division.
SIR A. B. FORWOOD: I beg to make an appeal to the Leader of the House to allow the Common Employment Abolition Bill to be taken. I do not think that the consideration of this Measure will take more than five minutes. All the clauses have been agreed upon with the exception of two. One of these, I think, will be ruled out of order, and the other one I have not

1289
the slightest objection to. Now, I make this appeal to the right honourable Gentleman on these grounds. It is a Measure affecting large bodies of the working classes of this country. It was the second private Bill introduced this Session, and it is one with which we might have reasonably expected that some progress would be made. But, in consequence of the Government at an early date taking all the remaining Wednesdays of the Session, there has been no proper opportunity of taking the Committee stage of the Hill. If my right honourable Friend would hold out some hope, or give us some satisfactory assurance, that at no distant date he will give an opportunity of taking the Committee stage, I certainly should not oppose the adjournment of the House. But if he still maintains that he cannot see his way to give some reasonable assurance, as this is a Bill which affects large numbers of the working classes, as a protest I shall have to join in this Division in opposition to the Motion.
MR. MORTON: I know that on this side of the House, and also on the other side of the House, many honourable Members representing working class constituencies feel very strongly upon this Measure, and I think, in order to meet their wishes, the right honourable Gentleman might allow this Bill to be taken to-night. I cannot understand the principle upon which honourable Members make agreements with certain sections of the House to the exclusion of other sections, and I take this opportunity of protesting against it.
MR. FLOWER: This is a Bill in which I am interested, and which has the support of both sides of the House. Under these circumstances, I should like to take the greatest possible advantage of this opportunity, if the right honourable Gentleman can see his way to allow this Measure to be brought forward.
MR. CHANNING: I should like to join in the protest made by the honourable Member for Leicester, and the honourable Baronet opposite, against this Motion, on the ground that there is a very wide interest taken in the Bill. What is the situation? The First Lord of the Treasury rinds the Measures set down disposed of, and he has evidently been met in a conciliatory spirit, and he is in the position of having really the evening before him. I think we ought to be able to rely upon the Government to see that private Members have some reasonable chance of carrying such Measures as commend themselves to the general interest, and which are in accord with the general feeling of the House and of the country. I also wish to protest against this habit of making agreements with certain sections of this House without the authority of the Leader of the Opposition. I was not present at the time, but I understand that no questions were put to the right honourable Gentleman, and that no intimation was given by him at that time that the adjournment would be moved at the close of the Government Measures. I think it is absolutely unreasonable to insist upon the adjournment of the House, and not allow questions to be disposed of, which, as has been shown in this discussion, it is quite clear from the statement of the right honourable Baronet, and others who have spoken, could be disposed of in a short time and in a conciliatory spirit.
MR. NUSSEY: I should like to know if it is quite true what the right honourable Gentleman has said about an agreement being entered into on this side of the House. I do not agree with the Gentlemen on this side of the House who say that such agreements are for the benefit of public business in this House. I really think that when the right honourable Gentleman made this agreement he might also have arranged for some Member of

1291
the Front Opposition Bench, to be present. We are on this side of the House like sheep without a shepherd. But, Sir, I do not think this agreement applied to this particular Bill, for I understand that it relates entirely to Government Measures, and, therefore, I ask the right honourable Gentleman if that is not the case, and whether he will not reconsider his decision and allow us to take a Measure in which a large amount of interest is taken in this House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think I can answer that question, as my right honourable Friend cannot under the Rules of the House speak again. Members on both sides of the House made an arrangement—
MR. CHANNING: No, no! We never heard of it on this side.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My honourable Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who was naturally concerned in this matter, came to me in the absence of my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury and said that he understood that there was a desire that the adjournment of the House should be moved directly the Government business was finished. Hearing that, I at once said that I was sure that my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House would agree to that course, as he has often done before, and, consequently, I authorised my honourable Friend to give a promise that the adjournment should be moved when the Government business had been disposed of. I have no doubt that many honourable Members have left the House under the impression that that promise will be fulfilled.
MR. ROBSON: The observation just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not add much to our information or enlightenment. He has told us of a coversation which took place between himself and one of his own colleagues, and he has told
1292
us that this conversation, judging from the tone in which he replied, is to be treated as something which is binding upon us. What we are entitled to know is, was any such arrangement made with the Leader of the Opposition, or with any Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench? Then, when we know with whom the agreement was made, we are entitled to ask what the agreement was. Was there any agreement between the First Lord of the Treasury and anybody on this side of the House to tell us that this Bill should not be taken to-night? We have not been told so yet.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: This being a Government night, the arrangement was that at the end of the Government business the adjournment of the House should be moved.
MR. ROBSON: That, no doubt, is sufficiently explicit. But was there an agreement made excluding this Bill? If so, we have yet to learn with whom that agreement was made, and we are also entitled to ask further why was it made? Why was this Bill put down on the Paper to-night except in view of the very contingency which has happened? It is impossible to suppose that it was put down except in the hope that the Government business might unexpectedly cease. Having been put on the Paper for that purpose, we are entitled to ask that this Bill shall be taken.
MR. J. A. PEASE: I think I can throw some light upon the character of the arrangement, as I was personally aware of an arrangement being made between, certain Members of the House and the Government officials, but no reference was made in my presence to any question of the adjournment of the House. At the same time I do not say that the subject was not mentioned, but before these front benches became in such a vacated state, I asked some of the leaders of the Liberal Party sitting on the Front Bench at the time whether any communications had been made to them in reference to the procedure to-night, and

1293
I understood from them that no represensations had ben made with regard to the procedure this evening. I think every individual Member on this side of the House must feel that he is not bound at all in honour to keep to an arrangement which has been made between representatives of the Government and one or two casual, irresponsible Members sitting below the Gangway.
MR. BURNS: I am not particularly concerned about the agreement or the rule which has been made, but the Government, having a big majority at its back, can, if they so choose, kill this Bill for the Session, or, if it alters its mind, can pass it within five minutes. If the First Lord of the Treasury cannot see his way to allow this Bill to go through the House to-night, at any rate he might promise
to grant sufficient time or facilities so as to get it through the House this Session, because it is strongly backed from all quarters of the House.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I wish to state that I have been no party to any agreement, and I oppose the Motion for adjournment because a considerable number of very valuable Bills will of necessity have to be sacrificed. It seems to me to be almost criminal not to take advantage of the opportunity we now have of passing this Bill.
Question put—
"That the House do now adjourn."
The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 54.—(Division list No. 166.)

AYES.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Balcarres, Lord

Donkin, Richard Sim

Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Loder, G. W. Erskine

Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith- (Hunts)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Fellowes. Hon. A. Edward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

Beresford, Lord Charles

Fisher, William Hayes

Malcolm, Ian

Bethell, Commander

Flannery, Fortescue

Milton, Viscount

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Flower, Ernest

Monckton, Edward Philip

Biddulph, Michael

Folkestone, Viscount

More, Robert Jasper

Bigwood, James

Forster, Henry William

Morrell, George Herbert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Galloway, William Johnson

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Boulnois, Edmund

Garfit, William

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

Nicholson, William Graham

Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

Giles, Charles Tyrell

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bullard, Sir Harry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pierpoint, Robert

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Gretton, John

Pollock, Hurry Frederick

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Charrington, Spencer

Helder, Augustus

Rankin, James

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Clough, Walter Owen

Howard, Joseph

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Howell, William Tudor

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Colston, C. E. H. Athole

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Kemp, George

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Corbett. A C. (Glasgow)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

Kenrick. William

Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

Cross, A. (Glasgow)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lawson J. Grant (Yorks)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Spencer, Ernest

Verney, Hon. Richard G.

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Wylie, Alexander

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUny.)

Willox, Sir J. Archibald

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Valentia, Viscount

Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Randell, David

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Holburn, J. G.

Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)

Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

Horniman, Frederick John

Robson, William Snowdon

Barlow, John Emmott

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Spicer, Albert

Billson, Alfred

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Brigg, John

Kenyon, James

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Burns, John

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Caldwell, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Tully, Jasper

Charming, Francis Allston

Lowles, John

Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)

Colville, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Daly, James

McLaren, Charles Benjamin

Wedderburn, Sir William

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Maddison, Fred.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Doogan, P. C

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Williams, John C. (Notts)

Duckworth, James

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Dunn, Sir William

Pease, J. A. (Northumberland)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Broadhurst and Sir Arthur Forwood.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Philipps, John Wynford

Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

Pirie, Duncan V.

Harwood, George

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

House adjourned at 8.55.