Commons Sitting of 19 June 1899

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of York, West Riding (Osgoldcross Division), in the room of Sir John Austin, Baronet (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Mr. William M'Arthur.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS. [Lords.]
  (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.)
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.—

BUENOS AYRES AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY BILL. [Lords.]
  TRANSVAAL MORTGAGE, LOAN, AND FINANCE COMPANY BILL. [Lords.]
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS. [Lords.]
  (No Standing Orders applicable.)
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.—

  YORKE ESTATE BILL. [Lords.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.)
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing

  1475
  Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.—

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILL. [Lords.]
  (Standing Orders not previously inquired into not complied with.)
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.—

  BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICK SHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY BILL. [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (PENSIONS) BILL.
  LISBURN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  FRIENDS' PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  LOWESTOFT PROMENADE PIER BILL.
  (Queen's consent signified.) Read the third time, arid passed.
  SKIPTON URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  MID-KENT GAS BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION BILL. [Lords.]
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  HASTINGS AND ST. LEONARDS GAS BILL. [Lords.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  ALL SAINTS CHURCH (CARDIFF) BILL. [Lords.]
  To be read a second time upon Thursday.

  GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL. [Lords.]
  LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL. [Lords.]
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (PILOTAGE) BILL. [Lords.]
  MILLWALL DOCK BILL.
  NORTH-EASTERN AND HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAYS (JOINT DOCK) BILL. [Lords.]
  NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [Lords.]
  Read a second time, and committed.

  ST. NEOTS WATER BILL. [Lords.] (By Order.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the Great Eastern Railway Bill, in the Session of of 1887, be referred to the Committee on the London County Council (General Powers) (recommitted) Bill.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 18) BILL. ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 19) BILL. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Ireland) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Read a third time, and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL. ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
HARROW AND UXBRIDGE RAILWAY BILL.
  BRISTOL GAS BILL [Lords.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Amendments to

  BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [Lords.]
  Without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Alton (Hants) Gas, Bedworth Gas, Elstree and Boreham Wood Gas, Limavady Gas, and Wellingborough Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill. [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Burnham and District Water, Harpenden Water, Maidstone Water, Stourbridge Water, and Tilehurst, Pangbourne, and District Water." [Water Orders Confirmation Bill. [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Home Bay Gas, Hoylake and West Kirby Gas and Water, Tonbridge Gas, and York Town and Blackwater Gas." [Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill. [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring powers upon the trustees of the will of the late James Hood Brooke to
  1478
  acquire Gwyn's Grounds, Londonderry, and lay out the same as a public park; and for other purposes." [Brooke's Park (Londonderry) Bill. [Lords.]

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 239.]
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 240.]
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 241.]
  BROOKE'S PARK (LONDONDERRY) BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Nottingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Nottingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BELL.
  Petitions, in favour: From Wick and Brechin; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT,1845.
  Petition from Bothwell, for alteration of Law: to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions, in favour: From Brechin, Astruther, Easter, and Crail; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL
  Petitions in favour: From Walton, Glastonbury, Street, Parbrook, Aller, Long Sutton, and Preston (three); to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Selkirk, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2290 to 2292 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL
  Copy presented,—of Report No. 261 (Jamaica, Annual Report for 1897–8) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES).
  Copy presented,—of Return by Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the six months ending the 31st December 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
  Copy presented,—of Returns relating to the Council up to 31st March, 1899, with Estimate of Expenditure for the year ending 31st March 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 233.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1S87.
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 8th June 1899, granting to Mr. Alfred Edgar Clay, Second Division Clerk in the Money Order Office, General Post Office, a Retired Allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Minute of the Committee of Council of Education in Scotland, dated 15th June, 1899, amending the terms of Paragraph 5 of the Minute of 27th April, 1899, providing for the distribution of the sum available for Secondary or Technical (including Agricultural) Education, under Section 2, Subsection (4), of The Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARMY (MILITARY WORKS).
  Copy presented,—of Approximate Estimate of Expenditure for the year 1899–1900 under existing Loans [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—

  PUBLIC RECORDS (TREASURY).
  Copy of Schedule of Documents (of the Treasury) which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].
  ARMY RIFLE RANGES.
  Address for "Return of the Rifle Ranges which have been closed to the firing of full-charge ammunition since the issue of the Lee-Metford rifle, and of new ranges approved during the same period."—(Mr. Frederick Wilson.)
QUESTIONS.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the new form of Admiralty Contract will be laid upon the Table.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,)No date can yet he given, but the form is in draft, and it is hoped that the final revision will not he prolonged.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Seeing that this question was asked 18 months ago, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to let us have the form before the Shipbuilding Vote is reached?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I cannot give that undertaking.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I shall raise the question on the Vote.

  THE GUARDS' LOST STORES.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a claim made by the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards for losses of canteen stores, amounting to £340, by the upsetting of boats on the Nile provided by the Egyptian Government, has been refused by the War Office; whether he is aware that the battalion was ordered to take up the Nile coffee bar goods sufficient to last till the end of September, and that a

  1481
  Board was held to consider the losses as won as practicable afterwards; whether the finding of the Board was approved by the General commanding the division, who considered the sum claimed moderate, and recommended its payment, and again approved by the General commanding in Egypt; whether the losses in question fall upon the canteen fund, and consequently upon the rank and file of the battalion; and on what grounds the claim has been refused after eight months' delay.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELLWILLIAMS,): The matter referred to in the question of the right hon. Gentleman is still under consideration, and no final decision has yet been arrived at.

  THE GUERNSEY MILITIA.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Guernsey Militia threw down their arms and accoutrements, and played football with their helmets when on parade; and whether the War Office proposes to take any notice of such mutinous proceedings.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The Governor has telegraphed that the report is untrue.
  MAJOR RASCH: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman knows that the question is practically taken from a report in The Times of Wednesday last?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, I think that is very likely; but, nevertheless, it is untrue.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Is it true that several officers were cheered on parade and others were hissed?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

  THE METROPOLITAN VOLUNTEER REVIEW.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention to provide accommodation for Members of Parliament, so as to enable them to witness
  1482
  the Review at Aldershot by Her Majesty on the 26th instant.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Perhaps my hon. and gallant friend will allow me to answer this question. It is not proposed to erect any stands, but the General Officer Commanding, Aldershot, Will do the best he can to accommodate the carriages of persons desiring to see the Review. Applications for carriage tickets should be made to the Chief Staff Officer, Aldershot.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: Will Members who do not possess carriages have accommodation?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes; I understand that standing room will be reserved also, and that application for standing should be made in the same way as for carriages.

  JOSEPH DENISTON (LATE OF THE 10TH FOOT).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can order an inquiry by the military authorities at Longford into the present condition of health of Joseph Deniston, formerly belonging to the 10th Foot; and whether he is aware that Deniston, although having served with good conduct in South Africa and elsewhere for many years, is left without any pension or reward, and is now unable to work to support his family.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have nothing to add to what has been stated on previous occasions in this House in regard to this case, and can only refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of the 28th March, 1898. The case had then been considered no less than fifteen times.

  CORK MILITARY DISTRICT CONTRACTS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office with reference to the contracts for supplies of groceries, provisions, &c., to the Cork Military District, recently given to the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, Limited, whether he is aware that since the commencement of the contract on 1st May, 1899, many complaints have been received at the Cork Head. quarters Office, both as to the quality of

  1483
  the goods supplied and as to irregular delivery, and that in some instances the canteens have been compelled to fall back on the local firms for supplies; whether he is aware that the contract was given to this society although local firms which have long supplied the district satisfactorily quoted lower prices for articles most largely used or consumed; and whether, in view of these facts, steps will be taken to terminate the contract and afford an opportunity to local tradesmen.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: A few complaints as to quality of goods and irregularity of delivery were at first received, but the contract is now working smoothly, and those concerned are well satisfied with it. It is not proposed to interfere in this matter with the responsibility of the General Officer commanding at Cork. Of the four successful contractors three were local firms.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when this question was previously raised in this House, the late Under Secretary for War stated that any change which might be made would be in the direction of enabling canteen committees to manage their own affairs in this matter?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member wants further information I shall he happy to get it for him. He can hardly hold me responsible for any statement made by the late Under Secretary for War.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Has this new system been adopted at any military station in England?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It is not a new system.

  FIGHTING ON THE TURCO-SERVIAN FRONTIER.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate any information with regard to the reported conflict on the Turco-Servian frontier.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Her Majesty's Minister at Belgrade has telegraphed that the frontier between Retkotser and Medewtfi was crossed on June 14th by Albanians
  1484
  and Turkish Regulars, who tried to raid villages and took two Servian guardhouses. They were opposed by the Servian frontier guards and armed villagers. Servian troops have been moved up to the frontier; the invaders have retired, and it is presumed that the military steps taken by Servia will suffice. to maintain order.

  SIR W. GARSTIN'S REPORT ON THE SOUDAN.
  Ma. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Report of Sir W. Garstin, respecting his. visit of inspection of the Nile south of Khartoum and the Soudan, specifically alluded to by Lord Cromer in his Report. on Egyptian affairs for 1898, will be laid upon the Table and distributed.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Sir W. Garstin's Report is now being prepared for presentation to Parliament. It will be laid and distributed in the course of this week.

  SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC—THE MURDER OF MRS. APPLEBE.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any further information has been received concerning the murder of Mrs. Applebe, wife of the Rev. R. F. Applebe, Wesleyan missionary,, reported by Sir Alfred Milner in Serial No. 55, South African Republic, Blue Book, as an act of revenge on the part of the liquor dealers for efforts made by Mr. Applebe and Mr. Wilson to expose their nefarious trade; and whether any of the perpetrators of the outrage have been punished, or any compensation awarded by the President of the South African Republic.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The last information received is contained in Nos. 61 and 63 in the Blue Book. No result has been obtained from the offer of a reward of £500 by the Government, and there is no clue as yet to the perpetrators. I am not aware that compensation has been given.

  THE KILLING OF MR. EDGAR BY A BOER POLICEMAN.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield I beg to

  1485
  ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether some compensation will be claimed on behalf of the widow of Mr. Edgar, who was shot dead in his own house by a Boer policeman.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the affirmative; a claim for compensation has been made on behalf of the widow and child.

  THE JAMESON RAID.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as stated by Sir Alfred Milner in his dispatch dated 4th May, this country was, just before the so-called Jameson Raid, on the verge of war with the Transvaal; and, if so, what were the grounds justifying a declaration of war against the Transvaal by this country at that time.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir A. Milner's statement is perfectly correct, and the hon. Member will find full information in Blue Book C. 8474 of May, 1897.

  PROMOTION IN THE PRISON SERVICE.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are seven officials in the Prisons Department who have served forty years and upwards, and who are over sixty years of age; and, if so, will special facilities be offered to induce their retirement, in view of the large number of juniors who are at the maximum of their class.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool):I have been asked by my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury to answer this question. There are six, not seven, officers in the Prisons Department who have served forty years and upwards and are over sixty years of age. They will retire under the general rule on reaching sixty-five, and there appear to me to be no grounds for any action in the matter.

  GLASGOW BAKERY DISPUTE.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON:: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of Angus M'Naughton, baker, of Kinning Park, Glasgow, arrested on the 12th ultimo and locked up for the
  1486
  night on a charge of persistently following with intent to intimidate certain workmen in a bakery connected with which there was some trade dispute; whether the police officer arresting him had a warrant for his arrest; will he explain why the police refused to communicate to his wife the fact of his arrest and detention, also why on the occasion of his being brought before a magistrate on the 13th ultimo, and remanded for 48 hours, bail was offered and refused; and why, if the charge against him was a serious one, was he liberated on 16th May, after four nights' incarceration, without being called on even to make a declaration before the sheriff to whom his case was remitted.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Inquiry has been made into the case referred to by the hon. Member. The police officer had no warrant; the arrest was made under Section 86 of the Burgh Police Act, 1892. My information is that the police did not refuse to communicate to the prisoner's wife the fact of his arrest and detention, and that bail was not offered, and therefore not refused. In reply to the last paragraph, the facts are these: The prisoner was brought before the magistrate on Saturday, the 13th, and the case was remitted to the Sheriff Court for consideration. The police report was made to the Sheriff's Procurator-Fiscal on Monday, the 15th. The case was considered on that day by the Procurator-Fiscal, and was disposed of on Tuesday, the 16th, the prisoner being liberated because the evidence was considered insufficient.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry on the questions of bail, which I am assured was offered?
  MR. A. G. MURRAY: I can only repeat what I have stated. If the bail was offered and refused, application could have been made to the Procurator-Fiscal. That certainly was not done

  ABERDEEN CEMETERY SCANDAL.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the alleged wholesale desecration of graves in a cemetery at Aberdeen; and whether it is the intention of the Government to institute proceedings

  1487
  against all those concerned in these alleged outrages as well as against the superintendent of the cemetery.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY: A full investigation of the circumstances is being made, and the case, in all its bearings, is at present under consideration of Crown counsel. The superintendent has been committed for trial, and is now in prison.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY: Yes; the words "the case is under consideration in all its bearings" obviously cover the point whether other persons are to be prosecuted.

  THE DAY SCHOOL CODE.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the additions to Articles 37 and 42 of the Day School Code have been withdrawn in conformity with the Address to the Crown carried in this House; and what steps the Department have taken in order to warn managers that the published Code is in this respect incorrect.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): Official intimation of the reply to the address of the House of Commons has not yet been received by the Education Department. Meanwhile, a Minute is prepared, restoring the Articles to the form they had in the Code of 1898. This Minute will be laid on the Table of the House, and published in due course.

  CARMARTHEN CHARITIES.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member representing the Charity Commissioners whether he can state the reason for the delay in the publication of the Reports of the Assistant Charity Commissioners concerning the charities of the borough of Carmarthen, and of the parish of Trellochar-Bettws in the county of Carmarthen.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): The reason
  1488
  for the delay in the publication of the Report on the Charities in the Borough of Carmarthen is that the application made for the production of certain documents in the case of a grant to one particular charity has not yet been complied with. In all other respects the Report is ready to be laid on the Table of the House. With regard to the charities in the parish of Trelloch-ar-Bettws the Report has been delayed by the difficulty experienced in obtaining full information respecting the administration of the charities. The Report as to this parish was laid on the Table of this House on June 8th.

  HYDE PARK—LIGHTING.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the condition of the main thoroughfares in Hyde Park after dusk; and whether he can sec his way, by an improvement in the lighting and more police supervision, to enable respectable people to make more use of this park during the summer evenings than under the present conditions is possible.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (MR. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent,): I have been gradually improving, as funds will permit, the lighting of the parks; and the improvement in Hyde Park has been generally admitted and appreciated. My policy with regard to lighting the parks was fully stated during the discussion of the Parks Estimate a few weeks ago. The maintenance of order in Hyde Park is in the hands of the police authorities, but in my opinion everything is done that is necessary to maintain order there.

  FINTONA SUNDAY MAILS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that at Fintona, the largest town in the South Tyrone Parliamentary division of county Tyrone, the mails on Sunday mornings are seldom delivered before 10 a.m., though they have been lying at Omagh, six miles distant, from 3 a.m., whence they are conveyed by a horse and trap; and if there is any reason to prevent their delivery a little earlier, so as to enable persons obliged to leave Fintona by the only Sunday train at 9 a.m. to receive their letters

  1489
  before leaving; and, seeing that the only mail from Fintona on Sundays is made up about 4.30 p.m. and sent to head office at Omagh, where it lies untouched till about 10 p.m., whether there is anything to prevent its being dispatched later on Sundays, say at 7 or 8 p.m.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): The mails are due at Fintona on Sunday about 9 a.m., and the delivery commences at 9.15 a.m. On weekdays the service to Fintona is by train, but on Sunday no trains are run, and the mails are conveyed by a walking postman, leaving Omagh, where they have been lying, as the hon. Member presumes, for some hours, at 6 a.m. This is the usual hour of departure for rural postmen. The Sunday dispatch from Fintona is at 5.10 p.m. As a rule rural postmen are allowed to return from the terminal point of their journeys on Sundays in the forenoon about one hour after the completion of the delivery. As this postman waits eight hours, the inhabitants of Fintona have the advantage of an exceptionally late despatch.
  MR. DILLON: My information is that the mails are conveyed by horse and trap. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind the importance of this district, expedite matters a bit?
  MR. HANBURYwas understood to reply in the negative.

  NORTH KERRY POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether a petition very largely signed by the people of Clandouglas, Kilfeighney, Pallace, Learn, and other townlands in North Kerry, asking for a house-to-house delivery of letters, has been received by the Secretary of the General Post Office; whether he was aware that great public inconvenience is caused by the non-delivery of letters in those districts; and whether the request of the petitioners will be granted.
  MR. HANBURY: A petition was received some time ago asking for a delivery of letters, and a delivery is now being made throughout the district. At Clandouglas, Kilfeighney, and other places the delivery takes place every
  1490
  week-day, but at some of the townlands it is necessarily restricted to two days a week.

  BELFAST POST OFFICE STAFF.
  MR. MACALEESE:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether at present there exists on the staff of the Belfast Post Office three vacancies for provincial clerks in charge; could he explain to the House when and under what circumstances these vacancies arose, and what was the date of the notice exhibited in each of the postal and telegraph departments inviting applications for these vacancies; how many applications were received from each department, and with Whom does the power of selecting rest; and what is the cause of the delay in making these appointments.
  MR. HANBURY:The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative, and that covers all the other paragraphs.

  DUNDALK POSTMASTERSHIP.
  MR. MACALEESE:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, with reference to the vacancy that at present exists in the postmastership of Dundalk, could he state when did this vacancy actually arise, and what was the date of the official circular in which a notice appeared intimating the vacancy, and inviting applications for it; what was the cause of the delay that arose from the date of the vacancy arising and this notice appearing, and also the delay that has since taken place in making the appointment; how many candidates responded to the invitation that appeared in the official circular in reference to this vacancy; and whether the individual upon whom the vacancy is conferred will draw the salary of the office from the date of the retirement of the late postmaster, or only from the date of his actual appointment; if only the latter, then can it be stated what sum, if any, will acrue to the Treasury as a saving in respect of the cost of the administration of this office by reason of the delay in filling the vacancy; and, if generally greater expedition can be used in making appointments to such vacancies when they arise in the future.
  MR.HANBURY:The vacancy occurred on the 23rd of February. It was

  1491
  notified in the Post Office Circular of the 28th of March. There was no delay, as the pension of the late postmaster was not awarded till the 3rd of March, and the salary had to be revised. There were fifty-seven candidates who applied for the appointment, and it was necessary, as usual in such cases, for the surveyors to investigate and report upon the claims and qualifications of each of them. An appointment has been made, but the new postmaster cannot draw the salary until he actually takes up the duty. The officer acting as postmaster in the meantime will receive half of his own salary and half of the salary of the postmaster, in accordance with the usual rule in such cases. The balance of these salaries will remain undrawn.

  BALLYMAHON POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. HAYDEN:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether it is proposed to change the arrangements regarding the mail car which at present runs from Ballymahon (6.35 a.m.) to Castletown Railway Station, Midland and Great Western Railway (8.40 a.m.), and conveys the letters posted in Ballymahon and neighbourhood between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. on the previous evening, which at present reach Dublin and England on the day after posting, and to substitute therefor a car leaving Ballymahon at 3 p.m., which would catch the limited mail train for Dublin at Castletown, and would land its letters in Dublin late for business that day in wholesale houses, and leave Ballymahon without a post from 6.10 p.m. till 3 p.m. next day, so that letters posted at say 6.30 p.m. would not be dispatched for nearly twelve hours; and whether the present more convenient arrangement could he continued, in accordance with a petition presented some days ago to the Postmaster-General.
  MR. HANBURY:It has been decided to continue the present arrangement, as requested in a petition recently addressed to the Postmaster-General.

  MAIL TRAIN DELAYS AT LIMERICK JUNCTION.
  MR. FLAVIN:I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that train connections at Limerick June-
  1492
  tion failed no less than 14 times during the months between June and December, 1898, causing a great public inconvenience in the delay of Her Majesty's mails in several portions of the South of Ireland; whether the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, at the request of the Post Office, have consented to delay the departure of these trains for 20 minutes beyond the usual time, so as to remedy this public grievance; and, whether information can be given as to the number of times during the years 1898 and 1899 the connections at Limerick Junction failed owing to the late arrival of the trains on the Great Southern and Western system.
  MR. HANBURY:The Waterford, Limerick and Western Railway Company have agreed to detain their train for 20 minutes, if necessary, to maintain the connection, but the train from Dublin is occasionally more than 20 minutes late in arrival. Between June and December, 1898, the connection failed 17 times. During 1898 the connection failed 19 times, mid it has failed six times this year.

  ENNISKILLEN POST-OFFICE.
  MR. JORDAN:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if the plans and specifications for the new post-office in Enniskillen have yet been finished by the Irish Board of Works, and approved by the Postal authorities; if so,. have tenders for the erection of the building been taken; and, if not, when will the authorities advertise for such tenders.
  MR. HANBURY:The plans of the new post office at Enniskillen have been approved, and the working drawings and specifications have been completed. The quantities are being taken out, and the Board of Public Works expect to be in a position to advertise for tenders in about a month.

  WEST CAVAN TRAMWAYS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state to the House if any relief has been afforded to the taxpayers of West Cavan by the operation of the Tramways Amendment Act passed in 1895; whether the Board of Works or the Treasury have received the last report of the auditors of this line; and, whether, as the guarantee

  1493
  given will soon expire, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to afford relief to the cesspayers by releasing them from the guarantee.
  MR. HANBURY:The Treasury more than three years ago expressed its readiness to commute, under the Act of 1895 referred to, its liability upon the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon line; but we have heard nothing on the subject since then from the company or from the county. Relief has, however, been given to the ratepayers by the cancellation of shares amounting to £13,690 upon redemption of the Government Loan in 1896; and I understand that further relief will be given under Section 58 (4) of the Local Government Act, 1898. We have the audited accounts to 1st November last. The guarantee is perpetual, not terminable.

  LANESBOROUGH POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. HAYDEN:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that complaints have been received front some of the inhabitants of Lanes-borough in reference to the defective postal and telegraphic arrangements, alleging that the arrangements are inferior to those which existed in the place a century ago; and whether he will consider the advisability of improving them by the establishment of a telegraph office and a postal delivery in connection with the mail each morning from either Roscommon or Longford, which would enable English and "Cross Post" local letters to he received on the day after being posted, instead of two days as is the case at present.
  MR. HANBURY:I shall be obliged if the hon. Member can give me fuller information as to the better telegraphic arrangements which are stated to have existed in the exceptional village a century ago. A telegraph office was offered under guarantee in November last, and the Postmaster-General will be happy to have the extension carried out as soon as the terms are accepted. The mail car for Lanesborough now leaves Longford at 6 a.m., but it could not be despatched until 9.50 a.m. if it were to await the arrival of the English mail. The later delivery which would result from the later despatch of the car from Longford
  1494
  would probably give rise to serious complaint on the part of some of the residents, and such an alteration could not be made unless ample evidence were adduced that it would give general satisfaction. The existing post to Lanesborough does not pay its expenses, and for this reason a second service on week days or a Sunday service is not warranted.

  BALLYDUFF POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. FLAVIN:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a petition, largely signed by residents in the Ballyduff postal district of the county of Kerry, was presented to the Postmaster-General, praying for a Sunday delivery of letters, a money order office, and either telegraphic or telephonic facilities; and will he explain why, seeing that all the surrounding villages and towns are in the enjoyment of those benefits, the application of the memorialists of the Ballyduff district has been so long delayed from getting equal facilities in Post Office affairs.
  MR. HANBURY:A petition was received early last year, asking for a Sunday delivery of letters and a money order office, but there is no trace of any application for the establishment of telegraphic or telephonic facilities. A money order office was established at Ballyduff, under guarantee, about a year ago, but a Sunday post could not be sanctioned, because the existing service on weekdays was found to be unremunerative, and additional expense for affording a Sunday service is therefore not warranted.
  MR. FLAVIN:Is not the money order office one merely in imagination? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman consult the convenience of—
  MR. SPEAKER:Order, order! The hon. Member is proceeding to argue the question.

  IRISH SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION FUND.
  MR. FLAVIN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds assistant national school teachers in Ireland are compelled to pay the increased premiums towards the pension fund, although they

  1495
  receive no portion of the arrears fee grant; and whether class salaries will be given to the assistant teachers, in order to enable them to meet the increased premiums which they are compelled to pay.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. G. W. BALFOUR,): The increased premiums now paid by assistant teachers, as well as by principals, have been fixed by the National Teachers' Superannuation Department under rules operative from 1st January, 1898. It is not intended to pay assistant teachers the salaries attaching to their class in order to enable them to meet the higher pension premiums.

  IRISH GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  MR. GIBNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under what order the Local Government Board have decided that a district councillor who takes a labourer's cottage from the guardians becomes disqualified; and is a landlord who makes a letting to the guardians also disqualified.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR:The decision referred to in the first paragraph is based on the provisions contained in Section 12, Sub-section 4 (e) of the Application of Enactments Order, 1898. As regards the second paragraph, the reply would he determined by the kind of letting to the guardians.

  CARRYING FIREARMS IN IRELAND.
  MR. HAYDEN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Patrick Costello, living in Carmaska, near Strollestown, County of Roscommon, who is under police protection and was recently licensed to use a revolver, wantonly fired at three men in that district on the night of 18th May as they were going to their homes from Strollestown; and whether the Government contemplate taking any action in his case.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR:The occurrence to which the question presumably refers took place at 11 o'clock on the night of 11th May. It appears that Costello, against whom there has been much ill-feeling, and who has received considerable annoyance, found four or five men close to his house, one of whom
  1496
  threw a stone at Costello, whereupon he discharged a shot in the air from his revolver. These men were unknown to Costello, who reported the occurrence to the police on 13th May. The persons alleged to have been fired at have made no complaint, and are also unknown to the police; but if they will come forward and make statements to the police the matter will be further investigated.

  TYRONE COUNTY COUNCIL RATE COLLECTOR.
  MR. HEMPHILL:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that William M`Farland, of Glencoppagh, Plumbridge, in the County of Tyrone, in the division of North Tyrone, who has been a paid registration inspector to the North Tyrone Unionist Registration Association for a considerable number of years, has been appointed as rate collector by the Tyrone County Council for the electoral divisions of Lislea, Loughash, Plumbridge, Stranagalivilly, and Moyle, the first four of which was part of his inspection district as such political agent, and that the Local Government Board of Ireland has sanctioned this appointment.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR:The Tyrone County Council have submitted a scheme for the collection of the poor rate in their county, in which they propose to appoint Mr. M'Farland, an existing cess collector, who has expressed his willingness to serve, to collect the rates in the electoral divisions mentioned in the question. The scheme submitted by the County Council requires modification in certain particulars, and has not yet been sanctioned by the Local Government Board. The Board have no information relative to Mr. M'Farland's connection with a political association; but if the facts are as stated they would probably require him to resign the office of registration agent before proceeding to further entertain the question of his appointment as poor rate collector.

  JUDICIAL RENTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. FLAVIN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that average reduction of first and second term judicial rents in Ireland is, roughly speaking, between 30 and 40 per cent. less than the old rents; and whether, seeing that there are a very large number of tenants

  1497
  in Ireland who are in the position of future tenants, either through eviction or from other causes over which they have no control, and that all such tenants are debarred from any benefits under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, Her Majesty's Government will introduce legislation to give equal treatment to all classes of tenants in Ireland.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR:The figures in the first paragraph are substantially accurate. In reply to the second paragraph, it is not quite correct to say that all such tenants are debarred from any benefits under the Land Law Acts. It is not intended to introduce further legislation as suggested.
  MR. FLAVIN:How can a future tenant pay a rent which is 30 per cent. more than that paid by existing tenants?
  THE SPEAKER:Order, order!

  DEATH OF ANNE FINEGAN, CORMARY.
  MR. MACALEESE:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state the specific grounds upon which it was decided not to hold an inquest in the case of the woman Finegan, who died on the day following certain eviction proceedings at her house at Cormary, near Newbliss, which proceedings were conducted by the agent and bailiffs of Lord Rossmore. Was the doctor employed by Lord Rossmore's agent to certify to the woman's fitness for removal a properly qualified medical man, and, if so, where does he regularly practise; were any police present, and did the officer in charge remonstrate with Lord Rossmore's agent; and, as the belief is general in the district that the woman's death was hastened by the conduct of the evicting party, will an inquest be yet held in this important case.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR:The question of holding an inquest in this case did not arise for consideration. As I have already pointed out, the woman was not evicted or disturbed by the landlord's agent, and she died, not on the day following the visit of the agent, but three days afterwards. The deceased had been ailing for the past twelve months, during the last two of which she was confined to her bed; her death had been expected some time previously by her own brother, and the police did not in the circumstances con-
  1498
  sider it necessary to report the death to the Coroner. I understand that the medical gentleman referred to in the second paragraph is properly qualified. I cannot say where he practises. There were two police present at the time; the woman was not removed, and they did not remonstrate with the agent. The police have no reason to think that the belief is general in the district that the woman's death was hastened by the action of the agent mid his bailiffs. It is not intended to hold an inquest, as suggested.

  SYLVESTER DWYER.
  MR. FLAVIN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed unanimously by the Guardians of the Killarney Union, praying fur the release of Sylvester Dwyer, a prisoner at present confined in Maryborough Prison; and whether, seeing that Sylvester Dwyer has now been in prison close on 18 years, Her Majesty's Government could order his release after such a lengthened punishment
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR:The resolution referred to has been received. The case of this prisoner was considered by the Lords Justices so recently as the 15th instant, when it was decided that the law should take its course. The term of penal servitude to which he was sentenced was 18 years, and he completed 11½ years of his sentence on the 6th instant.
  MR. FLAVIN:Why was not the same clemency extended to this man as was extended to Lord Kenmare's bailiff?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR:I cannot add anything to my answer.

  RAILWAY COMMUNICATION IN DONEGAL.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a copy of a resolution lately passed by the District Council of Dunfanaghy, county Donegal, in which he is thanked for the interest he has taken in the development of railway communication in that county, and requested to expedite as far as possible the opening of the works on the Letterkenny and Burton Port line, with a view to affording employment to the labouring classes, which is much

  1499
  needed at this time; and whether he will be pleased to comply with the request of the Council in this matter.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR:I have received a copy of the resolution referred to in the question. I understand that the contractors for the line are on the ground to-day for the purpose of commencing work.

  MULLINGAR ASYLUM.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken to ascertain or check the recent expenditure on buildings in Mullingar Asylum; whether in many cases the Governors were never consulted, but simply ordered to get these works done by the Board of Control; and whether, in cases where, under the 76th Section of the Local Government Act, county councils amalgamate unions for the purposes of creating auxiliary asylums, the county which withdraws its pauper lunatics from Mullingar Asylum will still have to continue to pay off the building charges incurred.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR:A financial statement of the expenditure on buildings at the Mullingar Asylum is being prepared, and will be forwarded to the Asylum Committee. The Board of Control has not in any case ordered the Governors to undertake works at this asylum, and in no case have works been carried out without previous conference or consultation with the Governors, and without obtaining their general approval of the works. In the event of a county council establishing an auxiliary asylum under the enactment referred to, such auxiliary asylum would be exclusively appropriated to Chronic harmless lunatics. While this arrangement would tend to relieve the congestion of the county asylum and facilitate the classification of curable and incurable cases, it would in no way affect the liability of the county for the maintenance of its county asylum or the debts and liabilities already incurred by the county in respect of the asylum.

  GUN LICENCES IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Francis Egan, of Elfeet Burke, parish of Newtowncashel, county Longford, ap-
  1500
  plied on three occasions for a gun licence to enable him to keep a gun for the destruction of vermin on his farm; that four local magistrates and the police were in favour of his application, but that Mr. J. M. Kilkelly, the resident magistrate, refused this reasonable request, and continues to refuse it; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Egan has recently been elected a county councillor for Longford, and is a man of unblemished character, he will recommend the Lord Lieutenant to issue a licence to him.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR:I have made inquiry into this matter and, so far as I can gather, the facts are not quite as represented in the question. Licences to keep firearms are riot issued by the Lord Lieutenant, but I would suggest that if Mr. Egan were to renew his application for a licence the licensing officer would perhaps further consider it.

  STEAM TRAWLING OFF THE DUBLIN COAST.
  MR. CLANCY:I beg to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland, with reference to the illegal destruction of fishermen's nets and lines by steam trawlers off the Dublin coast, will he institute a prosecution against the owners or crew of the Jackdaw, of Hull, and the Peter Johnston, of Aberdeen, for that offence, if evidence implicating either is forthcoming.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL for Ireland (MR. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.):The answer to this question is in the affirmative. I may mention, however, that the owner of one of the trawlers compensated a fisherman for damage done to his nets.

  THE BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. STEVENSON:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he intends to proceed with the Board of Education Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD of THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.):I am afraid I can give no pledge at all as to on what day we shall be able to proceed with this Bill.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD:Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give us some idea tomorrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The business for this week is settled. At this stage of the session it is hard to say, looking far ahead, on what particular day a special Bill will be taken.

  THE TELEPHONE BILL.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Private Bills relating to telephonic communication introduced at the beginning of the session are still waiting for Second Reading pending proceedings on the Government Telegraphs (Telephonic Communication, &c.) Bill; and whether he can now state when it is proposed to bring on that measure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:If the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill is not finished to-night—and I hope it will be—the Bill the hon. Member refers to will be the second Order to-morrow; it will be the first Order if the Scotch Bill is finished to-night.

  THE LAKES OF KILLARNEY.
  MR. LOUGH:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether £90,600 has been realised by the sale of quit and Crown rents in Ireland between the years 1891 and 1897, and since 1864 nearly a quarter of million has been obtained from this source: and whether these moneys are being used for the purchase of estates in Great Britain; if so, whether the Government would be prepared to appropriate a portion of this Irish fund, which is being withdrawn from Ireland at the rate of about £12,000 a year, for the purchase of the Muckross demesne at Killarney as a national park.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman's statement of figures is, I believe, quite correct: but I do not think it is a matter which could be made a question as between the expenditure of Imperial money in Ireland and the expenditure of Imperial money in England. None of the money which has come from the sources referred to by the hon. Gentleman has been expended in England upon public parks, nor has any public money ever been expended, so far as I know, on public parks outside the metropolitan area. The policy of purchasing a public park so far from any great centre of population, and of a character which would probably produce very little value to the public
  1502
  during many of the winter months of the year, is very doubtful indeed.
  MR. SWIFT MAcNEILL:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a portion of the money referred to has been spent on the stabling of Royal parks?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:No, Sir, I am not aware of that, but it may be true, and I will make inquiries.

  CYPRUS.
  MR. PIERPOINT:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the Votes in Supply, he will arrange that there shall be an opportunity for discussing Cyprus, Grant in Aid (Civil Services, Class V., Vote 4).
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I am afraid I can give no pledge to my hon. friend of the character he desires.

  THE HOME OFFICE VOTE.
  MR. TENNANT:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury upon what day he proposes to take the Home Office Estimates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Supply arrangements for next Thursday and Friday have already been communicated to the House. I think it would be inexpedient to go beyond that.

  BARRACKS LOAN BILL.
  MR. BUCHANAN:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, when the Barracks Loan Bill will be introduced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to take the resolution required in introducing this Bill on Wednesday, and in fact the Bill itself will be moved by my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War on that day.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:It certainly will be no matter of surprise, and I hope, too, no matter of regret in any part of the House, that I rise at this accustomed period of the session to ask the House to give the Government further facilities for the conduct of such legislation as it may

  1503
  be enabled to pass during the remainder of the session. All the pressure, indeed, that has reached me has been in the other direction, as the Notice Paper has shown day by day, and even to-day the questions indicate the anxiety of the House to proceed with certain Government Bills which have already been introduced. I have noticed in the newspapers mention of a rumour that there is a sort of general anticipation pervading the House that the session would have an end about July 25, and that at that unprecedented date we would be able to occupy ourselves in a manner more suitable to the season. I am afraid, Sir, that estimate never had any substantial foundation, nor do I think anybody could have conceived it possible that we should anticipate to any serious extent the date on which, during the last four years, we have been able to separate. I hope that date will not be exceeded, but I certainly cannot promise the House that we shall be able to shorten matters so that we shall be able to separate in the course of next month, or even in the first week of August. I do not propose to give an exact programme of what we hope to pass, because that would be impossible; nor has any one in my position, at this period of the session, ever attempted such a task. Nor, again, do I need to read through the list of Government Orders on the Paper, but I may just mention those Bills which are, I think, somewhat loosely defined by the name of departmental measures. Taking the Order Book of today, and following the order therein, the first is the Telephone Bill, which has not yet reached the Second Reading, and which, I hope, may reach the Second Reading to-morrow night. There is the Board of Education Bill, which has already passed the Lords and awaits the Second Reading. There is the Private, Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill, of which, I trust, we may be able to make a finish to-night; in any case, I confidently expect we shall be able to make very substantial progress with it. There is, next, the Colonial Loans Fund Bill, which ought to pass, and ought to be followed by a Bill based upon it, which will ask the House to consent to loans in particular cases. The House will remember that the Colonial Loans Fund Bill merely lays down the general outlines of the scheme for specific loans, and we think that that Bill ought not only to pass, but, as a
  1504
  matter of fact, there are certain specific loans we ought to have the authority of the House to make before the session closes. There is the Parish Churches (Scotland) Bill, which has passed the Lords and not yet been read a second time; there is the Small Houses (Acquisition of Ownership) Bill, which has reached the Report stage; the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill, which has reached the Report stage; and two Irish Bills—the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Bill and the Tithe Rent-charge Bill—which, I am sorry to say, have not yet passed their Second Reading; and then, finally, there is the Money-Lending Bill, which has already passed the Lords, but has made no progress in this House. I do not believe that this list will be materially added to, except in certain particulars which I will mention. There are three more Bills which, as the House is aware, we mean to introduce and deal with in the course of the session. There is the Military Works Bill, the Clerical Tithe Bill, and the Naval Works Bill. There are also Bills of my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, among them one making further amendments in the Factory Acts. There is, in addition to these, a Bill which has not yet been announced to the House, and which the House, I think, will not describe as contentious, and that is a Bill for completing the arrangements for taking over the Niger Company. The present position of affairs on the Niger has led to many embarrassments which I think ought to be put an end to. The present is a transitional and purely provisional state of things, and ought to be terminated as soon as possible. This measure, therefore, will have to be passed before the end of the session. That is the last item in the list of non-departmental measures which it is very desirable to pass. I do not, of course, say that all these measures will, as a matter of fact, pass into law before we separate, but I hope very substantial progress will be made with the list which I have just read to the House. I do not think I need justify the proposal which enables us to take Tuesdays and Wednesdays henceforth for carrying out this legislation. It has always been anticipated about this period, and even before, that that course will be taken, and I think private Members will be anxious to do all they can to help the Government to deal with the legislation which still remains, and which

  1505
  we can justly claim should be passed. In these circumstances I think I should be wasting the time of the House if I said more to induce it to pass the Resolution. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That for the remainder of the session Government business do have precedence on Tuesday and Wednesday, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to all the days of the week."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour).
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:The Resolution Which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed is in accordance with recent practice, and I do not imagine that there will he any large number of Members in the House who will be disposed to refuse to the Government the facilities they ask for in the circumstances. But I think it right to lay down at once what hitherto has always been prescribed as a condition for this provisional facility being given to the Government at this time of the year, and that is, that they should not use the power so allowed to them for the purpose of introducing any fresh contentious measure likely to occupy much time and to raise deep controversies in the House. The list of measures which the right hon. Gentleman has gone over contains many Bills with which we are tolerably familiar, and there are some which there is a general desire to pass with as little trouble as possible. I anticipate that that will be the case with the Scottish Private Procedure Bill, as to which we see some method of arranging the differences of opinion which have hitherto existed. But the right hon. Gentlemen named four new subjects. I think one was called the Barracks Loan Bill—a Bill which is announced in supplement, as it were, of the Army Estimates, and which was promised at the beginning of the session. Well, Sir, the only comment I would make, and the only objection I would raise to the introduction of that Bill is not that it ought not to be introduced now, but that it ought to have been introduced a good many weeks if not months ago, because when it was announced the Government surely must have had not only a general but a very close conception of what the nature of this Bill would be, and I think it is due to the House and to those who take an interest in military questions that they
  1506
  should have a longer time to consider the details of this Bill than the few weeks which now stand between us and the Prorogation of Parliament. As to the Factories Bill, that will probably be a measure in a direction of which we all approve, but we must wait until we see it. In regard to the Bill for taking over the Niger Company, I would also say that there is a large possibility—I am speaking entirely in the dark as to what the Bill may contain—but I think, if it contains any complications whatever, there is a considerable possibility of a difference of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman named, in a somewhat cool and calm manner, another Bill as if it was an old acquaintance that we were familiar with, and to which we already were committed—namely, the Clerical Tithes Bill. I can only say that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that a Bill dealing with clerical tithes in any way almost, but especially a Bill relieving them from any burdens to which they are now subject—if he thinks that a Bill of that kind can pass through the House in the few weeks of July and part of August, he is totally mistaken. And there is another particular process which it may be sought to apply to this measure, to which I should, for my part, take great objection. We know that clerical influences are clamouring at the door of the Government. We know that from the papers and other sources. Is it possible that this is a Bill intended to be introduced in order to shut the mouths of the clergy, and at the same time introduced in such a manner that there will he a good excuse for saying to them, "My good gentlemen, we have done all we could for you, but a wicked Opposition and the stupid arrangements for the conduct of Parliamentary business compelled us to forego the infinite pleasure we should have felt in doing something"? I do not think that the House of Commons should be treated to a performance of that sort, and if the right hon. Gentleman brings in a Bill—I do not say I hope it will pass—at least I hope that he will bring it in with the intention of its passing, because I think it would be more befitting his own dignity and the dignity of this House and of Parliament that he should bring it in with that intention. But in any case I should strongly advise the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not wish to keep us sitting here until an advanced period of the year, not to meddle with this measure at all.

  1507
  It is not only that it would be discussed at great length and with great detail in all its stages, but I am afraid that the fact of its being announced, of its looming on the horizon, may induce hon. Members to take a minute and painstaking interest in all the other business, which would not conduce to the rapid advancement of the legislation of the session. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take my warning, which is not a mere accidental expression of my own opinion, for I am perfectly certain it conveys not only the feeling but the purpose of nine-tenths of the Members on this side of the House, and possibly of some others. I hope that he will take that into consideration when he thinks of proceeding with this Bill during this session. Otherwise, as I have said, I think he has not proposed anything which is calculated to startle and alarm us, and under the circumstances I am disposed to think that the House ought to afford him the facilities he asks for.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE:In every word that has fallen from the Leader of the Opposition I am disposed to concur, but there is one subject as to which I wish to say a few words. It is a matter to which a great deal of attention has been given in this portion of the House—I refer to the Factories and Workshops Bill, which it has been announced is to be introduced at this terribly late period of the session, although it was promised, long before the Queen's Speech was delivered, that it would be one of the principal measures of the session. We had two speeches made by Cabinet Ministers in which they appealed for the confidence of the working classes of the country, on the ground that next to the London Government Bill a Factories and Workshops Bill would be one of the chief measures of the session. I cannot but fear that the fact of keeping back this Bill till so late a period means either that it will not be passed or that it will be cut down to the narrowest possible limits. I am bound to say that I should object more strongly to the latter of the two alternatives than to the former, because if the Bill is only intended to deal with two or three points it will be a great disappointment to the country. If, on the other hand, it is to be a large Bill, then I fear the Government do not intend to go on with it, because they would not have the time
  1508
  necessary to carry it this year; and I, for one, would sooner have from them a distinct and clear promise that they will really make it one of the principal measures next session, instead of cutting it down to a mere shred in order to pass it this year. It has always been spoken of as a very important measure. The Home Secretary has stated that there is a very large Bill in preparation, and has made it an excuse for the delay in producing the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Workshops, with the result that we Shall have no material for a Home Office Debate this session. Now I would like to point out that the Standing Committees on Trade and Law have been idle during the greater part of this session. One has had before it the Food and Drugs Bill, and the other has had hardly any work at all. If it is now intended to revive the work of these Committees for the purpose of passing the Factories and Workshops Bill, there will he great difficulty at this period of the session in obtaining a quorum, and I am afraid the result will be that the Bill will have to be cut down to the very narrowest limits. Would it not be better to make the best of a had job, and have a thoroughly good Bill next year? There is only one other matter I will touch upon. The Government, during the last three or four years, have steadily declined, under pressure from all parts of the House, to find time at this period of the session for private Members' Bills. But there is a rumour that it is the intention of the Government to give some of the time which we are placing at their disposal to the consideration of a hotly opposed private Members' Bill—the Service Franchise Bill, which was extended into a large measure by an Amendment carried in a very thin House, which Amendment was subsequently defeated in a fairly full House by a majority of only 17. In view of the declarations of Irish Members in regard to this Bill, I think we should have some understanding from the Government that they are not going to devote any time to it.
  MR. DILLON:When a motion of this kind is submitted to the House one is entitled to ask for some satisfactory statement as to what the Government intend to do with the time they ask the House to give them. The list of Bills which the right hon. Gentleman read out, and upon

  1509
  which he based his statement for demanding the time of the House, includes three Irish Bills, all of them very important Bills and raising important questions of principle. I desire to take this opportunity of once more protesting against the conduct of the Government in introducing two of their Irish Bills this session under the Ten-Minutes Rule, especially in view of the fact that the Government have done less business than I ever remember during the 15 years I have been in the House. I think the Irish Members have very good ground for complaining that the Irish business, such as it is this session, has been treated with such scant courtesy up to the present period of the session. I say that no one of those Bills could decently have been introduced under the Ten-Minutes Rule, and that such a course is an outrageous abuse in the case of one of those Bills. The first of the Irish Bills—the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Bill—has been promised every year since the present Government took office. It is a Bill raising very large and very broad issues and issues of various kinds, because it proposes to create a new Irish Minister. Of course, I should not be in order in attempting to deal, even in the most cursory way, with the details of the Bill, but it is a Bill of first class importance, and yet we have been unable to obtain from the Government the probable date on which it will be taken; and now, when we are within about six weeks of the end of the session, we have not received a hint as to when we may expect this Bill to be submitted for discussion. I think we are entitled to demand from the Government that abundant time shall be given for the discussion of this Bill on Second Reading, and still fuller discussion in Committee. I would infinitely prefer that this Bill should be postponed until next session, and then taken at a proper period of the session, rather than that an attempt should be made to shuffle it through at the tail end of the session and force a totally unsatisfactory settlement of this question. I believe and feel convinced that in that view I have the support of the vast majority of Irishmen of all sections. Turning to the other Bills, I am entitled to ask whether the Charitable Loans Bill—a Bill of vital importance to a very large section of the people of the North of Ireland—is to be dropped out altogether. I think the Government ought to say
  1510
  frankly whether they propose to go on with that Bill this session or not. Now I come to the third of the Irish Bills, an all-important Bill, and I earnestly and respectfully invite the attention of the Liberal Party to this Bill, and to its connection with the Clerical Tithe Bill, which we are informed the Government intend to introduce. It appears it is impossible for the Government to allow one session to go by without putting their hands into the public purse to scatter largess among their supporters in Great Britain and Ireland. While they are about to propose some measure of relief to the clergy in England, they also intend to seize upon a large portion of the Tithe Fund and distribute it among the landlords in Ireland. As the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that possibly, if the Clerical Tithes Bill is introduced, the Liberal Party may be incited to take a great interest in other Bills, I respectfully invite them to turn their attention to the Irish Tithes Bill. They will find it very contentious as well as interesting, and they will be doing a service to Ireland if they study the subject and give some attention to it. I think we might expect from the Chief Secretary some different treatment to the very curt statement we have received in reference to this Bill up to the present. With reference to Supply, what is the condition of things at the present moment? Twenty days is the number allotted for Supply under the new Rule. On the 19th of June, 14 out of the 20 days had gone, and the Government have taken only 57 out of a total of 147 Votes on Supply. Among the Votes still to be disposed of is the Foreign Office Vote; some of the next most important are the Army and Navy Votes and the Colonial Office Vote. The First Lord has kindly consented to give two days this week for Irish Supply. I have had occasion to point out more than once that those responsible for the time of the House have not dealt favourably with Irish Supply. In the first year of the new Rule four days, and in later years three days, and now only two days. I venture to say that this year Irish Supply will demand more time than in any year since this Government came into office. There is, first of all, the Vote for law charges; then there is the Local Government Board Voter which, owing to the Act of last year, will have to be discussed

  1511
  at length. There is the Queen's College Vote, which should be discussed at considerable length, inasmuch as no Amendment to the Address was moved on the Catholic University Question. There is, further, the Law Charges Vote and the Constabulary Vote, and then there is a question which will undoubtedly be discussed at considerable length on the Industrial Schools Grant. That Grant used to be passed without a word, but this year it will lead to a long Debate. Then there is the Chief Secretary's Salary, and the Board of Works Vote. Here we have eight Votes in Irish Supply, upon which inevitably there will be very considerable discussion. I desire to point out that, in justice to Irish Members, a fair portion of the time now placed at the disposal of the Government ought to be given for the discussion of the important measures I have mentioned. I further desire to support the demand that time should be allowed for the discussion of the Cyprus Vote. With other hon. Members, I have taken great interest in the condition of Cyprus, and we are anxious there should be a discussion this year, because a Convention is on the eve of being concluded with the Sultan of Turkey for the conversion and settlement of the Debt, to the payment of the interest on which the Cyprus tribute is devoted. We think that those interested should have a fair opportunity of discussing this, because we are anxious that the benefits of the conversion should go to Cyprus, and not to France, Germany, or any other Power.
  SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE:I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to give an opportunity for the Service Franchise Bill to pass. The right hon. Gentleman opposite who referred to this Bill has done all that he possibly could to obstruct it. He is, I may say, practically the only Member really obstructing the Bill. On the 25th March the Bill was carried by a majority of 100, 188 voting for the Bill, whereas he and his supporters only numbered 88. The Bill at this moment is in exactly the condition in which it was introduced. It is a very important Bill, and one which will be welcomed by thousands of men who ought to have votes given them. I may say that a worse obstruction than this Bill has met with from the hands of the right hon. Gentleman opposite has never
  1512
  occurred to any Bill. I do not oppose the Government taking next Wednesday, although this Bill would have been first Order on that day, because I feel that the Government will realise the importance of the Bill, and the strong support it has in the country at large. I trust the Government may "star" the Bill, and allow it to be again proceeded with.
  MR. BRYCE:Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the various questions which have been put to him, I should like to ask whether he can state when he proposes to take the Board of Education Bill, and, if he cannot state that now, whether he will give same days' notice before he proposes to take the Second Reading.
  MR. GALLOWAY:There is a notice on the Paper for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the subject of municipal trading. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that subject in his remarks, and I wish to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint that Committee, for I understand there will be some opposition to the appointment. If the Government do not intend to appoint it, will the right hon. Gentleman say so now, and have the motion removed from the Order Paper. May I be allowed to join in the appeal of the hon. Member for Dulwich in regard to his Bill. I do not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury is aware of the nature of the opposition which has so far existed to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean said that this Bill was hotly opposed; therefore I think I shall be in order in pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman how hotly this Bill has been opposed. It was so hotly opposed that, when it was in front of the Bill for raising the age of half-timers the opposition was absolutely withdrawn after ten minutes or a quarter of an hour's discussion, and then this other Bill was taken. And on the following Wednesday after the Bill had been read, then, and then only, did the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends arise to the Service Franchise Bill. I believe also that several Members are not quite clear as to whether it is the intention of the Government to give a day of Supply for the discussion of the South African Vote as soon as the Papers have arrived

  1513
  about which the Colonial Secretary has spoken.
  *MR. RECKITT:There is one point upon which I should like to have an announcement before we go to a Division, and that is the question of the Petroleum Bill. Members of the House who were present on the 15th March will doubtless remember that my Bill would probably have got a Second Reading had it not been for the fact that the Under Secretary for the Home Office asked the House to reject the Bill upon that occasion upon the ground that the Government were about to introduce a Bill of their own upon the subject; and that not only were they about to introduce a Bill of their own, but the Bill was in a forward state of preparation. After the defeat of my Bill the right lion. Gentleman was asked when this Bill was to be introduced, and he said, "As soon as possible or shortly after Easter." Another question was asked on 14th April, and we were then told that the Bill would be introduced "very shortly," or at ally rate "before the end of the month." I had a conversation with the right Eon. Gentleman, and he hoped the Bill would be introduced before Whitsun. But Whitsuntide has gone by, and now the Government are taking the whole time of the House and no mention has been made of the intention of the Government with regard to legislation on petroleum. I think this is a time at which I should ask what their intentions are, because I do feel that when a private Member introduces a Bill in this House and it is conceived necessary for the Government to instruct one of the Under Secretaries to oppose the Bill, and the Bill is practically defeated on those grounds, and on a pledge that a Government Bill would be introduced, that pledge should be redeemed in something like reasonable time. No one can say that it is a reasonable time to introduce a Bill which, while not of a party character, is certainly of a controversial character, at so late a period of the session as that at which we have now arrived. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make some statement as to why this Bill has not yet been introduced, because the causes and evils are still going on, the deaths and accidents are still mounting up, but apparently the Government do not wish to take any cognisance of this matter. It
  1514
  may be put now, I suppose, in the same category as legislation in regard to automatic couplings. I should also like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to another Bill which has not yet been introduced—
  the Agricultural Holdings Bill. That Bill has been mentioned in every Queen's Speech since 1895, and has always occupied more or less the same lowly position of last on the list; but the First Lord of the Treasury, when his attention was called to the matter, remarked that it did not necessarily follow that it would not have a very much earlier place when introduced for the purpose of a Second Reading Debate. We have had no mention whatever of the Bill yet, and I doubt whether the solicitude of the Government is sincere in regard to the interests of the farmers from whom they so very often derive the bulk of their support when they appeal to the country. It will, I hope, be an object-lesson to the agriculturists that the Government are in the habit of making these promises, but apparently have not the wish or intention to fulfil them. Unless I have a satisfactory answer to my question in regard to the introduction of the Petroleum Bill I am afraid I shall have to trouble the House to take a Division.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES:The remark of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Government make promises which they are not anxious to fulfil is a little inopportune, because my complaint is that the Government have announced their intention of bringing in a number of Bills which were not mentioned at the beginning of the session. This is always a painful moment when the House is asked to set aside the Standing Orders, and take the time of private Members. But we can scarcely drop a tear over either the Standing Orders or the private Member; both have been almost wiped out by repeated inroads upon them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that this motion is usually made on the ground that unless the whole of the time of the House is taken the Government will not have time in the remaining part of the session to pass all the measures to which they are pledged. But the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has gone a step beyond that, because he has announced three or four Bills of first-class importance which are to be introduced, three of

  1515
  which, at any rate, turn upon money. Take the Military Works Bill. There has been a great deal too much military works; you are trusting too much to bricks and mortar, and whatever these military works are that are now proposed they will mean money. Then there is the Naval Works Bill. One of the great reproaches against the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty is that, ceasing to trust in ships, he, too, has put his trust in bricks and mortar. Bricks and mortar will be the death of the Navy, unless we stop this constant expenditure upon that kind of defence. But the naval works mean money, and millions have already been spent both on military works and on naval works—millions which have been taken out of the surpluses and diverted from their proper destination. Then there is the Clerical Tithes Bill, which, of course, means money. I wish to ask whether all this money is to come out of further Supplemental Estimates. In the Debates on the Finance Bill I ventured to suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not reckoned upon any Supplemental Estimates, which, according to our present experience, meant an extra two millions a year; but he interrupted me and said that this year there would be no Supplemental Estimates. But all these Bills, which mean money, mean also Supplemental Estimates; if they do not mean that, they mean loans, so that we shall be in the position, after stopping the repayment of our public debt, of adding further large sums to that debt. The fourth Bill is for taking over the responsibilities of the Niger Company. That is an enormous new departure in policy, which may raise most serious questions. I do hope the Government will not embark upon this Bill in the spirit of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman—that it will have to be passed by the end of the session. It will be an extremely difficult Bill to pass if it in any way answers to its name. I would make one suggestion for the saving of time, and that is that Her Majesty's Government should announce that they are going to drop the Undersized Fish Bill. No harm will be done by that being left over for another year, and IT that time the undersized fish will have got a little larger, and the Government's knowledge of fish generally will have become rather greater. The supply of fish has enormously increased, so that there is no
  1516
  immediate pressure for this Bill, and I would respectfully suggest that it should be dropped, and that the fishing industry should not be worried by the passing of a Bill which will not prevent them catching the fish, but only prevent the sale when they are caught.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON:I think there is some misconception as to the Naval Works Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES:We have not seen it yet.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON:The reason why there is to he a Naval Works Bill is because the money is to be raised by loan. That has been perfectly well understood since the beginning of the session. On this point I trust the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will give us some more definite information about the state of the Bill than has been furnished. The Naval Works Bill which we have had has simply been a continuation Bill. The Government suspended some of the Standing Orders of this House, and all the Standing Orders of the other House, in order to carry the Army Annual Bill, which was quite unnecesssary, and I can see no justification for the delay which has taken place in the introduction of this Bill this year. The whole of the interest is now centred in the schedule, for the principle of it has been asserted over and over again. The schedule is now the only thing to which interest attaches, and, as I understand the First Lord of the Admiralty, the schedule this year will he of special importance because it contains new items. As these items may give rise to a good deal of discussion, I think we are entitled to have from the Government a positive statement that the Bill is ready to be produced, that all the urgency that can be applied to it will be applied, and that we shall have the Bill printed at the earliest possible date at the convenience of the Government. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the House some information as to the intentions of the Government in respect to this important measure.
  *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON:I rise for a moment or two to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the great importance of allowing the Agriculture

  1517
  and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill to pass through the House this session. There is scarcely any Bill upon which there is a more unanimous feeling in Ireland in its favour, for it has met with the warmest approval in all quarters. The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, did not dwell with much warmth on this Bill. I know that the Chief Secretary for Ireland takes a very deep interest in the measure, and the Members of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce are most anxious that it should be passed this session, not only in the interests of agriculture, but also in the interests of the whole of Ireland. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give the House a distinct assurance that this measure will receive attention, for it will relieve the minds of many people in Ireland who take a great interest in technical instruction. I will not occupy the time of the House any longer, and I earnestly express the hope that this Bill will be carried to a successful issue this session.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL:I intend to be very brief in the remarks I shall address to the House. want the right hon. Gentleman to forget for the moment that he is the First Lord of the Treasury, and to look at this question from the point of view of what is honourable between man and man. The subject I am raising is one which commands much sympathy upon both sides of the House. I want to know when the Government intend introducing legislation for the regulation of limited companies. This measure has been promised four times already, and yet a Bill has not been introduced in reference to it, although nearly all the Members of this House have expressed themselves in favour of doing away with the gigantic system of fraud which under the present state of legislation is rendered possible. It is little short of a crying scandal that in the month of March, 1898, the Lord Chief Justice stated that 24,000,000 of money were squandered every year because no amendment had been made in the law, The right hon. Gentleman will recollect the incident when I moved an Amendment to the Address dealing with this very subject, when it received the careful attention of the House, and I may add that, at the time, not a single newspaper took exception to legislation being intro-
  1518
  duced upon this subject, and if ever there was legislation that was popular—except with guinea pigs and company promoters—it is this. Why has this Bill not been introduced? I would like to see any hon. Member of this House standing before his constituents and saying that he is not in favour of this Bill. Is the influence of the guinea pigs in the Lobby too strong for the Government, or is there a majority of company directors in the Cabinet? I desire to ask for a clear explanation of this. It may he said in reply that legislation has been introduced in another place. I do not know whether that is so or not, but it has not come down to this House yet. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of fair dealing between man and man, why has the promise in reference to this measure not been fulfilled? Is it because—as a Tory Member has said—this House is honeycombed and moth-eaten with company promoters? Is the company promoting interest in this House so strong as to prevent legislation being passed to stop a gross system of mean, cowardly, and debasing fraud? Here we have the strongest Government of this century, with a majority of 150 behind them, practically confessing that they are unable to deal with this subject. And why? Is it because they are only in favour of legislation for selfish and guinea-pig interests?
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR:I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether some further opportunity will be given for the discussion of Scotch business. Friday night's discussion elicited a very strong expression of opinion, which was shared upon both sides of the House, upon a point which I need not mention now. The discussion was not ended, and no conclusion was come to. I therefore wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will he good enough to bear in mind, when he is considering the question, the enormous importance of this subject to Scotland, and to state to-day when he will afford a further opportunity for the continuation of the discussion which was carried on on Friday night last. The discussion to which I refer was upon the question of the Education Minute, and both sides of the House then argued very generally and strongly in a direction adverse to the Government upon this point. I may also point out that there are several other Scotch Votes on which

  1519
  there has been no opportunity for discussion. As the Half-timers' Bill has now reached a very forward stage in Parliament, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a similar measure on the Paper in the name of a private Member. There is a very strong feeling in Scotland that this is a question of much less scope and less difficult to deal with than in England, and I do ask the First Lord of the Treasury to consider the unenviable position which Scotland has been left in with regard to this matter, which is one which has excited a good deal of interest in Scotland.
  MR. COGHILL:I desire to urge upon the Government the necessity of proceeding with the Clerical Tithes Bill. I am surprised at the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to this measure, for he seems to have reserved all his opposition for this particular measure. I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will not be frightened by the threats of the Leader of the Opposition, and that he will persist in bringing forward this Bill, which I am sure will give great satisfaction in the country.
  MR. CHANNING:I have no doubt the measure alluded to by my hon. friend will give great satisfaction in the country, especially to those who wish to see the downfall of the present Ministry. One might have supported the Government at this stage of the session if the right hon. Gentleman had limited his proposals to the measures which were contained in the Queen's Speech, for in regard to some of the very useful measures to which he referred no exception could be taken. We know perfectly well what the present proposal of the Government means. It means that useful Bills, like the Money Lending Bill—which is of great importance to the country—the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill, and other important Bills, will be imperilled in order that the Government may be able to spring a certain Report upon the House of Commons and rush through this House, by the force of their great majority, what is nothing but the appropriation of public money and the rating of other people for the relief of one particular class of their supporters. I hope hon. Members will take a Division against this proposal, if only as a protest against
  1520
  the policy of the Government in endeavouring to repeat the experiment which they carried out in reference to the Agricultural Rating Act.
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS:I do not rise for the purpose of championing the cause of private Members, for they seem to me to be past praying for. What I wish to point out to the Government is this—if the House passes this Resolution the Government will have a considerable amount of time placed at their disposal. Therefore they could use some of that time in trying to pass a measure which the Home Secretary has stated was practically ready, and which he is anxious to introduce. I refer to the Bill for giving practical effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Burial Grounds. The majority of that Committee was composed of Ministerial Members, but both Churchmen and Nonconformists. were represented. Now, that Committee has arrived at conclusions which would form the basis of a satisfactory measure. I do not say that the subject is considered to be wholly uncontentious, but it is no longer a Party question. I know hon. Members on the other side are as anxious as we arc on this side for an early settlement of the question, and it seems to me that it will be a great pity for the Government to lose so favourable an opportunity of dealing with the subject. If the measure be introduced, it will occupy a great deal less time and cause much less trouble than the Bill to give a large amount of public money to the clergy of the Church of England. I hope the Government will introduce the measure, even if they fail to pass it this session, as I believe it would hasten the close of a very painful and protracted struggle.
  MR. LABOUCHERE:I am afraid we shall at this time of the session have to leave the dead to bury its dead. Apart from all questions of political differences, it does seem to me a mistake, at the advent of that happy moment when we shall cease to have the pleasure of each others' society; to suddenly spring three or four new Bills on the House. I do not think the Leader of the House ought fairly and honestly to do it unless he can show that it has been rendered necessary by circumstances which now exist, and which are different

  1521
  from those which obtained at the commencement of the session. The Leader of the Opposition did not exaggerate in the least when he said that if this clerical Bill is brought in we shall take a most exhaustive and minute interest in even other Bill, with the deliberate and open intention of defeating this Bill so far as we can possibly do it by effluxion of time. I never conceal the fact when I am obstructing. Under the circumstances, if a Bill of this kind is brought in at the close of the session, we shall have a right to render it, so far as we possibly can, impossible for the Government to pass it. We on this side may differ from the views of the Government, but they have a large majority, and if they brought in a Bill at the commencement of the session I should not attempt to obstruct it; but this Bill was not alluded to in the Queen's Speech, and I certainly gathered from the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a deputation a little while ago that it was not intended to legislate on this matter this year. As a matter of fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would not include the money required for it in his Budget, and he did not give the slightest hint that this Bill was to be brought in. Under these circumstances it does appear to me to be a mistake—and I say it not from any Party feeling—to bring in at this time of the session a Bill of such a very controversial nature. There was one Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, but he did not say he would attempt to pass it, and that is tin Money Lending Bill. That Bill is in a very different position. The subject was referred to a very able Committee last session, many witnesses were heard, and a Report which I believe was unanimous was communicated to the House. The Bill was alluded to in the Queen's Speech. I refer to the matter myself because I very much regret that my hon. friend who took such an active and able interest in it is away. The Bill has already passed the House of Lords, and I do not think it would take a very long time to pass through this House. It would do a very large amount of good, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is not going to push forward this clerical Bill, of which we know nothing at present, and that he will give facilities—for it is a
  Government measure—for passing the Money Lending Bill.
  *MR. J. E. ELLIS:I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Board of Education Bill, if he cannot name the time when he proposes to introduce it, whether he would tell us how much notice he will give. I wish also to associate myself with all that has been said as to the undesirability of springing on the House of Commons on this the 19th day of June such a controversial matter as the Clergy Bill. I go further than my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, and say that no really controversial Bill should be announced or brought forward by the Government after Whitsuntide. I yield to no man in my admiration of some of the qualities of the Leader of the House, but I am bound to say that, compared with some of his predecessors, of whom I have seen five or six, he fails sometimes—I say so with all respect—as regards the ordinary, everyday, humdrum business of the House in the matter of procedure. The only way in which we can have that reasonable certainty which everyone desires is for the Government, between Easter and Whitsuntide, to get forward with the Second Readings of their larger Bills and some of their minor Bills, to utilise the Grand Committees in the way suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and then to proceed as rapidly as possible with nothing but Committee work after Whitsuntide. The right hon. Gentleman has given a great measure of reasonable certainty with regard to Supply—I congratulate him very much on it—and he gives us a reasonable notice of a week or ten days as to what Supply is to be taken on Fridays. I would venture to very respectfully suggest whether he would not give us next session a reasonable certainty also in regard to other business. The worst thing any Government can do is to announce in the later days in June a Bill which will be a very controversial measure.
  MR. ARTHUR J. MOORE:I desire, before the right hon. Gentleman answers all these questions, to join with the hon. Member for South Belfast in urging on him the extreme necessity of pressing forward the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill. This is of the very greatest import

  1523
  ance, and anyone who has any knowledge of the magnificent work done by the hon. Member for South Dublin, without any Government assistance, must see that there is a great future on the same lines which this Bill proposes. I daresay it will be necessary to consider the Bill very closely, and to press on the Government certain modifications in Committee, but I earnestly hope that this Bill may not be abandoned. It is a very important Bill, which is earnestly desired, not only by the large towns, particularly in the North of Ireland, but also by the agricultural districts in the West of Ireland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will he able to assure us that he is in a position to fix an early date for the further consideration of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I have had a large number of critics—kindly critics I admit—in the course of this Debate, and they belong to various classes. There are gentlemen who think we have brought forward too many Bills, there are gentlemen who think we have not brought forward enough of Bills, and there are gentlemen who think that it is our bounden duty to press through certain Bills in which they are interested, but who at the same time say that the Bills would require very close scrutiny. We all know that that is a House of Commons euphemism for a considerable amount of debate. The hon. Member who spoke last but one—the Member for the Rushcliffe Division—complains of the method in which Government business has been arranged in the course of the present session, and says we have got into a tangle.
  *MR. J. E. ELLIS:I said before Easter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I do not remember a session in which Government business was less entangled, and I have less hesitation in making the observation because I attribute none of the credit to myself, and I gladly recognise that both sides of the House have seconded the Government in carrying out the work. The Government business has, as I think both before and after Easter, gone through with remarkable smoothness. The hon. Gentleman further says that all Bills which we hope to make progress with ought to be read a second time before Whitsun, and he specially referred to the
  1524
  Clerical Tithes Bill of which so much unexpected notice has been taken by hon. Members opposite. I think there might be a good deal to be said for that course, and I might in the innocence of my heart have assented to and easily fallen in with it. But now it appears everything is to be stopped until the Bill is withdrawn, and I therefore congratulate myself that I did not carry out the policy of the hon. Gentleman and read the Bill a second time before Whitsuntide. I am not, of course, discussing the provisions of the Bill, though I must say they loom too largely in the somewhat heated imagination of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But there is one criticism of which I really must complain. Hon. Members talk as if no notice or hint had been given that the Government desired to deal with this question. It was perfectly well known that the Government desired to deal with it, and so well Was it known that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean asked me a question last week on the subject, and I made no concealment, and framed my answer in such a way that anybody listening to me would know that it was one of the subjects which the Government were anxious to introduce. It is a measure not quite of the first importance in a Parliamentary sense, but it is a very much needed act of justice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo, and some other hon. Gentlemen also, asked me a great many questions about the distribution of the time for Supply. I do not think that the Debate on this resolution is on modern conditions a very fitting opportunity for discussing the allocation of the time for Supply. It is imposssible for the Government to give more time under the Sessional Order than they have given, and I do not think pressure ought to be put upon us in this Debate to distribute such time as we have got more favourably to one section of this House than to another. But I must observe that the hon. Member for East Mayo has chosen this opportunity to raise again the criticisms he has more than once delivered on the introduction by the Government of Bills under the Ten-Minutes Rule. It appears to me that any Bill which is not of a long and complicated character may properly and wisely be introduced under that rule. In common with every private Member in the House, he has the right to introduce a Bill of the greatest con-

  1525
  ceivable importance and complexity, not only without the amount of discussion and explanation which is avoided under the Ten-Minutes Rule, but without any discussion or explanation at all, and practically without even the power of taking a hostile vote. I maintain that in these circumstances, when the Government are introducing Bills not of great complexity, and which can be easily explained in the compass of the Ten-Minutes Rule, it is really a judicious and wise saving of the time of the House that that Rule should be taken advantage of. I grant, of course, that there may be great constitutional issues—like the London Government Bill—which ought not to be dealt with under that Rule, but, on the whole, I hope the general feeling of the House is in favour of proceeding under that Rule rather than reverting to the more antiquated and complicated procedure which is justified in some cases, but which only should be used when absolutely necessary. The hon. Gentleman has told us what view he takes of the Irish Agriculture and Technical Instruction Bill, and these differ fundamentally from those of other hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who have spoken strongly in favour of it. The Bill is not a large measure, but it is an important one. I believe all classes in Ireland desire that that Bill should be passed except the hon. Member for Mayo.
  MR. DILLON:What I said was that the Bill was exceedingly defective, and that it would require very full discussion. I further said that I would rather see a good Bill passed next year than a bad Bill this year.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:Whether the Bill can be improved or not I will not anticipate. I am sorry the hon. Member takes the view he does, and I am sure that only a small section of House share the hon. Gentleman's opinion.
  MR. DILLON:All I ask is reasonable time for the discussion of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:We may differ as to what reasonable time is. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire asked me a supplemental question to that put to me from this side
  1526
  of the House in regard to the Secondary Education Bill. I greatly desire to see that Bill passed into law this session, and I will give adequate notice as to when it comes on. I would not like to pledge myself, however, as to the number of days' notice which I will give when the Bill is to be taken. I do not know that I need discuss the views of the hon. Member for Brigg, who has expressed a desire for the introduction of the departmental Bills, and, still further, that a Bill should be introduced on petroleum. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see the Bill, I might be able to arrange with my right hon. friend.
  MR. RECKITT:I only asked that the pledge given at the time by the Under Secretary for the Home Department, who made a speech against the Bill introduced by a private Member, should be redeemed. On more than one occasion, in answer to questions in the House, the promise was made that that pledge would be carried out.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I was not aware that a promise had been given, and I should like to see the terms of the promise. But if a promise was made to introduce a Bill in the course of the present session, that, promise of course, must be kept. I certainly cannot undertake to give the time for that "reasonable discussion" which the hon. Member for East Mayo desires for the Irish Bill in which he has expressed an interest. I do not think I need say anything about the Naval Works Bill, except that when criticisms have been passed on the Government for not bringing it in earlier in the session, I would remind the hon. Gentlemen that the later it is brought in the more possible is it to foresee the works which will have to be carried out under the Act when the Bill becomes law. I do not think I need say anything more. We have been told that there is not time to pass the Bills on the Paper, and we have been also pressed to bring in and pass a great many more Bills; but these two criticisms are mutually contradictory. It_ is impossible, at the present stage of the session, to foresee what amount of business we shall get through. But, in spite of the threat or the gloomy prophecy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I hope the House will continue the discussion of the Bills for the remainder of the session

  1527
  in the same business like way it has shown hitherto.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What about the Company Promoters' Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is one of the Bills that I am urged to introduce by the very Gentleman whose friends tell me that I cannot pass the Bills already on the Paper.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is in the Lords; why don't you bring it down here?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are now discussing the business of the Commons, and we have neither the right nor the title to go beyond that. My hon. friend and colleague in the representation of Manchester asked me whether we could find time for discussing the Committee on Municipal Trading. I cannot promise to find time for that.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What about Private 'Members' Bills?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is far too early to consider whether the Government could conceivably take under their protection any Private Members' Bills, and certainly I cannot be betrayed into expressing any view on that subject. Indeed I have not any view upon it; and if I had I should be much too wise to express it at the present stage of the session.
  MR. TENNANT: What does the right hon. Gentleman say about the Factories Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Baronet the member for the Forest of Dean says he would rather see a large and complete measure introduced next
  year, or in some subsequent session, than a deficient and incomplete measure this session. I will consult my right hon. friend the Home Secretary on that question; but I may say, in the meantime, that I understood from him that, useful as a Bill dealing with dangerous trades would be, a good deal has been done since last year in framing rules governing these dangerous trades, and that the necessity of introducing a measure is not nearly so pressing as it was when we had a discussion on the subject last July. But I will consult with my right hon. friend whether, after the observations of the right hon. Baronet, anything would be gained by introducing a Bill this session.
  MR. GALLOWAY: As the Notice of Motion for the Select Committee on Municipal Trading is put down every day, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to take it without giving us notice when he will take it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It seems to me that that is one of those resolutions which the Government are surely justified in taking at any opportunity they have. It is greatly to be regretted that the inquiry is blocked in any part of the House; but I do not think that, in submitting to such an inconvenience, I am called upon to give a day's notice of the time at which the discussion will be brought on.
  MR. WALLACE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Clerical Tithes Bill will come on?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I had better not say anything about that.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 195.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Barry, Rt.Hn.A.H.S.-(Hunts)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Aird, John

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Bond, Ed vard

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bathurst,Hon.Allen Benjamin

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

  Boulrois, Edmund

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Baird, John George A.

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)

  Bethell, Commander

  Brookfield, A. Montague

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Biddulph, Michael

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Butcher, John George

  Campbell, RtHn.JA.(Glasgow)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cavendish, R. F- (N. Lancs.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hamstead)

  Pease, Herb. Pike(Darlington)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Philphotts, Captain Arthur

  Chamberlain, RtHonJ (Birm.)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.(Bow)

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs,Newton

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Charrington, Spencer

  Howard, Joseph

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Howell, William Tudor

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

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

  Hozier, Hn.James Henry Cecil

  Pryce-Jones,Lt.-Col. Edward

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Purvis, Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Rankin, Sir James

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jessel,Captain HerbertMerton

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ridley,Rt.Hn.SirMatthew W.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Ritchie,Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Robertson, Herbert, (Hackney

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kimber, Henry

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Round, James

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lea, SirThomas(Londonderry)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lecky,Rt. Hon. William E. H.

  Rutherford, John

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Denny, Colonel

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sasson, Sir Edward Albert

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Leighton, Stanley

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Digby, John K D. Wingfield-

  Llewelyn, Sir D.- (Swansea

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Long, Col C. W. (Eversham

  Smith, Jas. Parken (Lanarks)

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Spencer, Ernest

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lucas-Shadewell, William

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn SirJ(Manc'r)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Stock, James Henry

  Finch, George H.

  Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Strauss, Arthur

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liv'rpool)

  Thorburn, Walter

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  M'Calmont, Col.J.(Antrim, E.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  M'Iver,Sir L (Edinburgh, W.)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Malcalm, Ian

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Flower, Ernest

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Usborne, Thomas

  Fry, Lewis

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Valentia, Viscount

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Verney, Hon. Richard G-

  Garfit, William

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Gibbs, Hon, Vicary (St Albans)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Goschen, Rt.Hn.G.J.(StGeo.'s)

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Gourley,Sir Edward Temperley

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcester, N.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Monk, Charles James

  Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R (Bath)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Montagu, Hn. J. S. (Hants)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Woodall, William

  Greene, W. Raymond.(Cambs.)

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)

  Wyndham, George

  Gunter, Colonel

  Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'ths.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Morrison, Walter

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Mount, William George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Heath, James

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Myers, William Henry

  Mr. Anstruther.

  1530

  1531

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Perks, Robert William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hazell, Walter

  Pinkerton, John

  Austin, M.

  Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Provand,Andrew Dryburgh

  Billson, Alfred

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Richardson, J. (Durham,S.E.)

  Blake, Edward

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Johnson-Ferguson,JabezEdw.

  Robertson, Edm.(Dundee)

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William nordon

  Cameron,SirCharles(Glasgow

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Carvell, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Labouchere, Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Souttar, Robinson

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

  Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington

  Spicer, Albert

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Leng, Sir John

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Commins, Andrew

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Steadman, William Charles

  Crombie, John William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Stevenson, Francis F.

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacAleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacNeill,JohnGordonSwift

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  M'Ewan, William

  Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen,E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Trevelvan, Charles Philips

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Ure, Alexander

  Duckworth, James

  M'Leod, John

  Wallace, Robert

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Walton, J. Lawson, (Leeds, S.)

  Evans, SamuelT. (Glamorgan)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Warner Thos. Courtenay T.

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Montagu,Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Wedderburn, Sir william

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morgan,J Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  Morgan, W P. (Merthyr)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morton,Edw J.C.(Devonport)

  Williams, John Carvell(Notts.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  O'Connor,James(Wicklow, W.

  Woods, Samuel

  Gibney, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Oldroyd, Mark

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Gold, Charles

  O'Malley, William

  Scott and Mr. Harold

  Gurdon, Sir William B.

  Palmer,SirCharlesM.(Durham

  Reckitt.

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2:—
  Amendment again proposed—
  "In page 2, line 2, after the word 'Commons' to insert the words 'and two Members of each House of Parliament appointed at the beginning of each session in manner provided by Standing Orders shall be a Standing Committee of the two Houses of Parliament."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be their inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. G. MURRAY, Buteshire): As hon. Members are aware, we have been considering the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness. The object of that Amendment and the desire of its
  1532
  mover is that there should be proper control. That wish is reflected by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I feel very strongly the advisability of having other persons added to the panel. Under the scheme of the Bill as at present drafted there is certain control over this matter; but what we propose to do is to alter our Bill in the sense that in every case it will be necessary to bring the matter before this House so that it will always be possible for this House to consider any Bill and amend it, whether it had been opposed in a former stage at the local inquiry or not. The exact form of the alteration has not yet been decided upon, but we think it might very conveniently arise upon an Amendment which is down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in Clause 7, page 5, and line 9. The control which he suggests in that Amendment I can assure the Committee we shall accept; but there must be some alteration

  1533
  in the words, and under all the circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I did not hear a part of the right hon. Gentleman's explanations and objections, but I think I substantially know what they amount to, and I recognise that this involves a considerable concession to the views expressed by those who sit both upon this side of the House and the other side. I also understand that in this and in other respects the right hon. Gentleman is ready to meet the views put forward. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to make considerable alterations to meet the ideas of the vestries, and I think that will be most palatable to the Scottish people as a whole. On these grounds I do not think it would be well for my hon. friend, with whom I entirely sympathise, and whose Amendments I have supported, to press his Amendment at this stage. I may say that I have more than once expressed an opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate could carry through a Bill for this purpose if anyone on this earth could, and I recognise in the conciliatory manner which he has adopted from first to last the fulfilment of my prediction of his success. I hope it will be understood that we are not foregoing any of our rights to criticise when we think necessary any points that may come before us; but on the main principle of this part of the scheme of the Bill I think we have had such concessions given to us as to justify us in withdrawing the Amendment now before the House.
  DR. CLARK (Caithness):Under the circumstances, I shall be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CRIPPS:The Amendment which I beg to propose is put down with a desire to make the Bill a practical and good one. Under the Bill as it stands at present there is a statutory obligation placed upon the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, which is quite outside Parliamentary practice. I therefore propose as an Amendment that there should not be an obligation of
  1534
  a statutory character which might be enforced by mandamus, but that in the exercise of their discretion under this Bill the Chairmen should be subject in the ordinary way to the rules of the House, and not to any outside tribunal. I hope the Lord Advocate will accept the Amendment, recognising, as I trust he will, that it will put the Bill in better form and make it more in accordance with constitutional precedent.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 3, to leave out from 'shall' to end of clause, and insert 'if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order prescribe all matters of practice and procedure which will enable them to take into
  consideration the draft Order, and to report thereon to the Secretary for Scotland."—(Mr. Cripps.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I am quite willing to meet my hon. and learned friend in this matter, by leaving out from the word "shall" down to "the Secretary for Scotland," in order to insert the words he proposes. This, however, will necessitate a small Amendment in the next line, and I therefore propose in line 11, as consequential to this Amendment, to insert after the first word "of" "the Chairman report and." That makes the Amendment perfectly consistent, and at the same time gives effect to what the hon. Member wishes.
  *MR. J. E. ELLIS:I think anyone who is interested in constitutional procedure—and who ought not to be?
  —will feel obliged to the hon. Member for bringing this Amendment forward, and we are pleased to acknowledge the attitude of the Lord Advocate with regard to this matter.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON:I think this Amendment would cut out an Amendment which stands in my name. I ought to say that I put down that Amendment, not with a view of pressing it to a Division, but really to understand what the nature of the proposal of the Lord Advocate is. The clause appears to involve two lines of procedure, and I desire to know what the intention of the Government is.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:The genesis of the proviso of the clause is in the proceedings of the Select Committee last year. The proviso is put in so that if the Secretary for Scotland does know where the scheme is opposed he should hand on his knowledge to the Chairman. That is the whole meaning of it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Amendment suggested by the Lord Advocate put, and agreed to.
  MR. MOULTON:The Amendment that I propose must, I think, he admitted by all who lave considered this Bill to be a reasonable one. It is to omit the words "or mainly" in the passage "if it appears … that the provisions or some provisions of the draft Order do not relate wholly or mainly to Scotland." The effect of the Amendment is to restrict the operation of this Act to Scotch business. The last clause of the Bill says that this Bill shall apply to Scotland only. It is not only called the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill, but the terms of the Bill itself apply only to Scotland. Now, so long as the words "or mainly" appear, there is no Bill relating to England which might not come within its provisions, provided it relates also to Scotland, even though the opinion of the Chairmen is that it applies more to Scotland than to England. It seems to me quite foreign to the intention of the Bill that such should be the effect, but as it is at present drafted so it stands. I want to call the attention of the Committee to what the effect will be if the words "or mainly" are allowed to remain. In the first place, if a Private Bill relates in any way to Scotland it must he brought into the provisions of this Bill. The consequence is that, no matter how much a Bill relates to England, still it must come under the Scotch Procedure Bill if in any part it touches Scotch interests. That, of course, would be grossly unfair to the predominant partner, and I cannot understand why the Government have departed from the plain language in which former Bills, if I remember rightly, were couched, which limited the power to Private Bills which related solely to Scotland.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 13, to leave out 'or mainly.'"—(Moulton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or mainly' stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I really think that there is no such danger as the hon. Member seems to foresee. The retention of the words is simply to provide for such undertakings as may extend a few yards over the border. Surely the hon. Member might be content to trust the Chairmen in such a matter, for they would never be likely to give a wrong decision in regard to it. After the concessions which I have already made today, I hope the Committee will support me in opposing this Amendment, because I think it would be a pity to insert these words.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 13, after 'Scotland,' to insert 'or do not raise any question of policy or principle not previously determined by Parliament."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I shall be quite happy to accept the hon. Member's Amendment in the form adopted in the 1892 Bill. I therefore beg to move to insert the words—
  "Or raise any full question of policy or principles."
  The clause will then read—
  "If it appeared from such report that the provisions, or some of the provisions of the draft Order do not relate wholly or mainly to Scotland, or are of such a character or magnitude, or raise any such question of policy or principle, that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill, and not by Provisional Order."
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  The Amendment suggested by the Lord Advocate put and agreed to.
  MR. J. P. SMITH:I should like to ask what the Lord Advocate proposes to do with his Amendment as to measures effecting a change in the general law. We have now got a tribunal that will consider certain Bills for carrying out works, but it is a different matter when we have proposals for dealing with the liberty of the subject,

  1537
  and it is necessary to keep these proposals under the control of Parliament. I beg therefore to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 13, after 'Scotland,' to insert, 'or effect a change in the general law.'"—(Mr. J.P. Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CRIPPS:I think the words of my Amendment which appears further down in the Paper, are very much the same as those in the Amendment of the hon. Member, but slightly more definite in form. The words which I proposed to submit are to insert after "Scotland," "or deviate from, or are repugnant to the general law." What the Lord Advocate proposes is that we should have some control, in the form of a confirmation Bill or some other form. But that is not the same control as sending a Bill to a special Committee, the Police and Sanitary Committee, and getting a special report from that Committee. I do not think it is necessary to argue that we ought to keep this legislative power sufficiently under our own control, and the words which I propose are intended to retain that power in cases of real importance.
  MR. CALDWELL:May I point out to the Lord Advocate that the effect of these Amendments would he to hamper the whole purpose of the Bill, because when you introduce a Bill into this House it means in many cases an alteration of the general law. You could never bring in a Bill for the Corporation of Glasgow, for instance, without some little amendment of the general law, and I cannot conceive of any procedure under this Bill which would not make some such change.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY:If I understand the words of the Lord Advocate, they are not limited to the new cases, but are so wide as to cover the Amendment of the hon. Member. I confess I am a little afraid to put in words which might, by including one class of cases, exclude another. If we adopt the Lord Advocate's words, we shall be able to designate the class of cases referred to by simply passing in each
  1538
  session a Sessional Order similar to that by which we now refer such cases to the Police and Sanitary Committee.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY: The hon. Member for Sheffield has so well stated the case that I have really nothing to add.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 13, after 'Scotland,' to insert, 'or which raise any such question of policy or principle.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 22, to leave out 'that notices published and served and.'"—(Captain Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I may say at once that I propose to pass over all questions of notices till the Report stage. I think the matter may be summarised thus. We discussed the question last time, and the feeling of the Committee was that for the Provisional Order system pure and simple we should, if possible, have rather a less expensive mode of procedure. On the other hand, if the matter has to go on as a Private Bill, it is quite clear we should have to amend the Standing Orders in that sense. There are two plans: either you have to have this question determined before notices are served, or you have to have an alternate notice. What I feel is that one would be in a much better position to give an intelligent consideration to the point when we have the Bill in its final form. Therefore I propose, with the permission of the House, to leave over this question of the notices until the Report stage.
  MR. CRIPPS:I think the Amendment which stands in my name will really come within the principle which the Lord Advocate has just stated, hut if he desires it to be left over I do not desire to bring it up at the present time. What I want to point out is that nothing in this Bill ought to interfere with the power of this House to deal with its own procedure or its own Standing Orders. My Amend-

  1539
  ment was only to ensure that that right was preserved. With regard to the intercommunication of procedure, where the procedure under this Bill or the ordinary Private Bill procedure is adopted, it seems to me to be essential, if this Bill is to be a success, that where the Chairman holds that a particular procedure ought to be by Private Bill, and not under the terms of this Act, the notices and so on which have already been given should not be thrown away, but should be applicable to procedure by Private Bill. I may illustrate the point by the procedure in connection with the Light Railways Commissioners, where the entire separation of the procedure has created very great difficulty. I hope before the Report stage the Lord Advocate will see his way to preserve the control of this House over this procedure, and also to make sure that when the Chairman says particular proposals ought to come before this House all the expenditure up to that date in regard to notices and matters of that kind should not be thrown away, but be able to be utilised in connection with the other procedure.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:If I were dealing with this Amendment alone, I should be perfectly happy to take the hon. Member's suggestion, but really I think the whole matter must be considered.
  MR. J. P. SMITH:The Amendment standing in my name deals with another small point upon notices, which I am content to leave to the Lord Advocate.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CLARK:This next Amendment is to leave out the last words of the clause, but I do not think I will move it.
  MR. CRIPPS:As I have a similar proposal to this on the Paper, may I say that I hope that under no conditions will these last three lines be inserted. Nor are they in the least necessary. It is a most important proposal affecting the procedure of this House. We deal with this matter by Standing Order. I do not think my right hon. friend can find any instance where by Statute this House disentitles itself to take into consideration any petitions. There is no such case, as far as I know, in constitutional law, and I have hunted through all the books, because this
  1540
  proposal seemed to be of an extraordinarily unconstitutional character. The procedure under the Standing Orders of the House will practically arrive at the same result, and if my learned friend will accede to that, and not seek to put a statutory disability upon this House, I am quite content with what he will settle. It is most important that you should not allow the privileges of this House to be controlled even by Statute. I beg to move, the omission of these lines.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 26, to leave out from the word 'Parliament' to the end of the clause."— (Mr. Cripps.)
  Question proposed, "That the words, proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON:This appears to me to be a most important subject, and I was rather surprised to hear that the hon. Member for Caithness did not propose to move his Amendment. The importance of the matter is emphasised by the fact that you have Amendments from all quarters of. the House to the same effect. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has thoroughly well explained the constitutional aspect of the case, and I trust the House will accept this Amendment.
  DR. CLARK:I did not move my Amendment because we discussed the point fully on the first clause. The question is whether it should be compulsory or not. I think after the Government have agreed that everything can come before us, and we can have a Report stage where it is necessary, and a Third Reading, we should give way to them on this point, and that is why I did not move. This is merely raising the question again in a bad form.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:The truth is this Amendment is very nearly out of order, because we have already decided, although we did not go to a Division, that. when you want anything which in the old days could be got by Private Bill, you should apply for a Provisional Order. It is not quite out of order, because if the Amendment were carried the result would be that we could do either. But my hon. and learned friend's argument, if carried

  1541
  out, would obviously make it impossible to have a Bill to deal with private legislation at all, because all private legislation procedure at the present moment is necessarily an infringement of the Standing Orders of this House; and if his position is right that you never can by Act tie up the powers of this House in regard to anything which is dealt with by Standing Orders, it is quite obvious that yon cannot have an Act at all to deal with private legislation procedure. But really this clause, as it stands, does not alter or interfere with the general powers of this House with regard to petitions. It simply carries out what we have already determined in the "may" and "shall" discussion.
  SIR F. S. POWELL:I do not like to interfere even with one word in the course of a Scotch debate, but I confess I always had a great dislike to the lines now before us. It certainly does appear to me that they impair in the most important manner the liberties and almost the rights of the subject. While I desire to concur in what my hon. and learned friend has said as to the privileges and rights of Parliament, I should greatly regret, having regard to my experience as Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee, these lines forming part of this clause.
  *MR. RENSHAW:The provision in Clause 1 is so clear that there is really no necessity for this sub-section. I do not think they formed any part of the Bill of last year, and if I remember the proceedings in the Committee rightly they were introduced at the instance of the Lord Advocate. I regret he now proposes to retain them, because, in view of the clear nature of the provision in Clause 1, it is not desirable that these lines should stand.
  *MR. J. E. ELLIS:I beg to join in everything that has been said as to the inexpediency, not to say danger, of these lines. I am not quite sure that it conduces to the rapid progress of the proceedings of the Committee for the Lord Advocate to say after you, Sir, have put it from the chair, that the Amendment is more or less out of order.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I did not say it was out of order. I said it was nearly out of order, and I gave my reasons for thinking so.
  *MR. J. E. ELLIS:I thought I heard the right hon. Member say it was nearly out of order; if he did not say so I was mistaken. The hon. and learned Member opposite has given very fully the constitutional aspect of the matter, and surely we have no right to limit the power of the House in this way. If the hon. Member presses his Amendment to a Division, I shall support him in the lobby.
  MR. CRIPPS:I only want to say one word in answer to what the Lord Advocate has said. His view is that so far as the rights and privileges of this House are concerned they have been settled in Subsection 1. There I quite agree with him. If his desire is, so far as the individual is concerned, to direct the way in which he should make application in the future, that point we have dealt with already in Sub-section 1. These three lines have no effect upon that, except so far as they detail the duties of this House in matters of procedure. That is to say, this House would be under statutory disabilities as regards entertaining such petitions or petitioners. You may put the disability on the petitioner, but that is entirely a different point. I hope the Lord Advo Cate or the First Lord of the Treasury will see that these words are unnecessary.
  MR. SOUTTAR:I quite agree that this matter was discussed under the first section of the Bill, but I thought that the decision arrived at was an exceedingly bad decision. Therefore I am very glad it has been brought up again, and that one or two men of eminence have taken the side of the subject in this matter. I feel certain the time will come when hon. Members will realise that they are making a great mistake in parting with a constitutional right of the subject which is almost as important as freedom of speech, and which has existed for many, many centuries. This is not the first time Parliament has attempted to infringe upon that right, but the attempt has not been successful. The Lord Advocate seems to me, in the present case, in these three lines, to be adding insult to injury. If the right has been taken away by the

  1543
  first clause, why repeat the operation here? I do hope that in so important a matter a Division will be taken, and I should support the Amendment.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:If my hon. and learned friend's objection is to the form of the words, I am perfectly willing to take that into consideration along with the other questions of procedure. As I understand, that is really all he wants to raise, as he recognises that we have settled the whole question in the "may" and "shall" Division. I am not quite certain what the hon. Member for Nottingham meant, because I do not know that he was in the House when the previous decision was come to, and therefore perhaps he has not borne in mind that the House has already decided that it is a necessity that people should come by this method for a Provisional Order, leaving it to the Chairmen to relegate the proposal to the Private Bill procedure if necessary. Perhaps if I agree to consider the form of words he will be satisfied, but the hon. Member cannot expect me to give way on this, seeing that we have already taken the sense of the House upon the question.
  MR. CRIPPS:In regard to what the Lord Advocate has said, although I believe I am entirely in accord with the hon. Member for Nottingham, I do not at all want to take up the time of the Committee; and as the Lord Advocate has promised to consider the question, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON:I entirely object to the Amendment being withdrawn. I do not see the use of wasting time discussing the question, and then not coming to some definite understanding as to what is going to be done. If the matter has been settled you do not want the words, and there is no use in settling it twice.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACE:It was absolutely settled under Clause 1 of this Bill that it was compulsory to come under this Bill, and at first I must confess I thought the last part of this section was unnecessary. But on consideration I begin to doubt that, and there may possibly be cases where these words would be necessary. There is nothing to prevent them coming in the other way, unless some such words ate inserted. As
  1544
  I understand, my hon. and learned friend wishes to preserve certain rights of Parliament, and if that can he done better by Standing Order or by some other words, we are all agreed it should be done, but I earnestly trust the Committee will sustain the Lord Advocate in the view he has taken in regard to the necessity of something like this being inserted, and reject the Amendment if it is pressed to a Division.
  MR. CALDWELL:Nothing in the words of the first clause would interfere with the right of any person to petition this House in the usual way for leave to bring in a Bill. At the same time there is a constitutional right of this House to listen to petitions, and if these words were retained there would he no power to this House to give leave to introduce a Private Bill notwithstanding the words of Clause 1. We have never yet cut out the right of any person in this country to petition this House, or the right of this House to consent to that petition by giving leave to bring in a Bill. So that, after all, this matter raises not the question of the right of the petitioner, which is involved in Clause 1—we have decided that—but the right of this House, upon a petition being presented to them, to say "We will allow this matter to come in by Private Bill." This House has always kept within its own hands the right of anyone to conic to them direct. We are dealing now with the right to come to this House and with the constitutional right of this House to say "Notwithstanding Clause 1 we will allow you to proceed by Private Bill."
  MR. COURTNEY:The Lord Advocate has promised to consider this matter, and I would suggest that he might take into account the action of Parliament in reference to two matters which were formally settled by the action of the House. In the first place there was the matter of Divorce Bills, and then the right of electors to come to this House with regard to a controverted election for the decision of the House. Nothing could be more constitutional than the right of this House alone to consider such applications. But by Act of Parliament this House concurred in depriving itself of that right and vested it in a Committee of the House. I would suggest that the Lord Advocate should in considering the

  1545
  matter take these analogous subjects into account.
  MR. CRIPPS: In regard to the constitutional principle referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, I should like to say that I should cite both his illustrations in favour of the proposal I have made. In regard to election petitions, the right is preserved to this House, although it would find it very inconvenient to exercise it, to interfere. The judicial part of the inquiry has been sent to a Committee, but a report has to be made to this House.
  MR. COURTNEY: But you are bound to accept the decision. My hon. friend will not for a moment urge that this House could controvert the finding of the Court which had unseated a Member. It must act upon that conclusion.
  MR. CRIPPS:I think this House preserves its control. The question of divorce is an entirely different point. This House has nothing to do with the matter going before the courts, but until the Divorce Court was instituted there was no legal right for divorce in this
  country at all, and anybody who wanted a divorce had to come for an Act of Parliament. So far as Ireland is concerned, that procedure holds good to the present day. When the matter was brought for the first time within the area of the law courts you had to pass laws in order to allow divorce to take place without Act of Parliament. There is no analogy between that and what we are dealing with here. I hope my hon. friend will not go to a Division, as I should not be able to support him, seeing that all I desire is that this House should be protected, and the Lord Advocate has promised to consider that between now and the Report stage.
  DR. CLARK: This is a thing which could be done either by a section in the Bill, which would equally affect the procedure of both Houses, or it could be done by us under our Standing Orders. I think the wiser course is to do it so that it equally affects both Houses; and this is, I believe, the better form.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 196.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex F.

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hen.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J.(Birm.

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fry, Lewis

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Galloway, Wm. Johnson

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

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Garfit, William

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W.(Leeds)

  Cochrane, Hon Thos. H. A.E.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Banbury, Frederic George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Giles, Charles Tyrell

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Barry, RtHnA HSmith-(Hunts

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Beach, RtHnSirM. H. (Bristol)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bethell, Commander

  Crombie, John William

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn.Lord George

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Bond, Edward

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Bowles,T.Gibson(King's Lynn

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Heath, James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Hemphill, Rt.Hon. Charles H.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Butcher, John George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Campell,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Glasgow

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Finlay, Sir Robert B.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Cavendish, F. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Fisher, William Haves

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Cawley, Frederick

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose

  Humphreys-Owen Arthur C.

  Cecil, Lord Huth (Greenwich)

  Fitzmauriee, Lord Edmond

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Montagu,Hn.J. Scott (Hants.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

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

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Kearley, Hudson E

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

  Morrison, Walter

  Spencer, Ernest

  Kimber, Henry

  Morton, Arthur H.A.Deptford

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Mount, William George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth

  Murray, RtHnAGraham(Bute

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stock, James Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Myers, William Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Llewelyn,SirDillwyn(Swansea

  Palmer, George W. (Reading)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Tennant, Harold John

  Long,Rt.Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

  Pilkington,R. (Lancs Newton)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw.Murray

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Maeartney, W. G. Ellison

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Valentia, Viscount

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Purvis, Robert

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds S.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  M'Ewan, William

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinb'h),W.

  Richardson, J.(Durham, S. E.)

  Williams,Joseph Powell-(Birm

  Macolm, Ian

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson,J.W.(Worcertersh N.)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm.H. (Yorks.)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

  Martin, Biddulph

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Maxwell,Rt.Hn.SirHerbertE.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Woodall, William

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Round, James

  Wyndham, George

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenh.)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Monk, Charles James

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Sir William Walrond and

  Monk, Chas. James

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pinkerton, John

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Gold, Charles

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Gourley, Sir Edward T.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Gurdon, Sir William B.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)

  Samuel, J. (Stockt-on-on-Tees)

  Caldwell, James

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Carvill, P. George Hamilton

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

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

  Joicey, Sir James

  Spicer, Albert

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Jordon, Jeremiah

  Steadman, William Charles

  Commins, Andrew

  Long, Sir John

  Strachey, Edward

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Davitt, Michael

  MacNeil, John Gordon Swift

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Dillon, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Weir, James Galloway

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Leod, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Williams, John C. (Notts.)

  Duck worth, James

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

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

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlsbrough

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Woods, Samuel

  Fenwick, Charles

  Oldroyd, Mark

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Palmer,SirCharlesM.(Durham

  Sir Charles Cameron and

  Gibney, James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Mr. Souttar.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Question proposed, "That Clause 2 as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I had put down an Amendment to reject Clause 2, because I did not under-
  1548
  stand it as it stood in the original Bill. The clause has now, however, been so entirely transformed that it would be ridiculous to take the course I had intended. It is clear that the important stage of this Bill will be the Report stage, and there-

  1549
  fore a prolonged discussion at this stage of the Bill would be superfluous; therefore I shall not oppose Clause 2 at this stage, but I wish to reserve my right to deal with it on the Report stage when we know what the Bill really is.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  MR. J. P. SMITH:The Amendment I propose will make the matter simpler by inserting the words, "If the Chairmen report in favour of," instead of putting it in a negative way.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2 leave out lines 31 and 32, and insert. 'If the Chairmen report in favour of.'"—(Mr Pa ker Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That lines 31 and 32 stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I am afraid that I am not in a position to accept the words of my hon. friend's Amendment.
  MR. CRIPPS:I think the Lord Advocate will agree with me that the Secretary for Scotland should not be allowed to grant a Provisional Order unless he has satisfied the Chairmen of both Houses of Parliament. I think it is a mere question of words, but the Lord Advocate cannot really mean to allow this procedure to be adopted without some intimation to the Chairmen. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether the words would not allow the Secretary for Scotland to proceed without a Report being made, and whether it is not a proper thing to do to keep within the ordinary procedure of the House.
  MR. CALDWELL:There is no compulsion under the Bill for the Chairman to give a Report at all. Whether this House may insist upon this being done is a matter we have not to deal with now. After the Amendment has been put in the clause there might not be any Report at all made, and the result would he that the whole thing would be at a standstill. In the interest of procedure I do think that the words in the Bill are absolutely necessary.
  MR. J. P. SMITH:If such a case occurs, and no Report is made, it is better that the Bill should come before this House.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW:If there is no opposition to a Bill it appears to me to be a very extraordinary thing that the Secretary for Scotland should put the promoters to the expense of going through the whole of these formalities of bringing up witnesses and engaging counsel on the spot. I beg to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 37, to leave out from 'shall' to 'direct,' in line 39."—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Question proposed—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:It appears to me that upon this point my hon. and learned friend and myself must be at cross-purposes. The clause says "shall if there is any opposition." We are all agreed that if there is any opposition the Secretary for Scotland ought to direct an inquiry. The clause also goes on to provide that the Secretary for Scotland may order an inquiry in any case where he thinks that an inquiry is necessary. Does my hon. friend wish to insist upon an inquiry if the Secretary for Scotland considers that an inquiry is unnecessary? I cannot help thinking that my hon. friend does not really wish that. If there is no opposition, let them have the Bill; but surely there are a great many cases in which you are not entitled to have your Bill, although nobody objects, for I think the preamble of a Bill should be proved. There are certain facts which ought to be proved in all cases before you get your Bill.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON:I have an Amendment in identical terms to the one which has been moved by my hon. friend. I understand that the local inquiry is to take the place of the inquiry before the Committee. You are proposing to create an inquiry before a panel which will have all the apparatus now in

  1551
  existence, and what we ask ourselves now is, why is it necessary in the case of an unopposed measure under the new system that there should be an inquiry when it is not necessary in the case of an unopposed Bill under the present system? We desire that there should not be introduced into this Bill as part of the new system a formal inquiry which was found to be unnecessary under the old system.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:It is quite true that in the case of an unopposed Bill there is no inquiry at present, but then you have opportunities of control which are now possessed by this House. But suppose I put in the words which my hon. friend has suggested. Hon. Members would then be able to get up and say, "It is all very well for this House to do this; here you are going to allow a tribunal on the spot, under the direction of a Government Department, and is it safe to allow that without an inquiry where there are proper circumstances for an inquiry to be held?" There is no compulsion put upon the Secretary for Scotland to hold an inquiry, and if he does direct an inquiry and the tribunal reports against it he cannot grant the Order at all. Therefore, so far from increasing his powers this really diminishes them. I should have thought that the general feeling of the House would have been rather in favour of making an inquiry possible wherever there appeared to be a necessity for such inquiry.
  MR. CALDWELL:I quite agree that there is a great deal to be said for the case in which the Secretary for Scotland may direct an inquiry. When a Bill comes into this House unopposed we have the Second Reading stage at which matters of this kind may be referred to. I can myself quite conceive many cases in which it should be possible for the Secretary for Scotland to direct an inquiry. I think the greatest danger to a community often arises in an unopposed Bill, and I think the Secretary for Scotland should have the power where he has the least doubt to direct an inquiry, notwithstanding the fact that no one has appeared in opposition in answer to the notices which have been issued.
  MR. COURTNEY:At present in the case of an unopposed Bill there is, under the existing Standing Orders, a provision
  1552
  enabling the Chairman of Ways and Means to recommend to the House in matters of unopposed Bills that they should be treated as opposed Bills if he thinks the reasons are sufficient for him to act upon. So that there is at the present time the possibility of directing that an unopposed Bill shall be treated as an opposed Bill, and that is precisely the power which we desire to see given to the Secretary for Scotland.
  *MR. RENSHAW:I think it is desirable that the Secretary for Scotland should have an option in the matter, because it is obvious that in some cases questions might arise as to the desirability of an Act applying to some particular locality powers which had been obtained for another locality, but which, in the public interest it was undesirable should be extended to perhaps a smaller locality, or one differently situated. Difficulties of this sort could be avoided if the Secretary for Scotland exercised this power. I think that is a very important matter.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:There is a great deal of force in the hon. Gentleman's observations, but it must be remembered that an inquiry may be necessary although there is no opposition. As my hon. friend behind me said, there may be some public interests involved which may require an inquiry. But where I think there is a great difference between the Lord Advocate and my two hon. friends is that the Lord Advocate appears to look on the Secretary for Scotland as the equivalent for the House of Commons, which he is not. At present an unopposed Bill in its different stages is in the hands of the House of Commons, and there are many opportunities of finding out anything that may be objectionable in it. It is proposed that the Secretary for Scotland should determine whether there should be a further inquiry and a further impediment in the way of an unopposed Bill, but is he the proper person to have that power? The Secretary for Scotland is a political officer at the head of a public Department, and we cannot always be certain that he will take the same general view of questions as would be taken by the House of Commons or by some Committee of the House to which its powers are delegated I think it would

  1553
  be safer in this respect to enlarge the powers of the Chairmen, Let them have the power of deciding whether a Bill, although unopposed, ought to be the subject of further inquiry. I wish to speak with all respect not only of the present Secretary for Scotland but of all Secretaries for Scotland, but I have a little lurking suspicion that sometimes they may be moved by reasons of their own to take a particular action in reference to a Private Bill, and on that ground I think it would be safer and more in accordance with past practice and constitutional principles if this power of putting a great impediment and great expense on persons promoting a Private Bill should be conferred on the Chairmen, or should be dealt with in some other way to that proposed.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I do not wish to introduce a discordant note into the pleasant proceedings of this Committee, but I desire to point out that the Secretary for Scotland would be master of the whole proceedings. He could issue the Order with such observations as he chose, and after all he would be in precisely the same position as the official chief of any other Department which has the power of issuing Provisional Orders, such as the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. I am not asking any superior position for the Secretary for Scotland, but I am putting him in the ordinary position of a chief of a Department which has power to issue Provisional Orders.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW:I certainly have no desire to put the House to an unnecessary Division. The control that the House will have will ultimately largely depend on the shape in which the Bill emerges from Committee, and I shall accordingly reserve any further action until the Report stage. I am at one with the right hon. Gentleman as regards the expediency on public grounds of having a small supplementary inquiry, but what I desire to avoid is that any officer of State should have the power of turning an unopposed Bill practically into an opposed measure, and inflict expense on the promoters.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CLARK:I move the Amendment which stands in my name, in order
  1554
  to get from the Lord Advocate an explanation of the modified proposals of the Government. My proposal is to leave out "Commissioners," in order to insert "a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament appointed by the Standing Joint Committee." That would enable the panel to be composed of Scottish Peers and Scottish Members of Parliament. I should like to hear from the Lord Advocate an explanation of the Amendments which stand in his name.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 1, to leave out 'Commissioners,' and insert 'a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament appointed by the Standing Joint Committee.'"—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Commissioners' stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:The scheme of the Bill as it originally stood was that there should be a panel of 25 persons, the only criterion being that they were to be men of affairs, and Members of Parliament should be nominated on the panel before they could serve on committees of inquiry. During the Debate on the Second Reading an appeal was made by the Leader of the Opposition that we should consider the desirability of having this work done by Members of Parliament, and I told him that I would be glad to meet his views, although I could not go the whole way in the direction indicated. Then I put down the Amendment which stands in my name. I took the bulk of what I consider the very excellent suggestion of my hon. friend the Member for North Ayrshire, namely, that instead of putting Members of Parliament on this panel we should make them eligible as Commissioners, and then have other Commissioners as well, giving a hint to the selecting parties that they should use Members of Parliament whenever they could get them. Since the Amendment appeared on the Paper I have gathered that it would certainly be very agreeable to hon. Members on the other side of the House if I put in words of preferential import, and accordingly that is what I propose to do. Hon. Members will feel that I have gone as far as I can, and that I cannot quite go the length of cutting out other people, because then our scheme might break down. There are practically three schemes on the Paper. The scheme of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridge-

  1555
  ton Division has no ordinary panel. He does not take outsiders at all, but he takes 50 Peers and 50 Members of the House of Commons, and divides them into 50 groups of two each. Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs takes all Scotch Members of Parliament and 15 Scotch Members of the House of Lords; and the hon. Member for Kincardineshire takes 20 Peers, 20 Members of the house of Commons, and 10 othér persons, and provides for five Chairmen. The scheme which we propose to submit to the House as a compromise is based on the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire. We propose to make Members of both Houses of Parliament eligible as Commissioners, to take 25 other persons, and to put in words of preferential selection. With that explanation I will read exactly how Clauses 4 and 5 will stand if my Amendment is carried. Clause 4 will be as follows:—
  "On or before the first day of January next after commencement of this Act there shall be formed a panel of persons (hereinafter referred to as the panel) qualified by experience of affairs to act as Commissioners under this Act. The panel shall be formed in manner following; that is to say:—(a) The Chairmen, acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland, after such preliminary inquiries as may be necessary, shall nominate 25 persons qualified as aforesaid to be placed on the panel hereinbefore mentioned. The persons so nominated shall remain on the panel for live years, and any casual vacancy on the panel caused by death, resignation, or disqualification shall be tilled up by the chairmen acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland. (b) At the expiration of every period of five years the panel shall be re-formed in like manner and with the like incidents.
  Clause 5 will read:—
  "When it is determined that Commissioners shall be appointed for the purpose of inquiring as to the propriety of issuing a Provisional Order or Orders under this Act the Secretary for Scotland, acting jointly with the Chairmen, shall, with due regard to the character and magnitude of the provisions in the proposed Order or Orders, appoint as Commissioners three persons being Members of either House of Parliament, or in default of such Member or Members Willing to serve being a person or persons nominated on the panel, and shall at the same time nominate one such person or Member as chairman."
  I think I have made it clear that there shall be preferential selection of Members of Parliament, and that at the same time our scheme shall not break down in the event of their not being available.
  *SIR CHARLES CAMERON:The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the various schemes on the Paper, but anyone can see that any of them is infinitely more satisfactory as regards one important point than his scheme. He proceeds on the assumption that the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen shall do this work. Why not use the machinery of the House of Commons. If the Secretary for Scotland wants a panel, I am content to have a panel as a stand by, but why should we not have a Committee appointed in the same way as a Committee of this House? The Chairmen have nothing to do in the appointment of Committees, that work being done by the Committee of Selection. On the Second Reading I moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that it would practically exclude Scottish Members from considering Scottish Private Bill legislation. There is a long standing rule of the Committee of Selection excluding Scottish Members from the consideration of Scottish Bills. In the Amendment I have placed on the paper I have expressly barred that custom, and my proposal is that in nominating Peers or Members of the House of Commons on the various panels under this Act the Committees of Selection shall not have regard to any precedent or usage excluding Scottish Peers or Members representing Scottish constituencies from serving on committees on Scottish Private Bills, but shall have regard solely to the fact of their having. no personal or local interest in orders likely to be proposed in connection with the group of counties in respect of which each panel is nominated. What I consider an essential point is that the Committee of Selection should nominate the panel, and that it should be nominated so as not to, exclude Scottish Members. It was urged in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading that there were many considerations for including Scottish Members, and the right hon. Gentleman assented to what was said by the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, that if we could get a Parliamentary tribunal it would be eminently satisfactory and would command the confidence of the people of Scotland. The only objection put forward by the noble Lord was that we could not get Members of either House to serve, that it would be extremely inconvenient to have to go

  1557
  down to local inquiries, and that therefore there should be a panel of outside persons. The basis of my proposal is that we should give the Parliamentary panel a chance exactly as the right hon. Gentleman now proposes, and that failing that we should have the fancy panel which the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland has so elaborately devised, selected in any way he chooses, which would be a supplemental panel to be called on in case Members of Parliament could not be got to serve. I do not believe there will be the smallest difficulty in getting Members of Parliament to serve, but it is necessary that we should place a bar on the exclusion of Scottish Members or Peers. You will get Members to serve if you select a panel large enough, and the Members who will be willing to serve will have a sufficient knowledge of Scottish affairs to make an investigation of the sort proposed a matter, not of drudgery, but of interest. The radical fault of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal appears to me to be that the selection is to be made, not by the tribunal entrusted by this House to select Members to serve on Parliamentary Committees, but by a new tribunal consisting of the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen of the two Houses, who have no special knowledge of the subject, and upon whom the duty is imposed for the first time. I must say it is a most invidious function. It is not a matter of principle, but it is a matter of adopting existing machinery instead of the novel and revolutionary machinery proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. We should hand over the selection to the Committee of Selection, and we should ensure that the fact of a Member being a Scottish Member should not be a bar to his serving on the proposed Committees. The work of these Committees would not be hard. There were only twelve Bills brought forward last Session to which this proposal would apply, and the Railway Commissioners dispose of their business at the rate of one measure per day. Accordingly I do not see any chance whatever of the supplemental panel being called on, but I have not the smallest objection to its existence. But the selection of the Parliamentary panel should be made in accordance with Parliamentary practice, and a Committee nominated by the Committees of Selection would command very much more public
  1558
  confidence in Scotland than a Committee selected by the Chairmen of the two Houses, who, from their position, have absolutely no special knowledge as to the qualifications of Members of Parliament.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I presume this is only a preliminary discussion, and that the time will come to consider the whole details of the plan the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate will submit to the Committee. I must say that his proposal seems to meet, to a large extent, the views we have expressed on this side of the House, and I thank the Government and the right hon. Gentleman for going so far in that direction. It would, of course, have been more agreeable to our desires if there had been a possibility of confining the panel to Scotch Members and Scotch Peers. There may be a difficulty in the way of that, but I think that my hon. friend who has just sat down was justified in the hope he expressed that, it would be distinctly understood—whether explicitly inserted in the Bill or not—that there would be no bar against Scotch Members sitting on these Committees. I do not believe myself that there is any substantial objection to their sitting even now. It may have been the practice to avoid the appointment of Scotch Members sitting on Scotch Bills lest they should be in some way connected with the interests involved; but I think it is very necessary that we should know that they are eligible to serve. It is only right that they should be so, because it is from among them that we are most likely to get willing victims for these new duties. There is another little point in regard to the constitution of the Parliamentary panel that I should like cleared up, and that is, Are the Peers and Members of the House of Commons to be mixed up hotch-potch, and is the panel to be made out from them irrespective of what their origin is? For I think we ought not to have a panel composed entirely of Peers. Each Committee, in my opinion, should be composed of four Members, two being Peers and two Members of the House of Commons. My hon. friend who has just sat down has also taken objection to giving the Secretary for Scotland, even with the assistance of the Chairmen, the power of choosing the Members to serve on these Committees. Well, I think there is a great deal of force

  1559
  in what he said. I think it is rather anomalous to give the head of a public Department the power of choosing the Members to serve, especially when we have a well-constituted machinery in this House and in the House of Lords, in the shape of the Committees of Selection, which has always commanded the complete confidence of the respective Houses. Would it riot be possible to introduce their authority in the matter rather than the head of the Scotch Department? These are points well worthy of consideration, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will provide for them when we come to discuss his plan in its details. I can only say that while the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to fulfil the patriotic wishes of some Scotch Members to enable Scotland to do work for herself with her own Peers and her own Members of Parliament, nobody else intervening, he has gone so far to meet her views on the subject, and I hope the scheme will be in the main acceptable.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY:I wish to thank the Government for the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has made to the feelings of a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have a full conviction that there will be no difficulty in getting Members of the House of Commons to accept this important and dignified public service. The objection that this panel is to be fixed by the Secretary for Scotland, together with the Chairmen of Committees, is not particularly relevant. It must be borne in mind that these tribunals may have to be selected when the House is not sitting.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON:I should have explained that I provide in my Amendment for the selection of the Commissioners by the Chairmen of Committees when the Committee of Selection is not sitting.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY:That is a matter of detail which can he provided for afterwards. I am disposed to enter a caveat against any limiting or restricting words which will have the effect of limiting the choice to Scotch Members or Scotch Peers. A number of Peers in the House of Lords sit there in a representative character, and others sit as British Peers. Again, a number of distinguished and energetic Members of this House
  1560
  who sit for English consituencies are Scotchmen, and I would not like to see them excluded from serving on these Commissions.
  *MR. CROMBIE:I congratulate the Government on the position they have taken up. They have met us very fairly. As I understand it, the Lord Advocate has followed to some extent an Amendment I put down. My hon. friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton, has stated that Scotch Members are excluded from Scotch Committees in this House. The best answer to that statement is that all this morning I have been sitting on a purely Scotch Committee, and that there is also a second Scotch Member on it.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON:I can only say that I was a member of the Committee of Selection for a great many years, and the rule was not to elect Scotch Members on Scotch Committees.
  *MR. CROMBIE:In the evidence of the late Sir John Mowbray on the subject he said there was no rule on the matter, but the custom had arisen, and the reason was that, for the convenience of hon. Members, Bills were grouped in such a way that Members who sat on the Committees on one group of Bills might be eligible for all the Bills on the group. If a Scotch Bill happens to be grouped with English Bills, a Scotch Member might sit in Committee upon it. I hope that in any case the Lord Advocate will accept some Amendment which will make it perfectly clear that Scotch Members are to be put on such Committees, and that they are to be preferred to other Members. But I am not inclined to press for limiting the composition of the Committees to Scotch Members, as it would be more likely to involve an appeal to the outside panel. At present you work a Bill upstairs with a Committee of four Members, and if appealed to both Houses eight Members; whereas under the procedure proposed by this Bill there will be four Members only employed before the Provisional Order passes through the whole of its course. Therefore it seems to me that you are actually reducing the number of Members of Parliament required. I hope my hon. friend will stick to his Amendment, that the Chairmen of Committees,

  1561
  and not the Scotch Secretary, will elect the panels.
  MR. DALZIEL:I do not quite so readily accept the concessions made by the Lord Advocate as my hon. friend. I looked upon this Bill as a useful measure because it had a certain Scotch flavour about it, and for the life of me I cannot see why the Lord Advocate should have departed from his original intention. I would rather have had the Bill as it originally stood than in the state in which it at present stands, for except on a very few points we will be practically where we were. Take, for instance, the proposal to bring English Members into the panel, or take again the proposal that the panel may sit in any place they may choose. My idea was that the Committee was to sit in Scotland; but if English Members are to be on the panel it is a very big order indeed to ask them to go up to Scotland and sit there in judgment on a Scotch Bill.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I certainly mean that the inquiry shall be made locally, and I propose to accept an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs, that the Commissioners should sit in Scotland.
  MR. DALZIEL:Well, if we have local inquiry, and if English Members are going to be used in these inquiries, they will have to go down to Scotland to perform their functions. That is a tall order indeed. Although it might be popular if they sat in the middle of August, I do not think that English Members will do their duty with great equanimity if they have to go down to Scotland in the middle of November or December. This Amendment shows weakness on the part of the Government. It is ridiculous that English Members should go up to Scotland in mid-winter to sit on a little Railway Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will consent to give the preference to Scottish Members and Scotch Peers, I think he will greatly improve the value of the Bill. There is only one other point I wish to enforce, and that is that the appointment of the Committees should be made by the Committees of Selection, and that the panel ought not to be appointed for five years. The panel ought to be appointed every year.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:If the hon Member for Caithness will withdraw his Amendment, all these matters will come up for discussion on the new clause.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR:I do not wish to delay progress, but I want to point out what seems to be one defect of the proposal. Inquiries held under the present Provisional Order system vary according to the importance of the Provisional Orders. Sometimes the inquiry is very important, and in a recent instance the President of the Board of Trade himself presided over the inquiry. But many inquiries are held under the supervision of an inspector or some other Departmental official. That gives an elasticity to the system. It seems to me that one defect of the new proposal is that, no matter what the importance of the subject of inquiry, the same elaborate machinery is to be employed.
  DR. CLARK:I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment. There is one point which has not been touched upon. Why I am in favour of the form embodied in my Amendment is that when the system of devolution was tried some years ago, it was given up because of the cost; for they had a fight in the locality, and then two fights in Parliament, which piled up the expenses. The reason why I am very strongly in favour of having the panel composed of two Peers and two Commoners is that when the Commissioners go down to Scotland to hold the inquiry locally it is not at all likely that there will be an appeal to the House, especially when the appellants may be mulcted in costs.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:—
  *SIR CHARLES CAMERON:I rise to move the first of a series of Amendments which I have drafted embodying a scheme. My scheme is that, for convenience in distributing the work, the Secretary for Scotland should divide the country into different groups of counties—say three; and that the Committee of Selection in either House of Parliament should name a number—I suggest fifty, or it may be more or less—fifty Peers and fifty Mem-

  1563
  bers of this House, and that these should be divided into as many panels as there are groups of counties. When a Bill is to be referred to one of these tribunals, I propose that the Committee of Selection shall nominate the Members from the appropriate panel. Further, I propose that the tribunal shall consist of two Members of the House of Lords, and two Members of the House of Commons, the Chairman to be alternately a Member of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons, and to be nominated also by the Committee of Selection. I have contemplated that it might be necessary to elect a tribunal when the Committee of Selection is not sitting. In that case the election will be made by the Chairmen of Committees alone. I think that the present proposals are somewhat crude, and that this is a matter in which you cannot have the Secretary for Scotland kept too much out of the business of selection. It is most important that there should be no suspicion whatever as to any possibility of his packing the Committee. I do not mean to say that the Secretary for Scotland would do so; but if you had him selecting, from all the Members of Parliament, one Member of this House, or two or three Members from the other House, you would have a Committee in which there would be no public confidence at all. The reason why Parliamentary Committees command so much confidence is that they are an impartial tribunal nominated in either House. As compared with the proposal of the Lord Advocate, every one of the schemes placed on the Paper has the merit of being worked out in detail and thoroughly thought out; but I must say that the Lord Advocate's proposal is crude, and has certainly not been worked out so thoroughly as the others. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the words the Lord Advocate proposed to embody in the Bill gave us not the slightest inkling as to the proportion of the Members of the House of Lords and of this House to be represented on the Committees. It is a matter of constitutional importance that the Committees appointed under this Measure should be representative of the two Houses, and the obvious way to do that is to have an equal number of Members from each House. I believe the proposal of the Lord Advocate will require to be entirely redrafted. You have no machinery whatever for the representa-
  1564
  tion of this House or the other House on these Parliamentary tribunals, but the selection is entrusted without any check to the Secretary for Scotland, acting jointly with the Chairmen of Committees. The right hon. Gentleman will find it necessary to give principle of equilibrium to the clause by inserting some machinery for the election of Members of this House and the other House infinitely more elaborate than he has embodied in the Bill. Whether you are going to have such a system of grouping as I propose, or not, it is most important that we should remove the barrier at present existing against Scotch Members sitting on Scotch Committees. It is said that there is no constitutional disability on the part of Scotch Members sitting on Scotch Bills, That is true, but in the whole course of my experience I never knew of the appointment of a Scotch Member upon a group of Scotch Bills. I believe if Scotch Members were placed on these Committees in proportion to their numbers in this House that they would serve where English Members would not. But in order to have an opportunity of serving they must be upon the panel.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 13, to leave out the words 'a panel, and insert the word 'panels' instead thereof."—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That the words a panel' stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:The greater part of the hon. Baronet's remarks are really more appropriate to Clause 5 than Clause 4, because obviously the place to deal with an Amendment of this kind is the last section in Clause 5. All that we have to do at present is to see how we are to deal between the hon. Baronet's scheme and the scheme put forward by the Government. I can assure him he will find that the Government scheme has been very carefully drafted, and I do not think he will find it any more slipshod than any Amendment on the Paper. The only question that arises here is whether we shall have upon the panel members other than Members of Parliament. I have already explained that it is necessary to have other people, and some word or other

  1565
  is necessary to describe other people. I think "panel" is as convenient a word as any other, and the whole scope of this clause is simply to provide for the selection of those people other than Members of Parliament. Under the circumstances I cannot accept the hon. Baronet's Amendment.
  MR. DALZIEL: I am sorry that I cannot, in this case, agree with the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, but I think that if his scheme were adopted it would lead to too great a complication, and prejudice the popularity of the measure. With regard to the objections of the Lord Advocate, I might point out that the panel is going to contain 1,200 people already. It is to contain both Houses of Parliament. I think that a great thing in
  this matter is to make the Bill as simple as possible.
  MR. CALDWELL: In forming the panel, Scotland, I think, should be divided into three or four groups, with the idea of having a wider area from which you could select the panel with reference to any particular Bill, and in that way you would be able to make a selection without any invidious distinctions. When you came to a particular Bill the Committee of Selection would consider the panel, and in that way there would be a certain amount of limitation in the selection. The advantage of a system of this kind would be that there would not be such a continuous appointment of particular persons for special Bills.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 197.)

  AYES.

  Ashmead-Bartlett Sir Ellis

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Atkinson, Rt Hon. John

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Pilkington, R. (LancsNewton)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour,Rt. Hon.G W. (Leeds)

  Gorst,Rt.Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bethell, Commander

  Hamilton,Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Blakiston-Houstoo, John

  Hanbury. Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

  Round James

  Bond, Edward

  Henderson, Alexander

  Royds Clement Molyneux

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Russell,Gen.F.S.(Cheltenham

  Brookfield, A. Montague

  Howell, William Tudor

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Hutton, John (Yorks N.R.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Chamberlain,J Austen(Worc'r

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. J. H.

  Smith,James Parker(Lanarks)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Kimber, Henry

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (St'nd)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A E.

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. A.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Loder Gerald Walter Erskine

  Talbot,Rt. Hn.J.G.(Ox.Univ.)

  Crombie, John William

  Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Liverp'l)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ure, Alexander

  Curran, Thos. N. (Donegal)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Curzon, Viscount

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wilson,J. W.(Worcestersh,N.)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Milton, Viscount

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Milward, Colonel Victor

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

  Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edw.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morrison, Walter

  Wyndham, George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Flower, Ernest

  Mount, William George

  Young,Commander Berks,E.)

  Folkestone, Viscount

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fry, Lewis

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Sir William Walrond and

  Garfit, William

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Mr. Anstruther

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Billson, Alfred

  Harwood, George

  Souttar, Robinson

  Burns, John

  Horniman, Frederic John

  Spicer, Albert

  Carvill, Patrick George H.

  Humphreys Owen, Arthur C.

  Steadman, William Charles

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

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Commins, Andrew

  Kilbride, Denis

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davitt, Michael

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacAleese, Daniel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

  MacNeill, J. Gordon Swift

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Williams, John C. (Notts.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Leod, John

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough).

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maddison, Fred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gibney, James

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Sir Charles Cameron and

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pinkerton, John

  Mr. Caldwell.

  Question, "That '20' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  MR. CALDWELL: I notice that the next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, who has not yet returned—to leave out from "panel" to the end of line 15. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate will insist upon those words.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY: I really think they are necessary.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The last Division I think, settled this question, and I propose to leave the matter with the Lord Advocate.
  MR. CALDWELL: The hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs is not here to move his Amendment, but I have no doubt that he feels very strongly that the selection of the 25 members of the outside panel should not be left in the hands of the Chairmen acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland. In regard to determining whether any part of the Bill should proceed by Provisional Order or by Private Bill, it has already been pointed out that the Chairman had so much work to do that the proposal was imposing very great work upon him. You are here imposing upon him a burden of a kind which is altogether foreign to any experience that he has in this House. In regard to deciding under which method a Bill should proceed, there can be no doubt whatever that the Chairman naturally is the best authority if he had the time for the work, but this is a different matter altogether. What particular knowledge would the Chairman have of people in Scotland? I do not consider that the Chairman has necessarily the requisite experience to select men of the kind desired, and the practical result would be that the selection
  1568
  would be made by the Secretary for Scotland. I quite admit that very likely this outside panel would not be required to act, as probably from Members of Parliament alone a sufficient panel would be found, and that minimises the point here. I therefore move to leave out the words "the chairmen acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland" in order to insert "the Committee of Selection of either House."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 18, to leave out from the first 'The,' to 'Scotland,' in line 19, and insert Committee of Selection of either House.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY: I do not think the hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs would have moved this Amendment if he had been here. This clause has simply to do with the selection of the outside Commissioners. I quite agree that perhaps the Chairman has not a great deal of experience on this point. The alternative of the hon. Member is the Committee of Selection. Surely the Committee of Selection are not the people to select an outside body. They have just as little knowledge as the Chairman would have, and have far less flexibility. If I had been drafting the clause myself I should have been inclined to put the Secretary for Scotland alone, because he knows more about the people. But there is a jealousy about the Secretary for Scotland doing anything himself, and I am very anxious to meet that feeling, and I have therefore associated with him the two Chairmen.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW:I may explain at once that this Amendment was put down as part of the general scheme of Amendments which I laid before the House. It was appropriate to that scheme, but the substantial purpose of it has been served by the concessions of Her Majesty's Government. I understand now that Section 4 is to be confined to the extra-Parliamentary panel, and by the provisions of Section 5 there is to be proposed a Parliamentary panel, so that Section 4 will only operate if the provisions of Section 5 should fail to come into operation. Accordingly, I should not myself insist upon the Amendment, because while the Committee of Selection of the House of Commons is most appropriate for the selection of inter-Parliamentary bodies, it is not at all a proper body for selecting this panel, which is only to be, as it were, a dernier ressort after the proposals of the Government in regard to the Parliamentary panel have failed.
  DR. CLARK:I take it that this panel is not to be limited to Scotch people; the Secretary for Scotland may appoint an Irishman, or a Welshman, or an American; there is no limitation. Hence you could not expect the Committee of Selection to know much more about the matter than the two Chairmen and the Secretary for Scotland. I think under the circumstances the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment and let the Lord Advocate get this portion, if it is only a panel pis aller—only to be used if the other cannot be got.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  An Amendment made.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON:I think it will be found that this panel is altogether useless, and if the words "may if they consider it necessary" were inserted it would he optional for future Secretaries for Scotland to appoint a panel or not, as it was found necessary. As the Bill stands all future Secretaries for Scotland would be called upon to appoint these 25 persons. Therefore I propose this Amendment, the object of which is simply to give the opportunity of dropping the machinery if it is found necessary.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 20, to cave out 'shall,' and insert "may it they consider it necessary.'"—
  Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, as I think the words had munch better be left as they are.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON:It is not worth dividing upon, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks it will save his face to leave it as it stands, I will not press the Amendment.
  DR. CLARK:It seems to me it is not the Secretary for Scotland, but the Chairmen who are to appoint, and they are to ask the Secretary for Scotland to assist them. We take it that the present Chairmen and the present Secretary for Scotland will appoint this committee, and perhaps for the next five, ten or fifteen, years it may he appointed; but surely if it is found unnecessary you do not want the trouble and expense of forming a panel which is never used. The view is that 1,200 Members of Parliament should form one panel, but if sufficient Members cannot be obtained this other panel is to be called in. If, however, plenty of Members are found, this clause might fall into disuse. Surely it might he left to the discretion of the Chairmen whether the panel should be appointed. At any rate the Amendment can do no harm.
  MR. CALDWELL:If experience shows, as I have no doubt it will, that there are plenty of Members to he obtained, it will not be advisable to appoint a panel of this kind. For one thing it is invidious, because when there are certain men appointed on the panel there is the difficulty of selecting particular men. It will also be a very awkward thing to select a panel when you know perfectly well that that panel is not at all likely to be used.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I do not in the least desire to anticipate anybody else, but I suppose we are now on the number of the panel, which is supposed to he 25. Is not that number excessive, if it is to be a real thing at all, and if those who are put upon the panel are to he capable and competent men? I do not say that 25 such men will not be

  1571
  found in the kingdom, but still it is rather a large number for the purpose. I would also suggest that they should not hold the exalted position in which they are to be placed for as long as five years. Would not 10 Members appointed for two years be better? Someone referred to the desperately small number of cases that would have to be submitted to this panel, and I really think—with 25 men at the back of 1,200 members, as it was put by a previous speaker, 1,225—that 1,210 would be sufficient to cope with perhaps the half-a-dozen inquiries which would be necessary in the course of the year. I quite appreciate the desire of the Lord Advocate not to be left to the goodwill of Members of Parliament, and that he should have somebody behind them upon whom he could fall back, but I think 10 men appointed for two years would be quite sufficient for the purpose.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 20, to leave out '25 ' and insert'10.'"—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question proposed, "That '25' stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:The reason of fixing the number at 25 was to give a number that would be sufficient to deal perfectly well with the duties to be discharged. I am not bound to the number 25, but, on the other hand, 10 is rather few. The right hon. Gentleman prophesies that 10 would be plenty, but he might he wrong. As to the suggestion about two years, I think it would be a pity that the Committee should have to be re-formed at such short intervals. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks 25 is too many, I should be very glad to make it 20; that would be much safer than 10.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I do not regard it as a question of principle. I do not know whether this would be the time to ask whether these 20 persons are to be paid, and if so, in what way? Our feeling towards these gentlemen would be considerably affected by that fact. I will be perfectly candid. There is always a possibility that if a considerable emolument were attached to being employed on the panel, it might increase the difficulty of finding Members and Peers to act upon it. That may be a Machiavellian, almost Mephistophelian, conception
  1572
  of the state of mind of those employed on this matter, but it is a consideration which must be borne in mind.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I confess that my first impression was in favour of payment, because I rather felt it might be very valuable to have the services of some persons who could not afford to serve without some emolument. But, at the same time, the Treasury allowances are on so modest and sparing a scale that I do not think they would offer any inducement. It having been brought home to me that there is a very considerable feeling on both sides of the House in regard to the matter, and recognising that feeling, I should be prepared, when the time comes, to accept an Amendment to strike out the italicised clause—that is to say, in other words, to make no payment.
  Question put and negatived.
  An Amendment made.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW:I move to substitute the word "two" for the word "four," so that it will read—" shall remain therein until the expiration of two years." The first part of the scheme which the Lord Advocate has foreshadowed to the House is that we shall have a Parliamentary panel. It is perfectly clear that the composition of Parliament changes, and changes rapidly, from time to time, and it would be most unfortunate that we should have a permanent Parliamentary panel lasting for five years, or probably four, after the constitution of Parliament had completely changed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 22, to leave out the word 'five,' and insert the word 'two.'"—(Mr. Thomas Show.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the clause."
  MR. J. P. SMITH:I hope the Lord Advocate will be willing to shorten the period. If it is as long as five years you must provide for filling up casual vacancies, while if the period is reduced to two or three years the casual vacancies will

  1573
  look after themselves. With the prospect of so soon making another panel you would not need to trouble about filling vacancies from time to time.
  *SIR JOHN LENG: I rather hoped that the hon. and learned Member intended to insert the word "one," because all the panels of this House are appointed for only one year, and I do not see why an innovation should he introduced in a panel outside the House. We should keep within regular lines as far as possible.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY: I think the hon. Member is rather misled by the word "panel." These are merely persons from whom the selection is to be made, and in that sense the panels of the House are not made up every year, but correspond with the duration of Parliament. Really the whole matter is one more of convenience than anything else. I do not think it can be said that casual vacancies would not have to be filled, because there must be occasions when, through some misfortune, the numbers were very much reduced indeed. Therefore it would not be safe to take
  out the clause with regard to filling casual vacancies. The hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs rather wanted the average life of these extra Commissioners to be the same as that of Parliamentary Commissioners. I suppose four years would not be far away from the average life of Parliament, and therefore the two, numbers would be much the same. I want to save the trouble of having this number of gentlemen selected too often.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I really appeal to my hon. friend not to be too hard upon the Government. The Secretary for Scotland has set his heart upon this panel. He has had it opposed in all sorts of ways, and now he has got it down to this, and with this he says he will be content. Let him have his panel. It will never be called upon to act. Let him have it for five years. He is like the boy and the soap—he won't be happy till he gets it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 69. (Division list No. 198.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Ashmead- Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Denny, Colonel

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawrence,Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Fellowes,Hon.Ailwyn Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M H (Bristol)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  FitzGerald,SirRobert Penrose-

  Long, Right Hon. Walter

  Bethell, Commander

  Flower, Ernest

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Fry, Lewis

  Lowe, Francis William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Garfit, William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Bond, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Brodrick, Rt. Eon. St. John

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Ed'nb'gh,W.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Goschen, RtHnGJ(StGeorge's)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Green, W. D.(Wedneshury)

  Milton, Viscount

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Monk, Charles James

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Hamond, Sir Chas.(Newcastle)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Corbett, A. Cam'ron(Glasgow)

  Hanbury,Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morton, Ar. H. A. (Deptford)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Henderson, Alexander

  Mount, William George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

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

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hornby, Sir William Hnry

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Curzon, Viscount

  Howell, William Tudor

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Wilson,J. W.(Worcestersh,N.)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wodehouse,Rt.Hn E. R.(Bath

  Purvis, Robert

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Rasch, Major F. Carne

  Strauss, Arthur

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

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Sturt, Hon. Hurnphry Napier

  Wylie, Alexander

  Richardson, Sir T. Hartlep'l)

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Wyndham, George

  Ridley, Rt, Hon. Sir M. W.

  Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(OxfdUni.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Thorburn, Walter

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Round, James

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Ch'lten'm)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Sir William Walrond and

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Billson, Alfred

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbigh's.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Gibney, James

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Burns, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Caldwell, James

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Cameron,SirCharles(Glasgow)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Souttar, Robinson

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Spicer, Albert

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Commins, Andrew

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Crilly, Daniel

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Ure, Alexander

  Crombie, John William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Wallace, Robert

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Davitt, Michael

  M'Leod, John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dillon, John

  Maddison, Fred.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Williams, John C. (Notts.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Ellis, John Edward

  Pinkerton, John

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fenwick, Charles

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Sir John Leng and Mr.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Hedderwick.

  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5:—
  *SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The Committee of Selection should appoint these new tribunals, and when Parliament is not sitting they should be selected by the Chairmen from a list of Members nominated by the Committee of Selection for that purpose. There is not the smallest difficulty about it. My Amendment proposes that these Commissioners should be nominated not by the Secretary for Scotland, acting in concert with the Chairmen, but, on the grounds which have been repeatedly set forth in this Debate, that this should be done by the Committee of Selection. I think this is an intelligible proposition, and also an important modification.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 31, to leave out the words Secretary for Scotland acting jointly with the Chairmen,' and insert the words Committees of Selection of the Houses of Lords and Commons respectively.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY: Hon. Members opposite seem to think that this is something far away from the duties of the ordinary Chairman of Committees. They forget, I think, for the moment that the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords is also Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I am perfectly willing to substitute for the Chairman of Committees in the House

  1577
  of Commons the Chairman of the Committee of Selection of this House. Of course the Committees of Selection themselves would be cumbersome bodies to carry out the intention of this clause, and it would be necessary to make special provision for cases arising during the recess.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW:I hope my hon. friend will agree to the suggestion which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman, for I think that upon the lines which have just been conceded we have practically gained the point which we desired to achieve. It does appear to me that the argument of my right hon. friend is particularly applicable to these cases of Private Bills.
  R. CLARK: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate how he proposes to create his Joint Committee?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That question is not in order on this point.
  DR. CLARK: We are now going to appoint the short panel to go down and make the preliminary inquiries. I take it that the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords will appoint the Peers, and the Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons will appoint the Commoners. I think there ought to be some limitation as to the number, and the arrangement suggested seems to be very unsuitable. If we are going to have a Joint Committee, we ought to have an equal number of Peers and Commoners. Under the present system we have a large panel from which the Committees are taken, and I should like to know if that is the panel from which they are going to be taken in the future.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:That will be for the House to decide.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:The objection which my friends and myself still entertain to the amended panel of the right hon. Gentleman is that we wish the selecting authority to be purely Parliamentary, and we do not wish to have this power exercised by the Secretary for Scotland. In this matter, surely the selection of the Members of the House of Commons, and the Peers also, to serve
  1578
  in this capacity should be left, as near as we can get, to the ordinary selecting authority of Parliament. The only objection I have heard is that this process may have to be conducted during the recess, when the Committee of Selection is not sitting. What would there be to hinder the Committee of Selection first of all dealing with all the necessities that arose during the session; and, as to the necessities that may arise during the recess, they might, before Parliament is prorogued, establish a sort of subordinate panel, and ascertain the names of a number of Members who would be available for this purpose when the occasion arose, and a limited number might be appointed for any occasional requirements during the recess, and from these the Chairmen or anybody else might select particular Members. In that way we should keep the whole thing in Parliamentary hands. I think, however much we may recognise the desire of the Lord Advocate to meet us, he still retains the bone of contention, which is the practice of an outside element meddling with Parliamentary matters.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:As far as the outside element is concerned, I should like to know if the following words will meet the views of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Instead of saying "the Secretary for Scotland acting jointly with the Chairmen," I suggest the words "the two Chairmen, after communication with the Secretary for Scotland."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I think that the more the Lord Advocate reflects upon this matter the more he will see that the Secretary for Scotland ought to have nothing to do with it. If it is to be a mixed panel, then let the Committee of Selection appoint all the members that are required, and, if there happens to be one or two short, then let the Secretary for Scotland come on with his 20 eligibles, or his regiment of men, but let us keep the Parliamentary part of it in our hands. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this.
  MR. CRIPPS:I hope the Lord Advocate will assent to this proposal. There is no harm in leaving out the Secretary for Scotland in this instance, for he appears in Section 4. As regards any

  1579
  question of local knowledge, the Secretary for Scotland is really quite unnecessary, and why should he have anything to do with the selection of representative Members of this House or of the other House? I think the two Chairmen would be by far the best persons who could be selected, in order that the selection should secure Parliamentary representation, and that would be carrying out the suggestion of the Lord Advocate. Really in this matter the Secretary for Scotland has no locus standi at all. Although I do not desire to use the harsh terms used by the Leader of the Opposition, I do hope the Lord Advocate will assent to this Amendment.
  *SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I have been on a Committee of Selection, and I know how the thing is worked. At the end of the session I have often seen a Committee run very short. I think it is most essential that the representative character of these Committees should be preserved, and if you are going to have a substitute, then by all means have your Chairman of Committees or your Chairman of the Committee of Selection. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that this difficulty has arisen owing to his misuse of the word "panel" in connection with these 25 gentlemen.
  *MR. HEDDERWICK: I trust that the Lord Advocate will consent to omit the Secretary for Scotland from this clause. There are many reasons for taking this course. It has already been pointed out that the Secretary for Scotland has been inserted in Clause 4. The chief objection of the Lord Advocate is that the Chairmen of the Committees would not have any knowledge of the
  reserve panel, and therefore that it is necessary to include someone who is, likely to have such knowledge; but the provisions with reference to the Scots Secretary in Clause 4 deprives this objection of its force. On the other hand, however willing the Scotch Members might be, it is quite conceivable that English Members of the House of Commons might object to serve as Commissioners upon the nomination of a Scots Secretary, and the operation of the Bill might thus be seriously impeded, because the difficulty of getting men to serve might be very much increased by insisting on this retention of the Secretary for Scotland. On this side of the House it is felt that if the Secretary for Scotland is made one of three Members who are to nominate these Commissioners, then the power will ultimately rest with the Secretary for Scotland, and the Chairmen of Committees will be merely nominal factors in the matter. I trust, therefore, that the Lord Advocate will leave out the Secretary for Scotland from the clause.
  *SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: I hope that the Lord Advocate will not leave "the Secretary for Scotland" out of the clause. I particularly object to the proposal to bring forward the Chairman of the Committee of Selection in a matter of this kind. It is quite a novelty to separate the Chairman of the Committee of Selection from his Committee, and I cannot see that there is any fitness in the proposal relating to him.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 199.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Denny, Colonel

  Allhusen, A. Henry Eden

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

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Atkinson, Et. Hon. John

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Balcarres, Lord

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon.G. W.(Leeds)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Finch, George H.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Cooke,C. W.Radclifie(Heref'd)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  FitzGerald,SirRobert Penrose

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Flower, Ernest

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Curzon, Viscount

  Fry, Lewis

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Garfit, William

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gedge, Sydney

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Goschen,Rt. HnG.J. (St. Geo.'s

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

  Greene, W. R. (Cambs.)

  Milton, Viscount

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Strauss, Arthur

  Hamilton,Rt.Hn. Lord George

  Monk, Charles James

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

  Morgan,HnFred.(Monm'thsh.

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Ox. Univ.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morton,ArthurH.A. (Deptford

  Thorburn, Walter

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Mount, William George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Murray, RtHnA Graham(Bute

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Howell, William Tudor

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

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

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darling'n)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Kenyon, James

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh.N.)

  Kimber, Henry

  Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton)

  Wilson-Todd Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Wodehouse, RtHnER(Bath)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Priestley,SirW.Overend(Edin

  Wylie, Alexander

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Purvis, Robert

  Wyndham, George

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Young,Commander(Berks, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Round, James

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Gibney, James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bethell, Commander

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Caldwell, James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Spicer, Albert

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

  Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Commins, Andrew

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Ure, Alexander

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wallace, Robert

  Davitt, Michael

  M'Ewan, William

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Dillon, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Weir, James Galloway

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Leod, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Doogan, P. C.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Ellis, John Edward

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

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbro')

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(H'dd'rsf'd)

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pinkerton, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro Leith)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sir Charles Cameron and

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Mr. Crombie.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 33, to leave 'Orders,' to 'to act,' in line 34, 'appoint three persons being Members of
  1582
  either House of Parliament, or persons whose names are on the panel.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, That the words

  1583
  proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. THOMAS SHAW:With regard to this Amendment, we are grateful for the proposal to have a Parliamentary panel, but I think there is a very great objection to the terms of the Amendment now proposed. My reasons can be very briefly stated. There have been several suggestions made by the Lord Advocate with regard to one or two things in which he was willing to make concessions to the Members on this side of the House to a certain extent. We hope that he will stick by what he has stated he was willing to concede, and with that hope I beg to move as an Amendment that there shall be "two persons Members of each House of Parliament." We want the Committee of this House to be quite as strong as the Private Bill Committee is. In the next place I would suggest that as this Bill is now framed, the Secretary for Scotland acting with the two Chairmen can make a selection of Members entirely from the other House. The effect of this proposal will be to leave these three gentlemen in the position of having the power to exclude either House of Parliament according to their own will. They may select three Peers for every Scotch Bill, or the Secretary for Scotland might think that no Lord was competent to sit upon the Committee. I do not think my right hon. friend quite realises that what he proposes would not be a Joint Committee at all; therefore I suggest that he should leave out "three Members of either" and insert "two Members of each."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:The objection to having four Members is twofold. In the first place it would make the tribunal larger than is necessary for the work to be done, but the great difficulty would be to get Peers to carry out the work. I might suggest here that it was never the idea nor is it the desire of the Government that one House should be chosen exclusively of the other. It would be easy to devise words so that the Committee should be composed of two Peers and one commoner or of two commoners and one Peer. I suggest this for the consideration of the Committee.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:If we had no precedent there might be a good deal to be said in favour of having
  1584
  three upon the Committee rather than four. But at the same time, all our Committees are composed of four Members. I do not know the reason why they are composed of four, but I should suppose that it was in order to have two Members from each side of this House. That is the position in which we now stand; we want two Members from each House; and four is the established number on House of Commons Committees. I do not see that there is very much in the theory of the Lord Advocate that it will be overweighting the tribunal, and there is no other way in which we can have an equal proportion of the two Houses.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,):I quite sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to preserve a certain symmetry in the existing practice, and I think there is a certain advantage in having a Committee of four instead of three. But the reason for making it three instead of four is a reason of convenience, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentlemen opposite whose desire is to keep this tribunal within the four walls of Parliament would prefer three. If you insist upon having four you may not be able to get two Members from the House of Lords, but there is no special objection to your having four if you desire it, and if this proposal goes against the wishes of hon. Members opposite I see no objection to accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  MR. DILLON:Looking at this Bill as one which affects Ireland, I do not think, even if the Government accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, that it will be satisfactory. Because, instead of having an important Private Bill examined and adjudicated on by this House in the first instance, you would have it relegated to a Committee composed of half Lords and half Commons, and I do not think anything would be so unsatisfactory. I take for example the Dublin Bill of the other day. What chance should we have had of getting this Bill through if this machinery had been in force? It would have been killed at its birth. There is no doubt that some great change is required in Private Bill

  1585
  procedure, and is required for Ireland no less than for Scotland, but I do think that the lines upon which this Bill is drawn are most dangerous lines. While they save some expense, they threaten us with the abrogation of every claim we have.
  MR. CALDWELL:I rather favour the words "and in the event of the Chairman selecting the panel and their not appearing to serve on the panel," than the present wording, and I will move that Amendment in order to obtain a reply from the Lord Advocate. It will prevent the outside panel being called upon until it is known that no Member of either House can be got to serve.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out all the words after 'panel,' in order to insert the words 'and in the event of the Chairman selecting the panel and their not appearing to serve on the panel.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:Obviously the words cannot stand as they are. I propose to amend the Amendment as follows:—
  "Appoint as Commissioners two Members of each House of Parliament, or in default of such Member or Members willing to serve, persons then in the panel."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I think it might be made plainer, and instead of "Member or Members willing to serve" it might read, "Member or Members being found willing to serve." I think the right hon. Gentleman is entirely at one with us in the matter. Supposing the tribunal is formed, and one Member is smitten with influenza, then we are not to go to the outside panel, but arc still to keep to the Parliamentary reservoir.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:As my right hon. friend has explained, our idea is that there should be two Members of the House of Commons and two Members of the House of Lords. If the House of Lords can only produce one Member, then we will try to get three from the House of Commons, and if the House of Lords cannot supply one, then we will have four from the House of Commons. But even if the House of Commons fails, then we will have the panel of which we have heard so much. As both sides are in agreement, I think the exact drafting might be left over to the Report stage.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Amendment again proposed.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON:It will be necessary to make some provision for the appointment of a Chairman. The Chairman should alternately be a Member of either House, and that is a point which ought to be provided for in the Bill.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:There is an Amendment in my name which raises the point.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 35, at end, to insert, 'Any casual vacancy among the Commissioners or in the office of Chairman of the Commissioners caused by death, resignation, or disqualification, or inability to give attendance, such resignation or inability to attend being certified by a writing under the Commissioner's hand addressed to the Secretary for Scotland, shall be filled up by the Secretary for Scotland by appointing a Member of either House or a member of the panel.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed—"That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON:This is quite contrary to the spirit of what we have agreed to. Vacancies should be filled

  1587
  up in accordance with Parliamentary procedure.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 36, leave out Sub-section (2), and insert: 'If it shall happen that all or any of the Commissioners so appointed are not Members of either House of Parliament, there shall be paid to such of the Commissioners as are not Members of either House of Parliament such remuneration for their services as the Treasury shall determine.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Agreed to.
  MR. J. P. SMITH:I beg to move the omission of Sub-section 3. I think it is perfectly easy, considering the large number we will have to choose from, for hon. Gentlemen to look ahead and see what their engagements are going to be. It was quite a different thing when we had only a panel of 25 Members, a few of whom might be Members of either House. Now we have the two Houses to select from, and I think Members ought to be able to judge how far they may be free to undertake these duties.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out Sub-section 3."—(Mr. J. P. Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 3 stand part of the clause."
  COMMANDER BETHELL:I believe the theory is that either House of Parliament has a prior claim on its own Members.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I am willing to accept the Amendment.
  MR. DALZIEL:There is one question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. In the case of an English, Welsh, or Irish Member failing to attend the inquiry in Scotland, can he be reported to the House in the ordinary way? If there is to be no report, what is the use of appointing a
  1588
  Member? What sort of pressure is it proposed to bring to bear on Members to attend?
  MR. DILLON:I think that is a very important question. If a Member did not attend in Scotland, what action would he taken?
  MR. CRIPPS:There is no obligation on any Member to serve; and if when appointed he did not wish to serve there would be a vacancy and his place would be filled.
  MR. CALDWELL:Supposing a Member does not attend an inquiry, where are you to find another Member? Up here it is easy to find another Member, but how can you find one in Scotland?
  *THE CHAIRMAN:That does not arise on this clause.
  MR. DALZIEL:I beg to give notice that I will raise the point later.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. CROMBIE:We have already debated the desirability of Scottish Members not being debarred from serving on these Committees, and to emphasise that point I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 7, after 'Order,' add 'providing that this will not disqualify Scottish Members of either House of Parliament from acting on Committees which deal with Orders which they have no local or personal interest."—(Mr. Crombie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL:Will English Members representing Scottish constituencies come within the meaning of the Amendment?
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  MR. THOMAS SHAW:I beg to move an Amendment to provide that the inquiry shall take place in Scotland. The object of the Amendment is simply to early out the purpose of the Bill by making the inquiry local.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 10, after 'place' to insert 'in Scotland.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  ME. CALDWELL:I quite agree that the inquiry should be in Scotland. But more is required. The people of Dundee object to an inquiry being held in Edinburgh; and the people of Aberdeen would probably prefer to come to London than to go to Edinburgh if they could not get an inquiry in their own locality. The whole object of the Bill is to have a local inquiry, and it should be limited to the county or to the borough concerned. If we only say "in Scotland," it will mean that these inquiries will be held in Edinburgh for the benefit of the Edinburgh lawyers. There can be no question that there would be a tendency to hold the inquiries in Scotland where the Commissioners would get better accommodation. I therefore move to insert after "in" in the Amendment the words "the locality in."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "After the word 'in' to insert 'the locality in.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:The hon. Gentleman would, as far as I can see,
  1590
  have attained his object by moving the words "exclusive of Edinburgh." This Amendment would, however, make the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs unintelligible. It is provided in the Bill that the Commissioners shall hold their inquiry "at such place as they may determine with due regard to the subject matter of the proposed Order, and to the locality to which its provisions relate." "Such place" obviously includes every place in Scotland, and the section does everything in the way of showing Commissioners where they ought to hold the inquiry. I really think the Amendment would not improve the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Amendment put, and agreed to.
  *MR. RENSHAW:I would suggest to the Lord Advocate whether it would not be better to omit the words "maintained at the public expense." If these words are retained it might be impossible to use buildings otherwise available.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:I really think the sub-section as it stands is better.
  Other Amendments made
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to
  Clause 7:—
  MR. THOMAS SHAW:The Amendment which stands in my name is one of a series which develops a new scheme under this clause. I may tell the House in a few words what my object is. It is that there shall not be an inquiry conducted in London, in accordance with the present practice, after an inquiry has been conducted in Scotland. I think that the success or the failure of this Bill depends on the action of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this Amendment. It appears to me that it would be most unsatisfactory if the Government insist that after this elaborate procedure in

  1591
  Scotland the whole matter should be thrown into hotch-pot again, and that there should be a further protracted and expensive inquiry in London. What we have now done is to establish the proposition that Parliament shall retain its control over the whole proceedings. All the distance we have gone in regard to the Joint Committees is to change the locale of the inquiry. It is out of the question to put the Joint Committee in the undignified position of holding a preliminary inquiry, and then having the real battle in London. Our object in having a local inquiry is that Parliament should come to the spot, and there once and for all settle the matter so far as the Committee's inquiry can do it. I agree that the Confirmation Bill should be lodged and discussed on the Third Reading in the ordinary way. I.hope the Government will consent to the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  " In page 4, line 31, to leave out all the words from the beginning of the clause, to the word 'after,' in line 32."—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:The technical position of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member is such that it is a little difficult to discover what the meaning of it is. I think I can explain to the Committee how it stands. Under the scheme of the Bill and the promises I have made to the House I have had to divide necessarily the Provisional Orders into opposed and unopposed Orders. All along there has been this distinction; whereas on unopposed Orders there is not to be any inquiry or Committee stage up here in London, yet all along the scheme of the Bill has been that in the case of opposed Orders the possibility of an opponent coming to this House on the Confirmation Bill and opposing it has been kept open. The only distinction between the proposed
  1592
  procedure and that which obtains at present is that the proposal in the Bill is that the inquiry in London shall be by Joint Committee of both Houses, instead of by a separate inquiry before each House. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member is really with a view of taking out all the provisions I have made in regard to the opponent coming here on the Confirmation Bill. I have always held that it was right in principle that an opponent should have on opportunity of taking the sense of Parliament in regard to a Bill; I adhere to that view, and I am sure it would be against the great body of opinion in the House if I went back on my promise.
  DR. CLARK:I am afraid that, unless the Amendment is adopted, instead of the cost of obtaining a Provisional Order being moderate, as compared with the present system, it would be increased, perhaps doubled or trebled. Why should any petitioner in Scotland who has paid for all his advertisements and notices, and made his deposit, and submitted to an inquiry by a Committee of two Peers and two Commoners, which Committee has decided on the matter—why should such a petitioner have to come to Parliament again, repeat his notices and advertisements and deposit, and appear before other two Peers and two Commoners upstairs, who would not have the advantage of seeing the people to be affected and the spot to which the Bill applies? This second inquiry is totally unnecessary.
  MR. CALDWELL:I am afraid the Lord Advocate has not looked at the proposal thoroughly and the effect of it. The question is whether we should have in this House a Joint Committee after the matter has been inquired into locally in Scotland by another Joint Committee.
  MR CRIPPS:The question raised by the hon. Member of the Border Burghs is undoubtedly an important one. If the

  1593
  Amendment is carried it would be inconsistent with the whole framework of the Bill, would work out unjustly, and would impair the control of the House over these Provisional Orders which we have always insisted upon. It has never been suggested at any stage of the discussion until this moment that a man should not have the right of an ordinary hearing before a Joint Committee appointed by this House and the House of Lords. I hope the Lord Advocate will not consent to this Amendment.
  DR. CLARK:There is one point which I omitted. The class of Bills which will come before the Commissioners will be very small Bills; all the important Bills will never leave this House, but will be considered here. The Amendment will only affect very small Orders, the policy and principle of which had already been decided by Parliament. So far as we have been able to modify the Bill at all, it has been to limit the cases which will go before the Commissioners.
  MR. HOBHOUSE:It would be ridiculous, in my opinion, if, after there had been an inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee sitting locally, there should be another inquiry by another Parliamentary Committee sitting here.
  MR. A. G. MURRAY:It is curious to me how, in one and the same breath, hon. Members ask that the control of the House over these Orders should be retained, and then they wish to throw that control away in the Bill. We have always promised to give the House control even of unopposed Orders. If this Amendment is passed, the result would be that, whereas the House has always felt that that control should be sparingly exercised at a late stage, if an objector were prevented from coming up here then, undoubtedly, he would in every case incite someone in the House to raise the question in the House itself. An abuse of
  1594
  that kind ought certainly to be guarded against. I am keeping faith with the House in standing by the Bill upon the promises made from the beginning. I never could have faced the discussion after the Second Reading if I were to take away from a practical opponent all power of coming to this House.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW:The Lord Advocate says that he is very glad that I have such faith in the tribunal he has set up that I would go much further than himself. I have much confidence in the tribunal which the Committee of the House of Commons has set up. What we have done is that a Parliamentary Committee has been set up to make inquiries on the spot, to inspect the localities, and to have in view all the circumstances which the local authorities can furnish them with. It seems to me the most incredible thing I ever heard of that after a local inquiry the whole thing should be done again in London, and a second Joint Committee of both Houses should sit in review of the operations of the first Joint Committee. The new inquiry was to he cheap, but the Lord Advocate's proposal will obliterate every element of cheapness. There is no analogy between a local inquiry under the old Provisional Order system and one under this Bill. Local inquiry under this Bill is not an inquiry by Departmental Committee at all, but an inquiry by this House and the other House. And I altogether object to the duplication of that. If the Amendment be not adopted, the whole Bill will be cumbersome, unpractical, and unworkable, and its administration most expensive.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:
  Committee report progress; to sit again this day.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

  MILITARY WORKS (MONEY).
  Committee to consider of authorising the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for the purpose of Military Works and Services (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Wednesday.—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.