Lords Sitting of 6 August 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; East India Army Pensions Deficiency * (239).
Second Reading—Public Works Loans * (234); Labourers (Ireland) (No. 2) (235).
Committee—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (170).
Committee—Report—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) * (231).
Third Reading—Poor Law Unions' Officers (Ireland) (214–237); River Thames (No. 2) (218–238), debate adjourned; Evidence by Commission * (228); Telegraph Acts Amendment * (230); Expiring Laws Continuance (229), and passed.
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue (No. 2) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 51]: Submarine Telegraph Cables [48 & 49 Vict. c. 49]; Medical Relief Disqualification Removal [48 & 49 Vict. c. 46]; Bankruptcy (Office Accommodation) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 47]; Public Health (Members and Officers) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 53]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 50]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners (No. 2) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 55]; Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices) [48 & 49 Vict. c. 56]; Pluralities [48 & 49 Vict. c. 54]; Lunacy Acts Amendment [48 & 49 Vict. c. 52]; Revising Barristers [48 & 49 Vict. c. 57]; Earldom of Mar Restitution [48 & 49 Vict. c. 48]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2) [48 & 49 Vict. c. cxxvii].

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 170.)
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 170.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD ELPHINSTONE, in rising to move an Amendment, to the effect that the smaller towns which the Dublin Corporation Waterworks supplied should receive a supply of 25 gallons per head of the population per day, instead of 20 gallons as at present, said, that, before doing so, he wished to explain why he, as Chairman of the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred, should ask their Lordships to accept an Amendment which that Committee threw out. The facts were these. The Dublin Corporation Waterworks supplied several smaller towns situated between that City and the sources of the supply. The smaller towns were supplied under separate and Local Acts, all of which were similar in character. They enacted that each centre of population should be supplied with 20 gallons of water per head per day; and that if any additional quantity were supplied a rate should be levied on the rateable value of the several towns. Some of these towns were favourite watering places. All of them were becoming, year by year, places of greater

  1253
  resort, and their population was annually increasing. The Dublin Corporation stated they had difficulty in ascertaining the extent to which the population increased, and what additional quantity of water was required, and this Provisional Orders Bill was intended to obviate that difficulty. It was shown to the Committee that while the supply to the smaller towns was limited to 20 gallons per head daily, the consumption of water by the population of Dublin was 38 gallons. It was true that the smaller towns might obtain additional water; but all in excess of the 20 gallons was charged for as assessed water. There was no question as to the amount of water available, for the supply was greater than the demand. At any rate, for the greater portion of the year the water ran to waste to the extent of 2,000,000 gallons daily. It was also shown to the Committee that there was every reason to hope that the Corporation debt would be paid off early in the next century, and when the witness who used the expression was questioned about it, he said the debt would be cleared off within 20 or 25 years. The Committee sat for five hours one day, and seven hours the next day. They listened to every argument advanced by counsel and against the Bill. Very few Committees had paid more attention to a Bill than was paid to this. The Committee decided unanimously to pass the Bill as it stood, and to insert a clause to provide that the supply of water to the smaller towns should be 25 gallons per head per day, instead of 20 gallons, as heretofore. It was only fair to say that one noble Lord, a Member of the Committee, had demurred; but he had not objected to the granting of the excess water. He was prepared to grant 25 gallons in lieu of 20 gallons; but he foresaw certain difficulties in giving effect to the Resolution of the Committee. However, the noble Lord had not pressed his objection, and the Committee came to the conclusion stated unanimously. The effect of that decision would have been that Dublin would have obtained what it asked for—that was to say, they would have been able to estimate the population of the small towns; whilst the position of the small towns would have been improved, as they would get what they desired—a larger allowance of water. The Committee
  1254
  felt that it was a compromise—indeed, they had every reason to believe it was a compromise—which might be, and they thought would have been, gladly accepted by all parties. It injured no one. There was no want of water, and, as he had said, within a measurable distance of time there was every reason to hope that the Corporation debt would be paid off. The Committee, therefore, instructed counsel to draw up a clause giving effect to these decisions. After the clause was drawn up, not one could be prepared which seemed to meet the wishes of the opposing parties. Three-quarters of an hour was spent in a vain endeavour to draw up a clause, and the Committee then had to clear the Committee Boom. The noble Lord (Lord Carlingford), who was now abroad, but who had been a Member of the Committee, had suggested that the proposed clause should not be inserted, and after some consultation the Committee divided, with the result that the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) and himself (Lord Elphinstone) were left in a minority of two to three. The Bill was therefore left in the same position in which it had come before the Committee. Since then he had received a communication from the noble Lord (Lord Truro), saying he was quite prepared to restore the clause as the Committee originally proposed it; and he had also received a similar assent from another noble Lord who was a Member of the Committee. Under those circumstances, he came before the House backed by the originally unanimous decision of the Committee, and by the fact that four noble Lords had expressed their wish that the clause might be restored. The noble Lord to whom he had referred as having any doubt in the matter had not been unfavourable to the increased grant of water, and therefore he (Lord Elphinstone) had the honour to move the following clause of which he had given Notice, and which he hoped their Lordships would accept.
  Moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following Clause:—
  "For the purposes of the eighth section of the Dublin Corporation Waterworks and Fire Brigade Provisional Order, 1874, and of the Orders hereby confirmed, the statutable or contract allowance of water to the townships mentioned in that section shall be deemed to be twenty-five gallons per head per day, instead of twenty gallons per head per day, as provided

  1255
  by the Acts in that section mentioned relating to those townships respectively, and the said Orders and Acts shall be read and have effect accordingly."—[The Lord Elphinslone.)
  Question proposed, "That the said Clause be there inserted."
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he was informed that the Local Government Board could not agree to the Amendment which his noble Friend (Lord Elphinstone) had just now moved. He (the Marquess of Waterford) had been astonished to hear the statement the noble Lord had made, because the noble Lord had led their Lordships to understand that the Committee bad unanimously placed in the Bill a clause giving 25 gallons a-day per head to the townships. But exactly the reverse was the case. The Committees had thrown out the clause—they would not adopt it. It was so stated on the Minutes. They had now, according to the noble Lord, thought better of that action; but certainly the Bill had been reported to their Lordships without Amendment. There was no Amendment of the sort appearing in the Bill; and, in addition to that, in the Minutes passed by the Committee there was a remark by the noble Chairman (Lord Elphinstone) himself, in which he said that some of the Committee bad been anxious to put the five gallons extra per head per day for the townships in the Bill, but that, as it was contested, they could not do so. There were several objections in the way, and, therefore, they could not carry it out. The proposal now renewed had been several times inquired into. It had been, in the first place, very carefully considered by the Irish Local Government Board, who had heard an immense amount of evidence upon it. It was then fought in the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, which decided in favour of the Corporation, allowing the Provisional Order to stand. The matter then went up to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, and upon that occasion the Lord Chancellor, he (the Marquess of Water-ford) was informed, spoke very strongly upon it in favour of the Provisional Order. That Order was a most ample one and a most fair one, and be asked their Lordships not to accept the Amendment. In the original Act the water supply was limited in all the towns that had been referred to to 20 gallons per head per day; and it was arranged that
  1256
  any increased quantity should depend upon the increase of the population. It was found difficult to estimate the population; and the Corporation went to the Local Government Board to get a Provisional Order which should help them on this point. The arrangement come to was that they should take the Census of 1881, and add for each subsequent year one-tenth of the increase that took place between the years 1871 and 1881. If now the House accepted the Amendment, they would upset every Local Act which these townships had obtained. They entered into a bargain to pay 4d. in the pound for a supply of 20 gallons of water in the day. And, now, when the Corporation asked that the population should be defined, the townships put in a claim of five gallons per head per day more. There were nine townships, of which four only opposed this Provisional Order—Kingstown, Bray, Blackrock, and Clontarf. In Dublin, the water rate was 1s. 3d. in the pound. In the townships, for 20 gallons a-day, it was 4d.; and now the townships wished to continue to pay 4d., but to receive 25 gallons. That would be to repeal the Local Acts, without any notice whatever having been given of such an intention. The passing of the Amendment would occasion the Dublin Corporation enormous expenditure in order to enlarge their works. The noble Lord had pointed out that the population was increasing in the towns. He was sure their Lordships would be pleased to hear it; but that fact was all in favour of the townships, and was no reason why they should have more water per head for the present price. They could have as much more as they liked on the assessment of 2½d. per 1,000 gallons. He hoped their Lordships would not accept this Amendment, which had been sprung upon the Corporation at the last moment.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, there could be no doubt that this question was one of considerable importance. He had not had much experience of Committees in this House; but he had been a Member of the Committee which had sat to consider the question. They had come unanimously to a certain decision—namely, that the supply of water should be increased to 25 gallons per bead, and that that should be a condition on which the Provisional Order

  1257
  should be passed. That having been the decision of the Committee, it became a question as to how that decision should be embodied. Some Members of the Committee thought it would not be practicable for them to draw it up themselves; and, inasmuch as the counsel were not able to agree to it, the room was cleared for the purpose of consulting as to what form the Provision should take. One Member of the Committee (Lord Carlingford) thought it would be impossible to draw it up without clashing with existing legislation, and divided the Committee on the point; but he (the Duke of Marlborough) submitted that the real decision of the Committee was come to when the Chairman announced to counsel on both sides the decision to allow the increased quantity of water to the townships. The matter, he held, was decided by that decision, and the conclusion arrived at ultimately was not in form. Whether or not that view would meet the approval of their Lordships, he would not presume to say. The case of the townships, he asserted, was one of considerable hardship, the Provisional Order of 1874, as it stood, being an unworkable Order. The word "population," there defined, was no criterion as to how population should be adjudged, and it was therefore necessary for the Corporation to get a new Provisional Order in which the word "population" was properly defined. In the present Order, therefore, that matter was clearly defined on the principle of the Census, which, by the decision of the Law Courts in Dublin, was not accepted as the criterion of population when the suit came on between the Kingstown and Dublin Corporations. He ventured to think that when the Dublin Corporation came to Parliament and asked for an enabling Order, that was the only opportunity those growing minor townships had of getting better terms from this large and growing Corporation; and he therefore also thought it right that they should endeavour to acquire for themselves advantages which they could not hope to obtain under other circumstances. It was not the same thing as if they were dealing with a private Water Company, which required an Order for its protection in the enjoyment of its rights. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford)
  1258
  had said that the Local Government Board (Ireland) did not approve the Amendment; but that would not prevent their Lordships from accepting it. The proposal would not affect the Private Acts of the smaller towns. The Amendment only provided that, where those Acts spoke of 20 gallons, henceforth 25 gallons should be understood. Then it was said the Corporation would have to go to great expense for new works; but it was clearly shown in Committee that the water was running to waste, and that there was no difficulty in increasing the supply. On all those grounds, he thought the case of the minor towns was very strong. The Committee having once come to a decision, that decision should be upheld, for the after proceedings of the Committee were quite irregular. Tie therefore supported the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, the question raised in this ease, in regard to procedure, was exactly the reverse of that raised, the other day in regard to the Tramways Bill. In this case, as he understood, the Committee was desirous of increasing the supply of water if they could; but they found that they could not do so, because of existing bonds and previous Acts of Parliament. If their Lordships now passed the clause, it would be equivalent to saying that the Committee was wrong, and that the additional supply should be given in spite of bargains and previous legislation. One of the chief causes of the difficulties that arose in connection with the construction of Acts of Parliament was due to clauses being introduced in this way without sufficient consideration of the effect that they might have on existing Acts of Parliament. If the Committee had abstained from doing what they desired to do because of the difficulty of dealing with the matter in this Bill, their Lordships would do well to reject the Amendment. At all events, he trusted they would not agree to the clause without inquiring into its effect.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack was under a misapprehension as to the decision of the Committee. They decided that a certain clause should be inserted as the condition on which they granted the Order.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be agreed to, for the matter was one of the first importance as a sanitary question. Twenty years ago the Corporation of Dublin obtained power to appropriate the waters of the Vartry River. That power was given to them as Trustees, and they were bound to supply the township with 20 gallons per head per day. That was now recognized as a clearly insufficient supply, for the average supply of most of the London Water Companies averaged from 23 to 30 gallons per head per day. The Committee had reported that 30 gallons had been asked for simply as a compromise. Nothing was proposed to be taken from the Dublin Corporation. They did not require half the water, and the consequence was that a large quantity was daily allowed to run to waste. The Corporation, however, stood on its rights, and said it would give nothing beyond the 20 gallons. The Committee took the view that the townships were entitled to an additional supply, and they recommended that a clause to that effect should be added to the Bill. It was a mistake to suppose that there had, in this case, been any inquiry made by the Local Government Board (Ireland), or that there had been any Report. If it went to the Local Government Board, they would report in favour of 30 gallons instead of 25. If they passed the clause they would not be violating any contract, but would only be substituting right for wrong. Instead of allowing 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 gallons of water to run to waste daily, they would be giving a portion of it to the townships. He hoped their Lordships would pass the clause.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, if this were a proposal to give the outlying townships an additional supply of water on condition that they gave a fair price for it, no one could object to it. With every disposition to give them help in obtaining what they sought, what he objected to was the contention that a Bill of this kind, which had nothing to do with the supply of water, but only the ascertaining of the population, should be considered a fair opportunity to compel the Dublin Corporation to give them better terms than those already agreed upon as regarded the supply of water. That was to say, they took
  1260
  advantage of the Bill to ask for 25 gallons per head per day at the present price of 20 gallons. As he had said, he was most anxious to assist the townships to obtain sufficient water; but having listened with the very greatest attention to the arguments that had been brought forward, he had come to the conclusion that the proposal was a very unreasonable one.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 19; Not-Contents 20: Majority 1.
  Resolved in the negative.
  Amendment made.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

POOR LAW UNIONS' OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
POOR LAW UNIONS' OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 214.) THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  On Motion, "That the Bill do pass?"
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, the Bill had been introduced under the impression that it afforded distinct advantages to medical officers connected with Unions. It seemed, however, that the medical officers had taken alarm, and were afraid that some of their rights were going to be taken away. The Council of the Irish Medical Society had communicated with him, and pressed him to introduce an Amendment to remove that impression. He warned them that the effect might be to endanger the Bill; but as they thought the matter important, and were willing to run the risk, he now proposed the insertion of a clause for that purpose.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 237.)

RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.
(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.

  (NO. 218.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, if the measure passed in its present shape, it would ruin some of the most beautiful residences on the beautiful Thames. Although he had promised not to interfere any further with the progress of the Bill, he had just received such a piteous letter from an old friend, that he felt bound to lay it before their Lordships, and take their opinion upon the Bill. The gentleman to whom he referred, and who signed himself "Your Afflicted Old Friend," begged him to implore the House not to pass the Bill, which, by permitting the mooring of house-boats for so long a period as 48 hours in one spot, would absolutely ruin his "pretty waterside place," and destroy all the pleasure to be derived from his lawn which fronted the river. If a river was navigable, people had the incidental rights which attached to that navigation; and he quite agreed that, if a vessel sprang a leak, or wanted to hoist a sail, those on board would have a right to remain anywhere in the river while they were doing what was necessary for them to enjoy the right of navigation which the law gave them; but that was all the right they had. It was said that, if they moored opposite a gentleman's house or pleasure ground, the riparian proprietor had no remedy. He maintained, on the contrary, that the riparian proprietor had two remedies. He might unmoor the vessel and turn it adrift, just the same as anyone had a right to turn a carriage out of his garden; or he might bring an action at Common Law for damages against the owner. Consequently, there was no necessity for the Bill. The Bill would legalize the mooring of these boats for a period of 48 hours, and he very much deprecated the rights of riparian owners being thus sacrificed. It would give a right which no gentleman or decent person would exercise. In conclusion, he asked their Lordships not to allow the Bill to pass, as, in his judgment, it was absolutely indefensible.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the appeal made by so great an authority as the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell) was so striking an appeal, that it produced in his mind considerable doubt as to whether the Bill ought to be proceeded with. He had not voted against the Bill, because he
  1262
  had hitherto believed that a large majority of the riparian proprietors wished it to pass in its present form; but he confessed that what the noble and learned Lord had said, and what he had recently heard, led him to doubt very much whether that was the case. The noble and learned Lord had earnestly appealed to their Lordships upon the legality of the measure, and he (the Marquess of Salisbury) would suggest whether it would not be better to leave the structure of the Bill as it now appeared, and to insert a Proviso to the effect that nothing in the Bill should be so construed as to deprive the riparian owners of any legal rights which they might now possess. That might be done by the omission of certain words. Whether in that form, or any other, the Bill was passed eventually, the language of the noble and learned Lord made him think it would be far better to pause for a day or two before finally disposing of the measure, in order that his arguments might be fully considered.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, that, however sound the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) might be as a matter of law on a certain state of facts, the facts on which he founded that view were certainly wrong. In the Select Committee upon this subject the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne), when in the other House, knowing the real facts, came to an entirely different conclusion from that arrived at by the noble and learned Lord in ignorance of those facts. To pass a law that boats should not remain at all opposite to the residences of riparian owners would be to deprive Londoners of one of their most agreeable sources of recreation, without securing to the riparian owners any corresponding benefit. He thought their Lordships ought to pay some attention to the recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee of which Lord Ashbourne and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach were active Members. Those recommendations were embodied in the present Bill. There was so great a difficulty in taking advantage of the existing law, that he had not heard of any riparian owner who had attempted to put it in force. The riparian owners had sent representatives who had laid their case before the Committee. If the law were effec-

  1263
  tive in the direction suggested by the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Bramwell), it would cause serious inconvenience to hundreds and thousands of persons who now spent a week or a month on the river in a house boat. Indeed, he had heard the Bill objected to on the ground that it interfered too much with the rights of the public. The main purpose of the Bill was the regulation of the traffic, and, in order to carry out the object, it proposed to increase the powers now possessed by the Thames Conservancy. Another object of the Bill was to prevent shooting on the river. At this time of the year crowds of people went upon the river with guns and pistols for the purpose of destroying the wild fowl, and frequently the young swans. Such a practice was most dangerous. The other provisions of the measure were intended to enable the police and the magistrates to act with promptitude and with efficiency. Thus, every boat would be required to have a number or badge marked upon it, by which it could be identified and, in case of necessity, stopped at the locks. He trusted that the noble and learned Lord would not intervene at that moment for the purpose of preventing the passing of a measure which had been framed for the mutual interests of the public and of the riparian owners.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he would point out that the Bill created new rights, and deprived riparian owners of rights they undoubtedly already possessed. He fully concurred in the view expressed by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) as to the legal aspect of the question. He had originally been assured that all the riparian owners were in favour of the Bill; but now he understood that there were many against it. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Mount-Temple) had spoken somewhat lightly of the legal opinion of the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Bramwell); but all he (the Lord Chancellor) could say was that there was no lawyer in this country who would not assume that opinion to be accurate until the contrary was shown. Therefore, the opinion of the noble and learned Lord was not to be cast aside in the manner the noble Lord proposed. The noble Lord who had moved the third
  1264
  reading of the Bill appeared to altogether mistake the question at issue. Their Lordships were dealing, not with the hundreds and thousands of people who amused themselves on the river, but with the comparatively limited number of persons who thought fit to loiter opposite the houses of riparian owners for, perhaps, three months at a time. Nobody could pretend that this was done in the exercise of the ordinary rights of navigation on the river. In these circumstances, he begged to move that the debate be adjourned until Monday next, in order to give those noble Lords who were opposed to the measure an opportunity of attending and stating their objections to it.
  Moved, "That the Debate be adjourned to Monday next."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Debate further adjourned to Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended on Report. (No. 238.)

LABOURERS (IRELAND (No. 2) BILL.
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
LABOURERS (IRELAND (No. 2) BILL.

  (NO. 235.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he would explain its provisions to-morrow, on moving that their Lordships go into Committee upon it.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he did not at all object to the second reading of the Bill—in fact, he hoped it would be road a second time; but he was of opinion that it would require a good deal of attention in Committee. However much some might object to State interference, he did not believe that even his noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) would deny that it was essential that agricultural labourers in Ireland should receive assistance from the State by being provided with dwellings. He (the Earl of Courtown) was aware that in England it was considered to be the duty of landlords to provide dwellings for labourers; but he would remind their Lordships that the Land Act had thrown considerable difficulties in the way of

  1265
  Irish landlords doing so. He was well aware that in some localities in that country the law had been abused by Boards of Guardians for purposes of political vengeance; but he was glad to be able to say, from his own experience, that it had been productive of at least indirect good. He thought it of importance that public attention should be continually fixed on the housing of labourers. In some cases, on the attention of landlords being called to the want of cottages, they had undertaken to erect them; in other cases, where farmers had cabins on their lands which had been declared uninhabitable, they had improved them. The principal defects in the present law which were sought to be remedied by the Bill had relation to its cost. Thus, instead of Boards of Guardians being obliged to purchase land, they could take it an lease; and, instead of an extensive appeal to Parliament, a cheaper appeal was given to the Lord Lieutenant in Council. He believed that good would be done to the labouring classes by the improvement of the law; and, therefore, he hoped the Bill would be passed.
  LORD VENTRYsaid, he agreed with most of what had been said by the noble Earl who had just sat down. He desired to see this new legislation work smoothly, and with that object he proposed to give Notice of Amendments which he would move in Committee designed to prevent unnecessary friction in the working of the measure. He desired as much as anyone to see Irish labourers supplied with better cottages; but their experience of the Act of 1883 might tell them what the effect of this measure would probably be if passed in its present shape. At the same time, he thought the Bill would do a great deal of good if properly amended.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he only rose to point out to their Lordships that they were now asked to follow an unusual course of procedure in asking their Lordships to confirm the principle of an important Bill of 23 clauses without having had one word of explanation of its objects from his noble Friend who was in charge of it (the Marquess of Water-ford).
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  (NO. 229.) THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  On Motion, "That the Bill do pass?"
  LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN moved to introduce a clause for the purpose of conferring the franchise upon women.
  Amendment moved,
  After Clause 2, add the following Clause:— "Provided that the Act 35 & 36 Vict. c. 33, continued as aforesaid, shall be hereby extended so as to admit all women not legally disqualified who have the same qualification as the present electors for counties and boroughs to vote for the election of Members of Parliament for counties and boroughs."—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that they were engaged at present on an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and how could they, in connection with such a measure, enter upon new legislation? What the noble Lord proposed was new legislation.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.