Sitting of 4 August 1883

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) [155]; Local Government Board (Scotland) [251]; Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) [132]; Diseases Prevention (Metropolis)* [279].
Committee— Labourers (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [240]—R.P.; Payment of Wages in Public-houses Prohibition [126]—R.P.; Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment (re-comm.) [118]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) [278]; Patents for Inventions [261], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  SIR JOHN HAYgave Notice that on Monday he would ask the Lord Advocate, If it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed further this Session with the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill; and, if so, whether the House might hope to receive some information from the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland in explanation of the measure, and of the various legal difficulties suggested in debate in so momentous a change in Scotch Parliamentary procedure, and especially as to the arrangements contemplated in regard to the management of reformatories and industrial schools, as well as to the mode of payment for the offices in England and Scotland and the necessary staff, other than the £2,000 a-year derived from the denudation of the Office of Lord Privy Seal?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I will answer the Question at once. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with and pass this measure. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland can afford any information which hon. Members may require on this subject. They did not speak yesterday, because they did not desire to assist in talking out the Bill.

  PARLIAMENT—THE LATE "COUNTOUT."
  MR ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to give Notice that I will, on Monday, ask the Prime Minister whether he will in future give the Government Whips instructions not to mislead hon. Members by distinctly informing them that it is the intention of the Government to make a House, and by failing to do so; and I will further ask him whether he is aware that a number of Members of the Conservative Party were distinctly told by the Government Whips that it was not necessary for them to come early to the House, because it was quite certain a House would be made and kept? I may state that I, myself, in consequence of that, took no pains to ask hon. Members to come down to the House. I also wish to ask the Chief

  1537
  Secretary for Ireland whether he can inform the House if there is any truth in the statement that three of the late witnesses in the Crown prosecutions in Ireland had been refused permission to land at Melbourne by the Australian Government?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think I had better answer the Question of the hon. Member at once. Neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else instructed the Government Whips to mislead anybody.
  MR ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I rise to Order. I gave Notice of a Question to the Prime Minister for Monday. [Cries of "Order, order!"]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: An imputation has been made in the Question, and I will take the opportunity of answering it at once. Imputations of the kind cannot be allowed.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I rise to Order. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in possession of the House.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT; But I rise to Order. [Renewed cries of "Order!"]
  MR SPEAKER: Until the right hon. and learned Gentleman says or does something out of Order I cannot interrupt him.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: You have not heard my point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir—[Interruption, and cries of "Name!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in Order.
  MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I have not had an opportunity to state my case. [Renewed cries of "Name!"]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is impossible to allow imputations made in such language to remain unanswered, and more especially as the hon. Member the other day made an imputation of that character in giving Notice of a Question which he said he would pursue—
  MR ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: In regard to what?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: An imputation of corruption upon the Suez Canal officers, to which a flat contradiction on the part of the Company, who were alleged—
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I rise to Order again. May I ask whether
  1538
  the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in Order in introducing this matter?
  MR SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must confine himself to the Question of which the hon. Member gave Notice.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, with reference to the Question of which the hon. Member gave Notice, I desire to answer it at once. I say that neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else instructed the Government Whips to mislead anybody on the subject, nor have they misled anybody. The hon. Member has said he took no pains to induce his Friends to be present last night.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Early. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, early. All I can say is that it appears to me that in the month of August that is an indiscreet course on the part of anybody wbe desires to form a House.
  MR ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: With reference to the statement made by the Home Secretary, I beg to give Notice, for his advantage, that I shall, on Monday, ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a number of Gentlemen on the Conservative side were distinctly told by the Government Whips on Friday, as well as on Thursday, that the Government intended to make a House last night. I can prove it.

  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to give Notice, with reference to a Notice which appears on the Paper this morning, that, before the Criminal Appeal Bill comes on, I shall ask the Attorney General whether in Grand Committee, an important extension of the Bill having been made, he did not say that he would loyally accept that decision; and, if so, why he has now put on the Paper a Notice to bring the Bill back to its original form?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I do not know whether that is a sort of imputation; but I never stated anything of the kind. I stated that for the purposes of that Committee I would accept that decision.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the Chief Secretary for Ireland answer the Question I addressed to him?
  MR TREVELYAN: I was under the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State

  1539
  for the Home Department was going to answer the hon. Member. It is absolutely impossible on this subject to give any information to the House.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what was to be the course of Business. In consequence of the "Count-out" yesterday there were now 13 Government Orders on the Paper, which was an arrangement which would not have been made had not the House fallen through last night. He wished to know which of these Orders it was intended to take, and how long it was proposed to keep the House sitting to-day?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that the Government did not mean to make any attempt to pass any of the Orders beyond the first six.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will none of the others be proceeded with?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that would depend on the desire of the House to transact Business. The information that the Government had was that most of the Orders were Orders which would not occupy a considerable time, and to which there would be no protracted opposition. He should hope that the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill, so far as the second reading was concerned, would not occupy much further time. As to the Scotch Agricultural Holdings Bill, there were not many Amendments to be considered, and he was told yesterday that there would not be any opposition to the Report on the Patents for Inventions Bill, and certainly not as regarded the Diseases Prevention (Metropolis) Bill. He hoped these measures would be disposed of by a reasonable time, so that the House would not be kept sitting to a late hour.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there was an understanding last Session, when they had Saturday Sittings, that the House should not be kept sitting to an unusually late hour, beyond 6 or 7 o'clock. He presumed they might anticipate a similar arrangement to-day, and that the Government, on passing the last of the Orders they meant to press, would move the adjournment of the House themselves.
  MR T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he yesterday made an appeal to the Prime Minister to exempt from the operation of his pledge the Labourers' (Ireland) Bill, the reasons he had submitted being—first, that the measure had passed a second reading without opposition; and, secondly, that the Government, raising no objection to the Bill, had wished to have some Amendments put in it, which Amendments, to the extent of a page and a-half, they had placed on the Paper and he had accepted. The Bill, therefore, though it was in his name, was practically a Government measure. In addition to this, the Amendments which had been laid on the Table by the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) had, he believed, been accepted. He wished to know whether the Government had any objection to the Bill being taken to-day if that course were assented to by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition?
  MR ANDERSONasked, whether it did not rest with the House, when an Order of this kind was called, to decide whether or not it was to be gone on with? No pledge could be properly given after what had already occurred.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, no pledge was given yesterday on this matter. The Prime Minister had asked for a Saturday Sitting only for the purpose of making progress with Government Bills. he (Sir William Harcourt) had nothing to add to what the right hon. Gentleman had said yesterday. With reference to what had fallen from the Leader of the Opposition as to naming an hour for the adjournment, it was obvious that there was a danger in doing that, as Gentlemen might speak with an eye upon the clock. It was not the desire of the Government to keep the House sitting to a late hour.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that the Patents for Inventions Bill would pass without opposition. There was, however, a page and a-half of Amendments to it, and some of them were of a controversial character; therefore, he hoped the Government would reconsider their decision on this point.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not say that the Bill would pass without opposition, but that there would not be a great deal of opposition to it.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANwished to to know whether the Government proposed to press on the fourth Order—the Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, they did.
  MR T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to imply that the Government had no objection to proceeding with the Bill he had mentioned to-day. Under the circumstances, he would ask whether the Leader of the Opposition would object to its being taken?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not know that he had any right to answer the Question. As the hon. Member had appealed to him, however, all he had to say was that they could not make a distinction between one Bill and another. A Saturday Sitting entailed a considerable sacrifice on the part of the House, and it was only allowed on the understanding that nothing but Government Business should be taken.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 155.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 155.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    MR ION HAMILTON, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, he was surprised that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not made any observations in explanation of the objects of the measure. The Bill bad passed through many vicissitudes. It was first introduced in 1876, framed upon the Report of the minority of the Select Committee which made an exhaustive inquiry into the subject of registration in 1874. The measure had been hurried through that House in 1880 in a manner which did more credit to the ingenuity of the Government than their fairness as public men; but, happily, it was thrown out in "another place." It was with some surprise, however, that they now saw the Government adopting this Bill at
    1542
    the close of another Session in which they had abandoned a measure for the reconstruction of the Constabulary, to which some importance was attached, because there was not sufficient time. Many Gentlemen interested in the present Bill, notably the two Members for the University of Dublin, were unavoidably absent. The tendency, if not the intended result, of this measure would be to make the appearance of a man's name on the Register primâ facie evidence of his right to vote. It was simply a measure for compulsory registration; and he was aware the Liberal Party believed that every man was a born politician, if not, that it was their duty to made him a politician. In the county he represented many men were very indifferent about having their names placed on the Register; this Bill would enable them to be registered without leaving their comfortable sofas or firesides. The privilege of being allowed to vote was worth seeking after; indeed, what was worth having was worth going to get. If the intention of the Government was to have people registered nolens volens, many would be placed on the Register in Ireland who would not cordially support even the policy of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan). They must look at the question in a broad light. These were days when they required to speak plainly. There was no doubt that the Bill, if passed, would place in far greater political power the Party represented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He (Mr. Ion Hamilton) and they were diametrically opposed in policy, and he should be sorry to see further power placed in their hands. If the Bill passed a second reading, he hoped it would not be proceeded with without due precautions being taken in Committee. It was, in his opinion, an ill-timed measure to remedy an entirely imaginary evil. It had been introduced as a concession and as a sop, he might say, to those promoters of change and agitation from whom the Government had taken this Bill, and he really thought they had, upon this occasion, taken their policy. He begged to move that the Bill be road a second time that day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Ion Hamilton.)

    1543
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could assure the hon. Member that he moved the second reading of this Bill silently, not out of want of respect to him, or those with whom he acted, but because he wished to ascertain the line of objection which was to be taken to it before he addressed the House. Now that he had heard those objections, and had found them similar to the arguments used against the Bill in previous years, he must own he had not yet perceived one argument put forward in either House which was founded on the principle of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman had commenced a sort of historical account of what passed in preceding years; and, arguing from the year 1880 to the present occasion, the hon. Gentleman had again complained of the lateness of the Session, and that the Government was now pushing forward a measure to which they had not seemed very favourable, and he had again described the Bill as a sop to the promoters of agitation. But these were not sufficient arguments to induce the House of Commons to reject the Bill, for which very grave reasons could be given. The hon. Gentleman adduced one argument which was greatly in favour with the opponents of all Reform Bills from the year 1832—he said this was a Bill for compulsory registration, and spoke about sofas and firesides and quiet gentlemen who were indifferent to registration. But the people they wanted to take part in the affairs of this country were the quiet business men—men who minded their own business well, and proved thereby that they could mind the business of the country. These were the men, however, who had not the time to run into the Registration Court at the bidding of every trifling objector; but these were the men who were always pointed out to the objectors. There was no doubt whatever that to the quiet voter, who simply wished to give his vote and nothing more, they would do an immense benefit by this Bill. But what injury would they do to the opposite party—the objector? Was it so very great a grievance that if one man wished to deprive another of his vote he should make out a case? If he could not prove his objection, then he showed
    1544
    that he was actuated by an unworthy motive, and desired to disfranchise that man because he belonged to the opposite Party. In that case the objector deserved no sympathy, and the passing of this Bill could make no grievance to him. The business of a good citizen was not to take trouble to secure his vote, but to take trouble to exercise it. It was the State which ought to take the trouble to give the man the right to vote, and that right to vote had been already given by Reform Bills passed by largo majorities through both Houses of Parliament—really he hoped the hon. Member would find some better argument; but the right of voting was nullified by a bad system of registration. A worse system of registration than that existing in Ireland it would be impossible to find. Any person in Ireland, without making any inquiry except whether his victims belonged to his own or the opposite Party, might, on the eve of the sitting of the Registration Court, make out 200 or 300 objections; and if he had 200 or 300 pence to buy postage stamps might put these objections, not to be always delivered to the persons, but to he at the office of the post town, while those persons, quite ignorant of what was going on, were being deprived of their right to vote. It was not even necessary he should be ignorant of the objection made to exclude him from the franchise. Take the case of a merchant or lawyer with a house at Howth or Malahide. If he did not wish to lose an entire day at the Registration Court he must lose his vote, to which he had as much right as to his house. Everthing which hampered and made registration expensive, encouraged intrigue and all the worst forms of political organization, and discouraged the best sort of political organization. Under such a system they gave a distinct advantage to a Party which was unscrupulous enough to make objections at random, and they placed at a distinct disadvantage a Party that was too scrupulous to take that course. Using no insinuation against any particular Party, he claimed that the present system in Ireland discouraged political purity. If they shifted the onus of proof from the voter to the objector, which was what this Bill mainly proposed, as in municipal elections, they did not necessarily give a vote to a single man who ought not to have it.

    1545
    Every valid objection would still be upheld. But hundreds and thousands of men would be saved from their present loss of citizenship, and from an immense amount of hardship and trouble which there was no right to inflict upon them. The hon. Gentleman said the time had come when they should speak out plainly. Undoubtedly that was the case; and now, and for some years to come, every man who wished to influence public opinion would have to speak his whole mind. This was not a question of giving strength to one Party or another, but of making genuine that which Parliament had long ago conceded as a right. In his opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, very great political good would be done by this Bill, because it would remove a genuine Irish grievance. Could any man believe that disaffection would be increased by giving to a few hundred men in every county facilities for recording their votes, which at present belonged to them as a right? On the contrary, he believed that petty injustice, such as this Bill was designed to prevent, stirred men to disaffection. On the responsibility of the Government he declared that this Bill would greatly strengthen the Executive in Ireland by their being able to show that an indisputable Irish grievance brought to Westminster, with English and Scotch Gentlemen sitting there, was redressed cheerfully and fully, and so as to leave no sense of wrong behind. As the Bill passed its second reading in 1879 and in 1880 without a Division, so he hoped it would pass without a Division to-day.
    MR J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had told them that the Executive Government in Ireland required strengthening—it was not necessary the House should be told that. But if the Government considered this measure one that was calculated to render easier the task they had in governing the country, why did not the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues take the House into their confidence at a more reasonable time of the Session? He was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman had somewhat tardily arrived at opinions with regard to what he termed arm-chair politicians. He told the House that he placed in that category quiet business men who attended to their own business, and who the Government thought it was desirable should enjoy
    1546
    the franchise. It was a curious thing that when some time ago hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House endeavoured to obtain facilities for quiet business men to exercise freely and easily the franchise, Her Majesty's Government put every obstacle in the way. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a class who nobody wished to exclude from the franchise. He (Mr. J. Lowther) was very curious to know what that enviable section of humanity could be. The right hon. Gentleman had described them as professional men resident in the suburbs of Dublin. Those suburbs, of late, had not been particularly enjoyable places of abode for professional men, or for any other persons. The right hon. Gentleman took upon himself to say on behalf, he (Mr. J. Lowther) presumed, of all the Representatives of Ireland, that there was no desire to exclude these persons from the Register. He hoped on this subject the right hon. Gentleman had had opportunities of more accurately making himself the representative of Irish popular opinion than he unfortunately had been able to do on many other points. The right hon. Gentleman charged hon. Members sitting on the Conservative side of the House with opposition to the Bill upon the ground that it would contribute largely to the representation of one particular Party in Ireland. He (Mr. J. Lowther) had always said that, in his opinion, the Party led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) were the Representatives of a large numerical majority of the people of Ireland. He had always said so notwithstanding the vehement contradictions he had encountered on the Treasury Bench—not from the Chief Secretary, who was too well acquainted with the condition of Ireland to denounce as a calumny that simple statement of fact. He did not know which Party in Ireland would be benefited by the change; but he thought, if a large number of new voters were put on the Register, the complexion would be found to be that which was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. The argument which had been addressed to the House had evidently failed to carry conviction to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and when the Division Bell rang he (Mr. J. Lowther) would feel obliged to withdraw from the House. The House of Commons, he hoped, would

    1547
    not accept the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman boldly laid down—namely, that any time in the Session was time enough to introduce a measure which Her Majesty's Government and their supporters desired. This was a largo alteration — he abstained from using the word reform—of the machinery governing registration in Ireland, which ought to be discussed in a full House. A Saturday's Sitting was deservedly far from popular in the House, and it had been promised that only non-contentious Business was to be taken on that day. Certainly that Bill could not be described as not being of a contentious character. Its importance to the country could hardly be overstated, and he hoped at this period of the Session the House would not read a Bill to which strong opposition was entertained by many Members from Ireland representing the most loyal portion of the community.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, that as one of the loyal section of the population of Ireland he gave the Bill his hearty support. He had suffered from the present unsatisfactory system. For the last two years he had been dragged from Dublin to Kingstown to prove his right to vote, although there was not the shadow of a reason for serving him with a notice of objection. It was done merely on the chance that his ordinary avocations would prevent him attending to defend his vote. Many Dublin gentlemen were in the same way kept waiting in a Court-house for hours, in order that they might substantiate their claim to be upon the Register. They claimed this Bill as a protection from the manœuvring of Party managers. He looked upon the Bill as an excellent one. It had had many fathers, and it must be an excellent child to have secured so large a parentage.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the Bill might have a very innocent appearance, and, looked at in itself, it was, perhaps, not open to many objections. But there was something very extraordinary in the action of the Government in this matter. As was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North. Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), if the Bill was so important for the convenience of voters in Ireland, why was it not introduced earlier in the Session? As a matter of fact, this was
    1548
    an attempt to resuscitate the Kilmainham Compact. This, taken in conjunction with the recent action of the Government in Irish matters, was an attempt to obtain the support of the Irish Party for Liberal measures. He trusted the Irish Party would not take the bait. The Government had alienated and disgusted public opinion in England and very largely in Scotland by their mistakes, and now they had to fall back upon the Irish Revolutionary Party What had been the result of their administration in Ireland? Mallow and Monaghan supplied the answer. He did not think the Government would, by their present course of action, gain anything in the long run, though with their usual blindness they still hoped that by throwing such sops as this Bill represented they might at a critical time—say at a General Election—purchase the Irish vote. He believed the Irish Party knew their power too well to permit themselves to fall into the trap which was being prepared for them. He hoped the House would reject the Bill.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he should support the Motion for the rejection of this wise Bill, which had so many fathers that it was difficult to know who its fathers were. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had spoken theoretically; but he had displayed great want of knowledge how the Bill would work. He had said that the Government had made up their minds that the Bill was absolutely necessary, that it would remedy a standing and acknowledged grievance, and that he relied upon it as one of those measures which would lead to the general pacification of Ireland. He (Colonel King-Harman), however, objected to the Bill, because it was badly framed, and would not carry out the object in view. As a matter of fact, it was a Bill for the promotion of wrongful claims and the creation of faggot votes. It was not right that frivolous objections should be made to a man who had a right and a wish to possess the franchise; but this Bill would really encourage frivolous claims. The Bill proposed that the claims should be made by the poor rate collectors; but he must point out to the House that the poor rate collectors in Ireland were very different persons from the overseers of the poor in England, who had to do with the

    1549
    making up of the Registers. The overseers were obliged to reside in the parish and were familiar with the status of all the inhabitants, while in Ireland the collectors need not reside in the baronies for which they collected, and had no knowledge of the majority of the householders. Then, again, the majority of the collectors were selected on purely political grounds, and there was every reason to believe that in the future that would continue to be the case. Therefore, the collectors would be elected because they supported a particular Party; and, consequently, he would say that when those men made a claim that certain persons should be placed upon the Register, they would do so as a rule because those persons would vote for the Party to which the collectors were attached. So far as he could see, the Bill would affect two distinct parties—those who were too idle, too lazy to take the trouble to claim their votes, and those who for obvious reasons in the present state of Ireland did not want to go on the Register, and did not want to have votes which they would be compelled to exercise by tyranny and not law. It was perfectly well known that there were men holding respectable positions in Ireland now who placed their houses in the names of their wives in order that they might not be on the Register or placed upon the Jury Lists at the risk of their lives. [Mr. HARRINGTON: To avoid payment of their debts.] Was it well, at the present time, to increase the number of Irish Members sitting below the Gangway whose chief claim to the suffrages of their constituents was that they were opposed to the Union of the Empire, and that they were, in point of fact, the chief champions of disorder in the country? This was not a time for disturbing the franchise, or any portion of the Irish Electorate. This was not a time to increase the opponents of law and to give a distinct triumph to the Party led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Were the Government so enamoured of that Party, after the experience of the other morning, when the vituperative speeches heaped upon the Chief Secretary compelled him to withdraw the Police Bill, that they must now introduce another Bill to strengthen that Party? If the Chief Secretary was desirous to bring in a Bill for the welfare of the people of Ire-
    1550
    land, why did the Government drop the Sunday Closing Bill, which was asked for and pressed for by nearly the whole of the people of Ireland? The Bill was brought in, he would not say by a trick, because that was not Parliamentary, but by a surprise. The Government were perfectly well aware that at this period of the Session the majority of the Conservative Members would be absent, and therefore they postponed bringing in the Bill; but, at the same time, they had no hesitation in postponing the Irish Estimates, because Irish Members were not present. It was the old story of doing anything and everything to gain the votes of hon. Members below the Gangway. It was the old story of sop and surrender. It was an effort on the part of the Government to get a supposed advantage by trying to please the Members below the Gangway, and to gain a few votes for Monday. If they passed this measure, they would do away with many Conservative Members, and the certain result of it would be that there would not be a Liberal Member left in Ireland. He had heard that hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway considered this Bill was directed against the county of Dublin. All he could say was that he was not one bit afraid. He stood there backed by the largest majority that had over sent a Representative to that House from the county of Dublin, and he ventured to predict that when the next General Election took place, if the Party that was opposed to law and order ventured to oppose him, he should be returned by a still larger majority. Yet he believed there were some constituencies that would be very deeply affected by this Bill, and that the ribald section would profit by it.
    MR MELDONsaid, he thought it was rather late in the day to discuss, in an argumentative manner, the principle of this Bill. Up to the present time, in previous Sessions, everything that had been done in connection with this Bill had been done unanimously, and without opposition or Division. In 1874 the system of registration of voters in Ireland being considered a public scandal, the matter was referred to a Select Committee. Two Reports were presented—one in favour of the principle of this Bill, and another, through the casting vote of the Chairman, to contest that principle. A Bill of one clause was in-

    1551
    troduced in 1877, 1878, and 1879, and was agreed to unanimously by the House, the Conservatives then in power not venturing to oppose it. Owing to the obstruction of one of the Members for Ireland, as far back as 1878, that Bill was not passed into law. A Bill precisely like the present one was introduced in the Session of 1880; but the Conservatives then did not venture to argue against its provisions. It passed the third reading without any opposition on the part of those Gentlemen who were now so emphatic in denouncing the same measure. The present system of registration in Ireland was one of the remaining great checks on the freedom of electors in that country. It was, no doubt, impossible in the county of Dublin, or in any other part of Ireland, to intimidate voters, or to prevent them recording their votes; but yet in the county of Dublin and in a few other constituencies where the Conservatives held sway in Ireland the grossest intimidation was practised. [Colonel KING-HARMAN: No, no!] In the county of Dublin a system of the grossest "Boycotting" took place—not to intimidate voters from giving their votes; but to intimidate highly respectable persons from putting their names on the Register.
    MR. ION HAMILTONasked whether the hon. Member could give an instance?
    MR. MELDONsaid, he could. In the township of Kingstown respectable tradesmen would not be dealt with if their names were on the Register.
    MR ION HAMILTONsaid, he must totally deny that statement.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that, at any rate, an explanation was required of the great difference which appeared between the names in the local directories and those on the Register.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he wished to express his acknwledgments to the Chief Secretary for having introduced this Bill. He regarded it as the thin end of the wedge of a system of Constitutional government for Ireland. He had no objection whatever to what was in the Bill; but there were serious omissions, which he should endeavour to fill up in Committee.
    MR. CORRYsaid, he objected to the Bill, because it was introduced at a time when it would do much to encourage
    1552
    the party of disorder. He did not think the Bill would make much difference in the strength of voters in Ireland; but that difference, even if it was only a slight increase of the popular party, would be unfortunate in the present condition of affairs in Ireland.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he warmly supported the Bill. He said that if they desired to have Ireland peaceable and orderly they must give the people of Ireland every opportunity of speaking Constitutionally, and of being represented Constitutionally, according to the desires of the people of Ireland, and in proportion to the population of that country. Irish Members who sat on the Conservative Benches were accustomed to boast of their loyalty. It was easy for them to be loyal. They had held a domination in that country which their numbers by no means justified. It had been necessary to deprive the great majority of the people of Ireland of their rights in order that the Members of the Irish Conservative Party should make a boast of their loyalty. He did not despair, even yet, if by steady steps Parliament proceeded in giving to the great mass of the Irish people their Constitutional rights, that in the end the Irish people would return to Constitutional courses. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] So far from poverty or disaffection being reasons for depriving people of their rights to representation in the House of Commons, he regarded them as the strongest reasons that could be urged why the Government should persevere in trying to confer upon the Irish people this and other rights of which, for a long period, they had been defrauded.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 17: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 257.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 251.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, The Lord Advocate.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 251.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to

    1553
    Question [3rd August], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Dalrymple.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word ' now' stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR WARTONsaid, that yesterday afternoon, when the hour arrived for the suspension of the Sitting, he was pointing out to the House the gross blundering way in which this Bill, and especially the Schedule of it, had been drawn. He had called attention to the thoroughly inaccurate, inconsistent, and absurd character of the Schedule, his object in doing so being to elicit an opinion from the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General for Scotland, because neither of those two much respected Gentlemen had spoken on the Bill. He thought if there was any responsibility for such a hash as this, these hon. and learned Gentlemen should have an opportunity of denying their participation in it. He did think it was hardly respectful to the House to put forward such a Bill as this, especially with such a Schedule, and that neither of these hon. and learned Gentlemen should address the House on the subject. He had thought yesterday of moving the adjournment of the debate in order to give the hon. and learned Gentlemen an opportunity of speaking on the Bill. He hoped that without such a course being taken they would take the opportunity to justify the Bill, which he heartily hoped was not theirs in any sense of the word.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he desired to explain in a very few words the reasons which induced him to give his support to the second reading of the Bill. It had been said that the principal object of the promoters of this Bill was to find a place for a distinguished and able supporter of Her Majesty's Government. He did not believe, however, that that was the case. He did not believe it was necessary to go so far afield to find a reason for the introduction of the Bill. He thought they had a very sufficient reason in the profound feeling of dissatisfaction which for some time past had been expressed on both
    1554
    sides of the House with regard to the way in which Scotch Business generally was carried on and administered in that House. Yesterday his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wig-town Burghs (Sir John Hay), as well as his hon. Friend the Member for Wigtownshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell), referred to the Report of Lord Camper-down's Commission, and triumphantly pointed to it as conclusively establishing their contention that the introduction of this Bill was wholly superfluous and unnecessary. But he must say it seemed to him, after a perusal of that Report, that his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) had no reason to congratulate himself. It appeared to him quite clear that, although Lord Camperdown and his Colleagues were satisfied that there was no great cause for complaint as to the way in which the Scotch Departments were administered generally, there was great room for improvement in regard to the way in which Business was conducted in that House. Those Commissioners were irresistibly forced to this conclusion by the evidence of two very competent witnesses—not one, as the right hon. and gallant Member said yesterday, but two unimpeachable Conservative witnesses—the late Sir William Stirling Maxwell and Mr. Nisbet Christopher Hamilton, as well as his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan), who spoke with considerable authority as having had practical experience of the great inconvenience resulting from the present system. The objections to the present system were not new. Complaints had been made at intervals from 1804 downwards, that by reason of the Lord Advocate and the Home Secretary being overworked, Scotch Business had fallen into arrears. Measures were brought in too late in the Session, and too late at night, so that the work was generally hurried, and very often stamped. He found that in 1804 the Lord Advocate of that day told the House of Commons that by reason of the abolition of various Departments of the State, the duties appertaining to those Departments had been concentrated in his person; and he went on to say that he believed he had given as many as 800 military opinions, and that the work of the Attorney General was as nothing compared to his. If that statement was true, having had some

    1555
    personal experience of the way the duties of the Attorney General in England were carried on, it appeard to him that the labours of the Lord Advocate must be prodigious indeed. He would remind the House that in June, 1858, just 25 years ago, a Motion was made on this subject in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), who, in moving that Resolution, animadverted very strongly on the neglect and mismanagement of Scotch Business in this House, owing to the multiplicity of duties with which the Lord Advocate was charged. What did Lord Palmerston say on that occasion? Lord Palmerston on that occasion, curiously enough, took up a line totally opposed to the line taken up by those who contended that the Lord Advocate was the Minister responsible for the conduct of Scottish Business in this House. Lord Palmerston, speaking, as he did, with the experience of a former Home Secretary, and therefore having been responsible himself for the conduct of Scottish Business in the House, observed that—
    "A great deal of Scottish Business never goes through the hands of the Lord Advocate at all. The Lord Advocate, I beg the House to understand, is only consulted by the Home Secretary, and has no greater authority than an individual giving advice."
    This was the interpretation put upon the duties of the Lord Advocate by one who was always acknowledged to be a competent authority on this matter. The Lord Advocate was only a subordinate Officer of the Home Secretary, who was virtually the Scotch Minister in this House. He should not object to this arrangement were the Home Secretary competent to undertake the duties of the Office; but they all knew, from the confession of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, that this was by no means the case. They all knew that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was overwhelmed with work, caused to a certain extent by the imposing of new duties, and it had been recently found necessary to appoint an Under Secretary of State for the Home Department. He thought the Scotch Department in that House was very much undermanned as compared with the Irish Department. Why should the Irish Department, as at present, be represented by a Chief Secretary and three ex-Chief
    1556
    Secretaries, by an Attorney General and an ex-Attorney General, whilst Scotland must content itself with a Lord Advocate and a Junior Lord of the Treasury? It was only by accident that they had the advantage of the presence of the Solicitor General for Scotland. One disadvantage resulting from the present system was that an ex-Lord Advocate very rarely found a place in that House. During the late or present Administration there had been no ex-Lord Advocate in the House. He was not astonished that the late Government should be opposed to this Bill, because it was only after six years tenure of Office, and when they were in in extremis, that they thought even of appointing a Junior Lord of the Treasury. The late Government made no Scotch appointments at all—stay, he was wrong in that state-merit; they made, at the outset of their career, the Member for Inverness-shire a groom. It was said they were anxious to have a Scotchman as a Minister; but that was not so. What they did want was not a Scotchman as a Minister, but a Minister for Scotland—and, provided he was a competent man, they did not care whether the Office was held by an Englishman, an Irishman, or a Scotch-man. And it did not signify what the name of such Minister might be; they did not care whether he was termed Chief Secretary, like the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or a Secretary of State, or President of a Local Government Board, so long as he spoke with a weight and authority which even the present Lord Advocate—and the present Lord Advocate was as good as the best—could not possibly pretend to. They had only to look back to what took place yesterday week in this House. Nothing more ridiculous could be conceived than what then occurred, to see the way in which Scotch Business was regarded. On that occasion they found the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) button-holing the Prime Minister, who was assuring him it was the wish of the House to put aside the Bill that stood next on the Paper—the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill—and take the one following it, which related to England; there was the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who though not a Scotch Member was a Scotchman, rushing frantically about in the House imparting advice and consola-

    1557
    tion; and lastly, the Lord Advocate endeavouring, as well as he could, to make matters pleasant all round. By this Bill they would escape all that; and it was with the view of escaping all that, or in order to have Scotch Business fairly transacted in this House, that he advocated the passing of this Bill. He had only one word to say in conclusion. He, to a certain extent, agreed with what yesterday fell from his hon. Friend the Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple). The Scotch Members might expect great advantages from the passing of the Bill; but they must, to a certain extent, rely upon themselves. They must really show some power of self-assertion in that House, and make their opinions more felt. They must show that they had some backbone. They grumbled too much in the Lobby, and their voices were too seldom heard in that House. Their distinguishing characteristics as Scottish Members were meekness and modesty — qualities excellent in their way, but qualities which, he was sorry to say, were not much appreciated in the British House of Parliament. Only conceive the power which 45 resolute men might wield! Only conceive what they might do by putting a little pressure on the Government — in other words, by making themselves occasionally a little more troublesome, even at the risk of being dubbed "Obstructionists!" If they did this there would be no necessity even for doing what the hon. Member for Buteshire objected to — namely, hawking Petitions about for signature in the Lobby. Although much might be expected from this Bill, and although he would give his heartiest support to it, he thought they should do a great deal more by occasionally relying upon themselves.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought that in a matter of such importance as the entire re-organization of the conduct of Scottish Business, the English Members were entitled to say a few words. He wished to inquire from the Government what was the real object of the Bill, because it had not hitherto been explained? The hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken had complained that Scotland was not so well represented in that House as Ireland. He did not think Scotland could be put on the same footing as Ireland, because the government of Scotland was
    1558
    remarkably good and orderly, and the state of Ireland had not given equal satisfaction. Why had the Lord Advocate not yet favoured the House with any remarks on the subject? Surely there was no authority in the House so eminent as the Lord Advocate; he was by common consent one of the best Lord Advocates who had ever sat in that House; and when they were about to disestablish him, he thought they ought to find out from himself how far he concurred in this measure, which he thought would be derogatory to the high position the occupant of his Office had always held in that House. He should be glad to hear from the Government that this Bill was not intended to be in any shape a reward for the Mid Lothian Election. There was a certain noble Lord who, it was well known, was very instrumental in bringing about the result of that Election; who, it was said, had contributed a good deal to the manufacture of faggot votes; and who declared, either before or during the election, that he had been under the wand of the enchanter. It now seemed that the wand of the enchanter was about to create a place under the Crown which would just suit the noble Lord. He did not think when Parliament met that it was ever intended to bring in a Bill of this magnitude. It was not brought in until the noble Lord resigned the Office of Under Secretary of State. As soon as the noble Lord was elbowed civilly out of that place by the Home Secretary, who was united with him in ties of personal affection, that personal affection developed itself in the production of the present Bill, which was to place the noble Lord, or whoever might be appointed, in the Cabinet. The only way in which the noble Lord could be placed in the Cabinet, without offending the claims of his rivals, was that he should be specially connected with Scotch Business. He would ask the Lord Advocate whether he would kindly give the House a little information, which had been denied them by the Home Secretary, as to the functions and staff of this new Officer? It was said there was to be no staff, except what was to be made hereafter. There was no Vote taken for the composition of the new Department. The President was to have a salary of £2,000 a year, and that apparently was all he had to receive,

    1559
    There was to be no Private Secretary, no clerks, and no officers, except such as he could hew out of the existing Departments. He understood there were about 11 Boards in Scotland which performed the different functions of government, and the President of the new Department was to be charged with duties which were now discharged by the Secretary of State under 30 different Acts of Parliament, all of which embraced the highest and most important functions of government. In the discharge of all this the noble Lord, or whoever might be appointed, was not even to have the assistance of a clerk. Then they were told that the new Minister was to form his Department out of the existing Boards in Scotland. He supposed that meant that on the verge of a General Election he was to be allowed to manipulate these Boards, to take those officers who might be useful, and dismiss those who were not obedient to himself. They all knew the capabilities of the noble Lord, and they were called upon not only to give him a place, but to bring in an Act of Parliament which would enable the Prime Minister to reward his particular supporter. He thought they ought to know how far this noble Lord was to be allowed to manipulate the Departments in Scotland, and how far he intended to reduce them or increase them. He contended that on the verge of a General Election it was most monstrous and dangerous to confer powers of this kind on a noble Lord whose antecedents were so well known—
    MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is in Order in making the allusions he has done while discussing this Bill?
    MR SPEAKER: The hon. Member is assuming that a certain appointment is to be made under this Bill. Whether he is correct or not in the assumption, I do not know.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the hon. Member for Edinburgh was very fond of calling other hon. Members to Order; but he should wait to gain a little more experience before pursuing that hobby. In his (Sir H. Drummond Wolff's) opinion, the only object of the Bill was to provide a place for the noble Lord; and in the face of the Corrupt Practices Bill, it was somewhat sur-
    1560
    prising to see this performance on the part of the Government. One Scottish Peer who dabbled in the Mid Lothian. Election was made an English Peer; another noble Lord was immediately rewarded by the manufacture of a new place, which was not foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech, and which was only provided for the noble Lord after the terrible disaster which occurred a few weeks ago. On that account he wished to appeal to the Home Secretary whether he would continue to countenance such proceedings? He did not think that this kind of reward should come from the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, and should be ratified by an Act passed in that House. For these reasons he wished to give every opposition to the Bill now before them, in the hopes that it might be more considered, and that in Committee it should be specified what were to be the functions of the noble Lord; what Departments he was to deal with, what rights he should possess to create new offices or abolish old ones; and they should have it all cut and dry, so that they might not see all the Boards in Scotland manipulated in the interests of one particular Party.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would have been glad had the Bill passed the second reading yesterday. It seemed to him that there had been very little argument against this Bill. All that had been said against it was in the nature of invective, and the argument of the opponents of the measure was that it was a Bill of the Government, and, therefore, they did not like it. The hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) seemed to him to add rather too much argument to his humorous speech. He proved conclusively three things—first, that no change was wanted, and that the present arrangement was perfectly satisfactorily; secondly, he proved that what was wanted was an Under Secretary—that was the real thing, and nothing more; and, in the third place, he proved clearly that no body in Scotland would be satisfied unless they got a Secretary of State. The hon. Member had proved by overwhelming argument these three things; but, like the omnibuses trying to get through Temple Bar together, it seemed to him that these three things proved by the hon. Member had rather jostled one another.
    MR. DALRYMPLE: These were the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire on the other side of the House.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, his impression was that this proposal of the Government was a happy compromise between an Under Secretary, which was too little, and a Secretary of State, which, he thought, was too much, and which they were not likely to got. He believed the President of the Local Government Board for Scotland would be a very useful institution; and, though he would occupy that position which it was right and proper a Minister for Scotland should occupy, he would not necessarily be in the Cabinet, nor would he necessarily be excluded from the Cabinet. As he understood the Office, judging by the analogy of the Offices of like salary and position—such as the President of the Local Government Board of England, the Vice President of Education, the Postmaster General, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and several other Offices—it was an Office held under the Government; but the President would not necessarily be in the Cabinet. He, however, hoped that on the present occasion the Office might be held by a Gentleman who might not improbably be a Member of the Cabinet. It was suggested that the proposed change was derogatory to the great Office of the Lord Advocate, and that it was not necessary that the change should take place when that Office was so well filled. He entirely differed from that view. It would not be a derogation from the position of the Lord Advocate; but it would put that Office on a much more dignified footing than it at present occupied. No doubt, the change would take away some of the duties that were now performed by the Lord Advocate; but he thought that Officer would hold a much more dignified position, as a Minister of Justice for Scotland, when he was freed from the somewhat humiliating function of acting merely as the subordinate of the Home Secretary in regard to certain matters which did not concern his Department. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) was possessed with the idea that this was a horrible advance in the direction of Homo Rule—
    MR. WEBSTER: The Member for Aberdeenshire.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Well, the Member for Aberdeenshire—
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: The Member for East Aberdeenshire.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire seemed afraid that the proposed change was going in the direction of Home Rule. He (Sir George Campbell) thought they had too much centralization already. In this Government they had centralized too much. It might be he was wrong; but if his hon. Friend would succeed in sweeping away the broad distinctions which now distinguished Scotland from the other parts of the United Kingdom, if he succeeded in abolishing the Churches of England and Scotland, and in fusing the laws of the two countries into one great Code, in which predominance would be given to the law of Scotland, on account of its intrinsic merit, why, in that case, if the hon. and gallant Member thought proper to vote for more complete centralization, he might have an arguable case; but extreme centralization was not successful, and he did not attribute great weight to the argument of the hon. and gallant Member that this Bill was in favour of Home Rule. It seemed to him that they did want a Local Government Board in Scotland which could perform the functions of the Local Government Board in England, and a good deal besides. They had been told that in Scotland they had no Poor Law worthy of the name, and no Sanitary Authority worthy of the name. He could not admit it; but that was the very strongest argument they could have for the new Department, which would be capable of giving Scotland the benefits of a good Poor Law and Sanitary system, and many other good things. The proposition of the Government was an extremely good one—it was a jests milieu, and gave Scotland neither too much nor too little. Although he generally approved of the present Bill, he thought there was one thing wanting, and that was a more complete inside, as it were, to the Bill. He thoroughly approved of the objects and principles of the Bill; but he thought something more was wanted in the shape of detail. He would like to know from the Government what was to be the position of the President of the new Local Government Board? It seemed to him necessary that the new Board should be

    1563
    amalgamated with the old Boards. If this was not so, he did not think the new Officer would have enough work to justify his appointment and the salary that he was to draw. If the new Officer was only to be a kind of cherub sitting up aloft and looking down upon the local Boards his time would not be sufficiently occupied, and there would not be sufficient justification for giving him this high salary. His principal object in rising was to express a strong hope that when they got into Committee the Government would see their way to propose conditions under which they should be saved the necessity of having another Bill to occupy the time of the House next Session. He hoped the President of the new Board would concentrate in himself the general superintendence of the administration of the different Boards in Scotland; that he would be ex officio the Chairman of these Boards. He would then have amply sufficient work to occupy him, while he would be responsible to Parliament, either in the House of Commons or in the other House, for the functions which these Boards exercised. He hoped the Bill would be brought to maturity in a shape that would work well.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTasked if the Home Secretary or some other Member of the Government would give the House some idea of whatthe new Office was intended for? He found from the Schedule that four Departments would be amalgamated in the new Office. There would be the business now done by the Local Government Board, the business of the Home Office, the business of the Privy Council, and certain duties now undertaken in the Office of the Board of Works. A very large staff would be required to undertake all this work. It had been suggested by many hon. Members who spoke in favour of the Bill that it would be necessary to have an office in Edinburgh as well as in London, and he was of opinion that it would be necessary to have two offices. The Bill ought not to pass a second reading until the House should receive some idea what the Imperial Exchequer would have to pay
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am out of Order in speaking again; but I need not infringe the Rule. It is a question of general arrangement of Offices, and I am asked a question with
    1564
    respect to payment. That question does not belong to me. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire asked the same question yesterday, and I gave the only answer I could.
    MR. GORST: I rise to Order. I wish to know if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in Order in speaking twice?
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he objected to the Bill on general grounds. He objected to it, in the first place, because it was distinctly a Separatist's Bill. It was calculated to render Scotland more separate and more distinct from England. It was going back to old times; it was undoing all the good which several centuries of intercourse and union between the two countries had effected. The Bill was wholly uncalled for. The Government had convulsed Ireland; but there was no reason why they should convulse Scotland too. Why should they not let alone the Scotch people, who were happy, peaceful, contented, and orderly, and who made no demand for this Bill? He believed, if the hon. Members on the other side of the House were polled, independent of Party, a great majority would be found to vote against the Bill. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) objected to the Bill, because it was a sort of reward for electioneering services. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) would not go so far as that. He admitted that the conjuction of conditions was extremely suspicious. He admitted that the peculiar events in Mid Lothian gave rise to some natural reflections on the Bill, and there was very little doubt that it was introduced for the purpose of giving anOffice to acertain noble Lord. [Geueral Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: No.] He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) did not accept the denial of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He did not believe the Bill would ever have been heard of had it not been for the fact that for some reason or other it was thought desirable to find a more suitable and higher Office for the noble Lord. Therefore, the relations which subsisted between the noble Lord and the Prime Minister were suspicious. There was another point to which he desired to draw attention, and that was the patronage which the Bill would give to whoever was appointed to the position. That was a question which was making way, unfortunately, in this

    1565
    country. The disposition of patronage for Party services was one which was corrupting and ruining the Government of the United States and the Government of France. [Mr. BUCHANAN: Question!] He was not departing from the Question. He wished to point out the mischievous effect of Government patronage by the high Officers of the State. Assuming that a large amount of patronage was about to be given which had never been enjoyed before by an Officer of the State, he contended that it was a most dangerous and unfortunate precedent, which would have a tendency to carry this country onward in the direction of injurious Democracy. He objected to it on three grounds—because of its separatist tendency, because of its suspicious aspect with respect to electioneering affairs, and because it was dangerous to give Government such power of patronage.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he gathered from the fact of the Lord Advocate not rising to address the House, after the observations addressed to him, and the claim made upon him by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, as the principal Member of the Government responsible for the affairs of Scotland, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been muzzled—["No, no!"]—and had received orders from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that he was not to favour them with his views on the matter. Something had been said about the position of the Lord Advocate being humiliated by this Bill; but he thought his position was more humiliated by the Home Secretary walking in and out of the House exercising a crontrol over the debate, and obviously preventing the Lord Advocate from addressing the House, and from giving the House that which it was entitled to have from him—namely, his experiences of the Office he held and his opinion upon the present Bill. It was apparently intended to collect all the different Departments of Government in Scotland—all those Boards and subordinate officials who at present attended to the affairs of Scotland—and put them all in one room, and place the noble Lord, who was a Member of the House of Lords, over their heads. What they wanted to know from the Lord Advocate was how that would work? He understood there were certain clerks in the Home Office
    1566
    who attended to Scotch Business; there were certain clerks in the Local Government Board Office who attended to Scotch Business; and there were, no doubt, clerks in the Privy Council who also attended to Scotch Business. [Mr. BUCHANAN: No.] Well, if it was not so, that was what he wanted to know from the Lord Advocate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh was very fond of interrupting speakers; but did he assist them in their deliberations? With great deference to the hon. Member, he should like to be informed by the Lord Advocate in what Departments there were clerks who attended to Scotch Business, and from what Departments these clerks would be taken for the purpose of forming the staff of the Local Government Board Office? He wanted to know whether that would increase or not the charge on the Public Revenue? It was quite conceivable that the present clerks might be able to conduct the affairs of Scotland more economically than if they were devoted exclusively to Scotch Business in the Scotch Department that was to be created. They wanted to know whether this arrangement would conduce to economy, and whether Scotch Business would be conducted more efficiently under the new arrangement than at present? He thought before the House of Commons was asked to create a new Department, with all the expenses attending it, that they were entitled to be informed by the Government on the points he had raised. It ought not to be the case that they should see the Members of the Government silent on the Treasury Bench, apparently listening to the debate, but when asked to give their advice continuing to sit in stolid silence. He confessed to a feeling of disappointment and indignation at the apparent contempt with which the Lord Advocate had treated the House; and unless he made some answer to the arguments that had been urged in the course of the debate, he (Mr. Gorst) should feel it his duty to resist the second reading of the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 21: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 258.)
    Main Question again proposed.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place,

    1567
    and he would address to him the questions which had vainly been put to the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate. Nobody wished to be too hard on a Government which was inclined to perpetrate a little job of this kind. It was natural that they should do so, and nobody wished to deprive them of the opportunity of doing so. But these kind of jobs ought to be perpetrated with some sort of regard to Parliamentary decorum. They should be done with a certain amount of plausibility in the House of Commons, and the ease ought to be put by a Minister carefully and seriously, and not in the off-hand and contemptuous manner in which the Bill was placed before the House by the Home Secretary. Therefore, as he saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer now on the Government Bench, and apparently in charge at the present time of Government Business, and as he knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a desire to observe Parliamentary decorum, he would address to the right hon. Gentleman the questions he had unsuccessfully addressed to the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate. The Home Secretary, because he would not, and the Lord Advocate, because he was obviously prevented, had not answered the questions addressed to them, and both of them had now left the House, and hon. Members had no opportunity of repeating their questions to them. What he wanted to know was this. It was quite clear that the appointment of this Minister would render necessary a considerable amount of re-organization in several of the Departments of State—they did not quite know what. The Home Office was one; the Privy Council was, undoubtedly, another; and most people thought that the Local Government Board was a third; but the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), who knew all about it, said no. The first question he had to ask was in how many Departments of the Government would the re-organization of the clerks and permanent staff be necessary? That was a fair question to ask, and it was one to which they ought to have an answer. The second question he would ask was whether the alterations that would take place, or the transferrence of these clerks from the several Departments of the Government into the one Central Department of the President of
    1568
    the Local Government Board for Scotland, would entail any great amount of increased expense upon the taxpayers, and, if so, how much? They had not been told that. They had been invited by the Home Secretary to settle that there should be a President of the Local Government Board for Scotland, and that his salary should be fixed, without anything being said about the further expenditure that would follow. Before they assented to the second reading of the Bill they ought to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if not from the Home Secretary, some kind of explanation as to what amount of expense this re - organization of these Public Departments was likely to entail. He said, again, that when these kind of Bills, when these sort of things, were brought in, they must be brought in with a certain amount of Parliamentary decorum, and one essential part of that Parliamentary decorum was that when questions of the nature he had asked were put, the Government should condescend to give an answer.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThe rather unusual form of procrastination which—
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Sir, I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the Home Secretary, having spoken on the second reading of this Bill, is entitled to reply or not?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is another Motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: There is a new Question before the House, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly entitled to reply.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am astonished that my hon. Friend should have sat so long in this House without knowing that we have entered upon a new Question. The remark I made was that when an Amendment of this kind had been moved—
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFThere is no Amendment before the House.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, although I have known a second Division to be taken on the Main Question, I have hardly ever known a debate endeavoured to be raised in this form. However, having entered my protest against such a proceeding upon a Saturday, I will, as briefly as I can, endeavour to answer the questions of the hon. and

    1569
    learned Member (Mr. Gorst). I gave the whole of the information to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) yesterday that I was in a position to give, or that I could give. I will not allude to all the personalities, which are a question of taste, that have been indulged in with reference to the speculations as to who is or who is not to be the holder of the proposed Office—such language as "jobs," or such language as that of the personal invective and abuse which has been heaped by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) upon Lord Rosebery. These are things which it is better to treat with disdain. I shall not make any reply to them, because it is quite certain that the good taste of this House and the feeling of England and Scotland will give them the only answer that they deserve, and I pass them by with that remark. Well, now, with reference to the staff of this Office. I said yesterday that I do not believe that any considerable staff will be necessary. No Estimate has been made—[Opposition cheers.]—of the cost of that staff. [Renewed Opposition cheers.] I always think it is well that you should allow a person to finish a sentence before you cheer. The hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) cheers loudly the statement that no Estimate has been made, and I hope he will also applaud the reason which I am going to give for that, and which would have been given in the sentence I had commenced if I had been allowed to conclude it. We believe that in the organization already existing in Scotland will be found material for a sufficient staff; and therefore our expectation is that the staff of this Office shall not be an additional charge on the country. That may or may not be the case; but if it is not so, it is quite certain that Parliament will have the control over it, because no addition to the staff can be made without application to Parliament, which will have the power of pronouncing an opinion upon it. That is really the explanation I gave yesterday, and I have nothing more to add to it. It is not the least necessary, as some hon. Members said yesterday, that the existing institutions in Scotland should be ruined and destroyed in consequence of the present proposal. Nobody desires to ruin them; nobody desires to destroy them. I be-
    1570
    lieve that most people who are acquainted with Scotland think that a more economical administration, by amalgamation or otherwise, of these Boards is quite feasible. At all events, that is a question which is well worthy of consideration. That really is the answer I have to give upon that matter; and I do not know that there is any other question on which it is necessary I should say anything further. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) said something as to how many Departments would be affected. Anybody can tell that by looking at the Schedule of the Bill. They will be affected in the way of being relieved of work which they at present perform. I am sure nobody objects to that. The Home Office certainly does not object. In a certain sense this Bill is an act of abdication on my part. I am not at all sorry that there should come relief to the Home Office of some of the labours imposed upon it.
    MR. GORST: Will the Office of the Local Government Board be affected?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member should ask that question, because anybody who knows anything on the subject knows that the Local Government Board have no authority in Scotland at all. By an unfortunate accident, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) is quite familiar, the Board did, by his oversight, recently have the control of some money in which Scotland was interested; and anybody who had experience of that error would not be likely to commit it again—because he would have impressed upon his mind the Scotch motto, Nemo me impune lacessit. Familiar as I am with that fact, I am surprised at the question that has been put to me by the hon. Member. I am reminded by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) that the question of the Alkali Acts is an exception to the rule; and I apologize to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham for having overlooked the case of these Acts. Probably we shall hear something of these Acts when we come to Committee. However, whatever Office is affected by the Bill will be affected only in the way of relief by having another Department to take charge of local matters, which had hitherto been dealt with in those Departments.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been good enough to allude to him, and to say that he had made use of invective towards Lord Rosebery. But it was very clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in his place when he spoke. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I was.] Well, all he said was that Lord Rosebery had assisted in the Mid Lothian Election, and would do so again, and that the intention of the Government in passing this Bill was to place in his hands the power of manipulating Scotch elections. That was not invective. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his lofty manner, had twitted the hon. and learned Member for Chatham with not knowing what was in the Bill, and said that there could be no reference in it to the English Local Government Board. If so, why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduce the English Local Government Board into the Bill? If this was an instance of the correctness of the answers of the Home Secretary, what were they to think when he talked about the low Estimates and the inexpensive manner in which this peculiar—he would not call it a job—this peculiar Office was to be administered? Why was the Bill introduced at this period of the Session, if the design was not to smuggle it through both Houses when many of the Members had gone away? It was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and was never hinted at till June; and no Estimates on the subject were contained in the Budget. Scotland had waited long enough, and was quite satisfied with the Lord Advocate, who had been hustled aside by this Bill, and had not been allowed to say one word about it. If there was a Division, he should vote against the Bill; and he should endeavour in Committee to give it a colouring which would take away many of its offensive features.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved that the Bill be referred to a Select
    1572
    Committee. He did so because the House had not been given the information which was necessary in view of so important a change. He reminded the Home Secretary that he asked him yesterday why he had introduced into the Bill the Education Act for Scotland as one of the measures which were to be administered by the new Board, while in the speech by which the Bill was introduced it was distinctly stated that the Education Act was not to come under the new arrangement. The Home Secretary had declined to tell him why that Act was to be transferred to the new Board. The same remark applied to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. Having been refused any explanation, he wished the House to ascertain for itself whether the new arrangement would entail expenses.
    MR WARTONseconded the Motion.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire was a most satisfactory one. They had already had one Commission — Lord Camper-down's Commission—which had investigated the matter, and that Commission had pointed out that it was unnecessary. They were about to alter the management of the Business of Scotland, and they were about to do so without knowing exactly what the new arrangements were to be. The Office to be created had no staff, no office, and they did not know what arrangements were to be made. In view of the Motion he would take the liberty of reading a few words from a letter from a late Member of the House—Mr. Maxwell of Munches—who sat on the other side of the House. That Gentleman pointed very strongly to further investigation being required; and as he was a person well acquainted with Scotch Business his views might fairly be placed before the House. Mr. Maxwell wrote—
    "I never could see the necessity of a special Minister for Scotland. In old times we got on

    1573
    very well with the Lord Advocate and a Scotch Lord of the Treasury. Why that latter Office was given up I know not; but if that Office was revived I would consider it was quite sufficient for anything that was needed. The Lord Advocate's position has of late years been quite changed—I should suppose with no advantage—and in spite of the 6th clause it will, if the Bill passes, be still further altered so as to make him solely a Law Officer. I will be curious to have an explanation of that clause. Another objection in my mind is that the Bill will tend still further to centralization. Everything will go to London, and the few remaining well-managed Offices in Edinburgh will be given up."
    That was sent by the Gentleman who was Convener of the county with which he was connected, and in regard to that he said—
    "It seems to me a most important measure, and not one which I can look to with favour. There are difficulties in getting an attendance at a county meeting at this season, otherwise I should have liked to have had that carefully considered."
    It was desirable that a measure of this kind should be submitted to the Commissioners of Supply in the different counties of Scotland, so that their view upon it might be taken. The suggestion now made was a reasonable one. It would cause a slight delay during the autumn; but the Government would come back with the force of the October meetings of the Commissioners of Supply, and the opinion of the House of Commons could then be taken in the matter. In the two counties with which he was connected—Wigton and Kirkcudbright — there was no opinion in favour of the Bill; and he therefore thought he was justified in the opposition which he had offered to the Bill, and in the support which he now gave to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I must congratulate the opponents of this Bill that, though a small band, they are a gallant one. Resistance is offered in every form, and repeated at every stage. We read in "Chevy Chase" that an English champion, "when his limbs were smitten off he fought them on his stumps." Certainly, the Scotch champions, though few in number, exhibit in their opposition to this Bill an equal gallantry. The right hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir John Hay) is good enough to wish to strengthen the hands of the Government by the opinion of the Commissioners of Sup-
    1574
    ply, who are to meet in October. I have the greatest respect for the Commissioners of Supply; but the Government do not think it necessary to wish for their support. They are quite satisfied with the support of the overwhelming majority of the Representatives of Scotch opinion that they have received. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is good enough to say that in his part of Scotland there is no feeling in favour of the Bill. His county is not very far distant from Ayrshire, and we have had distinguished support to the Bill from Ayrshire on the Benches opposite. If the opinion in favour of this Bill is a contagious disease I hope it may pass the borders of Ayrshire, and even reach the remote quarters of Wigton-shire before very long. With regard to the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, I do not suppose that my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon) seriously thinks that we could accede to it. It is only a repetition of the proposition to reject the Bill. [Sir ALEXANDER GORDON: No!] Well, we regard it in that light, and I think the House will so regard it. My hon. and gallant Friend has not looked at the Schedule of the Bill, or he would not have fallen into the error of supposing that it transferred the Education Act to the new Board. It does nothing of the kind. It only refers to the powers and duties of the Secretary of State in reference to the Education Act. The Secretary of State has no power or duty under the Education Act, except as regards industrial schools and reformatories. That power it does transfer, and I think in Committee it may very well deserve consideration whether or not the parts referring to industrial and reformatory schools should not be struck out of the Schedule. I hope that, under these circumstances, and after the signal Division we have had, it will not be thought necessary to divide the House on this matter. We should have precisely the same Division over again. I do not know how many Scotch Members were in the minority in the Division we have had; but I think that hon. Members should be satisfied that the overwhelming majority in the House is in favour of this Bill going on, and going on now.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONexplained, that if the Home Secretary had

    1575
    given him that answer yesterday it would not have been necessary for him to move for a Select Committee. Having, however, now heard that explanation of the Home Secretary, he begged to withdraw his Amendment for the appointment of a Select Committee.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill committed for Monday next.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL. 278.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL. 278.]

    CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for The LORD ADVOCATE)moved the following new Clause to follow Clause 26:—
    (Tenants to be removed only at legal terms—(43 Vic. c. 12.)
    "In any case in which the landlord's right of hypothec for the rent has ceased and determined, where six months' rent of the holding is due and unpaid, it shall be lawful to the landlord to raise an action of removing before the sheriff against the tenant, concluding for his removal from the holding at the term of Whitsunday or Martinmas next ensuing after the action is brought, and unless the rent is paid the sheriff may decree the tenant to remove, and eject him at said term in the same manner as if the lease were determined, and the tenant had been legally warned to remove.
    "A tenant so removed shall have the rights of an outgoing tenant to which he would have been entitled if his lease had naturally expired at said term of Whitsunday or Martinmas.
    "The second and third sections of 'The Hypothec Abolition (Scotland) Act, 1880,' are hereby repealed, and the provisions of the fifth section of the Act of Sederunt anent Removing of the fourteenth day of December one thousand seven hundred and fifty-six shall not apply in any case in which the procedure under this section is competent."
    New Clause (Sir Charles W. Dilke) brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read the second time."
    MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he hoped that the Lord Advocate would give some explanation of this clause, which modified very considerably the Hypothec Abolition Act of 1880.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that this clause had been introduced in fulfilment of a pledge given in Committee. It was then ex-
    1576
    plained by the Solicitor General that there had been a good deal of dissatisfaction in the agricultural community, arising out of the provisions of what was commonly called the Act of Sederunt of 1756, taken in combination with the Hypothec Abolition Act, 1880. Although the Act of Sederunt had not itself' any relation to hypothec, when the Act of 1880 was passed, abolishing entirely hypothec for the future, but reserving it as to existing leases, provisions were introduced intended to give to the landlord certain rights as to the removal of the tenant in consideration of his being deprived of the security which he had previously held under the Law of Hypothec. It was pointed out by many of the farmers and those who represented their interests that, under the combined effect of the Act of Sederunt and the Act of 1880, it might be possible that the tenant should be removed from his holding between terms. He had not been able to ascertain that such a thing had, in point of fact, taken place. Still, it was strongly felt to be possible, and that it would be a considerable hardship to a tenant, without its being, as far as one could see, in the general case, any advantage to the landlord. This clause had been framed for the purpose of providing that any removing of a tenant in consequence of his failure to comply with the conditions of his tenancy should only be at one of the legal terms of Whitsunday and Martinmas. The clause also reserved to the tenant the power of finding security as an alternative to going out.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Amendments made in Clause 4, page 2, line 33, after "improvement," by inserting—
    "Or not exceeding such annual sum, payable for a period of twenty-five years, as will repay such outlay, with interest at the rate of three per centum per annum in the said period;"
    Clause 17, page 6, line 29, after "awarded," by inserting "and the several matters and things taken into account in reduction of such compensation;" page 6, line 32, after "act," by inserting "matter;" Clause 24, page 8, line 21, after "executing," by inserting "and registering in the register of sasines;

    1577
    page 8, line 23, by leaving out "think fit," and inserting "determine;" page 8, line 24, by leaving out from "be," to "of a," and inserting "has only a leasehold interest in;" page 8, line 24, by leaving out "intimating," and inserting "and registering in the register of sasines;" page 8, line 27, by leaving out "think fit," and inserting "determine;" page 8, line 30, after "shall," by inserting by such bond and disposition in security or assignation; page 8, line 34, after "the," by leaving out "opinion," and inserting "judgment;" page 8, line 36, after "exhausted," by inserting—
    "And such bond and disposition in security or assignation shall specify the times at which the total amount charged and each instalment thereof shall be payable;"
    Clause 26, page 9, line 11, by leaving out from "landlord," to "the," in line 12, and inserting "has only a leasehold interest in."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 9, line 14, to leave out after the word "notwithstanding," to the word "Act," in line 22, inclusive, and insert the words "the expiration of the stipulated endurance of any lease, the tenancy shall not come to an end unless written notice has been given by either party to the other of his intention to bringing the tenancy to an end—

    (a.) In the case of leases for three years and upwards, not less than two years, nor more than three years, before the termination of the lease;

    (b.) In the case of leases from year to year, or for any other period less than three years, not less than six months before the termination of the lease.

    "Failing such notice by either party the lease shall be held to be renewed by tacit relocation for another year, and thereafter from year to year.
    (16 and 17 Vic. c. 80.)
    "Notice by the landlord to the tenant under this section shall be given in the form and manner prescribed by "The Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1853," and shall come in place of the notice required by the said Act."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MACFARLANE, who had given Notice to add to the clause the words—
    "And where a forty days' notice, expiring with a year of a tenancy, is by Law necessary and sufficient for determination of a tenancy from year to year, a six months' notice so ex-
    1578
    piring shall, by virtue of this Act, be necessary,"
    proceeded to refer to the evidence given before the Royal Commission by the local factor of the Duke of Sutherland.
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that the hon. Member raises any objection to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate.
    MR. MACFARLANE: Yes, Sir; I do raise an objection for the purpose of procuring an explanation; and I, therefore, move to substitute 12 for six months.
    Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out the word "six," and insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he could not accept the Amendment, because he did not think it would be an improvement, but the reverse. If 12 months' notice were to be required, that must be before the commencement of the last 12 months, so that it would seem to involve this anomaly, speaking with all respect of those who had adopted it, that the now period or cycle of the lease was to begin after the notice. He submitted that six months was very ample notice, having regard to the yearly cycle, as all that could be claimed was such notice as would give the tenant an opportunity of getting his crop before leaving.
    DR CAMERONsaid, he thought something ought to be done to assimilate the law of Scotland on this matter to the law of England. Formerly, the notice in England was six months; but it had been altered to 12 months by the Agricultural Holdings Act. He hoped some tertium quid might be found which would place yearly tenants in Scotland on a footing more equal to their English brethren.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, after the statement of the Lord Advocate he would not press his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment amended.
    Words inserted.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Amendments made, in Clause 27, page 9, at the end of the Clause, by adding—

    1579
    "The provisions relative to notice herein contained shall not apply to any stipulation in a lease entitling the landlord to resume land for building, planting, or other purposes;"
    Clause 29, page 11, line 10, after the first "of," by leaving out "the," and inserting "such;" page 11, line 10, after "notice," by leaving out "of removal;" page 11, line 13, after "notice," by inserting "given by the tenant as aforesaid;" page 11, line 13, by leaving out "of removal."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now real the third time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that, in the absence of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), he felt it his duty to express regret that this Bill fell short of the desires of the farmers of Scotland. At the same time, he was bound to admit that, with the strong expression of opinion on the part of many Members opposite, he did not know that the Government could have done better than they had done. At the same time, he admitted the obligation they wore under to the Law Officers—the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland—for the way they had conducted the Bill, and for the Amendments they had accepted in the interest both of the landlords and the tenants. He still thought the Lord Advocate ought to consider whether, on Clause 2, some Amendment should not be made in "another place." At all events, now that the Bill was in a complete condition, the Government would be able to see what Amendment could be accepted. It would be wise for the landlords to give more consideration to the wishes of the tenants, as cultivation had fallen off very greatly, and there was a want of capital and means for carrying on farms. It was necessary that landlords and tenants should be on a footing of better relationship than at present existed.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought, as regarded the normal condition of the greater part of Scotland, this was a good Bill. Taking the county of Fife, he thought the Bill met all the reasonable demands of the farmers. He did not coincide with the opinion that it would be possible to go much further than the Government had done in this Bill. They could not go mate-
    1580
    rially further without introducing something like Irish tenant right; and he did not think that was at all desirable where the large farm contract system prevailed. But while he thought this Bill a very good one so far, there were, on the other hand, parts of Scotland—namely, the Highlands, inhabited by a Celtic population, where the tenure was of a totally different character to that in Other parts—indeed, it was very analogous to that which prevailed in Ireland. The condition of affairs in the Highlands was now the subject of an inquiry by a Royal Commission; and this Bill ought to be passed without prejudice to the claims or rights of those small farmers which might arise on the Report of the Commission.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not contest a Scotch county at the next Election, because, after that speech, he would stand a very poor chance of being returned.
    Motion agreed to.(Queen's Consent signified) Bill read the third time, and passed.

    UNION OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 132.]
    (Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    UNION OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 132.]

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought it extraordinary that the second reading of this Bill should be moved without an explanation. The Bill proposed to set at defiance the principles which were laid down by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) in a speech he made not long ago. In that speech the hon. Gentleman laid clown the principle that the system of Government in Ireland was so bad that it would be very difficult to make it worse, and that a great reform was needed in the way of giving the local authorities more power; yet in the face of that public declaration he now came down to the House and introduced a Bill which would have the effect of intensifying that system of centralization. Now, if he might presume to offer any advice to a young public man like the hon. Gentleman, it would

      1581
      be not to advocate one principle outside the House and another within its walls. That, he might say, was the besetting sin of the parent of the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, of a very large proportion of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. He (Mr. Biggar) objected to this Bill, on the ground that it took the power of granting or refusing pensions out of the hands of the Poor Law Guardians, and handed it over to the Local Government Board. That he regarded as a very unsatisfactory thing to do. Again, the Treasury, at the present moment, paid half the salaries of the schoolmasters and medical officers of the Unions; and yet, under this Bill, the ratepayers of the different districts would have to bear the whole burden of the pensions. He had reason to believe that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) personally disapproved of the Bill, and that it had not the favour also of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that the hon. Gentleman now merely moved the Bill because, on a former occasion, it was placed in his hands by the late Chief Secretary. Another right hon. Gentleman, who was Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), had said that it was a perfectly preposterous measure; and, under all these circumstances, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three mouths.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out the word now, "and at the end of the Question to add the words" upon this day three months."—(Mr. Biggar.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
      MR. MELDONsaid, that this Bill was before a Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Cavan was a Member; and there he understood the hon. Gentleman expressed himself in favour of the principle of the Bill, though objecting to some of its details. [Mr. BIGGAR: No, no!] At the present moment the granting of superannuations to Union officers in Ireland was altogether discretionary with the Board of Guardians; and these Boards, generally speaking, either gave too much, or they gave nothing at all. They dealt liberally with their own favourites, whether for political reasons or not he would not say, and they dealt unfairly with
      1582
      those officers with whom they disagreed. Some very strong evidence to that effect was given before the Select Committee. To an officer who was 70 years of age, and had served a certain Board for 25 years, no pension was given at all, and in other cases in which persons were 70 years of age with 22 years' service, 63 years of age with 16 years' service, 78 years of age with 28 years' service, 68 years with 38 years' service, and 68 with 25 years' service, no pensions whatever were given. On the other hand, it had been conclusively proved that a clerk with nine years' service and a salary of £90 a-year was given two-thirds of his salary; another with £75 a-year and 10 years' service was given £50 pension; another officer with £37 10 s. and nine years' service was given £15; and so on through a long list of cases enumerated by Mr. Robinson before the Committee. He sincerely trusted, therefore, that in the interest of a respectable body of public servants this Bill would be passed. At the present time no officer could send in an application for a pension, nor could a Board of Guardians express any opinion as to whether an officer should receive a pension, until he had actually left the service. The result of that was that they would rather die in harness than leave the service on the chance of getting a pension. Those Boards of Guardians had shown conclusively, in cases in which they had been tried, that their discretion had not been properly exercised. It was suggested that as the Treasury paid half the salaries of the medical officers and schoolmasters, they should also pay half the pensions. He thought that would be a fair arrangement; but until that arrangement became law, he thought it would be a monstrous proposition that the pensions of so highly-respectable a body of public servants should be interfered with and confiscated.
      MR TOTTENHAMsaid, he hoped, in the interests of a very meritorious body of public servants, that the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. These officers were absolutely dependent upon the Boards of Guardians as to whether they received a retiring pension or not; and as this Bill provided that that should no longer be so, he thought it a reasonable proposition. It had been a very long time be-

      1583
      fore the House, and he thought there was an almost unanimous feeling in favour of that body of public servants being considered.
      MR O'KELLYsaid, he opposed the Bill on two grounds. In the first place, it raised the question of whether pensions should be given to Civil servants at all. He, for one, did not see any reason why such pensions should be given. They were paid good salaries, and ought to be able to provide for themselves out of them for their old age. He opposed the Bill also on the ground that it took from the local authorities the power of managing their own affairs. Even since the Irish people had got some political power, a series of these Bills had been introduced from time to time to deprive the local authorities of all the rights which they enjoyed in the good old Tory times. If this Bill became law, the Boards of Guardians would have no power of controlling their own officers; and these officers would become as much part and parcel of the Government as the police or the immediate employés of Dublin Castle. It was a measure to increase the number of irresponsible officials in Ireland; if it passed, it would embitter the feelings of the mass of the Irish people, and would be a cause of constant conflict between the authorities and the people. Under these circumstances, he was determined to oppose in Committee the further progress of the measure that Session.
      MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he made no explanation on introducing the Bill, because he was aware that hon. Members of the House had already had a full opportunity of knowing all it contained. The Bill was introduced early last Session; and after considerable delay, owing to the opposition of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), it was read a second time without a Division, to be referred to a Select Committee. That Committee sat for three or four days taking evidence, and afterwards sent in a short special Report; but, the Session being far advanced, the Bill was proceeded with no further at that time. He need hardly say that the hon. Member for Cavan was quite wrong in supposing that either the Chief Secretary or himself were opposed to the Bill. He quite admitted that there was in the Bill a centralizing tendency; and, therefore, he was not altogether sur-
      1584
      prised that hon. Members from Ireland on the opposite side should be opposed to it. If, however, the Bill had a centralizing effect, its justification lay in the way in which Boards of Guardians had misused their powers as to pensions; and on that he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway to pay very particular attention to the evidence taken before the Committee last year. It was true that by the Bill the powers of the Irish Local Government Board would be virtually increased, because it was proposed to maintain most of the existing powers of that body with respect to pensions, and it was also proposed to abolish the powers of the Boards of Guardians over the pensions of Union officers. At the same time the Local Government Board had the power, under the present law, not only to cancel pensions granted by the Guardians, but to reduce them. [Mr. O'KELLY: It cannot confer.] No, it could not confer pensions; but it could reduce or cancel, and the 4th clause of this Bill proposed to maintain that power. If it would facilitate the passage of the Bill, there would be no objection to the omission of the 4th clause; and the result would be to reduce the power of the Local Government Board, and leave it only power of sanctioning or else of entirely refusing pensions. That did not seem to be a power of very great magnitude. It would be a very strong measure for the Local Government Board entirely to cancel the pensions of Union officers, and hitherto it had acted with extreme generosity in regard to them. The hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had attached undue importance to the supposed political result the Bill would have, and had also said that it would open up the whole question of whether these officers ought to have pensions at all. But that was not so, for even if this Bill did not pass the existing law would remain in force, and the principle of granting pensions would remain. What the Government wanted to do by this Bill was to obtain some uniform and regular system to give a feeling of certainty to officers that when they had performed their duties with efficiency and honesty, they might look to receiving a proper pension in their declining years. In the Report of the Committee there was au instance of a medical officer in Cavan, aged 79, of 50 years' service, suffering from varicose veins, brought

      1585
      on by great walking, also from bad sight, partial deafness, and bronchitis, who had to continue performing his duties, because he could not obtain a pension. Although this was as bad a case as could be found, it was not exceptional. Many old and feeble officers were compelled to hold on to their offices, because, if they retired without a pension, they would starve. This was an injury to the Public Service and the ratepayers. He thought that hon. Members opposite need anticipate no serious political results from the Bill. In his opinion, it would bring a very great boon to the Union officers of Ireland; and he hoped that after the second reading hon. Members would examine the Bill carefully, and go into Committee without any spirit of hostility. The Bill was, he thought, supported both by hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, and by hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Mr. BIGGAR: Tories.]—and he had very good reason to know that many Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite were not hostile to the Bill, though they might feel called upon to take a Division on the second reading. Before the Bill went into Committee, he should be glad to communicate with hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to any Amendments which they might put upon the Paper.
      MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) had displayed the hereditary ability that might have been expected of him in the statement he had made; but he had not accurately appreciated the position of Irish Members with regard to this measure, the genesis of which was sufficient in itself to excite their suspicions. He was himself not at all opposed to the principle of the Bill; but it would be right to explain why Amendments would probably be proposed in Committee. It was during the régime of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) as Chief Secretary that a deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman at Dublin Castle, and asked his support to a measure of this character for reasons which deserved no sympathy from that House. The hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) was unfortunate in referring to the Report of the Select Committee; because it appeared from that Report that Mr. Henry John Chapman, President of the Medical Council, urged that the Bill should be
      1586
      passed, because it would take power from those Board of Guardians which were composed of the advocates of Fenianism and Land Leagueism. That showed, at least, that the measure had a political complexion. Could the hon. Member for Leeds, who was animated by a liberal spirit and a desire to meet the just demands of hon. Members from Ireland, wonder at suspicion being aroused in Irish minds by this Bill? He agreed that the Boards of Guardians were not the proper persons to be intrusted with too much power over the pensions of these officers, especially when they came to consider that the whole body was as a general rule, liable to be appointed from persons drawn from a class not in sympathy with the people. He thought the Bill might very fairly be treated as one of a non-contentious character, and that they might be content to go into Committee with unbiassed minds; but, on the other hand, there were principles in the Bill which made it practically impossible that they should subscribe to it in the interests of the ratepayers. He thought the control given to the Local Government Board in the matter was extremely unfair. It was a Board of nominees, and Mr. Robinson exercised the chief control. Nobody imagined that Mr. George Morris, the other Member, for the £5,000 or £10,000 salary he drew, did 5,000 half-pennies worth of work; indeed, few people believed that Mr. George Morris ever did any work; and as for Mr. Robinson, his attitude before the Select Committee was that of the hard, unflinching, promoted Castle clerk, who meant to grasp all the power he could, and to use it to the advantage of his own class. He dismissed Dr. Kenny in the North Dublin Union, which was a most disgraceful proceeding, and admitted that his action had never been questioned by the right hon. Member for Bradford. He objected altogether to give Mr. Robinson more power. He would, however, appeal to the hon. Member for Cavan, considering that this was a measure on which there must be a divergence of opinion among Irish Members, whether it was worth while to go into the Lobby upon it, and he suggested that they should allow the second reading to be taken. He thought they would find the hon. Member for Leeds, who had no arrière pensèe, and did not come

      1587
      to that House with many preconceived opinions, and who had displayed that spirit of tolerance which they might expect from a scion of the house to which he belonged, would be willing to treat fairly any Amendment which might be proposed in Committee.
      COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was glad to hear the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). He quite agreed that there were points in the Bill which should be considered in Committee; but he thought the whole gist of the Bill was one which recommended itself to the common sense and humanity of the House. He should give the Bill his support on the second reading.
      MR T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he should feel hound to vote for the second reading, because if they rejected the Bill they threw overboard the claims of deserving officers, and left those officers to the chance of what Boards of Guardians might choose to do for them. He was very well aware that the majority of the Boards of Guardians throughout Ireland were perfectly willing to deal fairly with their officers who had done their duty; but it was also well known that there was a minority who would not give pensions under any circumstances. It was time, therefore, to effect a change. Let them deal with these bad Guardians as they had dealt with the bad landlords—compel them to do by force of law what others did from conscientious feeling. There were several points in which the Bill would require Amendment in Committee; but the principle that deserving officers should not, after many years of labour, be thrown on the roadside destitute was one which he felt bound to support.
      MR DAWSONsaid, that it was the principle of the Bill that he entirely dissented from. He thought it would go to the root of all their local government, if, instead of looking to their employers for their reward, these officers should look to such a body as the Local Government Board. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) give his adhesion to a measure which would cut the ground from all authority and discipline. Let hon. Members be consistent. A few days ago they were seeking to strengthen and extend the representative scope of those Boards. Were they now going
      1588
      to diminish that elective power? Were they to say that the bodies the people elected were so incompetent to discharge their duties that they should have to give the power to Mr. Robinson? Let them do away with popular representation altogether rather than stultify themselves. In conversations which he had had with the distinguished person who now acted as Lord Lieutenant, that Nobleman admitted that one of the puzzles of the administration was its centralization; that he wished for the growth of local government and the decrease of that centralization. And were they, with a Nobleman of those sentiments in the Office of Viceroy, going to hand over some of the powers of the Local Government Bodies to the Local Government Board? He certainly should vote against the Bill.
      MR CORRYsaid, he had satisfied himself that this was a Bill that should be supported by the Irish Members, and he thought the principle of the Bill a good one. The Bill put into the hands of the Local Government Board such a power as would force the Boards of Guardians to do their duty.
      MR O'SULLIVANsaid, he regretted the division of opinion in the Irish Party on this Bill. They were considering whether they would give superannuation allowance to Irishmen. ["No, no!"] Well, they were Irishmen who had faithfully discharged their duties. He knew a case, in the workhouse to which he belonged, of a gatekeeper who, because he was paid weekly wages, could not get a pension. This Bill would take in that class of men. Another man, a workhouse porter, was refused a pension, and died as a pauper inmate. There were many Boards of Guardians who would hardly give a shilling retiring allowance to anyone. The fault of the Bill was that there was no provision for the relief of those Unions which had dealt liberally with their officers. He was quite in favour of the principle of the Bill.
      MR. O'BRIENsaid, he thought his hon. Friend had misconceived the scope of the objections to the Bill. They desired to protect officers against unreasonable Boards of Guardians; and there were unreasonable Boards and cases of hardship such as the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) had detailed, and he would support a Bill

      1589
      having that object to the fullest extent. But he did not see how anyone who had a respect for representative institutions in Ireland could consent to a proposition which removed the Union officers from the control of the Guardians who paid them. There ought to be a margin left within which the Guardians could exercise their discretion of giving either a large or a comparatively small allowance, as the merits of a case might require. If this Bill passed in its present form, the officers would not care a row of pins for the Guardians, so long as they retained the good opinion of the Local Government Board; and they all knew that the good opinion of the Local Government Board was to be obtained by putting themselves in opposition to the popular Guardians and the people.
      MR. LALORsaid, from his experience of Boards of Guardians, he should say that they were, as a rule, anxious to deal liberally with their old officers. He maintained that pensions should be at the disposal of those that were the employers. The Boards of Guardians would have no control over the officers if the Bill were passed. Then, some officers were more deserving of pensions, such as clerks to the Unions; while the medical officers, who got their experience and practice out of the poor patients in the workhouses, left their positions as soon as they had got together a sufficient private practice.
      MR PARNELLsaid, he would be glad to vote for any measure brought forward by the hon. Member for Leeds, who had always shown himself so kind and just in his views regarding Ireland. He felt, however, that the principle of this Bill was very defective; and while not desirous of challenging a Division himself, yet, if a Division were challenged, he should feel obliged to vote against the second reading. He entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dawson), who, he thought, had hit the blot in the principle of the Bill, which removed from the Local Body the discretion of deciding whether an official should get any superannuation allowance or not. The hon. Member for Leeds proposed to make a change, and to transfer that power to the Local Government Board. He earnestly asked the hon. Member for Leeds to consider whether the suggestion thrown out by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was not
      1590
      worthy of attention—namely, whether a minimum pension should be fixed which would be compulsory on those Local Bodies, and after that there should be a discretion given to the Boards of Guardians to increase the allowance as they thought proper? He would thereby recognize the principle of elective responsibility in Ireland—a principle which, he trusted, the hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of supporting hereafter in the course of his career in that House, regarding both Ireland and England. By doing that he would be doing much to smooth the passage of his Bill through Committee. In offering this compromise they were offering all they could fairly offer as Members who were pledged to the principle of forwarding local self-government in Ireland. He had received communications from other Bodies in Ireland, asking that their employés should be included in the Bill, and that the Charter under which the Corporation of Dublin held its rights and privileges should be altered in order to put the question of granting retiring allowances in the hands of the Local Government Board. The departure was an enormous one, and he thought the compromise offered should be accepted.
      MR LEAMYsaid, he thought it was a most absurd thing to bring in a Bill to render it obligatory on Boards of Guardians to give pensions, and leave it afterwards to the Local Government Board to say whether they should be granted or not.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 25: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 259.)
      Main Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

    MOTION.
      PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

        MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
        MR CHAMBERLAINsaid, that, in accordance with the pledge that had been given, he begged now to move the adjournment of the House?
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
        MR. ANDERSONsaid, he should oppose the Motion. He thought the most selfish body of men in existence was a Government. Hon. Members were expected to make every kind of sacrifice of their time and convenience on any day of the week, in order to help the Government to carry their Bills; but the moment the Government got their Bills carried, they put their foot down, and would not allow any private Member to carry any Bill whatever. However good the Bill might be, however thoroughly Liberal it might be, however much it might have been approved by the House at former stages, however much desired by the country, still they would not be moved by any such considerations. As regarded the particular Bill in which he was most interested—the Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment Bill—he got the second reading on the 7th of March by a majority of 195 against only 40. Out of those 40 opponents only two had persisted in opposing the Bill since, and through their persistent opposition it had been absolutely impossible to get any other stage. The Government kept up that absurd half-past 12 Rule in nearly its full intensity; and therefore there was no other way of getting a further stage of the Bill except at a Saturday Sitting. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade, having performed the duty in accordance with the foolish pledge given, would be content gracefully to retire, and not carry his Motion to the vote, but allow the House to go on with the measures before it. To deny them that opportunity was really very bad indeed, he thought. As regarded his measure, although he admitted that there were other measures as important, there were special horrors and cruelties going on under it. [Cries of "Order!"]
        MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite aware that he cannot refer to that on this Motion.
        MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had been only about to remark that those who voted for the Adjournment, those who supported the Government on this occasion, would be responsible in the future for those horrors and cruelties.
        MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, said, he considered, in the first place, that this was an occasion on which independent Members had a right to show their independence of the Government; and, in the
        1592
        second place, he thought the Conservative Members should take the opportunity of inflicting a defeat on the Government. If they would only adopt an attitude of benevolent neutrality, they would be able to add another to the many defeats which the Government had already experienced. With regard to the Irish Conservative Members, he hoped they would not take upon themselves the responsibility of defeating a measure—the Labourers (Ireland) Bill—which did not contain any principle that they could object to, and which met the evils of a class in favour of whom these Gentlemen had themselves spoken.
        MR. DAWSONremarked, that if the Opposition supported the Government they would seriously injure their own prospects.
        MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the Government had entered into a distinct pledge that only Government Business would be taken; and, so far from the suggestion just made by the hon. Member that the Conservative Members should take the opportunity of defeating Her Majesty's Government, he conceived it would be their duty to give them their most cordial support.
        MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that the Government were not under any obligation to vote for the Motion they had brought forward, the Prime Minister having himself said that the question of adjournment rested for decision with the House itself.
        MR TOTTENHAM, as one of the Irish Conservative Members who had been appealed to, would say that he was so satisfied of the desirability and propriety of enabling Her Majesty's Government to keep their pledges sometimes, that he should certainly support the Motion for Adjournment.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 66: Majority 14.—(Div. List, No. 260.)

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    REVENUE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.— [BILL 269.]
    (Mr. Courtney, Hr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    REVENUE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.— [BILL 269.]

      COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Monday

      1593
      next, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
      MR. J. LOWTHERinquired of Her Majesty's Government what course they intended to pursue with respect to the remainder of the Sitting? No doubt the House had a perfect right to sit as late as it liked; but Her Majesty's Government, having created the monster in the shape of a Saturday Sitting, ought, at least, to take measures to guard against depredations which it might commit. He wished to know whether the Government considered they had abandoned the control of the proceedings of the House until an indefinite period of the evening? The House, however, having been brought together at the instance of the Government, he thought that, as there were Government Orders remaining on the Paper, the House should, if it was to sit, proceed with the consideration of the Business which brought it together.
      THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that, as far as he was aware of the circumstances, no pledge had been given, except as to the course the Government would take up. The Prime Minister had distinctly indicated that the further proceedings of the House would be matter for the decision of the House. That decision had just been pronounced. With regard to the remaining Government measures on the Paper, they had disposed of all the measures which were announced as to be taken to-day; and the Government would, therefore, postpone the remaining Government Business, and how far they should proceed with the Private Business on the Paper was, of course, for the House to decide. He understood that the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Labourers' (Ireland) and the Cruelty to Animals Bills only desired that so much progress should be made with those measures as that the Speaker should leave the Chair.
      MR CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that from the words uttered by the Prime Minister he understood that the Government not only intended to stop the proceedings of the House after the Bills were passed, but also to use their influence to prevent other measures being proceeded with. Under the circumstances, he was not surprised to see so scant an attendance of Members of the Government, although many of them were in town—
      MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the right hon. Member that the Question before the House is simply that the Committee on the Revenue and Friendly Societies Bill be taken on Monday next.
      MR CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I am simply referring to the pledge which has been given by the Government.
      MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the absence of Members of the Government has nothing whatever to do with the subject.
      MR CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the manner in which the Government had failed to use their influence in favour of the adjournment did affect the question. He was certainly of opinion that they had been guilty of gross dereliction of duty, and he was sorry to say it was not the first time such a thing had happened. He was afraid it was done for a purpose which it would not be right to mention, but which the House would understand.
      MR WARTON: The noble Marquess told us—
      MR. ILLINGWORTH: I rise to Order. ["Order!"] I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. I want to know whether observations with regard to the noble Lord's statement are relevant?
      MR SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member has not said anything out of Order.
      MR WARTONremarked that, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Illingworth) tried to caucus the electors, so he tried to caucus the House. The noble Marquess had said that it was only desired to go formally into Committee with the private Members' Bills now standing on the Paper; but he wished to point out that the effect of the New Rules was to prevent any opposition being offered to a measure when it had once been in Committee, so that the ingenuous remark of the noble Lord as to the intentions of the Movers of these Bills lost half its force. As he was strongly opposed to one of the Bills which was down on the Paper, he should move that the Revenue and Friendly Societies Bill be put down for Tuesday instead of Monday.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Monday," and insert the word "Tuesday."—(Mr. Warton.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'Monday' stand part of the Question."
      THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he would appeal to the hon. and learned Member not to persist in his Motion, which would have the effect of detaining the House longer than would otherwise be the case.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Main Question put, and agreed to.
      Committee upon Monday next.

    PAYMENT OF WAGES IN PUBLIC-HOUSES PROHIBITION BILL [Lords].
    (Mr. Samuel Morley.)
    PAYMENT OF WAGES IN PUBLIC-HOUSES PROHIBITION BILL [Lords].

      [BILL 126.] COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
      MR WARTONsaid, he should oppose the Motion. The mode in which Bills were introduced in the other House was most unsatisfactory, as nobody knew who laid them upon the Table, or was responsible for them.
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member has not yet addressed himself to the Question before the House.
      MR. WARTONsaid, as to the Bill itself, it was a piece of Puritanical legislation, and an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of the subject. It had been got up by persons affected by the temperance craze, and who wished to see how much they could annoy other people. It was, in reality, a blow struck at public-houses, because they were obnoxious to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Why should not a man spend money in drink if he chose? This was merely grandmotherly legislation.
      MR KNIGHTsaid, he also regarded the measure as most objectionable.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 13: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 261.)
      Bill considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 118.]
    (Mr. Anderson, Sir Frederick Milbank, Mr. Samuel Morley, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. Pass-more Edwards, Mr. Bushanan)
    CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 118.]

      COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Anderson.)
      Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Bill had been discussed on a previous occasion, and it was then generally admitted that the Bill, as drawn by its introducer, could not possibly become law. No doubt, it was conceived in a spirit of humanity; but it was a specimen of what the Home Secretary had called "grandmotherly legislation." He himself did not indulge in the pastime of pigeon-shooting; and, therefore, he could speak quite dispassionately about the Bill. Those who had no practical knowledge of sports such as that to which the Bill referred ought to hesitate before they embarked on a career of legislation which might have serious results. What difference was there, as far as the question of cruelty was concerned, between pigeon-shooting and other kinds of shooting? He held that the cruelty was less in the case of pigeon-shooting than in other kinds of sport. Every precaution was taken to capture wounded birds, and the cruelty was reduced to a minimum. If this legislation was sanctioned, how long would it be before fox-hunting and fishing were also prohibited? Perhaps he might be told that a fox enjoyed being hunted. That he fully believed to be the fact, though how far being torn to pieces and eaten added to such enjoyment he would not detain the House by pausing to inquire. Nor would he stop to contradict anyone who maintained that a fish thoroughly appreciated the pastime of being dragged for an hour, or any portion of time, with an iron hook through its mouth. However, it was manifest that no form of sport could long continue if the principles propounded in the Bill before the House were to receive the sanction of Parliament and he put it to the hon. Member who introduced the Bill as to whether he really hoped to do any good

      1597
      by pressing it upon the House; and urged the House to consider the circumstances under which it was brought under their notice that evening. The House bad been sitting for a good many hours discussing legislation initiated by Her Majesty's Government, on the distinct understanding that it should not be asked to consider other measures; and, under the circumstances, he trusted that the Bill would not be proceeded with.
      SIR FREDERICK MILBANKsaid, he supposed the right hon. Gentleman had never been in a dove-cot a few days after a pigeon-shooting match. He himself had been, and had seen hundreds of young birds dying of starvation in consequence of the parent-birds being taken away for shooting. He could not imagine how anyone could regard pigeon-shooting as fair shooting. He had been a witness at Hurlingham of the most gross cruelty and immorality in connection with pigeon-shooting. He saw good birds and bad birds put into the trap according to the betting. He was himself a member of the Hurling-ham Gun Club; but he had ceased to be a pigeon-shooting member owing to the gross cruelty that he saw practised there. He had seen birds struggling in heaps after they had been brought back by a man or by a dog. But even supposing that the pigeons got fair play at Hurlingham and the Gun Club, did anyone suppose that they got fair play in low pot-houses, where they were shot for bets of bottles of whisky and gin to be drunk on the premises?
      MR CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that the Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for what had taken place that evening. At least, they might have left one responsible Minister to speak upon the subject before the House. If the same care were taken of young pigeons bereft of their parents as was taken in the case of young pheasants when the parent-birds were shot, the chief argument of the hon. Baronet who had just spoken would absolutely fall to the ground. The Bill was introduced in a spirit of mawwormism and cant. As to the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill (Mr. Anderson), he would ask what would become of Scotland if all cruelty to animals wore done away with? What would become of that country which sent the hon. Member to that House if grouse and other kinds of
      1598
      shooting were prohibited? He was surprised that a Scotch Member had had the hardihood to bring such a Bill forward, when his compatriots lived upon the cruelty he condemned. Then, with regard to the hon. Baronet, he always thought he was created a Baronet owing to the faithful service he had rendered to his Party; but he had now discovered another reason why that honour had been conferred upon him. It was for his marvellous exploits in slaughtering grouse. As they all knew, the hon. Baronet was distinguished for his great feat of killing 1,000 grouse in 1,000 hours. ["No, no!"] Well, he had been informed that in one day the hon. Baronet had killed no fewer than 400 brace, being armed—like Robinson Crusoe—with half-a-dozen guns, and firing first one way and then another, slaughtering all the birds that were round about him. He should like to hear from the hon. Baronet whether he had inflicted no cruelty then? [Sir FREDERICK MILBANK: No.] Did the hon. Member kill them all outright? [Sir FREDERICK MILBANK: Yes.] He was rather inclined to doubt that that really was the case in every instance, for he thought it hardly possible that any man could absolutely kill so many birds. The fact was that if a suggestion were to be made to extend the principle upon which the Bill was based to the sports which the hon. Baronet affected he would at once say that the circumstances did not warrant its application. If the hon. Member for Glasgow objected to the infliction of cruelty upon all animals, why had he not extended the provisions of the Bill so as to put a stop to fishing, which was undoubtedly cruel? He had been told by fishermen that the greater the pain inflicted upon a fish the better was the sport. Why did the hon. Member stop short at pigeon-shooting? Why did he not attempt to prohibit fox-hunting and rabbit-coursing?
      MR ANDERSONsaid, that rabbit-coursing was included in the Bill originally, but was removed from it to please the right hon. Gentleman and other Members of his Party.
      MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he objected to the Bill because it was a specimen of piecemeal legislation, and he also objected to the manner in which it had been brought before the House that afternoon. The House had been

      1599
      taken by surprise, as nobody understood that the Saturday Sitting was to be devoted to the consideration of measures introduced by private Members.
      LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he also objected to the Bill. Pigeon-shooting in itself was not more cruel than other kinds of sport. If it was at times accompanied by malpractices, they could be remedied by better management. He did not take interest or pleasure in the sport himself; but it afforded an opportunity of enjoyment to people who could obtain no other form of sport. On that ground he would not interfere with it. He hold that it was more cruel to shoot pheasants, which were so tame that they would feed out of a keeper's hand, than to shoot pigeons out of a trap.
      MR. WARTONthought it would be a great mistake to pass the Bill, and so take a step in the direction of the abolition of all sport. One of the advantages of sport was that it provided manly and healthy diversion for those who otherwise would be tempted into vicious courses. He would conclude by moving the adjournment of the debate, in order to appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober. Cries of "Order!" and" withdraw!"]
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member must withdraw that expression.
      MR. WARTONsaid, he would withdraw it; he was simply referring to the jaded condition of the House—preferring to appeal from Philip drunk to:Philip sober.
      MR CAVENDISH BENTINCK, in seconding the Motion, said, it would be most unseemly to proceed with the Bill—
      MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Question of Adjournment.
      MR CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that the House, having been taken by surprise, was not in a condition to consider the measure.
      Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Wanton.)
      Mr. SPEAKERstated that he thought the Noes had it; and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and Five Members only having stood up, Mr. SPEAKER declared the Noes had it.
      1600
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 3: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 262.)
      Main Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

    PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.
    (Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Solicitor General, Air. John Holms.)
    PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.

      [BILL 261.] CONSIDERATION.
      Bill, as amended, considered.
      Clause (Saving for power to provide for entry on register of common marks as additions to trade marks,)—(Mr. Arthur Arnold)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
      Clause (Transmission of certified printed copies of specifications, &c.,)—(Mr. M' Lagan,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, amended, and added.
      Clause (Provision for Colonies and India,)—(Sir Henry Holland,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
      Amendments made.
      Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 9, after the word "for," to insert the words "printing and."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'printing and' be there inserted.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 10, after the word "all," to insert the words "Provisional or."
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Other Amendments made.
      Bill read the third time, and passed.
      House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock till Monday next.