Sitting of 24 April 1885

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 23] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—London Street Tramways (Extensions).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Water Provisional Orders.*
Ordered—First Reading—Sunday Closing (Wales) Act (1881) Amendment* [141].
Second Reading—Gas Provisional Orders*[126].
Report of Select Committee—Registration (Occupation Voters)* [No. 162].
Committee—Registration of Voters (Ireland) [110]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Highways* [89].
Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [120]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 5)* [117]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6)* [118]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 7)* [119].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON STREET TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Heading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
    MR. GREGORY, in moving the rejection of the Bill, said, he desired to call the attention of the House to the important nature of the provisions of the measure and the very considerable powers which it proposed to take. A measure very similar was introduced by the London Street Tramways Company last year, but was rejected by the Select Committee to which it was referred. As originally introduced in the present year, it was a very large scheme, which would have materially affected an Institution with which he had the honour to be connected—the Foundling Hospital; but that part of the scheme had been dropped, and therefore he did not speak on behalf of that Institution, which was satisfied with the course which had been taken. He was authorized, however, to speak on behalf of other persons who opposed the scheme in the last Session of Parliament, and who succeeded in getting a decision of the Committee in their favour. The Bill consisted of several parts, and proposed to authorize the Company to construct additional tramways, and, in connection therewith, to improve certain streets in the Metropolis; and he would deal with it as the promoters themselves dealt with it. In the first place, the measure comprised some small extensions in the neighbourhood of the Fleet Road. He did not know whether there was any objection to those extensions; his own objection related not so much to them as to other parts of the Bill. The measure further comprised extensions down the Chalk Farm Road, down a road called Crown-dale Road, and also a considerable extension down King's Cross Road. Having had some personal experience in the matter, he deemed it necessary to point out to the consideration of the House the objections to the scheme of the Company which that personal experience enabled him to mention. In regard to what, for the purposes of argument, he would call scheme No. 1—the extension down Chalk Farm Road—it was a road upon which, as many Members of the House would be aware, there was a very considerable traffic, and a main road running as far as Hampstead Heath. Many omnibuses passed along it, and in parts the traffic was of a very congested and difficult nature. An iron bridge carried it over the Regent's Canal in Camden Town, and along a

    631
    portion of the road which was approached by gradients of considerable steepness. The bridge was a girder bridge, which only admitted of one carriage with two lines of passage, one up and the other down, which were only wide enough to admit of one carriage passing to or fro at the same time. It was proposed by the Tramway Company that they should have the power of passing over that narrow bridge, and up and down that incline, without any alteration of the gradient or any lateral extension of the bridge. The consequence would be that under the powers which the street tramways usually possessed they would have complete control over the traffic. They talked themselves of "marshalling the traffic," which he presumed to mean that they would stop all other traffic until their own tram-cars had passed; and as it would be impossible for any other carriages to pass at the same time, the rest of the traffic along the road would be completely at the mercy of the Tramway Company. It was quite evident that such powers would be highly inconvenient, and might be exercised very much to the detriment of the general public. He could not find that there was any great reason for this extension, and it would only be necessary for the tramway to make a small detour in order to reach the same point, and the traffic was already abundantly provided for. So much, then, for the proposed extension along the Chalk Farm Road. He now came to scheme No. 2, by which it was proposed to extend the tramway system down the road from King's Cross, where the Great Northern Railway Station was situated, so as to carry on the traffic down the Farringdon Road to Blackfriars Bridge, along and across roads upon which there was also, at the present moment, a considerable amount of traffic. This road would be carried along the whole line of the old Fleet Ditch, following pretty closely the valley through which the ditch formerly ran, and having on each side very steep, sloping streets. In one instance a street ran down to the valley at a gradient of something like 1 in 13. There were streets on both sides along which the traffic was very considerable. It would, therefore, be pretty well imagined that the running of tramcars along this route would be a source of great danger to
    632
    the traffic coming down at right angles from the steep roads on each side. That fact was felt to be a strong ground of objection to the Bill when it was before the Select Committee last year; but they were told now that it was proposed to undertake certain engineering works in the neighbourhood of King's Cross which, in future, would obviate the difficulty. The nature of the ground, however, would render it almost impossible to construct a tramway with safety to the ordinary traffic, because, as he had pointed out already, the streets on both sides of the valley sloped down to the centre upon very steep gradients, and unless the banks were dealt with it would be impossible to obviate the difficulty at all. The provisions of the Bill were fully considered by the Committee last year; and it was for the House to consider whether by allowing the Bill to pass now they would reverse the decision then arrived at, and also whether they would sanction the principle of allowing the promoters of Private Bills to come before Parliament, year after year, with the same scheme, in the hope, in the end, by the enormous expenses incurred, of wearing down their opponents. It would be manifest that a powerful Company like this, coming before Parliament year after year, would gradually wear down any power of resistance on the part of their less wealthy opponents. It must be borne in mind that Parliament had already intimated, as plainly as possible, that tramways would not be allowed to be constructed in the centre of London. There could only be one object in promoting this King's Cross extension—namely, to bring the system of tramways which now existed in the outskirts on the Northern side of the Metropolis into the heart of London. As the scheme was now presented, it terminated in nothing—indeed, there was no terminus indicated at all; but, no doubt, the object of the Company was to connect the system here-after with Blackfriars Bridge and the tramways now existing on the South side of the river, so as to carry the tramways across the Thames, and place the lines on the North and South side of London in immediate connection with each other. He ventured to submit that he had shown sufficient grounds to induce the House to refuse to read the Bill a second time; but his hon. Friend

    633
    the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would probably state, by-and-bye, what the views of the Committee of last year were. Even without taking into consideration the grounds upon which the Committee threw out the Bill, he thought he might safely appeal to the House, on public grounds, not to permit these tramways to find their way into the heart of London. They were already able to roach the City by means of the City Road, and they should be kept to that perfectly clear and well-defined line. There already existed sufficient means of communication between the North side of London and the City; and while the Northern tramways were restricted to the North side of London, those on the South side of the Thames should be kept to the South side as they now were. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Gregory.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that in supporting the second reading of the Bill he wished to express his regret at the course which his hon. Friend had taken. There were a great number of provisions contained in the Bill to which his hon. Friend took no objection at all; and it would be a departure from the ordinary and almost uniform practice of the House, where a Bill contained provisions of a separate and distinct character, not to send that Bill to a tribunal upstairs specially appointed to decide upon its merits. If the House consented to depart from that rule now, there could be no doubt that they would be called upon to do so in other cases; and their decisions in reference to Private Bills would hereafter depend upon the chance of bringing up a certain number of Members to support or reject a measure without the possibility being afforded of entering into the merits of any case of the kind. There was one ground which might induce the House to take a favourable consideration of the present measure which he thought the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex, who presided over the Committee last year,
    634
    would be the last person to disregard when his attention was called to the matter. He (Mr. Torrens) had now been for 12 months engaged upon a Royal Commission appointed to investigate the cause, and to suggest remedies to get rid of the overcrowding of the population in the centre of large towns; and he would be guilty of no violation of confidence, although the Report of the Commission had not yet been laid upon the Table, if he said that the Commissioners were in absolute despair whore to find sufficient remedies for the cruel pressure which now existed. Not only was the pressure seriously felt, but it was positively detrimental to the health of the whole community; and yet his hon. and learned Friend said that Parliament ought to keep these tramways from getting into the centre of the Metropolis. He (Mr. Torrens) frankly avowed that his object was to bring them as close as possible to the centre of the town, and he took that course for the sake of the community at large, because it was impossible at present to find vents enough to relieve the pressure which now existed—a pressure full of future danger, and calculated to produce ultimately every evil that could be enumerated. He regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had not been a Member of the Commission, so that he might have been able to bring his great knowledge and sagacity to bear upon its deliberations; but, owing to the fact that his hon. Friend was not upon it, he was unable to appreciate the pressing necessity for relief, and, by the action he was now taking, was, in point of fact, attempting to get rid of a source of relief. He (Mr. Torrens) contended that the first duty of the House was to consider the interests and welfare of the community at large. What was the case of those who objected to this tramway line? His hon. Friend said he appeared there to advocate the claims of certain persons who opposed a similar scheme when it was introduced last Session. About 210 owners of property along the proposed route were interested in the matter, and of that number about 50 had petitioned against the Bill. Surely the House of Commons were not to be bound by one-fourth against the other three-fourths. Considering the matter upon that ground, he entirely denied that there was any case for the opposition. No doubt the

    635
    Bill of last Session was rejected by the Committee; but that, he thought, did not bind the House in regard to a new Bill, and it would be very unfair to prevent the promoters from going before a Committee again. A Committee upstairs, after the Bill had been read a second time, would fully inquire into all the provisions of the Bill, and would be able to say whether the question of the narrow bridge referred to by his hon. Friend ought to be regarded as a valid objection to a particular clause of the measure. It would, however, be no reason for throwing out the whole Bill, which was a measure of many clauses, which clauses, for the most part, were unopposed. He asked the House, therefore, not to depart from their usual practice, but to repose confidence in the tribunal to which they were accustomed to intrust these questions. Seeing that the House itself was altogether unfit to discuss such questions, let them hesitate before they usurped the functions of their ordinary tribunal. They had hitherto found their Committees thoroughly reliable; but that was no reason why they should be bound by a single decision, and for all future time refuse to reopen a question which had been once decided. The promoters believed they would now be able to remove the physical objections which were raised against their scheme last year, and that their new proposals would meet with the approval of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex, who presided over the Select Committee. The promoters had displayed every willingness to show deference to the opinions of the Committee; but the House had something even more than that to consider—namely, the interests and welfare of the people of London generally. He trusted the House would not be led away by the objections which had been raised by his hon. Friend, and which were very small indeed when compared with the general public advantages which would be conferred by the Bill, which advantages were of a nature that could scarcely be realized by those who had not served upon the Commission of which he had the honour to be a Member.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would much rather not have taken any part in this discussion; but as he was Chairman of the Committee which considered what was practically
    636
    the present Bill as it stood, with a very slight alteration, he felt bound to say a few words, and to put before the House, in the first place, the reasons which induced the Committee last year to decide unanimously to reject the Bill as it was then promoted, and the difference which existed between the present measure and that of last year. The principal object of the Bill of last year was identical with that of the measure now under the consideration of the House—namely, the construction of a system of tramways along the Northern road by the extension of existing tramway lines in the neighbourhood of Camden Town and Chalk Farm Road, and a proposal to carry those tramways on by way of King's Cross Road to Farringdon Street. There was also a further proposal to connect two existing tramways running down the Crowndale Road, which was not in the Bill of last year; but, with that exception, his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) would not be able to show that this Bill differed in any material point from the one which was carefully considered by the Committee last year, and after that careful consideration thrown out upon public grounds. The Committee took considerable pains to make themselves masters of all the engineering details of the Bill; they visited the sites in each instance, and had those sites fully explained to them, as well as the engineering difficulties. In dealing, for instance, with the Chalk Farm Road route, they inspected the bridge over the Regent's Canal and the gradients of the road leading to the bridge, and the proposals contained in the measure with regard to that bridge certainly formed one of the chief objections they took to the measure. The bridge itself was divided into two narrow compartments sufficient for the passing of a single carriage each way, and the gradients of the approaches were unusually steep. In these respects the present Bill did not propose to alter the provisions of the measure of last year, and if the tramway were constructed the existing traffic must necessarily be materially impeded. As many hon. Members knew, the traffic was at the present moment very much congested; but, by making a detour, a delay of some four or five minutes only would take place, although he admitted that the altera-

    637
    tion would involve a change of carriages. But the whole saving which the proposed scheme would effect really would not amount to more than that; and at the present moment there existed a tramway line running along part of nearly the same route as the projected extension, which was utilized for the conveyance of the same people which the new line was intended to serve. Consequently, the masses of the population, which his hon. Friend (Mr. Torrens) was desirous of serving, would sustain no serious injury; and he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) was quite as anxious of providing them with every facility for getting to and from their daily labour as his hon. Friend. The length of the line would be a little shorter, he admitted; but, practically, the persons whom the present Bill was intended to serve would be placed at no disadvantage, and the connection between two existing tramway lines could be made, and one route formed at the present moment by going a little further round. The engineering difficulties involved in carrying out the proposed scheme were very great, and the construction of a tramway line would inflict considerable injury upon the public by blocking up the already crowded traffic along the Chalk Farm Road. Both the goods traffic and the passenger traffic by omnibus would be impeded, and it was upon that ground mainly that the Bill of last year was rejected. The scientific men who were examined before the Committee were entirely agreed as to the engineering difficulties; but, beyond that, the Committee examined the line of route, and were able to form their own opinion as to the inconvenience and confusion which a block at the Canal Bridge would occasion. By the other part of the scheme, the Tramway Company sought power to construct a line running from King's Cross to Farringdon Road, and in that case the danger to the traffic would even be still greater than it was on the other line. As his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had pointed out, the road along which it was proposed to carry the tramway occupied the site of the old Fleet Ditch, and ran down from the Pentonville Road to a street called Wharton Street, the gradients along the whole line being exceedingly steep. Not only would a block there be extremely dangerous, as his
    638
    hon. Friend suggested, but several accidents bad taken place quite recently, before the visit of the Committee, in consequence of horses getting the better of their drivers, and galloping down the street at a pace which rendered it impossible to stop them. The footway was consequently rendered exceedingly unsafe; and he might add that the footway which ran upon one side of these inclined streets, along the whole of that part of King's Cross Road, was most dangerous even at the present moment, and would be infinitely more so if this tramway were constructed. Indeed, the present Bill would increase the danger, as it would be impossible to diminish the levels, and it was proposed to increase the height of the road. Therefore, all the dangers which were pointed out to the Committee last year would be retained, and, to his mind, would even, if possible, be increased. His hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury had spoken in the interests of the working classes; but it so happened that, although this tramway line would be dangerous if it were allowed to be constructed, there did exist in the Metropolitan Railway, along the whole line of the contemplated tramway, that cheap means of conveyance which his hon. Friend would like to see established for the working population. They practically had at their disposal now, by the Underground Railway, and, in the Northern part of the district, by existing tramways, although in one instance for a shorter distance, a double means of conveyance, without any of the dangers involved in the construction of the proposed line, which dangers, although they induced the Committee to reject the Bill last year, did not appear to have been obviated in the least degree. He certainly thought the Committee were right in the decision at which they arrived last year, and that it ought to be maintained in the present instance. In conclusion, he would merely point out to the House that, although he would be the last person to advocate that the House should take into its own hands the decision of questions involved in Private Bills, which were far better threshed out before a Committee upstairs, yet he did think that when the same Bill was brought forward year after year without any material alteration, notwithstanding the fact that the

    639
    reasons for rejecting the measure were the engineering difficulties and the danger to the public, the House, in this instance, would be perfectly justified in supporting the conclusion come to by the Committee of last year, and in rejecting the Bill.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that the principle laid down by the hon. Baronet was a rather objectionable one, because it amounted to this—that if people went before a Committee with certain evidence, the decision of the Committee upon that evidence was to be a decision for all time, which was never to be upset hereafter upon any additional evidence or consideration. He had no doubt that the Committee last year came to a perfectly legitimate decision on the Bill then placed before them; and if the House were now asked to support them in that decision he should certainly feel inclined to do so. But circumstances had changed, and in the present year another scheme was brought before Parliament, and it would be stretching the procedure of that House to a very unwarrantable extent if, because the Committee decided against the Bill of last year, the House were to refuse to read the present Bill a second time now. What was the Manchester Ship Canal Bill but a great scheme which came before Parliament year after year. So far from finding the decision of one Committee rigidly adhered to, it was notorious that in the case of that Bill both the House of Commons and the House of Lords had in each successive year reversed the decision given in the preceding year. It was generally admitted that this scheme, if carried, would be an enormous boon to the Metropolis; and Parliament had long been attempting to find a remedy, in the interests of the working classes, for the congested condition of certain districts. The answer of the hon. Baronet was that there was provision already; that the passengers could get out of the tramcars at King's Cross and get into a train on the Metropolitan Railway which would take them on to Farringdon Street. Was that a reasonable proposal? Was it more convenient to go the whole way by a tramcar, or to go part by tramcar and the rest by the Metropolitan Railway? He certainly thought that when the hon. Baronet mentioned the Metropolitan Railway he really let the cat out of the bag, and
    640
    that the opposition which was that day directed against the second reading of the Bill was not the opposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), or of the landowners and frontiers who could not afford to come there to oppose the Bill year after year, but the opposition of the Metropolitan Railway Company, and an expression of the determination of a powerful and influential body to prevent a scheme for the cheap conveyance of the people to and from their daily labour from being heard in the usual way before the ordinary tribunal. Having listened carefully to the discussion, and especially to the speeches of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), and the hon. Member for East Sussex, he had arrived at the conclusion that the whole question was one of engineering, which it was quite impossible for the House to settle offhand in half-an-hour. According to the practice and procedure of Parliament it was eminently a question which ought to be submitted to the consideration of a Committee upstairs, who would come to a decision after hearing the engineering evidence which would be laid before them. For these reasons he should support the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, he had only one remark to make in reference to the opposition which the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex had given to the Bill; and it was to call the attention of the House to a curious fact which occurred the other day. On the occasion to which he referred there was a similar discussion on another measure, and it would be found that the hon. Baronet strongly supported the second reading, urging as a reason that the second reading of a Private Bill was very seldom refused in the House itself, and pointing out that if the Petitioners could show any case against the Bill, they would have full opportunity of being heard before the Committee. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Hear, hear!] His hon. Friend said "Hear, hear;" but he did not think that cheer was quite consistent with the course taken by his hon. Friend in regard to the present Bill.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the circumstances were altogether different. In the one case it was a new Bill; but in the other they were asked

    641
    to read a second time a Bill which had already been considered by a Committee and rejected.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had already pointed out that the Manchester Ship Canal Bill was a case strictly in point. In that ease the engineering evidence had been rejected by one House one year, and by the other in the next year; and although the question was entirely one of engineering difficulties, the Bill was still brought forward this year and referred to a Select Committee. Then upon what ground were they, in this instance, to reverse the usual practice of the House, and to come to the conclusion that because a Bill had been thrown out one year it must not be introduced, even in another form, in a following year? So far as he was acquainted with the procedure of the House that would be an entirely now practice. There was also another ground for referring the Bill to a Committee upstairs. Last year the promoters had no reason to expect that they were going to have any opposition, and they were not prepared, as they were now, to bring forward rebutting testimony. They would be able to do so this year, and they believed they would be able to give a complete answer to the engineering difficulties which were urged against the Bill last year. He hoped, therefore, that the House, duly considering the importance of the Bill to the public, and the fact that on some of the proposed tramway extensions all the persons interested in the property, who were the only persons who ought to be consulted, were almost unanimously in favour of the Bill, while on the remaining sections of the line the Petitioners only represented one-fourth or one-fifth of the owners and occupiers of property, would allow the measure, as the least thing they could do, to go before a Select Committee.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he had brought a very open mind to the consideration of this question; but he must say that the speeches of his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), and his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), had convinced him that the Bill was one which ought to be read a second time in order that it might be inquired into by a Committee. His hon. Friend the
    642
    Member for East Sussex said that his desire was to keep the tramways out of the heart of London. That was quite another question. Tramways might be a very desirable thing, or they might be objectionable; but this was not the case of an encroaching railway sending out its feeders much to the detriment of other persons. It appeared to him that the construction of this tramway would be of great advantage to the public and to the poorer classes of the community. These tramways were used mainly by the working classes; and the question he asked himself was whether this extension was desirable or not, and whether it was likely to confer benefit upon those classes? In passing, he might say that it was very much to be regretted that other subjects had been imported into the consideration of a question of this kind, such, for instance, as engineering questions, which were clearly matters to be decided by a Committee after investigation and the hearing of evidence. He quite accepted the statement of his hon. Friend who presided so ably over the Committee last year. There might have been reasons then upon which it was thought desirable not to pass the Bill; but those reasons, as far as he was informed, did not exist to the same extent this year. As he understood the project, it was that of a Tramway Company already in possession of some considerable tramway lines not in a part of London where their existence was considered objectionable, but in a part of London crowded with working classes, and leading from their doors to the nearest place where they could really obtain fresh air—namely, Hampstead. What was the object of the Tramway Company in this instance? So far as he was able to judge, it was to shorten, as an examination of the map would show that it did, the time occupied in the journey to Hampstead by about ten minutes. It was true that another matter had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex; but it was entirely an engineering difficulty which could not be discussed in the House itself, but must be investigated by a Select Committee, and dealt with by them in such a way as to provide for the general traffic without detriment to the public. These, however, were essentially matters for the consideration of a Committee, because such

    643
    details could never be discussed in the House, nor could it be of advantage that such questions should be decided in the House. To his mind, the principle on which the Bill was founded was one of public advantage—to give the general public a better and cheaper means of locomotion which all desired to see carried out. The means by which effect was proposed to be given to that desire were questions entirely for the consideration of the Committee upstairs. For these reasons, and for higher reasons still, he thought the House would act most unwisely if it were to reject the measure; and he felt it his duty to advise the House to pass the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. GILESsaid, that when the first tramway was laid in London it was generally objected to, and was very soon taken up. We had become wiser since, and had discovered that tramways were a great benefit to the working classes. London was now so well provided with tramways that the working classes were enabled to get into the country when they desired to do so, and to obtain not only cheaper rents, but purer air. It would, therefore, be very much to be regretted if the House were at this stage to throw out the Bill. He thought that the engineering difficulties could be much better settled by a Select Committee than in the House itself; and he trusted that the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  MERSEY RAILWAY BILL.

    REFERENCE OF PETITION. RESOLUTION.
    SIR JAMES CLARKE LAWRENCE, in moving—
    "That the Petition of Peter Williamson Dumville and Henry Daniel Davies, presented on the 17th instant, he referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, with an Instruction to report whether Standing Order 62 has teen complied with,"
    said, that the Petition complained of a grievance; and he did not know upon what ground the Motion could be resisted, seeing that the House had always been willing to consider grievances which were set forth in a respectful manner.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Petition of Peter Williamson Dumville and Henry Daniel Davies, presented on the 17th instant, be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, with an Instruction to report whether Standing Order 62 has been complied with."—(Sir James Clarke Lawrence.)
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he felt himself compelled to oppose the Motion, and he trusted that the House would not entertain it. As far as he could ascertain, there was no precedent for the course which had been taken in the matter, or, at all events, if there was, he had been unable to find it. The question was one which could not greatly interest the House; but it was, nevertheless, of considerable importance to those who were immediately concerned in it. The circumstances under which the hon. Baronet the Member for Lambeth (Sir James C. Lawrence) made the Motion were these: Mr. Dumville and Mr. Davies, the gentlemen whose names were mentioned in the Motion, had presented a Petition against the Mersey Railway Bill, which had been referred by the House to a Select Committee. The Court of Referees, in accordance with the usual practice of the House, had inquired into the locus standi of the Petitioners, and, having disallowed it, Mr. Dumville and Mr. Davies were not in a position to appear before the Committee against the Bill. It was now sought, on their part, to go behind this decision of the Court of Referees, which was the recognized tribunal of the House, and to have the Bill referred back to the Examiners of Petitions on Private Bills, with an Instruction to the Examiners to report whether Standing Order 62 had been properly complied with. He understood that Mr. Dumville was a proprietor of 12 shares in the Mersey Railway Company, and that in July last he parted with those 12 shares to Mr. Davies. The Wharncliffe meeting, at which the consent of the shareholders was given to the Company to proceed with the Bill, was held in February last, seven months after the transfer of shares took place. Mr. Dumville had, of course, ceased to be a shareholder; but Mr. Davies, to whom the transfer had been made, went to the office and requested to be allowed to register them in an irregular manner. He was desired to comply with the usual formality, which, although he had been

    645
    in possession of the shares for more than six months, he had not complied with, and had, therefore, never become a registered shareholder of the Company. At the Wharncliffe meeting resolutions were passed in favour of proceeding with the Bill, and it was now sought by persons who had never represented more than 12 shares in the Company to have the progress of the Bill stopped, and to evade the decision of the Court of Referees by endeavouring to convert the Examiners of Private Bills into a legal Court, which they had never claimed to be, to determine a question of registration under the Joint Stock Companies Act. He ventured to think that the House of Commons, which had quite enough to do, would be unwilling to undertake a novel and embarrassing duty of this kind. As he had shown that there was no ground for the Motion, and that no precedent existed for it, he should oppose it in every possible way.
    MR. PEMBERTONsaid, the case had been before the Court of Referees, to which he had the honour to belong, and he would explain how the matter had arisen. The House would be aware that, under one of the Standing Orders, a shareholder of a Company was not allowed to oppose a Bill introduced by the Company, provided that the opinion of the shareholders had been expressed in its favour at a properly constituted Wharncliffe meeting. The facts of the case had been fully stated by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes). There had been a transfer of shares from Mr. Dumville to Mr. Davies; and the question whether the Company were right or wrong in refusing to recognize and register the transfer was not a question for the Court of Referees. If the Company had acted wrongly, the Courts of Law were open to the persons who felt themselves aggrieved for the purpose of compelling registration, and it would have been a most improper course for the Court of Referees to have assumed the functions of a Court of Law. That was one of the reasons why he and his Colleagues came to the decision to refuse to admit this Petition; but there was a further reason—namely, that by the certificate of the Examiners, who had certified that all the proper notices had been given, and all the necessary forms
    646
    had been complied with, the question had been, in point of fact, taken out of their jurisdiction. To call upon the Examiners to decide a question which a Court of Law only could deal with, and to ask them to pronounce whether the Company had or had not good reason for refusing to register the transfer, would, in his opinion, be most improper.
    Question put, and negatived.

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—NORTH DUBLIN UNION—BANK ADVANCES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Bank of Ireland has agreed to make advances to the Guardians of the North Dublin Union, free of interest, in the early part of each year, in consideration of the balances to credit of the Union in the later portion of the year; whether the Bank of Ireland has offered to give the loan now required by the guardians on the same terms as those agreed to by the Hibernian Bank; and, what is the issue of the correspondence between the guardians and the Local Government Board with respect to the resolution of the guardians appointing the Hibernian Bank their treasurer?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The arrangement which has obtained for several years in the North Dublin Union is that the Bank of Ireland charges the Guardians interest on overdrafts, and allows them interest on credit balances. The terms on which the loan for building purposes will be advanced by the Bank of Ireland have yet to be arranged between the Guardians and the Bank. I have already stated what the issue of the correspondence has been—namely, that the Local Government Board have declined to sanction the proposed change in the treasurership of the Union.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—MAGHERACLOGHER, &c. DIVISIONS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the decision of the Irish Local Government Board with respect to certain illegalities and irregularities af-

  647
  fecting the elections for Poor Law divisions of Magheraclogher, Meenacladdy, and Dunlewey, which have been reported to the Local Government Board by the Rev. James M 'Fadden; and, also, as to claims to vote which have been made by occupiers whose valuation is under £4 per annum, but is higher than their rent, and who are liable to pay Poor Rate on the difference between the rent and the valuation, and are not entitled by Law to deduct the Poor Rate on the amount of such difference from the rent?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The decision of the Local Government Board in this matter cannot be given for some days to come. The correspondence is not yet completed.

  IRELAND—THE INCOME TAX COLLECTOR, DROGHEDA.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Mr. John Farrell, Collector of Income Tax at Drogheda, was dismissed by the Local Government Board from the office of Poor Rate Collector, for not having accounted for the rates; and, whether, if the fact be so, Mr. Farrell can retain the collectorship of Income Tax?
  MR. HIBBERT: Mr. Farrell was compelled to resign his local appointment in 1883. On the other hand, he has an extremely good character as an Income Tax officer, and his conduct to the latest dates was very satisfactory. The attention of the Board of Inland Revenue has been called to the circumstances of the case.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE KINSALE MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. DEASYasked the Postmaster Genera], Whether the Post Office authorities intend to make the alterations in the mail service to and from Kinsale which the Town Commissioners have suggested to them?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The day mail to Kinsale is forwarded by the first available train, and the suggestion of the Town Commissioners could only be complied with by establishing a train specially for the Postal Service at a cost out of all proportion to the correspondence to be benefited. I regret, therefore, that it is not practicable to meet the wishes of the Commissioners.

  POOR LAW EXPENDITURE (IRELAND).
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as President of the Local Government Board, his attention has been directed to the table of expenditure of Poor Rates for twenty-one years, as printed at page 19 in the last Report of the Board; whether it is a fact that the total expenditure for the year 1883 was £1,326,963, as against £716,523 in 1863, or an increase of £610,440; whether he has observed, at page 9, that the inmates of workhouses have decreased from 206,504 in January 1851 to 49,884 in 1884; whether he has noticed that the cost for maintenance, including out-door relief, and the blind and deaf and dumb in extern hospitals, is £669,382, while the salaries and rations of officers are given at £137,025 and "other expenses" £236,438, as against £96,222 and £105,821 in 1863; whether, as the expenses under the Medical Charities, Burial Grounds, Registration, Sanitary, Contagious Diseases, Superannuation, and National School Teachers Acts are all excluded, he can say what items are included under the head of "other expenses;" what is the cause of the annual increase of establishment charges concurrently with the decrease of population; and, can anything be done to put a stop to it?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The figures given by the hon. Member are correctly quoted; but he has not taken the same years in his comparison of the expenditure with the number of inmates. Under the heading "other expenses" are included all establishment charges other than the salaries and rations of officers, such as expenses for furniture, implements, fuel, light, books, printing, stationery, drugs, medical and surgical appliances, rent, taxes, and so forth. The increase of establishment charges to which the hon. Member alludes is in a large measure due to the increased cost of the rations of officers, of which some idea may be formed from the fact that within the past 20 years the cost of inmates of the workhouse for provisions and officers has increased 40 or 50 per cent. The Local Government Board are not aware that there has been any undue expenditure, and every proposed increase of salary or emoluments is carefuly scrutinized.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked whether, under the heading "other expenses," any extra charges were made for duties performed by the officers of Poor Law Guardians in connection with other matters?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have seen a list this day, and my impression is that nothing of the kind is allowed.

  IRELAND—NATIONAL LEAGUE MEETINGS—COOTEHILL—INTRUSION OF THE POLICE-SERGEANT HARVEY.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Sergeant Harvey, Royal Irish Constabulary, attended a meeting of the Cootehill branch of the Irish National League, in the county Roscommon, on Sunday last, and refused to withdraw at the request of the Secretary, Mr. James O'Hara; whether it is true that Sergeant Harvey has used insulting and threatening language to Mr. O'Hara on several occasions; and, whether he will inquire into the truth of the allegations made against Sergeant Harvey?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sergeant Harvey did not attend the meeting of this branch of the National League on Sunday last. He applied for admission to the meeting on the 12th instant, but was refused, and at once withdrew. I am informed that he has never used insulting or threatening language to Mr. O'Hara.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—GALWAY AND ARRAN ISLANDS' DISPENSARIES.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he be now in a position to make a statement in reference to the union of the dispensaries of Galway and Arran Islands?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Local Government Board have decided that they could not properly impose on Arran Island the serious financial charge entailed by the existence of a separate Dispensary Committee. The separation of the two districts could not affect or benefit the sick poor, as the members of the Committee resident on the principal Island can give orders for medical attendance whether the Committee meets in Arran or in Galway; and while the
  650
  result of separation would be a very slight financial relief to Galway, it would involve for Arran the very serious addition to the rates of something like 10d. in the pound.

  SPAIN—EXTRADITION OF CRIMINALS.
  MR. GREGORYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Treaty exists between this country and Spain by which persons who have absconded there to avoid the consequences of gross fraud or robbery in England can be made amenable to the Law, or the extradition of such persons can be demanded; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government could make a friendly representation to that of Spain upon the subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: An Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and Spain was concluded on the 4th June, 1878, and is at present in force. It contains provisions for the extradition of persons accused of robbery or fraud. The Treaty was laid before Parliament during the year in which it was signed.

  FISHERIES BOARD (IRELAND)—BOARD OF CONSERVATORS, COLERAINE DISTRICT.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the working licensed fishermen of Lough Neagh, upwards of three hundred in number, complain that they have power to elect only four out of twenty-four members of the Board of Conservators of the Coleraine district; whether the total number of licences of all kinds issued annually in that district is not more than about four hundred; what proportion of the funds administered by the Board of Conservators is derived from the licence duty paid by the working fishermen; whether the fishermen represent that some of the Conservators, being themselves the owners of salmon fisheries on the Bann, between Lough Neagh and the sea, are hostile to the industry of the working men who fish the lake, and have caused the institution of regulations which impede and harass the working fishermen to such an extent as to deprive them of the means of subsistence; whether the fishermen claim that Lough Neagh should be constituted a separate district; whether, the voting

  651
  for elections of members of the present Board being open, the water bailiffs are in the habit of using intimidation to induce the working fishermen to give their votes for certain candidates; whether the fishermen declare that the loss of the lives of four of their body in the Lough, on the 26th November last, was caused by the want of a suitable landing place; and, whether the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries will hold a public inquiry into, and make a report upon, the several complaints in question?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly repeat this Question on Monday. It only appeared yesterday, and I have not had time to procure Reports on the subject.

  IRELAND—EXTRA POLICE TAX (LIMERICK).
  Mr. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the amount due to the Government from the Corporation of Limerick for extra police; when such debt was incurred; when was judgment recorded against the Corporation for the amount; whether the Corporation continues to resist payment of the demand; whether it is the fact that the Lord Lieutenant, some time since, invited the Corporation to a meeting to discuss a possible compromise or arrangement; whether the Corporation refused to attend such meeting; whether the Government has, for nearly a year past, allowed the matter to rest, and the judgment of the Court in its favour to remain unexecuted; and, whether the Government has enforced, and received payment, from other Irish municipal bodies of similar claims, incurred at the same time, under similar circumstances, under the same Law?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The net amount due by the Limerick Corporation for extra police down to the last presentment made, and exclusive of a sum of nearly £400 due for detachments sent into the city on occasional emergencies, is £1,305 5s. 3d., and the charge has been accruing since October, 1881. The position of the Irish Government in the matter, and their views as to the mode in which payment should be enforced, have been frequently explained, and have undergone no change. It was not until late in last year that
  652
  the situation was exactly defined, and no opportunity has since offered for obtaining the legislative powers necessary to carry out the proposals of the Government. I trust, however, such an opportunity will soon arise. Other Municipal Bodies have become liable to similar claims; but it has never been necessary for the Government to resort to extreme powers with a view to enforce payment.
  MR. LEWISasked if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to state when it was intended to introduce the necessary legislation on the subject?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; I cannot say when.
  MR. LEWIS: I will repeat the Question this day fortnight.

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES BILLS—THE NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY'S BILL.
  SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSON: I beg to ask the senior Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), Whether he is prepared to state, on behalf of the North Eastern Railway Company, what course they intend to take in regard to their Rates and Charges Bill? Perhaps the hon. Baronet will also be able to explain what course the other eight Railway Companies, who have introduced similar Bills, propose to take.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: The North-Eastern Railway Bill was brought in in order to carry out some of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee on Railway Rates and Charges, especially those having regard to the classification of goods and the consolidation of those Statutes by which powers are given to the North-Eastern Railway Company to levy tolls. It proposed in the Bill also to settle the terminal question, and to subject the terminals to the control of the Railway Commission, as suggested in the Report of the Committee on Rates and Charges. While modifications of existing tolls were proposed, there was no desire on the part of the North-Eastern Company to ask for powers to increase the gross amount they could levy by the tolls already granted to them by Parliament. The Company never supposed that the provisions of this Bill would be accepted by Parliament as a solution of those difficult questions without the minutest care and criticism. They were perfectly

  653
  prepared to pass this Bill in review before any of the usual tribunals of Parliament.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman, in answering a Question as to the course he proposes to take in reference to a particular Bill, is in Order in entering into a lengthened statement of the contents of the Bill, and indirectly arguing in its favour?
  MR. SPEAKER: As far as the hon. Member has as yet proceeded, I have not observed any argumentative statement, but simply an explanation of what was intended to be done. Of course, any statement of the kind referred to by the noble Lord would be entirely out of Order.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: The promoters of this Bill, from the communications they have had with traders using their railways, have no reason to suppose that they could not have been able to arrange with the traders of their own district such modifications as would have made this Bill generally satisfactory to them. Having reference to what has passed in this House from the President of the Board of Trade as to the position of the Government in relation to the Railway Bills, and also to the opposition manifested in the country, directed, perhaps, more to questions not dealt with in these Bills than to the contents of the Bills themselves—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Baronet to leave out any controversial matter.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I shall propose either not to take further steps with this Bill, or I shall ask leave of the House at an early date to discharge the Order for the second reading of the North-Eastern Railway Company's Bill; and on that occasion perhaps the House would give me leave, should I think it needful, to make some observations more in detail on the reasons which led to the introduction of the Bills, and for taking the course indicated. The same course, I believe, would be followed as regards the Bills of the other Companies.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL—MEMORANDUM OF THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF PROBATE.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  654
  Whether the Government will lay upon the Table, without delay, the Memorandum of the Judge of the Court of Probate upon the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I shall be prepared to lay the Memorandum in question on the Table with some other Memoranda relating to the same subject.

  ARMY (INDIA)—PROMOTION IN HER MAJESTY'S INDIAN FORCES.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government intend to consider the claims and grievances of the Indian Military Officers, with a view to the removal of their discontent at the present slowness of promotion?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I am not aware that discontent prevails among the officers of Her Majesty's Indian Forces in respect of promotion. Recently, on the issue by the War Office of a Royal Warrant, giving promotion in the Corps of Royal Engineers to the rank of captain in 11, instead of as heretofore in 12, years, the change was introduced in the Indian Staff Corps, promotion in which is made on the same lines as in the Engineers. I do not know that any further change is now contemplated.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that if this matter were again brought before the House, he would ask the Under Secretary if it was not a fact that the promotion of officers was better and quicker now than it ever was in the days of the East India Company?

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—THE MARTINI-HENRY CARTRIDGE.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether any further official reports have been received from the Soudan confirming the statements in the newspapers as to the defective manufacture, and frequent jamming, of the present service Martini-Henry rifle cartridges, and the inefficiency, in many instances, after use, of the bayonets now in possession of the troops; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay such reports upon the Table; whether, without detriment to the public service, he can state what exertions are being made to substitute,

  655
  as soon as possible, either by increasing the manufacture at Woolwich, or by contracting with private firms, for the present cartridges now in store in India and elsewhere, the new solid drawn metal cartridge, definitively adopted as the service pattern cartridge of the future; and, whether the new Maxim machine gun has yet been approved, and its manufacture ordered?
  MR. BRAND: Further official Reports regarding the rifle cartridges have just been received; but there has not yet been time to examine them in detail. No Reports have been received as to the alleged inefficiency of the bayonets now in possession of the troops; and I would remind the noble Lord that I made a statement the other day on this point. I can only repeat the statement I made then—that in the opinion of the authorities the bayonets issued to the troops are perfectly serviceable. Supplies of cases for the solid-case cartridges to the full extent required can be obtained without difficulty from the trade; but, in the event of a final decision being taken to adopt the solid-case cartridge for use in practice as well as in the field, steps will at once be taken to alter the plant at Woolwich. The Maxim gun is now under trial, but no pattern has yet been approved.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Are we to understand that the solid-case cartridges are not to be supplied from Woolwich?
  MR. BRAND: What has been done was stated by me the other day. In compliance with Lord Wolseley's urgent request, the solid-case cartridges have been manufactured for the Forces in the field. It has long been known that the solid-case cartridges have advantages over other cartridges.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked if the hon. Member could say when the troops would be supplied with the new metal cartridges?
  MR. BRAND: No, Sir. And I do not think it is at all desirable to answer Questions regarding the precise details of our military equipment and armament.

  SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES (IRELAND)—CORRY CONNELLAN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If Corry Connellan has called for his pension since the debates
  656
  of last year; and, if not, has it been paid to him, and, if paid, how and where was it paid?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Corry Connellan died three months ago?

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884—HOUSEHOLD QUALIFICATIONS.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the occupiers of houses of the yearly value of £4, held without any written title, each occupier paying £1 a-year as rent or ground rent, together with 4s. on account of taxes, will be qualified to be put on the roll of voters under the new Reform Bill?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I consider that the persons referred to, assuming them to be men of full age, will be entitled to be registered and to vote under the new Act. Upon the facts stated in the Question, they appear to me to be qualified as inhabitant occupiers or tenants.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—M. DE GIERS' DESPATCH IN REPLY TO EARL GRANVILLE.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Despatch from M. de Giers, published in the English newspapers of the 22nd and 23rd, and purporting to be a reply of the Russian Government to Her Majesty's Government, is authentic; and, whether the following or similar passages occur in the Russian Despatch:—
  "It is impossible for us not to trace back the cause to the military aspect with which the English Government thought it their duty to invest their boundary commission.
  "We cannot pass by the facts that certain Officers in its suite directed the movements of the Afghan troops, and that the loudly proclaimed interview between the Amir and the Viceroy, and its bellicose surroundings, must certainly have contributed to embolden the Afghans to the point of committing such acts of provocation as could not be tolerated by the representatives of Russian Military authorities?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Until the moment arrives for presenting Papers to Parliament, it would not be in the public interest that I should make any statement in regard to documents published in the newspapers which, if

  657
  they are what they profess to be, are evidently of a confidential character.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Then the noble Lord does not deny that there is a Despatch?
  [No reply.]

  CYPRUS (FINANCE, &c.)—REPORTED REVENUE FRAUDS.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Chief Inspector of Revenue in Cyprus has resigned his office; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will withhold their acceptance of his resignation until further inquiry into the recent revenue frauds has taken place?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I am not able to answer the first part of the Question; but as to the second, which is really the most important, I am able to reply that the day before yesterday we telegraphed to the Governor that should there be any question of resignation he should refuse to accept it until he receives further instructions.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS—TREATY OF PARIS, 1856.
  MR. RICHARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, "Whether, in case ordinary diplomatic negotiations have not or may not prove successful in settling the points in dispute between this Country and Russia, the Government will act on the declaration of the Treaty of Paris of 1856, which expresses the unanimous wish of the Powers who were parties to the Treaty, that States between which any serious misunderstanding may arise should, before appealing to arms, have recourse to the good offices of a friendly Power, as set forth in the Protocol of April 14th 1856?
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in voting the exceptional amount to be asked for armaments on Monday next, this House may assume that Her Majesty's Government adheres to the following declaration of the 23rd Protocol of the Treaty of Paris:—
  "The Plenipotentiaries do not hesitate to express, in the name of their Governments, the wish that States between which any serious misunderstanding may arise should, before appealing to arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances might allow, to the good offices of a friendly Power;"
  658
  and, that this House and the Country may rest assured that a proposal will be made to refer any matters in dispute between this Country and Russia to such arbitration, should it so unfortunately happen that an amicable solution of them fails to be arrived at by direct negotiation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I have to say in answer this Question is that Her Majesty's Government have never, during the course of the recent or present Correspondence, or in answer to Questions in this House, said anything to the prejudice of the idea which is put forward in these two Questions. But it must be borne in mind that every declaration made in this House in reply to a Question is virtually an announcement or a declaration to the Government of Russia. It does not appear to us convenient or desirable in the public interest that declarations to the Russian Government should be made through the channel of Answers to Questions.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether information has been received from Sir Peter Lumsden, explaining if the advance of an Afghan reconnaissance on 27th March was previous to. or subsequent to, the reconnaissance of the Russians on the same day, and to what point the Afghan reconnaissance was pushed; whether any Report from Captain Yate, with regard to the advice tendered by him to the Afghan Commander on the 29th of March, and referred to in the extract from the Letter of the Afghan Commander to General Komaroff, has been received; whether Copies of the Letter of General Komaroff, which called forth the above Letter, and of the private Letter of General Komaroff to the Afghan Commander, received a few hours before the Russian attack, have been received; whether it is known if any reply was sent by the Afghan Commander to General KomaroS's second letter; and, whether, with reference to Sir Peter Lumsden's statement that the Afghans were induced to extend their defensive position, any subsequent information has been received explaining more clearly the nature of this extension, and if a withdrawal on their part to the positions occupied on the 17th of March constituted the Russian ultimatum alluded to in Sir Peter Lumsden's telegraphic Despatch of 17th April?
  MR. ONSLOWalso asked whether Her Majesty's Government had received from Sir Peter Lumsden, or from any other source, information of the "incessant irritation" which Sir Peter Lumsden described the Russians as having kept up against the Afghans; and, if so, what action the Government had taken on receipt of that information?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I was about to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to the effect that, owing to Lord Granville's heavy engagements, I have not been able to hold any communication with him on all the points of this Question; and I would therefore ask my hon. Friend to be kind enough to postpone it until we should have an opportunity to consider it. It is rather a nice matter whether in the end it would be desirable to carry on a detailed discussion of points of this kind with the Russian Government. I quite admit that it is our duty to take care, if, in questions of this kind, as is perfectly possible, any new light is thrown upon any point of the case, or any suggestion made which ought to lead to some extension of any explanation made by us, it would be our duty to advert to it. For the present I should be glad if the hon. Member would postpone his Question; and I must ask for Notice of the Question which has just been put by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow).
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government are in possession of telegraphic information from Sir Peter Lumsden on the subject of his removal from Gulran to Tirpul, and the circumstances preceding and attending it; if so, whether he will communicate that information to the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In general my answer would be that we are not in possession of any full statement at all of the reasons which determined him to remove his camp from Gulran to Tirpul. That was my impression when I heard the Question of the noble Lord yesterday; but I was desirous of refreshing my memory. What we have heard from him is as follows:—On the 6th instant he telegraphed that he had arrived at Tirpul on the previous day, with the loss of some followers in crossing the pass in a hurricane of wind and snow
  660
  and rain; and subsequently, on the 10th, he reported more fully to the effect that 24 followers, including three Afghan sowars, and eight Persian muleteers, together with many mules and baggage, had perished from the inclemency of the weather. That is all the information we have had, and we can only form our own judgment as to why he look the stop.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that the Russian Forces are now marching on Herat; and, whether Her Majesty's Ministers are taking any steps for the defence of that important position?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the first Question there is no information, and we have no reason to believe that the Russians are marching on Herat. In regard to the second branch of the Question, I do not suppose the hon. Member desires me to say more than that the subject is receiving the attention of the Government.

  EGYPT-SEIZURE OF THE "BOSPHORE EGYPTIEN"—RECALL OF THE FRENCH CONSUL.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister or the noble Lord, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any information as to the French Government having recalled their Consul General from Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; we have no information.

  ARMY—COMMISSIONS TO CANADIAN CADETS.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it was true that the Government had offered 25 commissions in the Army to be competed for by graduates of the Military College in Canada; and, if so, whether it was in contemplation to offer similar advantages to candidates from other Colonies who might be properly qualified?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In addition to the four commissions usually granted to that institution, 26 commissions in the Army have this year been offered to duly qualified graduates and cadets of the Royal Military College, Kingston, Canada. The Dominion of Canada is the only Colony which pos-

  661
  sesses a Military College; but the War Office is also in communication with the Colonial Office on the subject of offering, this year, a limited number of commissions in the Imperial Army to members of the local Military Forces of the Colonies.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (IRELAND)—THE ARCHBISHOPRIC OF DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister or the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the positive statements which have appeared in the Press, Whether it is true that the British Government has caused representations, through Mr. Errington, to be made to the Sovereign Pontiff, with a view of influencing His Holiness in the appointment of an Archbishop to the Catholic See of Dublin, other than the capitulary of Archiepiscopal See, contrary to the wishes of the clergy of the diocese?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMARICE: I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of that Question.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Does the noble Lord require Notice to answer a Question as to whether the British Government meddles in a matter of internal government like the appointment of an Archbishop of Dublin?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; I do require Notice.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: When the Question of which Notice has been given by my hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) is put, I beg to give Notice that I shall ask, Whether, when Her Majesty's Government instructed Mr. Errington to interfere, they at the same time caused a copy of Vaticanism and other works of the Prime Minister to be sent to the Holy See?

  EGYPT AND FRANCE—RUPTURE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it was true, as reported, that the French Government had broken off diplomatic relations with Egypt; and, secondly, whether the French Government had offered to release Her Majesty's Government from the unfortunate financial agreement in respect of Egypt to which the House recently gave its assent?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No such information has reached the Foreign Office.
  Afterwards,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid: The answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition just now was with respect to the information received up to that time. I am sorry to say that within the few minutes that have since elapsed a telegram has been received stating that the French Charge d'Affaires left Cairo this morning. I am not sure of the technical term Charge d'Affaires; but what I understand is, that it means the Representative of the French Government.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Is that communication from Cairo?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is a telegram from Sir Evelyn Baring. It has been sent down to me, and I have no doubt that it comes from Cairo.
  MR. BOURKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether or not there is any other telegram from Sir Evelyn Baring leading up to that one?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would now answer his Question as to whether the French Government had broken off diplomatic relations with the Egyptian Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The information given by the Prime Minister is all that is in possession of the Foreign Office.
  MR. O'KELLYasked if the noble Lord could state under what conditions the French Charge d'Affaires has left Cairo? Had he merely gone on a visit to Alexandria, or was there any diplomatic reason for the step?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There are no details. The actual words received by the Foreign Office have been given to the House.
  MR. O'KELLYasked whether it was M. Barrere or his Representative who had left Cairo?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: M. Barrere is in Paris sitting on the Suez Canal Commission. It must, therefore, be his Representative.
  MR. O'KELLYinquired whether the Government would telegraph to Sir Evelyn Baring to ascertain under what

  663
  circumstances the French Charge d'Af-faires had left Cairo, in order that the House might know the facts as soon as possible?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no doubt that in the ordinary course we shall receive full information, and it will not be necessary to make a special inquiry. I should take the information which I have just given to the House as a proof that the Agents of the British Government will communicate with us with all possible rapidity.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I shall place on the Paper this evening my Amendments to the Redistribution Bill; but I am anxious to take the earliest opportunity of mentioning to the House a difficulty which has arisen with regard to Westminster. I stated in Committee that I thought a fair case had been made out from the opposite side for treating Westminster as an ancient borough, and for assigning to it four Members instead of the three which had been allotted to it by the Bill. I had made inquiries of the Leaders of the Opposition, and had found that it was their opinion that the additional seat required should be taken from some other part of London. I examined which was the least under-represented part of London, and, finding this was the centre of the Tower Hamlets, I suggested to the Committee that the seat must come from thence. I undertook that Sir John Lambert and Sir Francis Sandford should, after local inquiry, advise us as to the division of Westminster into four, and should also advise us as to the re-division of the Tower Hamlets. Their Report will be circulated to-morrow morning, and will contain maps. It yesterday came to my knowledge that the Leaders of the Opposition so greatly disliked the proposed division of Westminster, and so greatly preferred the original division into three, which had been made by myself without the advice of the Boundary Commissioners, as to lead me to doubt whether it will be wise for me to propose to go forward with the changes which I had intended to make. I regard those changes as mutually dependent, and I should be prepared to revert to them should I find a decided change of opinion on the other side of the House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked if the right hon. Baronet would amplify his statement by saying which Leaders of the Opposition had informed him of their views—which Leaders wished Westminster to have four Members, and which Leaders wished it to have three? Otherwise, isolated Members of the Party had great difficulty in knowing what course to take.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I must say that the Leader of the Opposition wished for four as against three.
  MR. W. H. SMITHintimated that when the right hon. Baronet proposed to reduce the number of Members for Westminster he should oppose it.
  MR. GORSTasked whether, when the Amendment was proposed, the right hon. Baronet would take into consideration the feelings and views of the inhabitants of Westminster as well as the opinions of the Leaders of the Opposition?
  MR. RITCHIEasked whether the claims of the Tower Hamlets to have seven Members was to be dependent upon an agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Leaders of the Opposition as to the representation of Westminster?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that if Westminster was to have four Members instead of three, the additional seat was to be taken from the Metropolis. He should propose that it should be taken from the Tower Hamlets.
  MR. RITCHIEinquired whether it was an open question with the Government whether the additional seat was to be taken from the Metropolis or from some town in the Provinces?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied that, on former occasions, he had stated that there had been a suggestion made that an additional seat for Westminster might be obtained from other sources besides the Metropolis.
  MR. ONSLOWremarked that, as communications appeared to have been going on between the Leader of the Opposition and the Government, he should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition what course he proposed to ask the Party to take on this question?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that, as the Mover of the Amendment, he would remind the right hon. Baronet that it was unanimously accepted by the Committee. He wished to ask, if upon Report there was

  665
  still a strong feeling shown as to the claim of Westminster to have four Members, the right hon. Baronet would adhere to the decision already arrived at by the House?
  MR. BRODRICKsuggested that a seat might be taken from one of the over-represented counties in Ireland.
  MR. LEWISobserved that Wolverhampton was an over-represented borough from which a seat might be taken.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that Wolverhampton was mentioned on a former occasion as one of the boroughs from which a seat might be taken. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University that the view which met the general concurrence of the House was that the question of dividing Westminster into four districts should be decided on the advice of the Boundary Commissioners.
  MR. RITCHIEwished to know whether, in the event of the Tower Hamlets retaining its seven Members, there was to be any fresh scheme of redistribution, or whether the original scheme of the Bill was to be carried out?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, in the event of the Tower Hamlets retaining its full number of Members, the original scheme of division would be carried out, and there would only be a change of name, the separate divisions continuing parts of the borough of the Tower Hamlets.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Leader of the Opposition what the arrangement was with regard to Westminster and the Tower Hamlets?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I can only say that I understood it was the wish of the House to change the number of Members for Westminster from three to four, and I entirely approve of that alteration. That, however, involves a change of the redistribution of the divisions of Westminster. But when the re-arrangement of the borough came to be made the division which was suggested and approved by Sir John Lambert and Sir Francis Sandford appeared to me and to the right hon. Member for Westminster to be an unfortunate division, and one which would not be satisfactory to the people of Westminster; and I certainly intend to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) in
  666
  his endeavours to obtain a better division for the borough than that proposed by the Schedule.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the arrangement between Lord Salisbury and the Government was that any arrangement come to by the Boundary Commissioners the Government pledged themselves to carry through the House; and whether, in consequence of that, the Government had refused every' Amendment in the case of Irish divisions, whereas they had consented to a change in the case of Westminster?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied that the division of London and the Metropolis generally was made by himself, and not by the Boundary Commissioners.

  VISIT OF H.R.H. THE PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES TO IRELAND—THE CITY OF LONDONDERRY.
  MR. DARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated, that the Prince of Wales is, on his visit to Derry on Saturday next, to receive an address from the local Orange and apprentice boy parties; whether the Orange address is to be presented by Mr. Robert M'Clintock, who was rebuked by the Lord Chancellor for his participation in an Orange apprentice boy meeting on the 1st of November last, when two Nationalists were shot and badly wounded, and for which one apprentice boy was convicted and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment by Justice Murphy, who described the Orange proceedings as "the wild work in Derry;" whether, on a previous Royal visit, party riots took place, in which the police shot dead three men; whether, under the circumstances, and having regard to the local party feeling, it is deemed desirable that addresses should be received from societies and individuals notorious for violent party displays; whether a demonstration of protest by the Nationalists is to take place; whether, at a meeting of the Royal Reception Committee in Derry, a vote on the subject of the propriety of receiving the Orange Address was taken, when the Committee equally divided, three Presb3'terian Liberal magistrates, one Catholic Liberal magistrate, and one Presbyterian Liberal merchant protesting against the arrangement for receiving the Orange Address

  667
  as a party affair; whether, some days previously, the Address of the County Derry Liberal Union was refused on the ground that the visit was non-political; and, whether the Government will take steps to prevent possible disastrous consequences on the occasion of the Royal visit to Derry by advising against the reception of the Addresses referred to?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I telegraphed to Ireland this morning, but have not yet received a specific Report with regard to the matters of fact on past occasions referred to in this Question. I understand, however, that no addresses have been received or will be received by His Royal Highness from associations which are in their constitution distinctly political, and no addresses are received which contain any political allusions. The addresses from the Orange Lodge and Apprentice Boys of Derry will not be allowed to be presented as a Party display; and as no partizan character attaches to the addresses, it is hoped that no Party feeling will be evoked which might mar the peaceful character of the reception. It is needless to add that steps will be taken to prevent any disturbance arising from any mistaken conception as to the character of the addresses. The Government are fully alive to the existence of a strong Party feeling in the City of Derry, and to the importance of taking every precaution to prevent disturbance.
  MR. PARNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Orange Lodges and the Apprentice Boys Association are not political organizations?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am neither an Orangeman nor an Apprentice Boy; but they utterly deny that they have any political meaning, and that is the general understanding.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 110.]
  (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 23rd April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Special provisions as to voters in 1885) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Power of Lord Lieutenant in Council to prescribe forms).
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in rising to move an Amendment, to leave out the first part of the clause down to the word "not," in line 22, for the purpose of inserting—
  "The forms contained in the First Schedule to this Act, or forms to the like effect, may be used for the purposes of the Parliamentary Registration Acts in substitution for the corresponding forms used for the same purposes before the passing of this Act."
  said, that the object of the Amendment was to alter the manner in which the forms for carrying into effect the Parliamentary Registration Acts were to be prescribed, in consequence of the decision which had been come to by the Committee upstairs in connection with the English Bill. There were two ways of settling the forms in regard to registration; one by Order in Council, and the other under the authority of the Act which would require the forms themselves to be embodied in the Act. The Committee upon the English Bill had resolved that it would be better to prescribe the forms in a Schedule attached to the Bill; and as this clause in the Irish Act gave power to the Lord Lieutenant in Council to prescribe the forms, the object of the Amendment was to omit that power, and to substitute a Schedule in which the forms required for the purposes of Parliamentary registration would be set out.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, leave out from beginning of Clause 10 the word "and" in line 22, and insert "The forms contained in the First Schedule to this Act, or forms to the like effect, may be used for the purposes of the Parliamentary Registration Acts in substitution for the corresponding forms used for the same purposes before the passing of this Act."—[Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the Amendment showed how unfairly the Irish Members had been treated in having been allowed no representation whatever upon the English Committee. If there was one subject which was highly technical and complicated, it was the question of registration in Ireland; and he would point out to the Government that, in the forms proposed to be

  669
  included in. the Schedule, there were a series of gross mistakes. The forms themselves were only laid on the Table yesterday, and hon. Members had not had very much time to look into them; but in the short time which had been allowed he had been able to detect very extraordinary errors. He did not propose to discuss the Schedule now; but he simply desired to point out that the best mode of promoting the despatch of Business would be to pass the Schedules, when they had gone through the clauses, with little or no debate; and then, when they had the Bill reprinted, for the Government to give a week or 10 days for consideration, and, if necessary, re-commit the Bill in respect of the Schedules. No questions of policy would arise upon them; but they involved matters of technical detail which could not be agreed to hurriedly. He certainly did not think it would be fair to Ireland to allow English forms, shaped by English lawyers, without a single Irish Member being on the Committee, and in which he could already discover several blunders, to be accepted, as they stood, for Ireland. For instance, the 1st Schedule related to the precept of the Clerk of the Peace, and of the Clerk of the Union, and towards the end of No. 2 appeared these words, as a ground of objection—
  "Firstly, if such person shall not have been rated in the then last rate made for the relief of the poor as the occupier of the same lands, tenements, or hereditaments, in such copy of register mentioned of a net annual value of twelve pounds or upwards."
  There were several mistakes in that passage. One had reference to the rating, because under certain circumstances, by the provisions of the Franchise Bill, a man need not be rated at all; and he (Mr. Healy) had an Amendment to provide for such a state of things. The Government might say that that was the law at present; but the object of his Amendment was to make the law fully declared, and he saw no reason for the insertion of this extraordinary clause about being rated in the last rate made for the relief of the poor. It was quite clear to his mind that the words about rating should not occur in this Bill; because, if they were going to have household franchise, there was no necessity whatever to be rated in order to have the vote, and he did not understand that that was the opinion held by the hon.
  670
  and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. Then, again, he might point out in No. 3, headed "the supplementary list of ten pounds rated occupiers," it appeared to him that after the work "register," and in all subsequent precepts of the same character, it would be necessary to insert the words "or objected to therein." The paragraph would then read in this way—
  "You are also to make out, and, together with such copy of register for the said polling district or division of the said polling district, transmit to me a supplemental list [Form 11] of every male person of full age not appearing already on such copy of register who shall be rated in the last rate made for the relief of the poor or objected to therein."
  There clearly ought to be such a Proviso, and it should run all through these forms. In some of the later precepts he proposed to insert Amendments; and, therefore, he was not in a position to agree generally to these forms. He wished to know from the hon. and learned Solicitor General, or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether, if he agreed to the forms as they now stood, when the Bill was ready for Report, it would be recommitted in respect of the forms? In the first place, however, he would ask the Chairman whether, if the Committee accepted the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and thereby agreed to accept the forms in the Schedule of the Bill, they would be afterwards debarred from amending the Schedules? That was to say, that by agreeing to the Amendment they would accept the proposal to insert the forms in the Schedule, but only subject to amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member asks whether, if the Committee accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, they would be debarred from subsequently amending the Schedules? No; I think not.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that he had read the Schedules himself with great attention, both yesterday and this morning, and he had sent them to Ireland, in order that they might be considered by those who were better acquainted with the Registration Law than he was himself. As had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), the questions involved in these Schedules were of a very technical character. He would assume that they must have been prepared by the Law

  671
  Officers of Ireland, with the assistance of others who were acquainted with the matter; and he would be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would say whether they had been prepared merely with a view of applying the new Reform. Bill to the existing Registration Law, and to permit the registration to take place this year, as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill? Was that the object with which these Schedules had been prepared? Assuming that he received an affirmative answer to that question, he would suggest that, if this stage of the Bill was passed with these Schedules in it, after very little discussion, there should be a distinct understanding that they would not be debarred from using any information which might come, either from Ireland, or from their own examination of the Schedules, and that on the Report stage their right of criticism, revision, and, amendment would be preserved.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could assure his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Gibson) that the Schedules had been prepared with the single object of bringing upon the Register the different persons who were entitled to vote as £10-rated occupiers, and for the household and service suffrages. There was no other object whatever in preparing these Schedules, and he had himself intended to suggest that it would be desirable, after the Schedules had been adopted, that time should be given, in order that they might be thoroughly examined, because, originally, the Bill was framed in another way; and, therefore, it was only reasonable that such time should be allowed, and that either on the Report, or in some other way, the Schedules should be fully considered. It was not necessary that he should answer the objections to some of the forms which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy); because there would be an opportunity afforded for discussing them. He would be glad if, when his right hon. and learned Friend received information, he would point out to him (the Solicitor General for Ireland) any point which would assist in carrying out the object of the Bill—namely, to bring upon the Register any person who was entitled to be upon it.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that nothing would be more inconvenient than to alter the Schedules on the stage of the Report, when it would not be possible to answer all the questions which might be raised on minute matters of detail. What occurred to his mind was this—that the body of the Bill should be settled, and then that the question of the Schedules should be adjourned for a few days, until they could make up their minds with regard to them. That would be the most sensible course to adopt, in order that the Schedules should be made as intelligible as possible. He thought it would be impossible to alter them satisfactorily with the Speaker in the Chair, and that they would never be able to get to the end of them. He would, therefore, suggest that they should go through the Bill now, and set the Schedules apart for another day. It could not be a matter on which there would be any great difference of opinion; and, with regard to the English Bill, it had been considered that day in the most friendly spirit.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was only reasonable that considerable time should be given for an examination of these complicated Schedules; and he quite agreed that it would be desirable to stop the Bill when they got to the Schedules.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought there ought to be some communication with gentlemen who were interested in the question of Irish registration. Therefore, it was advisable to go through the Schedules, in some sort of conference, in order to see how far they agreed, or what points of difference arose. From his own experience, in dealing with the English Registration Bill, he knew the difficulties that might arise, and he thought it was necessary that there should be some communication of that kind.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would be very glad to adopt that suggestion.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he would say a word to confirm what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He was quite sure they would never get these forms satisfactorily settled, except by having a conference of that kind either by the appointment of a Select Committee, or in some other way,

  673
  by means of which Members, who bad actual experience of Irish registration, might meet together and settle the forms. The English forms had been settled in a very short time, and without the slightest difference of opinion.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had intimated that he thought some reasonable time ought to be given to the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) for the purpose of obtaining advice from Ireland in regard to these Schedules. and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland subsequently stated that he thought considerable time should be given. Now, he (Mr. Parnell) was of opinion, with regard to this matter, that it was most desirable the Bill should proceed with all reasonable speed, and that it should not be behind the English or the Scotch Bill. The conduct of the Government had been, he thought, in this matter, very negligent. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy) that, in the first instance, the Bill should have been printed long before it was printed; but the Irish officials did not seem to be able to make up their minds for a long time as to what the provisions of the Bill were to be. Secondly, the Bill was not printed until long after the English Bill was printed, and no Committee was moved for the purpose of considering it, as in the case of the English Bill. Ireland was not even given a Member on the English Committee; in fact, it was represented to the Irish Members that it was not necessary for them to have a Member on the English Committee, as the Bill entirely concerned the English registration. They now found that a vast mass of matters had been imported into the Irish Bill by the English Committee. The consequence of all this was that an excuse for delay was afforded to the Front Opposition Bench, and their Friends in that House, and it would be necessary for the Irish Members to raise a very serious question. If some considerable time, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, was to elapse before the Bill was again taken up, and before anything was again to be done, the other measures might come on before it. The Redistribution Bill might come on on Report and upon
  674
  the third reading, and this Bill might be altogether left behind. He should regard such a circumstance as most disastrous; because it might afford an excuse for the House of Lords to object to any additions which might be made to the Bill by the House of Commons, and, in fact, to repeat the course which they had several times adopted in years past. He, therefore, wished to have a clear understanding. He desired to know, in the first place, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) considered it necessary that the Bill should here-committed; and, secondly, whether the Government considered it necessary that the Bill should be re-committed in, reference to the Schedules? If not, whether they were of opinion that the Report stage would be sufficient for the examination of the Schedules; and, if so, at what date they proposed to take the consideration of the Report? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University consider that Wednesday next would be appropriate for the Report stage, and that it would afford him sufficient time for making inquiries? If it were fixed for any later date, and any considerable time was occupied in inquiry, the result would be a great and dangerous delay in the reprinting of the Bill. He, therefore, thought it his duty to ask for some further understanding from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland as to the delay which would take place.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the Government had only two objects in regard to the Bill, one of which was to get it passed as quickly as possible, which, for reasons other than those which had been mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Panel, was of great importance to the country. That was, therefore, the first object; but it was further desirable that those who were interested in the matter should not be deprived of a reasonable opportunity for considering the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had spoken as if the Government had allowed the English Committee to frame part of the Irish Bill. Nothing of the kind had been done. The Committee on the English Bill upstairs did not frame this Bill; but they decided that

  675
  the forms, instead of being fixed by Orders in Council, should be embodied in the Bill itself, in Schedules attached to it; and it was felt desirable that the same thing should be done for Ireland as was done for England. Therefore, the Government had added to the Bill, which was originally a small and simple Bill, these rather cumbrous Schedules. He admitted that they did contain a good deal of complicated material; but he did not think that any thorny matters were involved. Still, as the Schedules were complicated, it was only reasonable that time should be given for their consideration. The hon. Member complained that a proposal had been made which involved a loss of time before the re-committal of the Bill, and suggested that the Schedules should be considered and reported. They were quite ready to adopt that suggestion; but the complaint which was made was not unreasonable—namely, that matters of this sort would not be so well discussed in the House as in a Committee. Personally, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was willing to take either course—either to re-commit the Bill in regard to the Schedules; or to stop the progress of the Bill, in order to get the Schedules discussed consistent with a reasonable opportunity of obtaining the opinion of persons interested in the question. He could not say now to what day it would be necessary to adjourn the Bill; but he could assure the hon. Member it would be the earliest day they could get.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he would point out that the delay had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). He (Mr. Gibson) had not suggested it himself. He had only said that with 25 pages of Schedules it was only reasonable to give time for examining them.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland maintained that the English Committee had not been allowed to draft the Bill. He (Mr. Sexton) contended, on the other hand, that they had, in point of fact, drafted a very vital part of it, because it appeared that the forms inserted in it were to be those which were considered suitable for use in England.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr.
  676
  Sexton) was under a misapprehension. All the English Committee decided was that the forms in regard to the English Bill should be inserted in the Schedule, and not fixed by Order in Council; but they did not prescribe what the forms were to be. There were two courses open—either to insert the forms in Schedules attached to the Bill, or to settle them by Order in Council. As the first course had been adopted in the ease of the English Bill, it was considered desirable to pursue the same course in regard to the Irish Bill.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that, at any rate, the principle of the infusion of the Irish forms in the Bill was decided by the English Committee. It was to be regretted that no Irish Member had been upon the Committee, and hon. Members who had been engaged in other Committees upstairs had not, as yet, had an opportunity of perusing the forms. Those forms extended over aconsiderable number of pages; but they were told that they contained nothing upon which there was likely to be a difference of opinion, and, therefore, might be dealt with at any time with very little legal help. He thought the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was a fair and proper one, and that it would be very easy, on the Report, with the Speaker in the Chair, to settle and discuss the question. He wished to understand whether or not the Government consented to the suggestion of his hon. Friend—that they should discuss the Schedules on the Report of the Bill, and that they should take the Report on Wednesday? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that the House had two objects—first, to pass the Bill; and, secondly, to afford a reasonable time for the examination of the Schedules. He (Mr. Sexton) thought the examination might be completed in a very short space of time, and he was most unwilling that the progress of the Bill should be unnecessarily delayed. He thought they were all agreed as to the necessity of passing the Bill as quickly as possible; and, personally, he should be disposed to insist, as far as he could, on the Bill being allowed to hold its place in the relative progress of the three Bills which it now occupied, and that it should not be allowed to fall behind either the English or Scotch Bill. At present, it

  677
  was in front of the three Bills, and it ought to be allowed to retain that position. It could not be forgotten that on two previous occasions the will of the House of Commons had been overborne by the House of Lords, who had twice thrown out an Irish Registration Bill passed by the Lower House. The Irish Members, therefore, required some security and guarantee as to the date on which the Irish measure would be sent to the House of Lords, so that they should be able to know what the decision of that House was before the other Bills were sent up. If the Irish and Scotch Bills were submitted before a definite verdict were obtained with regard to the Irish Bill, the Irish Members might find themselves in a hopeless position, and the Government would be unable to take any definite action. The House of Lords might even throw out the Bill, as they had done on former occasions. Therefore, the pivot on which the whole question turned was this—that the Irish Bill should retain its present place in the order of procedure, and, if it was at all practicable, that it should be the first Bill to be sent up to the House of Lords. He also wished to know how Clause 2 was intended to operate if this Amendment were inserted? It provided that—
  "The forms contained in the First Schedule to this Act, or forms to the like effect, may he used for the purposes of: the Parliamentary Registration Acts in substitution for the corresponding forms used for the same purposes before the passing of this Act."
  As the Amendment stood, the forms now provided in the Schedule were to be the forms adopted without any power of alteration. He wished to know if those forms were to be always permanently used?
  MR. WARTONsaid, he would suggest that after the words "Parliamentary Registration Acts," in the Amendment, the words "and this Act" should be inserted, or it might be held that the forms inserted in the Schedule did not apply to the last Registration Act. He presumed it was the object of the Government to carry out the provisions, not only of the previous Registration Acts, but also of the Act now being passed. He would propose an Amendment to that effect for the purpose of eliciting the opinion of the hon. and
  678
  learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Ireland.
  Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment, by adding, after the word "Acts," the words "and this Act."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, this Act would be cited as "The Registration Act, 1885," and, therefore, it seemed to him that it would come under the description of "Parliamentary Registration Acts" proposed to be inserted in the clause.
  MR. HEALYsaid that the object of the Irish Members was an intelligible one—namely, that by whatever means it might be obtained, whether by recommitting the Schedules, or not recommitting them, but taking them upon the Report stage, the Bill should not be unduly delayed in finding its way to the House of Lords. They insisted upon having some security upon that point. They knew that the House of Lords would destroy their chances, if they possibly could. They had already proved their malice twice, and he did not wish to give them another chance. He complained strongly that the Government had not brought in the English and Irish Bills together. He had asked the question over and over again, but had never got a satisfactory answer. They had received a pledge, two years ago, from the Prime Minister, which had not yet been redeemed, and they had no promise that it would be redeemed. What he wished to know was, whether, now the Bill had been brought in, it would not be left to the mercy of the House of Lords to play what pranks they pleased with it, at the instigation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who had moved a number of Amendments without caring whether they were accepted here, but confiding in his Friends in the other House to adopt them? Therefore, the Irish Members would have no guarantee whatever that anything the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed would not be ultimately carried, and he wanted to know what the position of the Bill would be with regard to leaving the House?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, there was every intention on the part of the Government to carry on the three Bills pari passu. They were all required for the same purpose, and there was no intention of unduly delaying them.
  MR. HEALYasked when the Report would be taken?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was unable to say at present, and he would point out to the hon. and learned Member that he himself had originally proposed that there should be delay. The Government were anxious to proceed expeditiously with the Bill, consistently with a fair discussion of it. Some hon. Gentlemen suggested that it should be discussed on the Report; but, in dealing with technical matters of this kind, a conversation would be better than a formal discussion; therefore, personally, he should prefer to have it in Committee. It would not cause the Bill more delay than the other course.
  MR. LEWISsaid, the Committee had now been engaged for some time in discussing what day should be fixed for the Report instead of considering the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Lewis) that, instead of making progress with the Bill, they were really going backward.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he was not prepared to rule that the discussion was out of Order, because it was intended that the subject to which the matter referred should be considered on the Report.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he imagined that the Amendment now before the Committee was the one which he had moved.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that Amendment would not be in Order yet, because the Committee had not yet decided to leave out the words proposed to be omitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  Amendment (Mr. Warton), by leave, withdrawn,
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that, before they arrived at the conclusion of the conversation, it was necessary to know how the Schedules were to be disposed of, and at what time they would be taken. At present, the English Bill had only been
  680
  read a second time; and in the case of the Scotch Bill, the Speaker had simply been got out of the Chair. What he wished to know was, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that the Irish Bill was to proceed pari passu with the other Bills, whether they were to continue to occupy the position they now occupied; and, whether the initiative of progress would rest with the Irish Bill as at the present moment?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, in considering the important Business yet to be disposed of in connection with the electoral system, it was impossible to give an absolute pledge of precedence, especially as it would be necessary to consult the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board, and several other Members of the Government who had taken an active part in the proceedings. His (Mr. Trevelyan's) experience of Registration Bills led him to desire to see them sent up to the House of Lords as early as possible. He would promise, on the part of the Government, that they would see that in this matter the Irish Registration Bill should not be left behindhand. He hoped that hon. Members would accept that promise.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WARTONsaid, he believed that he would now be in Order in moving his Amendment—namely, to insert, after the words "Registration Acts," the words "and this Act." If the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) would look at that part of the clause which they had just struck out, he would see that the words were "the Parliamentary Registration Acts and this Act." He thought that, on reconsideration, the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that his (Mr. Warton's) Amendment was necessary.
  Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment, by adding, after the word "Acts," the words "and this Act."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added,"
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL POR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that he had no objection to accept the Amendment; but he did not think that it was absolutely necessary.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would call attention to the words "as near thereto as circumstances may require," in line 25, which were made to apply to the form prescribed in connection with the registration of Parliamentary voters. He wished to know what they meant?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought there was a little ambiguity in the words, but he did not think they would do any harm.
  MR. HEALYremarked, that in Ireland, on one occasion, a number of processes had been rendered void, because the County Court Judge held that the words should have been "County of Cork" instead of "Cork County." What he was afraid of was that the Revising Barristers might rule all the objections on the Tory side to be in order because they were "as near thereto as the circumstances required;" while, on the other hand, they would rule out all the objections on the other side because they were "as near thereto as the circumstances required." He thought it would be better to secure literal accuracy in the words used in the clause.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Committee had not yet reached the words at which this question arose.
  Question put, and agreed to; words added accordingly.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. WARTON, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 24, to omit the words "so prescribed," for the purpose of inserting "the forms in the said Schedule contained," said, that he partly adopted in this proposition an Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was quite clear that the words "so prescribed" must be left out, because they were simply an echo or trace of what had already been omitted.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 21, to leave out the words so prescribed, "in order to insert the words the forms in the said Schedule contained."—[Mr. Warton.)
  —instead thereof.
  Question, "That the words 'so prescribed' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'the forms in the said Schedule contained' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would admit that there would be some difficulty in striking out the words "or as near thereto as circumstances may require." He was only afraid that by keeping them in, if ever the other side made a mistake, they would get the benefit of it; whereas the National Party, if they made a mistake, would receive no benefit. He thought it would be far better, however, to have the forms in the Act described accurately, and therefore he would move his Amendment. He would also ask the Government if they had made any provision for the supply of these forms, and how the forms themselves were to be procured?
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 25, to leave out "or as near thereto as circumstances may require."—[Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he was afraid if they were to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Healy), it would tell much more against him than he supposed, because if there was the slightest variation from the form an objection would hold good. As to the question of the forms to be supplied under the provisions of the Registration Act, printed forms would be supplied. But with regard to the Amendment, he thought it was extremely undesirable that the franchise of any man should be endangered by the omission of a single word, or a letter, in a mere form, because there happened to be a clause prescribing that all the forms contained in a Schedule of an Act of Parliament must be literally followed.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 26, to omit the words, "And anything' in connexion with the said regiatra-

  683
  tion done in accordance with the said Order in Council or as near thereto as circumstances may admit, shall be deemed to be validly done."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HEALYasked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to answer the question, whether forms would be procurable at a cheap rate?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)was understood to say that there would be a Schedule of rates.
  Question put, and negatived; words struck out accordingly.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Dispensing relief not to disqualify, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 68).
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he had to ask the Committee to agree to the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, proposing to omit the clause entirely from the Bill. The clause provided that—
  "Medical or surgical assistance, or the giving of medicine under any Act relating to Medical Charities in Ireland, should not he deemed to constitute relief under the Acts for the more effectual relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts."
  Now, he thought hon. Members would see from that recital that that provision of the Bill purported to make a very grave and serious change in the laws relating to the representation of the people, not only in respect of Ireland, but also in respect of other parts of the "United Kingdom. He held that it would be obviously contrary to common sense to make such a change in the Representation of the People Act, as that it should be enacted that persons receiving indoor relief should be permitted to exercise the franchise, as it would be equally foreign to the considerations which were usually supposed to prevail in these matters, to permit those who were in receipt of outdoor relief to exercise this franchise. But this was a proposal on the part of the Government to obviate that reasonable restriction, and to enact that, notwithstanding the past and present practice under the existing
  684
  law, the franchise should be exercised by those who deliberately appealed to public medical aid. He repeated that this was a clause which, if it were retained in the Bill, would constitute a very serious innovation of the existing law. A few evenings ago, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had stated to the Prime Minister that his object was to insure that the Registration of Voters Ireland Act should work an absolute assimilation of the law as administered in England and Scotland. ["No, no!"] He could assure the hon. Member below the Gangway that the words used by the hon. Member for the City of Cork were "absolute assimilation." He contended, however, that there was no such provision nor anything like such a provision as that provided for in this clause in the law of England; and although he always spoke with great diffidence of the law of Scotland, he believed he was correct in saying that there was no similar provision in the law of Scotland either. But the Committee would understand that it was a very serious thing, with reference to Ireland, to propose to introduce an alteration in the law not known in Scotland, and not proposed to be introduced in the case of England. Why, he asked, should this change be made against the corresponding laws in England and Scotland; on what foundation did it rest; on what argument of justice or common sense, or on what plea of a sounder administration of electoral law could it be defended? He ventured to think if the principle of this clause were enacted in the Bill that it might result in fast-and-loose play of the gravest possible character in respect of the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. He reminded the Committee that if it were introduced as a proposition sanctioned by Act of Parliament, that the recipient of dispensary relief should be qualified to vote, it would be but a step further in the same direction to say that the recipient of outdoor relief should be qualified to exercise the franchise, and the whole system of the Poor Law of the country would be exposed to attacks, which he ventured to think would lead to serious consequences. Further, he did not think that the exceptional enactment of the principle of the clause would add to the self-respect of the voters in Ireland; on

  685
  the contrary, he believed it would lead to the impairing of that independence of character and status which the country had a right to expect in. those who were permitted to exercise the franchise and return Members to Parliament for the administration of its affairs. He remembered a leading Member of that House pointing out, in a great discussion which took place on one of the Reform Bills, that one of the most serious and grave dangers that would have to be guarded against in the future would be a lax administration of the Poor Law under the new system; and he (Mr. Gibson) could but think that such a provision as this would, particularly if it were enacted exceptionally for Ireland, amount to the introduction of a laxity of the gravest kind. Medical assistance in Ireland was intended to be given to those who could not pay for it themselves—that was to say, to those persons who were really in need of it, and could not procure it. Although it was desirable that those who required medical relief should have it, yet he must point out that the dispensing of medical relief in Ireland was a practice which, in many cases, had been the cause of scandal and abuse; and doctors had been summoned by what were called "red tickets," or "scarlet runners," to assist those who could very well pay for themselves. And if it were found that in an Act of Parliament, it was permitted, sanctioned, or encouraged that persons should receive dispensary relief and still retain their right to the franchise without any qualification whatever, it must lead to the extension of an abuse which pressed already very hardly on the Medical Profession in Ireland, inasmuch as it would appear to have received the sanction of Parliament. The arguments relating to this question lay within a narrow compass, and they were so obvious that he did not think he should be justified in pressing them at greater length upon the Committee, or in occupying further time in the consideration of the subject; but if any arguments should be used, or any statements made, which rendered it necessary that he should re-enter the discussion, he reserved to himself freedom to say a few more words in support of the Amendment which he now begged to move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 29, leave out Clause 3.—(Mr. Gibson.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, they were accustomed to these arguments from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). They always listened to him with great respect, and. saw in him the apologist and champion of the Poor Law in Ireland. But they had the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling them to-night that the Dispensary Poor Law had been greatly abused. Well, he (Mr. Sexton) was ready to admit that he had seen some allegations to the effect that the dispensary regulations had been called into operation under questionable circumstances; but his own experience was, that those allegations related only to a very minute proportion of the cases in which medical aid was dispensed. Moreover, the details of dispensing medical relief under the Poor Law was as completely under the supervision of the Local Government Board as the details of any other Department; and the Local Government Board was composed of persons so vigilant—excessively so sometimes—and of persons whose conduct was so closely watched in that House, that he ventured to say no suggestion deserving attention at their hands would be passed over, and that if there had been any accidental abuse of the provisions of the Poor Law in this respect the Local Government Board would have taken good care to check it before that time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had certainly perplexed him in the course of his speech with the argument that that House ought to strike out this clause in order to preserve the independence of character and status of those who voted. But whether men were independent or not, they were not in the habit of going to a doctor of their own choice; they did not go to the dispensary for pleasure or recreation. If a man went to a doctor, no matter the class to which he might belong, he went to him because he was ill; and, therefore, he did not see how the independence of character of the persons concerned could be brought into this question at all. He said that this independence of character and status for which the right hon. and

  687
  learned Gentleman was so anxious could be maintained, even though poverty might compel the individual to accept the aid of a dispensing doctor. If a man were able to pay for the medical assistance which he received for nothing, there was, of course, an abuse which ought to be corrected; but, looking at the matter from the other point of view, if the individual were unable to pay the doctor for the medical aid that was necessary for him or his family, the requirements of humanity and civilized life demanded that the aid of the doctor should be given to him or his family free. And if that necessity were met, how could anyone contend that a man should be deprived in consequence of the first right of citizenship, because he had not preserved his independence of character and status? He supposed, as it would seem from the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that a man's independence was to be measured by the length of his pocket; but he (Mr. Sexton) declined to accept that view of the case, and he repeated that a man's status might be perfectly independent, even if his poverty deprived him of the necessities of life. Let the Committee consider the great disproportion that existed between the fees exacted by medical men in Ireland and the incomes of the poor class of men in that country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his remarks had delivered himself of a curious fact when he spoke of the absolute assimilation of the law in respect of the three countries, England, Scotland, and Ireland, which he stated the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) intended to bring about. [Mr. GIBSON: I quoted the report in The Times.'] He (Mr. Sexton) cared not for the report in The Times; he asked who was the writer of that report? Was he a sworn shorthand writer? He had heard his hon. Friend often speak of assimilation of the law; but he bad never heard him reach the superlative term of "absolute assimilation." There could be no such thing as absolute assimilation of laws; because the first necessity of law was that it should conform itself to the circumstances of the country in which it had to operate, and as no one would say that the circumstances of England and Ireland were similar, there could be no absolute assimilation of law in respect of
  688
  them—it would be impossible to apply an absolutely similar principle to the people of the two countries at largo. The people of England, as compared with those of Ireland, were better able to live and pay the doctor; and the existence of medical aid societies was a recognized fact in England. In dealing with the poor, the doctor's fee in England was almost nominal; but, so far as he was aware, the Irish doctors as a class were not in the habit, except under compulsion of the "red ticket," of discharging any medical function for their fellow-creatures unless on payment of a guinea. Now, what, he asked, was the use of expecting poor people in Ireland to pay a guinea, half-a-guinea, or even half-a-crown, for any medical attention received from a private practitioner? The thing was an impossibility; and if they could not pay, why should it be suggested that they should be shut out from the exercise of the franchise? Here was a classification of the agricultural holdings in Ireland. The number of holdings of one acre and under was 49,000; of from three to five acres, 53,000; of from five to seven acres, 59,000; and of from seven to 15 acres, 39,000. There were in Ireland more than 200,000 holdings of between one acre and 15, occupied by families who were drawing their living from them, after satisfying the landlord by paying rent and taxes. Now, he asked if any Member of the House would have the hardihood to go to the Table and say that the income of any one of those holders of farms was such as to allow them to pay a single guinea to the doctor in the course of a year? The whole scale of medical fees in Ireland must be reduced, unless it was to remain outside the means of the population to pay for medical relief: and he challenged anyone to show in the case of the poor people of Ireland, and in face of the incomes they derived from the cultivation of their holdings, why, being unable to pay the medical fees at present demanded by the Profession, they should in addition to that have the penalty inflicted upon them of not being allowed to vote. They contributed to the rates; and that being so, they had a right to expect and to receive something in return. However, the Government had inserted a clause in the Bill which he considered to be perfectly just in principle; it would have been a mockery to

  689
  do otherwise, and the only construction he could put upon the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that, while endeavouring to exclude the class of persons in question, he hoped that the object of the recent extension of the franchise might be defeated by a side-wind.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, as a general rule, hon. Members on those Benches were glad to listen to the speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) on Irish affairs, because he had knowledge of the subjects on which he usually addressed the House; but, in the present case, he (Colonel Nolan) believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew very little of the subject practically. He was an eminent barrister, and he had lived long in Dublin; but there was nothing, or very little, in common between the people of that city and those of the districts of Ireland principally concerned in this question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, moreover, was a statesman a good deal drawn upon by the Conservative Party, and who was in the habit of attending and speaking at large meetings in England; but he (Colonel Nolan) did not think that he knew much of the so-called "scarlet runners" in Ireland. He (Colonel Nolan) had given away many of those tickets in his capacity of secretary to one society and chairman of another, and he ventured to think that he represented the feelings of the people on the subject as well as any man in Ireland. He knew that the Boards of Guardians held strong views on this point. If the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were adopted by the Government, and the clause under notice struck out of the Bill, it was believed that the Franchise Act. so far as an enormous number of the people of Ireland were concerned, would be a farce. With regard to the refusal of medical men in Irelend to take less than the fee of a guinea from the very poorest men, it was felt that this was something that must be changed—and it must be changed either by the general consent of the Medical Profession in Ireland, or else by action on the part of the Government. He wished to point out, however, with regard to the fees exacted by medical men in Ireland, that although they received £1 for their assistance
  690
  they saw or attended the individual three or four times for that amount. But were they to enact that because a man could not pay £1 for medical aid when he or his child, for instance, were ill, he should be deprived of his right to vote? He (Colonel Nolan) could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was not solely a question of "scarlet runners" that was involved here. Even if a person in employment who might be considered tolerably well off were ill, he was expected to go to the dispensary in the nearest town for advice and medicine; and it was absurd to say that unless people in that position paid a guinea to the doctor they should lose their vote. Then there was another argument in favour of retaining this clause in the Bill. The country was talking of war, and were they to say to officers in the Army and Navy that they would be disqualified because they received gratuitous medical advice. Everyone knew that they had gratuitous medical advice; and did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that those officers lost their independence of status and character when they went to the surgeon of their regiment or ship? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the people in Ireland would lose their independence if they did not pay for medical relief. But he (Colonel Nolan) said that every one of the men who paid £6 or £7 rent for the land they farmed did pay for it. They paid for it in the shape of poor rates to the extent of 5s. or 6s. a-year; and if any of them only drew to that extent for medical aid, he contended that they were independent men. And the right hon. and learned Gentleman would shut out a man who got five or six shillings' worth of advice, although he paid a large sum for poor-rate. Since he (Colonel Nolan) was a child, the old system of medical relief for the poor had been superseded by the present dispensary system. That system had been established in Ireland, and the people had been trained up to it. But for that system, medical aid clubs might have been established in Ireland; but they had not grown up there, and it would take 40 or 50 years to build them up. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say to the people—"Because you have not established these clubs, you shall be shut out from the franchise altogether." If the Amend-

  691
  ment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were adopted, the most frightful confusion would be created; clerks of Unions and apothecaries would have to be summoned before the Revising Barristers to say whether they had given tickets and medicine or not; people would be called upon to produce their books and documents to satisfy the requirements of the Act; and all that, he need not say, would cause an enormous amount of trouble. Speaking with regard to his own county of Galway, if the clause which the Amendment proposed to strike out were retained, he did not believe there would throughout the county be two contested cases before the Revising Barrister; whereas if the Amendment were adopted, it would be very easy to have 20,000 such cases. If this clause was not passed, the Committee would be upsetting the whole Poor Law system in Ireland, and they would go a long way towards reversing the principle on which the Franchise Bill rested.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he thought his right hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment before the Committee was under a total misapprehension as to the operation and scope of the Medical Act in Ireland. That Act, before the passing of the Medical Charities' Act, constituted the system of relief in Ireland. It provided for dispensary districts administered by subscribers, and the present law was simply engrafted upon it and adapted to it. The Committee would find that in the Act the words "poor persons" were most carefully used, and that the words "persons in receipt of Poor Law relief" were as carefully avoided; and he would point out that the reason why this was done was simply this—that not only were the circumstances of the great mass of the people in Ireland totally different from those of the great mass of the people in England, but that the Poor Laws of the two countries were likewise different. The number of people who could receive outdoor relief and medical relief in England was much larger, in proportion to the rest of the population, than it was in Ireland; and not only were laws in Ireland much more restricted than in England, but the administration of them was more restrictive. When the present law was made, the Guardians were left to
  692
  decide whether individuals came within the meaning of the words "poor persons" or not. Not only was there a different practice in respect of some Unions, but it was easy to see that John Smith, for instance, might be a poor man in the eyes of people in his neighbourhood, while he would not be considered to be so by persons who lived a few miles off. If, therefore, they were to disqualify persons who received medical aid free, Parliament would not only be doing a respectable class of persons a great injustice by excluding a large number of them from the exercise of the franchise, which right had been just conferred upon them, but it would lead to inextricable confusion in view of the varying rules and practice prevailing in the different Unions of Ireland. How it could ever have entered into the mind of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin to make the proposal that was now before the Committee, he (Colonel Colthurst) was unable to conceive; and he could only suggest that he had never thoroughly considered the Medical Charities Act, what it was intended to do, and what it had done in Ireland.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, it would appear, from the views expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), that he thought that the acceptance of medical relief almost amounted to a qualification for the exercise of the franchise. That was a sufficiently startling proposition; but when the hon. and gallant Member proceeded to argue that because officers in the Army and Navy were entitled by the Regulations of those Services to medical advice they also ought to be disqualified—why, he (Mr. Brodrick) thought the hon. and gallant Member might have gone the length of proposing to disfranchise convicts in gaol, who also received medical relief; and it would do to talk about at election time quite as well. He thought the question of equality as between the two countries was worthy of consideration; and if any inequality should exist in that respect hereafter, it would surely be greatly to the disadvantage of the hard-working English labourers who had been admitted to the franchise, who had subscribed, and were subscribing, considerable sums of money to societies in order to avoid placing themselves in the position of having to apply for free medi-

  693
  cal assistance. When the Irish labourers did the same thing, that would be about the period when it would be desirable to give this class of people in Ireland the vote; and Parliament would avoid doing what he and others on the Opposition side of the House had protested against all along—namely, the giving to a class of voters, the equal of which did not exist in England, the entire preponderance of the Irish franchise, a preponderance which was pointed out, when the Franchise Bill was under discussion, to be as large as 458,000 in 760,000. The houses of these men were under £1 valuation. It would be an exceedingly good thing if, by the absence of this clause, every one of these men were cut off from the franchise; and it was upon that ground, and largely in the hope that a considerable number of the constituents of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), or those who would be the constituents of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, would be prevented from outvoting the intelligent classes of the community—those who had a stake in the country—that he (Mr. Brodrick) would vote against the inclusion of this clause. He hoped the Government intended to listen to reason. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) pathetically appealed to the Government not to allow this Bill to be dealt with adversely by another Chamber owing to its being sent up so late. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really felt the force of his own appeal, he would support him (Mr. Brodrick) in objecting to the inclusion in the Bill of provisions which no Chamber was likely to consider proper or right. It was exceedingly likely that the House of Commons would see the Bill again if they sent it up to the House of Lords containing such a monstrous and unequal provision as that which was now included in it. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) retained this clause in the Bill, it would be very desirable, when the proper time came, to change the name of the measure from "The Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill" to "The Registration of Voters and Paupers Enfranchisement (Ireland) Bill." Before he sat down he wished to say that it was perfectly well understood, during the progress of the Franchise Bill last year, that even the Prime Minister most strongly objected
  694
  to leaving Ireland out of the Bill, on the ground that, although he did not profess the class of voters was the same as in England, he thought that there should be absolute equality of franchise. If that rule were to be observed on this occasion, the Government could not fail to strike out this clause. If, on the other hand, they retained the clause, it was a breach of the most positive statement of intention on the part of the Government. He hoped that the Government would see fit to exclude this clause from the Bill.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he was not quite so ferociously virtuous as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Brodrick). No doubt, it was a very attractive and general principle, and one that he (Mr. Gorst) had always supported in the House of Commons—that England and Ireland should be treated exactly alike, in all matters of principle, at all events. In England it was the law that persons who were in receipt of parochial relief, in which medical relief was included, were not entitled to enjoy the franchise; but he understood from the admirable speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County Cork (Colonel Colthurst) that in Ireland the administration of medical relief was entirely separate from the ordinary administration of poor relief. It, therefore, seemed that in England and Ireland the receipt of medical relief did not stand on the same footing. If a person received medical relief in England, he received ordinary parish relief, because parish medical relief was dispensed in England exactly in the same way, and under precisely the same conditions, as common parish relief. There was no doubt that in the incidence of the franchise in England, this fact had led to great abuse; indeed, he had heard great complaints made that the power of dispensing medical relief had been used by unscrupulous politicians in English parishes for the purpose of disfranchisement. He remembered well a ease in which a doctor, who was paid by the parish for attending the accouchement of the women of the lower classes, attended indiscriminately the wives of voters upon both sides of politics; but he put down on his list only those who belonged to the Party to which he was opposed, thereby disfranchising all the husbands: whereas the

  695
  husbands of the women on his own side of politics retained their votes. This showed in itself how the dispensation of medical relief was abused. Of course, there were cases in which a man might be driven into the receipt of medical relief whether he pleased or not; and, therefore, it was clear that this was a kind of relief that could be abused, and could be used for political purposes. If it was possible, even in England, to separate the receipt of medical relief from the receipt of ordinary poor relief, he should be much inclined to support such a separation; but in England it was not possible, whereas in Ireland it was. It appeared that in Ireland, owing to Act of Parliament, the administration of medical relief was separated entirely from the ordinary distribution of public charity. Now, he would like to call the attention of the Committee to the way in which the English poor, in a precisely analogous case—that was in the case of the receipt, not of medical relief, but of educational relief—were treated. Where an English labouring man was not able to pay the school fees for the attendance of his own children at school, he was entitled to go to the Guardians, and from the Guardians to obtain out of the Poor Law funds the amount of the fees to be paid for the education of his children. Now, that was a case of the receipt of public money, receipt in a certain aspect of Poor Law relief, but it was receipt of a kind of relief which was not the ordinary poor relief; it was not connected with the administration of the ordinary Poor Law relief. A man was bound by law to send his children to school, and to pay certain fees; educational relief, therefore, was not at all the same thing as relief in the shape of food and clothes. Under these circumstances, was a poor English labourer disfranchised? No, because, by the Elementary Education Act, it was specifically provided that the parents who were unable, by reason of their poverty, to pay the fees of their children in public elementary schools, could apply to the Guardians, and the Guardians, being satisfied with the inability of the parents to pay the fees, should make such and such grants, and then it was expressly enacted—
  "That the parents shall not, by reason of any payment made under this section, be deprived of any franchise right or privilege, or
  696
  be subjected to any disability or any disqualification."
  He was entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) in treating the poor in Ireland exactly as they treated the poor in England; and finding that they did not disfranchise the poor in England who obtained, by reason of their poverty, additional relief, he was inclined to vote against the disfranchisement of the poor of Ireland who, by reason of their poverty, received medical relief.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he did not believe the Medical Profession in Ireland had any desire whatever to stand in the way of the enlargement of the franchise. This clause, however, raised a difficulty of long standing, and one which it was to be regretted had not hitherto been dealt with. It was to be regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not condescended to take the advice of one or two persons thoroughly acquainted with this matter, because, if they had done so, the difficulty might easily have been removed. It could not be properly said, or said with a shadow of truth, that the Irish people had not received very generous assistance, under all circumstances, from the Medical Profession. The people themselves were the first to recognize that fact. The remuneration of the medical men was not at all adequate to the amount of assistance they rendered in very many cases. The real difficulty in the case arose from the system of "red tickets." That system had been made for a series of years an engine of oppression and extortion upon the Medical Profession. Unfortunately, in many instances, persons of the farming class considered that, in times of prosperity, they were entitled to enforce the gratuitous attendance of the doctor just as they did in times of adversity. The habit of receiving gratuitous medical relief grew upon the people, and they remained under the impression that they were always entitled to receive that relief, no matter how great their prosperity might be. As an instance of the "red ticket" system being used, as he had said, as an engine of oppression, he might tell the Committee that if a medical man was disliked in his district, the expression had become common—"We will soon red-ticket him out of the place." "Red tickets" were very easily given;

  697
  there was no sort of control with, regard to the issuing of them; everyone liked to be generous in that which cost him nothing, and the small shopkeeper was always ready, on the slightest pretence, to tell a customer—"Oh, I will send the doctor to you." It often happened that doctors were sent many miles to attend the most trumpery cases. Of his (Dr. Lyons') own knowledge, he knew of a case in which a patient living at a considerable distance expressed a great desire to see anew "iron horse" the doctor had got A "red ticket" was issued to the applicant, and the doctor—who used a bicycle, his salary not enabling him to keep a horse—was sent seven miles, with the result that he saw the so-called patient standing at the door, who, the a and there, frankly stated the circumstances under which the "red ticket" had been issued. The system of "red tickets" was one he had always looked forward to devising some means, with the consent of the House, of remedying. There was no in suparable difficulty in the matter. The clerk of the Union and the relieving officer had full knowledge of the circumstances and financial position of all persons in their districts, and nothing would be easier than to classify those at all times entitled to gratuitous relief, and those whose position enabled them to pay a fixed moderate charge. He thought that in times of prosperity the well-to-do people of Ireland should be obliged to pay a fair amount for medical assistance; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) whether he could not, on this occasion, give some pledge that he would, on an early day, take steps to prevent the abuse he (Dr. Lyons) had indicated?
  MR. HEALY, interrupting the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Lyons), asked whether it was in Order for an hon. Gentleman in the House, who was supposed to be addressing the Chair, to speak to himself?
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) had not condescended to tell the Committee who were the one or two persons whom the Government ought to have consulted on this matter; but, if he was right in assuming that the hon. Member was one of those persons, he (Mr. Charles Russell) was exceedingly glad that the Govern-
  698
  ment had not consulted him. He thought it would be a source of great injustice in Ireland if this clause were not retained in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) mixed up with the question of the retention of this clause, and so did the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons), the question of the possible abuse of the system of giving white or red tickets. There might be the abuse indicated; but that was not the question before the Committee; that was a matter which could be redressed, and ought to be redressed, by the action of the Local Government Board, to whom application could be made, if any hon. Members would put them in possession of the facts. Dismissing the question altogether of the supposed abuse in the distribution of medical relief, upon the general question he had only one word to say. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the county of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had made this matter very clear. His hon. and gallant Friend near him (Colonel Colthurst), who understood the actual working of the system well, and who therefore was entitled to speak on the matter, had pointed out how the system worked, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had made it clear to the Committee that the relief was such that it was not in truth considered by the people of Ireland as parochial relief. He was sure that no one who knew the feeling of Ireland would suppose that the person who received outdoor relief in Ireland, or parochial relief inside the Union, was regarded at all in the same category as the small farmer who, in the case of necessity, applied to the medical officer to put down disease, which was not only a matter of relief to a particular individual, but also a matter of great concern to the public generally. He could not but think that a great deal of the argument that had been addressed to the Committee, although it had not been disclosed, was really dictated by the kind of feeling which was obviously in the mind of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey (Mr Brodrick), who, in truth, wanted by this side-wind to undo, to some extent, the effect of the Franchise Bill itself.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, there was one aspect of this question on which he should like to address a few words to the Committee. It was perfectly clear from the debate that this was really not merely a question of registration, but a question of the extension of the franchise in Ireland. It had been argued by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that without this clause the extension of the franchise in Ireland, which had been already assented to by Parliament, would be largely inoperative. That being so, the question naturally occurred why this matter was not dealt with by Her Majesty's Government in the Franchise Bill, rather than in the Registration Bill, and whether it was reasonable or not to ask the House of Commons, after the question of the franchise had been settled by common agreement, that this question should be re-opened, so far as it affected Ireland, by the clause that was now before the Committee? Now, Her Majesty's Government had themselves, in previous debates during this Session, adopted the principle that it was not right to reopen the question of the franchise, because, when Amendments upon that point were moved by various Members in the Committee on the Redistribution Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), while admitting in more than one instance his own sympathy with the Amendments proposed, declared the Amendments could not be considered, as the question was already settled. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) suggested, a fortiori, that it ought not to be re-opened by a Registration Bill which purported to be merely a measure for enacting such alterations in the law as might be necessary to carry out the Franchise Act which had been already passed, and the Redistribution Bill which was now passing through the House of Commons. But it was contended that the circumstances of the Medical Charities Act in Ireland and the Poor Law system of England were so essentially different, that if the alterations now proposed were made in the Irish law, they would be no precedent for any-similar change in the English law. No one in the House could speak with more knowledge on the subject than the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), and he (Sir
  700
  Michael Hicks-Beach) admitted what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said with regard to the different administration of the Medical Charities Act in Ireland, and the system of Poor Law medical relief in England. No doubt, in Ireland the medical charities were not administered by officials of the Poor Law. It was a separate system altogether, and therefore it had come, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had said, to be looked upon by not a few of the population of Ireland as really no system of Poor Law relief at all. Well, that was the strongest testimony that could be given by any hon. Member to the truth of the facts alluded to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and subsequently dwelt upon by the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons)—namely, that there was considerable abuse in the administration of the Medical Charities Act in Ireland. It was admitted by high authorities that abuse of the system did exist. [Mr. HEALY: What is the supervising authority?] The authority supervising was unquestionably the Local Government Board; but when persons who were legally appointed to administer the system, and those who came under it, looked upon it from the point of view of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not think it would be possible for the supervising authority to check the abuse. He did not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Cork as to the essential difference between the Irish and English systems. The essence of both of them was that they consisted of relief paid from public sources—paid by the ratepayers—whether it was administered by those who were intrusted with the administration of medical relief, or by the Poor Law Guardians; and in his humble opinion, if Parliament agreed to this change in the law with respect to Ireland, it was striking a very dangerous blow at the whole electoral law of the United Kingdom, which made the receipt of relief a disqualification for the franchise. It had been urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham, that the arguments which had been used should not preclude the adoption of

  701
  the clause, for the reason that the administration of medical relief in England could not be so separated from the administration of other relief as to leave the acceptance of other relief a disqualification, while the acceptance of medical relief remained no disqualification. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not wish to put his opinion on a question of law against that of the hon. and learned Member; but he could not help thinking that it would be almost as easy to repeal the law in England which made the acceptance of medical relief a disqualification as to repeal the law which applied to Ireland. It was a matter of great social interest whether the acceptance of relief under the Poor Law system in England, or under the Medical Authorities in Ireland, should be felt by those who received it to be of the nature of relief from public sources, or should be looked upon from the point of view suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). Any hon. Member who had watched the progress of Poor Law outdoor relief in Ireland for the last 15 or 2') years, would know that this idea of relief—being in the nature of a charity rather than a relief from public sources—was not without conderable danger in Ireland. It was a great danger in England, too. On looking at a late Report of the Irish Local Government Board, he had seen that the amount expended in outdoor relief in Ireland had doubled during the last 10 years, whilst the expenditure on medical charities had increased 20 per cent during that period. He thought that if the disqualification for the exercise of the franchise was a bar to anyone who could really do without it from seeking for relief of this kind, it was a good thing from a social point of view to retain that; but, at any rate, he did not think that a change should be made in the law without the whole system of disqualification for the franchise being seriously considered by Parliament. He believed that it would be generally admitted by the Government and the House that the acceptance of what was called medical relief was not consistent with that independent frame of mind on the part of the voter to which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had alluded in his speech. He thought it ought to be a disqualification
  702
  for the franchise; and, therefore, he very much regretted that Her Majesty's Government should have felt it necessary to raise this important question, and propose this important change, in this Bill, which, he ventured to submit, had no proper connection with the subject. If Her Majesty's Government intended to effect this alteration in the law, the question should be raised directly, and on its own merits, and not brought forward in a measure of this sort.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would first allude to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons). He knew several dispensary doctors in Ireland, and was aware that they occasionally had patients who paid them; but he could repudiate that they were willing to purchase immunity from the grievances they had to complain of by the disfranchisement of a large portion of their fellow-countrymen. He believed no body of men could be more surprised or indignant than they would be on finding their case mixed up with the question of the disfranchisement of their fellow-countrymen. He was convinced that they would endure ten times more rather than lend their sanction to the efforts of the hon. Member, or of anybody else, to bring about the disfranchisement of a large portion of the Irish people. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would say this to the Committee generally—namely, that there was no proposition which could come before them in connection with this Bill, or any other Bill this Session, which could more clearly test the legislative capacity of this Assembly and its legislative grasp and its statesmanship than its method of dealing with this question. This was one question which would show the people of Ireland whether or not there was an awakening intelligence in this House as to the manner in which Irish questions should be dealt with. For what did the arguments against this clause all mean? The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) deserved the gratitude of Irish Members and of the Committee generally. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) that the hon. Member for West Surrey was the one speaker on this occasion who had given the real reasons of the Party to which

  703
  he belonged for the attitude they bad taken up. The real reason—and let the Committee face it and know of this hostility—was not a desire to raise the social status of the Irish citizen, but to keep down that social status by depriving the people of a voice in the destinies of their own country. The real reason had been stated by the hon. Member he had mentioned, who had been candid enough to say that, if he could have his way, 50 years would elapse before the mass of the Irish people would have any voice in the control of their own affairs.
  MR. BRODEICK: I said I hoped it would be long before those persons in receipt of medical relief in Ireland were admitted to the franchise.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes; but the hon. Member had connected that with a statement that the persons holding small portions of land in Ireland were unfit to exercise the franchise. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) put the two statements together, and interpreted them by saying that the hon. Member's opposition to this proposal was based on a desire to deprive the poorer classes of the Irish people of any voice in the control of their own affairs. The right hon. Gentleman—a late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)—had disclaimed all hostility to the measure; but the right hon. Gentleman would be inconsistent with his whole career if he did not offer most vigorous hostility to everything like Irish reform. What were his arguments? He proposed to go round all the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); but he was careful to overlook the most pregnant of those arguments. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham had pointed out that a large number of the people of this country were receiving what was practically out-door relief by having their children educated in the Board schools, although no one proposed to make that a bar to their exercising the franchise. Nothing could be more fallacious or more absurd than to suppose that things called by the same name in England and Ireland meant the same thing in the two countries. They found this fallacy existing in connection with almost every proposal which had ever been made in the interests of Ireland. With regard to land-
  704
  lordism, a mistake of that kind had been made. The landlord of Ireland and the landlord of England were so totally different that they might almost be called by different names. So was it also with this system of medical relief. In England there was a variable scale of all doctors' fees. The hon. Member for the City of Dublin said that nothing could be more mythical than the supposition that a guinea was given as a fee in all cases to a doctor in Ireland; but, in spite of that observation, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) maintained that every medical man in Ireland who would accept anything less than the ordinary fee of a guinea would be "Boycotted" by the rest of his Profession. What was the case in England? Why, if they went into the poor parts of London, they would find open dispensaries where a bottle of medicine and advice was given for the small sum of 6d. Anyone acquainted with the relations existing between medical men and their patients in this country would know that it was possible to get medical assistance in England at a price infinitely below that charged by the doctors in Ireland. Some people said—"Why do not the Irish form clubs for medical assistance?" The answer was that there was not that system of social education among the Irish people to enable them to do it which existed in England. [Mr. BRODRICK: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member cheered that observation. He had found fault very much with these poor people for being paupers, and had said that because they held small portions of land they should be deprived of the Parliamentary franchise; but he had not observed that the hon. Member had accompanied that observation with any reproach to the landlords, who were content to take a considerable amount in the shape of rack rent from these poor people. In England they had this system of clubs, and of opening practically free dispensaries, and they had a variable scale of medical fees; and they compared a system of that kind with the system prevailing in Ireland, which required a medical man to charge no less than a guinea under penalty of being "Boycotted" by the rest of his Profession. He should be very much surprised if the majority of the English Conservative Party followed the lead of the right hon. and learned Gentleman

  705
  the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) on this occasion. The right hon. Baronet, an ex-Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, had asked why this had not been brought on in the Franchise Bill? Well, it would be more convenient if right hon. Gentlemen in the responsible position of the right hon. Baronet would pay a little more attention to the history of questions like this. If he had paid a little more attention to that history he would know that the proposal was made in the Franchise Bill, and was ruled out of Order, and as not germane to the Bill, by the Chairman. That was the reason why the clause was brought forward in the present measure. Finally, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) must altogether object to what he might almost tall the hypocritical plea—that this clause was opposed because of a desire to improve the social status of the Irish people. He had said before that the object was to keep the status of the Irish people as low as possible by depriving them of any voice in the control of their own affairs. He would go further, and say that this Bill, if passed in an unamended form, while producing an apparent equality in regard to the franchise between the people of Ireland and the people of England, would be an absolute mockery and a delusion when accompanied by the disfranchisement of so many voters.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, they bad had two separate estimates of the value of this clause; the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had said—and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was disposed to agree with him—that it lay in a very small compass indeed. But the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had taken a much higher ground, and had told them that this was a supreme test of the legislative grasp of the House of Commons, and of its statesmanship. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not deny that that was one aspect of the case for which there was something to be said, though it was his experience in the House of Commons that the words statesmanship and statesmanlike were always applied to that particular line of conduct which the hon. Gentleman speaking at the time happened to prefer. He himself
  706
  did not profess to have an accurate criterion as to the conduct of any Member of the House; but, to come to the point, it seemed to him that they ought to consider what was the rationale of the disfranchisement of those who might seek to obtain medical relief in Ireland, if it were not because they were supposed to be in a position of dependence. A man who received parish relief in an ordinary sense—and there was no indoor or outdoor pauper, as no doubt all would agree, who was in a position of independence—could not be admitted to the franchise. It would be against public polity to admit him; but then came the question, was the kind of relief they were now discussing of such a nature as to interfere with the independence of the person who received it? The Government had come to the conclusion that it was not; otherwise, of course, this clause would not have appeared in the Bill. The system in Ireland bad been sufficiently explained to the House to-night, and whatever might be the merits or demerits of that system about which they had heard so much, it appeared to him nothing to do with the question before the Committee; and this, at all events, was certain—that, if any accusation was brought against the present system in Ireland, it was this—that persons of too high a class of the community took advantage of the system; and therefore, from that point of view, it was not so liable to the imputation of interfering with the voter's independence as it would be in other cases. It was said, indeed, that the system was bad; but if it was so bad, this, at any rate, was not the way to improve it. If it was a bad system, injurious to the community and so forth, then, in the name of reason, let them set about reforming it; but do not let them try to reform it by a side-wind in this way by imposing the penalty of disfranchisement upon those who were obliged to take advantage of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had spoken of this as introducing a change in the law. (He Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not know that that point had been taken up; but it was a very open question whether it was a change in the law at all; it was rather, in the view of many competent and qualified persons, a declaration of what the law now was.

  707
  If that question had not been raised, he was not disposed to raise it himself; but, even if it were a change in the law, he should not be averse to it on that account. What was the object of the opposition to this clause? The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) had, with most captivating frankness, told them a good deal upon that point. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could admire and appreciate the consistency of the hon. Member, because he believed he was himself opposed to the extension of the franchise to a lower class of voters in Ireland; and, therefore, he was willing to take advantage of any means which could keep them out of it. But the House of Commons could not take that line at all. All of them who were willing and consenting parties to the Bill passed at the end of last year surely could not now by this subterfuge—because it was nothing less—disfranchise those to whom it had been understood to be one of the objects of the Bill to give a vote. On the other hand, the object might be—and he could appreciate the motives of those who acted under that contention—to bring pressure to bear upon the people in order to prevent what seemed to him to be an abuse of the present system. That, he maintained, was a thing not to be done in this particular way. If it were to be done, let the Local Government Board see to it, and if they were unable to do what was necessary, then let the Legislature be resorted to. Do not let them in this roundabout way use the electoral arrangement of the country for the purpose of effecting this object. He did not think it was necessary to go into the matter any further. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, the matter lay in a very small compass, it had been now well discussed, and he trusted that they might be allowed to take a division upon it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 20: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 126.)
  Clause 4 (Appeal where Chairman or Revising Barrister refuses to state a case. 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26,s. 37) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Polling districts).
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would like to ask whether the Government had con-
  708
  sidered the question of providing polling districts, and whether they would consider the necessity of providing also additional Revision Courts? In the case of the county of Dublin last year, they had offered, if necessary, to pass an Act to enable the Lord Lieutenant to make additional provision for the county of Dublin. Now they would be having a tremendous number of new voters coming in. and it would be perfectly impossible to have them properly attended to unless there were an additional number of Revision Courts. He believed the Lord Lieutenant had power in some cases, with the consent of the Privy Council, to appoint additional Revision Courts; but there was great difficulty in getting the consent, and, unless pledges were given that money which was available would be used for this purpose in Ireland, they would be placed in an unfortunate position in regard to this subject. They had provided for additional Revising Barristers, and, that being so, there was no reason for their not providing that they should do the work in one district and then in another.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, there was sufficient power under the Act of 1873.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to point out that they had now arrived at a new state of things, owing to the large increase that was being made in the constituency. He wished, therefore, to ask whether the Lord Lieutenant would reconsider the entire question, and whether also the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland would give the matter his attention It was important in a large number of cases, in which the number of voters upon the lists would be enormously increased, that a sufficient number of Revision Courts should be provided—say, one Court for every 1,000 voters—so as to render them easily accessible to the new voters.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he thought the Government ought so to arrange that the voters should, if possible, be able to attend Revision Courts within seven miles of their own residences. Although he himself represented the smallest county in Ireland (Louth), he found that in the Southern Division of that county voters would have to walk a distance of 17 miles for the purpose of maintaining their right to be upon the Register. If

  709
  it was necessary, under the old system, that the electors should have polling-places within four miles of their residences, he did not see why, under the new Act, which so largely increased the number of electors, it should not be necessary to have Revision Courts within a distance of certainly not more than seven miles. Unless some such suggestion were carried out, and some pledge given on the part of the Government to the Representatives of the Irish people that the labourers should not be compelled to walk a distance of 17 miles for the purpose of maintaining their rights, in the face of some three penny objection, a large number of voters would be subjected to very considerable hardship. As far as the Lord Lieutenant was concerned, they had very little hope of obtaining what they required from that authority. Attention had been drawn in that House time after time to the injustice perpetrated under the existing system; and they certainly had a right now to ask the Government to consent to such an enlargement of the number of the Revision Courts in Ireland that the agricultural labourers, who would now be placed on the Electoral Roll, should not be compelled to walk enormous distances in order to maintain their right to vote. It would be a great scandal if such a thing were permitted, for if men had to walk a distance of 17 miles one day, they would hardly be in a condition to do any work the next. He thought, therefore, that something more was required than the mere assertion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland that the matter was one in which sufficient power was given to the Lord Lieutenant under the existing law. The Act referred to had been in operation for 11 years, and during all that time the Lord Lieutenant had had ample opportunities of considering the matter; but in no single instance, as far as he (Mr. Callan) was aware, with the exception of the county of Dublin, had the Lord Lieutenant increased the number of Revision Courts.
  MR. HEALY: Yes; in the county of Monaghan.
  MR. CALLANsaid, Monaghan was another exception.
  MR. HEALY: It was for the benefit of the Tories.
  MR. CALLANsaid, his hon. and learned Friend was right. What was
  710
  done in Monaghan was on behalf of the Tories, and no such enlargement was ever made in any other part of Ireland than those mentioned. Under the Act of Parliament, the Revising Barristers would receive £100 additional salary for holding their Revision Courts, and they were only called upon to sit an average of two days in the 12 months. They could not, therefore, complain if they were inconvenienced to some extent by holding additional Courts; and certainly it was they, and not the electors, who, if anyone, ought to be inconvenienced.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would remind the Committee that they were now considering line 25 of the clause, which proposed to revise certain Acts referred to in the Schedule. It should be remembered that the Ballot Act gave a Revision Court to every polling or Petty Sessional district—he was not quite sure which—and what he wished to suggest was that they should revert back to what had been done at the time of the passing of the Ballot Act, that they should repeal the clause which had repealed the section of that Act dealing with the Revision Courts, and having regard to the tremendous number of electors which would now be thrown upon the Register, that they should enact that the Revising Barristers should hold Revision Courts in every Petty Sessional district, which, he believed, had been the case under the Ballot Act. He would urge that this suggestion should be adopted, and made applicable to the 1st Schedule of the Bill. He thought also that line 25 of the clause required amendment by putting in the number of the Schedule. There would be a series of Schedules in the Bill, and line 25 had reference to what would be the first of those Schedules, all of which, he suggested, ought to be numbered or defined by letters of the alphabet.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he assured the Committee that the Act of 1873 gave ample power for the appointment by the Lord Lieutenant of any Revision Courts that might be thought necessary. With regard to what had been said about the Ballot Act, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was under a misapprehension, and that the section he had referred to gave power to appoint Revision Courts in all the polling districts.
  MR. SYNANthought there had been some confusion with regard to the operation of the Ballot Act. Under that Act there was power to increase the polling districts. These districts were fixed at the Quarter Sessions. The revision of the registration was also a matter belonging to Quarter Sessions. The question that now arose was whether, in consequence of the increased number of voters who would be placed upon the Register, they would have sufficient facilities afforded them for maintaining their rights as electors under the revision provided at Quarter Sessions. He did not think they would be sufficient, and was of opinion that further provision ought to be made under the 4th clause of the Bill, and not by an Amendment relating to polling districts, which would have nothing to do with the revision of registration. The revision of votes at Quarter Sessions was one thing and the fixing of polling places at Quarter Sessions was another. Under the Ballot Act the polling places were increased to such an extent that every polling place was brought to within four or five miles of the electors' residences; but the revision of the Register was not similarly dealt with, and he thought that some provision ought to be made under the Bill—by which the number of voters in Ireland was almost doubled—for an increase in the number of Revision Courts. He thought the matter was one with which the Government ought to deal. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) seemed to think that the Ballot Act had provided for what was needed; but this was not so. The Ballot Act merely left the question of revision where it was, at Quarter Sessions, and the only way to increase the facilities for revision was by an Amendment of this Bill increasing the number of Revision Courts.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Syrian) laboured under a great mistake in attaching to the Quarter Sessions both the revision and the polling. It might have been so in the olden time, when the hon. Member first came into Parliament; but, at the present day, the registration and polling questions were settled at separate Sessions altogether, and wholly apart from the Quarter Sessions. Each of these matters was deal with at separate Sessions.
  MR. KENNYsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), while technically correct, was essentially wrong.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, the main point at issue was whether there was any reason why the electors should be under the necessity of walking a great many miles for the purpose of attending the Revision Courts. In a county like that which be represented (Galway), where there was no contest at all about registration, he did not see why the Government should be put to the expense of appointing a number of additional Revision Courts. In cases where, as in Galway, under ordinary circumstances, there would be no fighting at all, it would be a farce and a ridiculous expenditure to institute a number of new Courts. His own experience was that the calling over the Roll at Quarter Sessions was a thing that only occupied five minutes or so, and the matter was settled. But in cases where large additions of voters were made to the Register, where, for instance, there might be a supplementary list of 4,000, 5,000, or 6,000, and where every Liberal objected to every Conservative, and every Conservative to every Liberal, and any voter who happened to keep his own counsel on political subjects was objected to by both Parties, it became a totally different matter. In those cases he considered that a multiplication of the Revision Courts would be found necessary, and he hoped that means would be taken to provide the requisite facilities.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that, to his own knowledge, there were cases in which electors would have to walk a distance of 15, 16, and even 17 miles to get to the nearest Revision Courts. He was in the recollection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), and of other hon. Members, when he stated that in many counties in Ireland several thousands of notices of objection were served upon electors on both sides at every revision; and unless a sufficient number of Revision Courts was provided, it would be next to impossible for the voters to be able to attend them and maintain their rights.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) that there was ample jurisdic-

  713
  tion at present for the appointment of Revision Courts, to be held at such times and places in the course of the year as the Lord Lieutenant might deem fit. The Act of 1877 gave the power of holding Quarter Sessions more often than those already fixed; but he had no doubt that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland would look into the matter and satisfy himself as to the existence of the necessary powers, as it was obvious that if sufficient power did not exist for the provision of the requisite number of Revision Courts some further provision ought to be made for the purpose of insuring that result.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the Ballot Act of 1872 provided certain machinery for the appointment of new polling districts, and that Act was amended by the Act of 1873, which latter Act also provided machinery for the appointment of Revision Courts. The two things were perfectly distinct.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he quite agreed that the 3rd section of the Act of 1873, which amended the Ballot Act of 1872, gave the Lord Lieutenant power to provide Revision Courts where necessary; but what he complained of was that this power was never exercised by the Lord Lieutenant. In the case of Lublin it was only after a tremendous struggle that the Lord Lieutenant was induced to give some additional Revision Courts, and he gave them with a most meagre hand. The greatest possible pressure had to be brought to bear on that occasion; several Memorials were sent to the Lord Lieutenant on the subject, and the result was that he did not give half the Courts that were wanted. When, however, the Tories found that they had not a sufficient number of Revision Courts in Monaghan, and the magistrates sent up an application for additional Courts, the county being formerly a Tory county, they were able to get what they wanted. Why, he asked, did not the Government undertake to deal with this matter? There ought to be some hard-and-fast line laid down for the appointment of a certain number of persons to hold Revision Courts, or the Lord Lieutenant should be compelled to give a Revision Court for every 1,000 electors. As the matter at present stood, the section of the Act of Parliament
  714
  which gave the existing power said the Lord Lieutenant might by Order in Council appoint Revision Courts, and so forth. He (Mr. Healy) would not say that there ought to be a Court in every Petty Sessional district; but he thought there ought to be one in every town of any size—say, with a population of 2,000, or having Town Commissioners. Revision Courts ought to be held in all such places—at any rate for the present year. He would not carry his proposition beyond this—It was proposed to appoint a greater number of Revising Barristers, and to take other additional means to provide for the registration necessitated by the Franchise Act; and he thought, therefore, the Government ought to be anxious to see that the new law was properly, fairly, and efficiently carried out in every respect.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the circumstances connected with the present legislation would necessarily require a much larger scheme of revision than would be requisite in ordinary years; and he would promise, on behalf of the Government, that the matter should be carefully considered in the spirit indicated by the last observations of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy).
  MR. CALLANsaid, he was afraid the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan did not go far enough. That hon. and learned Gentleman would be content with having a Revision Court in each town where there were Town Commissioners; but, if this recommendation were adopted, it would leave a large number of small towns that had not Town Commissioners without any means of revision at all. In his own county (Louth) there were only two Courts, which, he contended, were not enough. There ought to be one at least in each barony, which would give five instead of two Revision Courts to the county.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to know, before the clause was agreed to, whether the Government did not think it necessary to indicate the Schedules referred to in the Bill by numbers or initials?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was afraid they could hardly amend the Bill in that way at the present moment; but he would consider what it would be best to do on Report.
  On the Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL-BAOTERMAN, the following Amendment made:—-In page 2, line 25, after "the," insert "Second."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Remuneration of officers. 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69.s. 73; 31 & 32 Vict. c. 49.s. 23).
  MR. R. POWER MR. R. POWER moved an Amendment to the effect that the power of fixing the remuneration of collectors of Unions and poor rate collectors for their services in carrying the Registration Act into effect should be vested in Boards of Guardians, and not in the Local Government Board for Ireland, as was proposed by the clause. He said he was at a loss to understand what it was that induced the Government to put such a power in the hands of the Local Government Board as would be given to them under this section if it were carried without amendment. Of all the public Boards in Ireland, he did not think there was any so unpopular as the Local Government Board. He should like to know on what ground they were to be asked to place in the hands of a more or less irresponsible authority the disbursement of those payments, an expenditure to which they did not contribute, while those who actually did contribute the means of paying the money were to have no voice in the manner in which it was to be expended? The ratepayers had no control whatever over the Local Government Board in Ireland; and this fact sufficiently showed how differently the two countries were treated, because in England the ratepayers had perfect control over the manner in which the money they contributed was to be spent. He found that in England it was necessary that a certificate should be given to the overseers by the Revising Barrister, under Section 57 of the principal Act, for expenses incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, this certificate to be final and conclusive, provided it was signed by the Revising Barrister in the open Court. In Ireland, however, there was no open Court in the case. In addition to the provision he had just quoted, the ratepayers in England had a right to inspect the accounts and object to any items before they were allowed by the Revising Barrister. Therefore, in England the ratepayers
  716
  had a perfect right to object to any item of expenditure brought before the Revising Barrister for his signature; but under the present Bill the Local Government Board might expend ten times too much or ten times too little, and the unfortunate ratepayers would have no voice whatever in the matter. Another point was, that in this instance the Government had departed from the course pursued in regard to former Registration Bills. By the Bill of 1850 he found that the Guardians had the power of fixing the salaries of all the officers, and paying them for any expenses they might have been put to; and he should like the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to say why he had departed from this precedent, and thrown the power into the hands of the Local Government Board in Dublin? He (Mr. R. Power) might say that he thought it would have been much better if the expense had not to be taken from the local rates at all; but the Government had determined not only that the money was to be contributed by the ratepayers, but that those who made the contribution should have no voice whatever in regard to its disbursement. If the Local Government Board were to retain the power of paying those salaries, and the ratepayers were to have no voice in the matter, the Government ought to have brought forward some different scheme by which the Local Government Board would be guided, and not leave it to that body to pay twice as much in one place as they might pay in another.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 12, to leave out the words "Local Government Board for Ireland," in order to insert the words "Board of Guardians,"—(Mr. Richard Power,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Local Government Board for Ireland' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was the opinion of the Government that the Local Government Board was the best qualified body to secure a reasonable and not too high a remuneration being paid to those public servants for the performance of these duties.
  MR. LEWISthought that if there were need for the intervention of the Local Government Board, or some other

  717
  sufficient authority, for the purpose of seeing justice done between the clerks and collectors of Unions and the ratepayers, this was the case in which it had arisen. He had to remind the Committee of an instance he had brought before the House on the second reading of the Bill, only two days ago. He had then informed the House that the Athy Board of Guardians had proposed to appoint certain gentlemen who were secretaries of the National League for the purpose of making out the list of voters in the various Unions. This proposal was brought before the Board without any previous notice; and although the attention of the Guardians was called to this fact, and they were asked to postpone the matter in order that due notice might be given, they had declined to do so, but had there and then, on the spot, appointed as fit and proper persons to make out the new lists seven gentlemen whose special qualification was that they were secretaries to the National League. At the next meeting it was proposed to fix their remuneration. Now, if this sort of thing were to be tolerated elsewhere in Ireland, it would be easy to imagine what sort of a remuneration would be given. One particular class of persons they would remunerate handsomely, while another class would hardly be remunerated at all. With respect to the Amendment before the Committee, he regarded it as utterly unintelligible and unworkable, and, moreover, wanting in point of definition. It was an essential matter, in which the independence of a Government Board was necessary, to see fair play between the ratepayers and the officers. In England it was a different matter; the business of making out the lists lay with the overseers, who were not entitled to receive anything but their expenses. No doubt they could remunerate any sub-official for manual labour; but the "bills" referred to on these occasions were not bills for remuneration, for he believed, as a matter of law, they were not entitled to remuneration. But they were allowed expenses, which were audited in the public accounts, the overseer, however, giving his services just as the Sheriff did in other matters, without receiving remuneration. He hoped the Government would be firm in holding to their clause.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it was but a trivial opposition which had been offered to the Amendment. Though the terms of the Amendment were not perhaps those a cultured lawyer would use, still the object was quite clear; it was to take away from the central body the power of fixing the remuneration of clerks and others concerned in the business of registration, giving that power in each Union to the Board of Guardians; and he thought the Board of Guardians would be a more fitting body to fix the remuneration than the Local Government Board in Dublin. In the first place, the Board of Guardians would provide the money; and generally, unless some incapacity could be shown, the people who had to provide the money for the discharge of a public duty ought, through their representatives, to be allowed to say the extent to which their money should be expended. The Local Government Board had not that knowledge of what would be the work under the new franchise to enable them to fix a scale with adequate speed. If the clause were agreed upon in its present form, and the Bill in due course was sent up to the House of Lords, where, after a time, it might pass and ultimately receive the Royal Assent, then, and not till then, the Local Government Board set about fixing the scale of remuneration. This would be productive of something very like disaster to the public interest. The demand on the time of the public rate collectors would be overpowering; and if they were left in doubt for a month or six weeks as to what remuneration they would receive for their extra duty, they would go about that duty in a careless apathetic manner, instead of with that energy the public interest required. He took it to be a prime requisite that the collectors should know immediately or very soon how much they were to get; and if the Government accepted the Amendment allowing the Boards of Guardians to fix the amount of remuneration, the Boards would at once, from their knowledge of local circumstances, knowing the number of people to be put upon the Register, the extent of work from each collector, their knowledge of the rate-producing Returns and their funds in hand, take a full view of all the elements of the case, and fix a fair scale of remuneration. If, on the

  719
  other hand, out of an obstinate desire to leave all power in the hands of a central body, taking it out of the hands of Boards having only a limited representation, if the Government persevered in that, then the result would be that nothing definite would be known for weeks to come as to the amount of remuneration to collectors, and necessarily the effect would be that collectors would not interest themselves as they ought; they would know you could not really recover penalties, though they were in the Act; and thousands or tens of thousands of people entitled to be on the Electoral Boll would have their names omitted.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. B. Power) would not be accepted. He thought it most undesirable to throw upon Boards of Guardians, among whom in Ireland, as was well known, strong Party feeling existed, delicate work of this kind in connection with the registration of voters; and that rate collectors and clerks of Unions should be solely dependent on Boards of Guardians. He did not think the latter wanted any such power, and he knew that rate collectors and clerks of Unions wished to have the scale of remuneration fixed by the Local Government Board; and he also believed that rate collectors knew already that they were to be paid for the work, and he believed they would enter, and were entering, on the work with pleasure. Hitherto they had done the work and were paid nothing, and it would be most undesirable to accept an Amendment, the result of which would probably be great inequality in the scale of payment throughout the Unions in Ireland, some Unions paying highly, others paying very little. He thought a fixed scale, such as was the case in preparing the jury lists, should be arranged by the Local Government Board, and then collectors would know how they were to be paid.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he was surprised at the grounds upon which the hon. Member (Mr. T. A. Dickson) objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power). The hon. Member spoke of irregularity in payments; he was surprised that an hon. Gentleman should hand himself over to the interest of a narrow class to
  720
  the detriment of the constituency he represented. He stated that it was undesirable that Boards of Guardians should have the power of fixing the remuneration, and he said rate collectors were paid nothing for the work now. But then, when they proposed to collect the rates in certain parishes, they were well aware of the duty that would devolve upon them in connection with Revision Sessions; and therefore, in making their estimate for what they would do the collection, they took into consideration the duty of preparing the Electoral Roll. He said the Board of Guardians did not wish for the power; but he would ask the hon. Member, was there any Petition from any Board of Guardians asking the House not to impose this duty upon them? Was there any Resolution expressive of the wish that the Local Government Board should take this power from them? He (Mr. Callan) stated, with all the authority that attached to the Representative of a large county, that the Boards of Guardians did not wish to have the power of fixing the remuneration; but he would ask the hon. Member to state in the House, could he point to a single vote of any Board of Guardians in Ireland expressing directly, indirectly, or by implication, any such wish? He knew the hon. Member had been entrusted with a number of letters from officials of the Poor Law Board; but he had yet to learn that the hon. Member had representations from Boards of Guardians, in Tyrone or elsewhere, suggesting that any Board wished to have this power taken from them. If so, then perhaps the hon. Member would avail himself the opportunity, and give the name of any Board of Guardians, to substantiate his assertion he had ventured to make in opposition to the Amendment.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, from his own knowledge he was certain that Boards of Guardians did not wish this work cast upon them.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he accepted that explanation. The hon. Member's expression was "Boards of Guardians did not wish it." But to turn to the objections of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). First, he must say the clause contained that to which Irish Members for years had objected—the levying of taxation without representation. One of the great objections to the

  721
  Grand Jury Laws was that they gave the power of levying rates without the representation of the ratepayers; and so this Bill would withhold representation from the ratepayers, while imposing taxation. Some two years since, there was a Bill before the House, and referred to a Select Committee on which he (Mr. Callan) sat, a Bill in reference to the superannuation of Poor Law officers; and what substantially killed that Bill in Committee so effectually that the Government did not bring forward the question now was the demand by Mr. Robinson, Chief Commissioner and representative of the Local Government Board, that the Board should have the power of fixing the retiring allowances of Poor Law officers, overriding the authority of the elected Guardians, and now there was the attempt made by the Government, undercover of this Bill, to take away from the Poor Law Guardians the power of fixing the remuneration of those officers. The hon. Member for Londonderry said the Amendment was an attempt to give power to Boards of Guardians such as they had never had; but the hon. Member, though representing an Irish constituency, could not have read the Irish Poor Law Act, or he would know that under the existing law power of fixing salaries was given to the Poor Law Guardians. Every item of expense, however, was audited by the Government auditor, and unless this official sanctioned the expenditure, he surcharged the unfortunate Guardians who signed the cheque. Nothing could be paid that was not approved by the Government auditor. He(Mr. Callan) certainty strongly supported the Amendment for many reasons, and was surprised that it was resisted by the President of the Local Government Board, who he believed had never attended a Board meeting on a single occasion; or if he had done so, he (Mr. Callan) would be glad to be corrected. On the other hand, let the right hon. Gentleman bring forward any single instance of neglect by Boards of Guardians of the duty that fell upon officials under the existing Registration Act. If such could be shown, there might be some reason for introducing this clause into the Bill. Until a sufficient reason was shown, he certainly thought Irish Members were bound to support the hon. Member for Waterford. The Local Government
  722
  Board of Ireland—in fact, the Irish Executive—knewthat in the near future there would be some extension of local self-government, and so they wished to absorb and gather to themselves all the power they possibly could, so as to leave County Boards, when appointed, as little as possible to control. He was most anxious that Poor Law collectors and clerks of Unions should be properly remunerated for the work imposed upon them; and unless a case could be made out showing the incapacity or disinclination of Boards of Guardians to fix the scale, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford.
  MR. CHARLES BUSSELLsaid, he rose to offer a suggestion. He was in favour of the principle that those responsible for raising the rates should have the ordering of their distribution; and, certainly. he was not in favour of putting all control over the remuneration in the hands of the Local Government Board; but he thought there were certain possible difficulties that, in dealing with particular work of this kind, might create some inconvenience. It was desirable there should be remuneration provided for these officers for work done, and it should also be provided that there should be some uniformity of payment, some system, so that one set of Guardians should not proceed on one principle, and others upon a principle totally different. It seemed to him the power of the Local Government Board, in reference to the appointment of officers, suggested an analogy which might be followed in the present case. The clerks and collectors were appointed by the Guardians, but in each case subject to the approval of the Local Government Board; and he would suggest that, in the present case —of course, the language of the clause would require alteration—the action of the Guardians should be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. That would bring matters into exact analogy with the power of the Local Government Board at present, and would effect something like an uniformity of payment all over the country. An hon. Friend near him said the Board of Guardians gave no remuneration; but that point was answered by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). Undoubtedly. the collectors knew of the

  723
  conditions when they accepted office; they knew the character of the work expected from them. So much for the general question; but he took the opportunity of asking the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question upon another point. This clause provided for the remuneration of a new set of officers under new circumstances; but he did not know whether representations had been made to the right hon. Gentleman, as they had been to himself and other hon. Members, in relation to the case of those who had performed corresponding work, or a great part of it, in relation to boroughs now disfranchised—whether these officers had a fair claim for compensation? He knew that in some instances the remuneration of clerks and county officials had been fixed in consideration of work done in connection with revision when they accepted office. He did not know that this was strictly germane to the present discussion; but he desired to mention it.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, as to the last question of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Charles Russell), he did not think it arose under this clause; but. as a matter of fact, representations had been made by town clerks of boroughs about to be merged, but he could not say the claim could be allowed—they must follow the fate of their brethren elsewhere; he was al- most sure it never had been done. As to the new proposal of his hon. and learned Friend, as he said before, he was very much in the hands of the; Committee. He preferred himself the Bill as it stood. He could assure hon. Members—though, perhaps, they would not accept that assurance as worth much—that the Local Government Board were not so gluttonous of authority that they desired to assume a duty of this sort; but the Government thought they were an independent body, to whom might be entrusted the interests that had to be considered. Next to that, to provide for the payment of clerks of Unions by the Boards of Guardians, subject to the approval and control of the Local Government Board, would, perhaps, be better than leaving them absolutely at the mercy of the Guardians, who were often—he did not wish to say anything against them, but in matters of this sort, touching politics, were apt to be
  724
  swayed by political Party feelings. If he found a strong expression of opinion in favour of the compromise, he should not be disposed to stand out against it; but still he would prefer to leave the clause as it was.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not understand the tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. A Minister of the Crown came there, and threw his discretion on the floor of the House for any Member to pick up, abandoning that reasonable independence he was bound to assume as Minister of the Crown. ["Oh, oh!"] He (Mr. Gibson) expressed his opinion as it presented itself to his mind on this as on other questions; but he passed to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), which, of course, was ingenious, as would be expected. But did it hold water? Would it not be open to this broad objection of a substantial kind—that the Local Government Board, as the Bill stood, was the central body to lay down the rule for the whole of the Boards of Guardians in Ireland?—that was clear and authoritative, speaking from a neutral standpoint, and laying down a rule for the guidance of all Ireland. But supposing the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member adopted, then Boards of Guardians—it might be several sets of them in the same county—would have very different standpoints. One Board would have a very different standard from another Board; and the Local Government Board, instead of laying down one scale, might have to consider and adjust from 40 to 80 scales for the whole of Ireland. Suppose from the North of Ireland—he did not know whether they were more liberal there than in the South—but suppose the Local Government Board found that in the North or the West, or elsewhere, there was one scale laid down for the payment of clerks and collectors of Unions—a high scale, which, with modification, the Local Government Board approved—and then suppose from another part of Ireland an entirely different scale was presented for exactly the same work, what would the Local Government Board do? Were they to drop the rate agreed on to the lower scale, or were they to raise the lower scale to the figure agreed upon? They

  725
  must level up or level down, and if that was the way the Amendment would work, would it not be doing the very same thing the Bill would do as it stood? What would be gained by the proposed alteration? As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he declared to stand by the clauses of the Bill.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, what he stated was that there were two ways of providing payment—by the Local Government Board and by the Guardians. He pointed out the pros and cons, and, of the two, thought the method proposed in the Bill was the best.
  MR GIBSONsaid, he understood, however, that the right hon. Gentleman, in his original speech, stated he was then prepared to remain of the opinion of those who approved of the Bill, and to stand by the clauses as drawn; and he rather reprobated the statement from the Opposition Benches, that the way in which he presented his views was weak kneed. It was rather surprising, then, just now, to find the right hon. hon. Gentleman had lapsed into a moral position that beggared all description. He was unaware what course would betaken now by the right hon. Gentleman; he had left the Committee in that atmosphere of doubt hon. Gentlemen were so familiar with in relation to greater questions than an Irish Registration Bill. If there was a division, he should certainly support the wisdom that suggested the original draft of the Bill; and he a waited with curiosity and painful suspense to know what would be the ultimate action of the Irish Executive.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that when a Minister went out of his way, as the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant had done, to say that he would pay some little attention to the opinions of private Members, he was doing a rather good thing in departing from the usual fashion of Ministers, and ought to be encouraged. The point at issue was who should settle how much should be paid to those clerks and collectors; and it seemed to him that both sides had proved their case. One side said the Poor Law Guardians should settle it, and the other that the
  726
  Local Government Board should do so. But one party proved that the Local Government Board was a very bad authority, and the other that the Guardians were a bad authority; and, so far as he was concerned, he thought both parties were right. The Guardians were a bad authority because they might be on one side or the other in politics, and, therefore, there would be no uniformity over the country. The fact was that the question was not local, but Imperial; and it was a bad thing to leave it to local bodies to settle how much should be paid for what really was an Imperial work. The Guardians might say—"We do not care how the list of voters is cut down; they can cut it down to nothing at all if they like." Then the people who argued that the Local Government Board was an equally bad authority were quite right, because it was unreasonable that, the Guardians having to pay the money, the Local Government Board should settle the amount. Speaking generally, he thought it was a very wrong thing to extract this money from the Guardians at all. It was making the localities pay for Imperial purposes; and so strongly did he object to the proposal, that, on a future occasion, he should have to move an Amendment on the point. Whether the Boards of Guardians settled the salaries or the Local Government Board, both systems, it had been proved, would give rise to great inconvenience. The money should be taken from the Imperial taxes. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had proposed a compromise about as good as they could adopt, to the effect that the Guardians should settle the money in the first place, and that the Local Government Board should have some power of revision. That was a practical way to carry out the scheme—an excellent compromise for getting out of the difficulty. Very often the Boards of Guardians would be anxious to over-pay the collectors and clerks, or, at any rate, to increase their salaries unduly, and then the Local Government Board would come in and say that too much was being paid, and cut down the salaries. He knew cases in which the Guardians fixed salaries at much too high a figure, and where the Local Government Board had to cut them down. The

  727
  Guardians had to give reasons for fixing salaries so high; but, as he had said, the real difficulty was as to who should pay this money. No matter who fixed the salary, the sting of the thing would remain; the payment was the real sting. If they went to a division, he should support the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power), more because the hon. Member had moved the Amendment than anything else. As a matter of fact, he did not think his constituents cared one halfpenny about the whole matter.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he rose for the purpose of saying a word which he thought should be said by someone. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in dealing with the Amendment, in the first instance, had pointed out what must be obvious to everyone who considered the matter at all—namely, that it involved no very grave principle on which the fate of a Government might depend, and that it was not a matter which should excite any very great heat in the breast of hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary objected to have it said that he had a preference personally for a particular course; he would be quite willing to defer to the general view of hon. Members representing Ireland who were interested in the clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) thereupon thought himself justified, forsooth, in getting up and condemning what he called the weak-kneed, and what the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) called the flabby, expressions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He (Mr. Charles Russell), however, thought the Irish Members ought to be extremely grateful to the Chief Secretary for doing that which it was the obvious duty of every Minister to do, whatever Department he represented, in consulting, as far as he could, those who were especially interested in the question. The question was asked—What would be the result of this Amendment if carried? Why, the result of it would be this. One Board of Guardians might fix one scale of remuneration, while another Board of Guardians might fix another, although practically the amount of work to be done by the officers of the Boards would be almost the same.
  728
  The Local Government Board would have, and ought to have, regard to the local expression of opinion of those who had to raise the money, but that they should not be absolutely bound by that expression of opinion in case they found it taking the form of giving extravagant remuneration for a small amount of work. The practical result would be that a uniform scale would be arrived at, as would be the case under the Bill as it stood, with this difference, that the influence of the local bodies would practically prevail. As the clause stood, it would appear that hereafter the Local Government Board would have no influence in the subject, whereas in the other case effect would be given to local opinion.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that there were different scales of payment in Ireland at present, and that in such counties as Galway and Mayo larger sums were paid than in such rich districts as Meath and Louth. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) were accepted, the remuneration might be made commensurate with the duties performed. For instance, in Mayo and Galway, where a large amount of work was to be done, the salaries might be made higher than in Meath and Louth, where there was comparatively little work to do. In the rich districts the expense would be less than in the wilds of Connaught, where, perhaps, ten times as many people as were on the voters' list at present would have to be included. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) proposed to substitute the Boards of Guardians for the Local Government Board; and if that hon. Member was not present, he (Mr. Callan) thought he might accept for him the arrangement proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). In that case the Amendment would read—
  "The Board of Guardians may from time to time, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, fix the scale upon which the clerks of Unions and poor rate collectors shall be remunerated."
  That would meet the only objection raised. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) had told him that he should be quite prepared to accept that modification of his Amendment; and he (Mr. Callan) hoped that, for the

  729
  sake of making everything satisfactory, that proposal would be accepted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that before the Solicitor General for Ireland rose he would make a suggestion as to the wording of the clause. He thought it would be more convenient in this form—
  "The several Boards of Guardians in Ireland, subject to the control of the Local Government Board," &c.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he would suggest that the word "approval" should be used instead of "control," because it was in a measure subjecting the action of the Poor Law Guardians to the Local Government Board.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he had made his suggestion because the Boards of Guardians might not give remuneration where it ought to be given, and the Local Government Board should have power to say that they should.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the discussion as to what authority should fix the rates of remuneration of the collectors and clerks of Unions was carried on under some disadvantage, seeing that they had not yet decided out of what source that remuneration was to be paid. Until they had decided that question it was rather putting the cart before the horse to decide what, authority should control the fixing of the remuneration. The Government proposed by this Bill that the remuneration should be paid out of the local rates, and they also proposed that a Governmental authority in Ireland—namely, the Local Government Board—should direct what the scale of remuneration should be. He (Mr. Parnell) certainly thought that a very objectionable principle to proceed upon, and one which they were bound to oppose. At the same time, if the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) were in the House, he should suggest to him whether it would not be as well to withdraw the Amendment for the present, in order that they might come to a decision upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) lower down as to the source out of which the expense should be paid. He referred to the Amendment to Clause 6, page 3, after line 17, insert —
  "All expenses so incurred shall be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think I may save time if I point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), to which he refers, will not be in Order.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that upon the point of Order he would remind hon. Members that the arrangement he proposed would practically come to the same thing. His proposal was to leave out from "Guardians" to the end of the clause. The effect of that would be to strike out that part of the section which provided that the Guardians should pay the money. There would then be nothing in the Bill to settle who was to pay the money, and the Government would have to put in words to the effect that it should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
  THE CHAIRMAN: We have not arrived at that point yet, and I think we are rather complicating matters by referring to it. What I say now is merely to save hon. Members the trouble of going into this matter. The proposal would involve a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and it is not competent for a private Member to make such a proposal. It could not be put in the Committee.
  MR. SEXTON: Will you, Sir, rule out of Order the Amendment in the name of the Chief Secretary?
  COLONEL NOLAN: No; the right hon. Gentleman is a Privy Councillor, and is privileged.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The same remark would apply to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary. Until permission to bring forward such a question be obtained it would not be in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to move it, and I understand that he has not taken the necessary preliminary steps yet.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that, at any rate, he could raise the same question on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). The Committee would be in an unfortunate position if it were not allowed to settle this matter before it came to the discussion of the question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. E. Power). Until they knew out of what source the remuneration was to be paid, it would be impossible for them fairly to decide the authority which they should appoint for the purpose of fixing

  731
  the rate or scale of remuneration; and he would submit to the Committee whether they should not raise that point on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), which proposed, in Clause 6, page 3, line 18, to leave out from "Guardians" to end of clause. If that Amendment were carried the Government would undoubtedly be compelled on Report, unless they reversed the decision, to introduce a clause, the assent of the House having been obtained in the meantime to pay the charges out of the Consolidated Fund. They would be placed in a better position to discuss the merits of the question raised by the hon. Member for Waterford's (Mr. P. Power's) Amendment if they had first decided the question as to the source out of which the remuneration was to be paid. He would also suggest to his hon. Friend, with regard to the special merits of his Amendment, that it was of the utmost importance to the success of the lists in Ireland that the collectors of rates, who had to make out the initial lists, should know as soon as possible what they were going to get. If it were left, according to the proposal in the Bill, to the Local Government Board to announce hereafter, in all probability when the work had been all done, and the time had elapsed for performing it, what the collectors and other officials interested in the work were to get, the motive of self-interest would be naturally wanting, and the work would be imperfectly and unsatisfactorily performed. The Amendment of his hon. Friend would leave the matter to the Board of Guardians, and there was a great deal to be said in favour of that. It would certainly be a better principle from every point of view, and an improvement upon the proposal of the Government, because in all probability the authorities would meet almost immediately and decide what they were going to give to the poor rate collectors and the other officials. He (Mr. Parnell) had placed a new clause on the Paper; but he proposed to move to leave out Clause 6, or so much of it as it might be necessary to leave out for the purpose, in order to substitute for it the clause of which he had given Notice. His proposal was to put in the Bill itself what the poor rate collectors should receive. Those collectors were
  732
  really important officials in the matter, and he (Mr. Parnell) followed the precedent set by the Jurors' Act with regard to the rate of remuneration given to the rate collectors in reference to the placing of names on jury lists. He would make it compulsory on Boards of Guardians in Ireland, free from the action of the Local Government Board, to give so much per head according to the scale for the number of voters returned. The Guardians, however, would have it within their competence to fix the rate of remuneration to the clerks of the Unions also without the Local Government Board having anything to do with it. The question would be divided into two halves. The rate collectors would be collected according to the scales in the Act, and their compensation would be compulsory, and the Boards of Guardians would have discretionary power as to how much they should give the clerks of Unions. He thought, as regarded the action of the rate collectors, that it was of the utmost importance that they should set to work as soon as possible. He was credibly informed that up to the present they had done next to nothing, and had made no preparations to meet the trouble and work which would be thrown upon them. He doubted whether it would be possible to get them to take the enormous trouble which would be involved in making out correct lists unless they were told how much they were to get, and unless the principle of paying them by results were adopted. He thought that, on the whole, his hon. Friend (Mr. P. Power) might fairly withdraw his present Amendment, and allow them to discuss the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), for after they had decided the source out of which the remuneration should be taken they would be in a better position to decide as to the body to control the payment.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to ask a question which was almost a question of Order. It seemed to him that if they looked at the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) at the top of page 635 they would see that, owing to the curious way in which it had been printed, it was in the shape of a new clause, though differing from all the other new clauses, because it said "leave out Clause 6 and

  733
  insert the following Clause." He (Mr. Warton) apprehended that it would not be possible for the hon. Member to make that proposal if Clause 6 were passed unamended; and he would submit, therefore, that the new clause of the hon. Member was really an Amendment, and not a new clause in the correct sense at all. It was really an Amendment to the clause they were now on; and he, therefore, submitted to the hon. Member that unless the Amendment they were now discussing were withdrawn he would not be able to move his clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would be entitled to move his Amendment as a new clause. I am not at all prepared to say that he would be out of Order in the course he proposes. The Amendment before the Committee at the present moment is that of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. B. Power). I do not know whether it is withdrawn.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the difficulty the Committee were in would be met by dividing on the proposal of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. B. Power), and then afterwards those who were in favour of the proposed new clause could vote against the adoption of the clause itself. That would enable them, in the first instance, to obtain a fixing of the rate of remuneration by the Boards of Guardians, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. Afterwards they could divide upon the clause itself.
  THE CHAIRMAN: At the present moment the Amendment before the Committee is that upon the Paper. I have listened very attentively to what has taken place. I have heard a great deal about the Amendment the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) intends to move, and Amendments to that Amendment. What, however, is before the Committee is the Amendment on the Paper. I understand that the hon. Member for the City of Cork suggested that that Amendment should be withdrawn, in order that the Committee might consider the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan).
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he would point out that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) seemed to proceed upon a false assumption, be-
  734
  cause the hon. Member proposed to leave out Clause 6, and to substitute the clause which stood at the top of page 635. The hon. Member's ground for that was, as he (Mr. Russell) understood it, that they had not yet fixed the fund out of which the remuneration was to be paid. But if the hon. Member would look at his own clause he would see that, so far from saying that the payment should be made out of the Consolidated Fund, which was the object of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) proposed to pay it out of the rates. The proposed new clause of the hon. Member said—
  "The guardians of the poor of each union shall, by order, make an annual allowance out of the rates to the poor rate collectors, as compensation for the duty by the Registration Acts imposed upon them, in accordance with the following scale:—Two pounds ten shillings per annum to each collector for any number of names up to twenty-five, and two pounds for every additional hundred names up to five hundred, and one pound for every succeeding hundred: Provided, That no collector shall receive a greater sum than fifty pounds in any one year. The said guardians shall allow clerks of unions under the said Acts such sums as they think reasonable.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that what he suggested was that they should at first decide the question as to the source out of which this remuneration should be paid—whether it should come from the Imperial Exchequer or local rates. That apparently could only be done under the Rules of the House by taking a division on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). That having been decided, and the words of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) having been added to the Bill, he (Mr. Parnell) should not move his subsequent Amendment.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that if the Amendments before the Committee were not withdrawn the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) could not be put, as it would make the clause absurd. It would make it read—
  "The Board of Guardians may, from time to time, by order, fix the scale or scales according to which the poor rate collectors and clerks of unions should be remunerated for their services."
  He understood that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R.

  735
  Power's was not withdrawn. If it were not withdrawn and was incorporated in the Bill it would lead to utter confusion.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There seems to be a question whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), as it stands on the Paper, is in Order. The hon. Member merely proposes to substitute for the "Local Government Board" the words "Board of Guardians."
  MR. GIBSON: The Amendment says "Board of Guardians;" but there are a great many Boards of Guardians in Ireland—over 10!) I should think.
  MR. LEWIS: Yes; the clause would be nonsense.
  MR. GORST: But the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power) may add something after his Amendment is accepted which would make it sense.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member for Waterford present?
  Several Irish MEMBERS: No.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If he is not we cannot put it.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he intended to withdraw his Amendment, although he must say he thought it would be much better to accept it, though verbally wrong; before they settled where the money was to come from. Some of his hon. Friends, however, thought differently; and he would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would now move his Amendment to leave out from the "Boards of Guardians" to end of clause.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he wished to move an Amendment earlier in the clause than that, and it was in page 3, line 12, before the word "the" to insert—
  "Several Boards of Guardians, subject to the control of the Local Government Board of Ireland, may from time to time," &c.
  He wished to move this and certain verbal consequential Amendments—for instance, the omission of the words "by order," and the omission of the words "by the Local Government Board" in lines 19 and 20. He did not propose to add anything to what he had already said on this subject.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 12, to insert, after the word "The," the words "Several Boards of Guar-
  736
  dians, subject to the control of."—[Mr. Charles Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the reason why he thought it would be desirable that the source from which the money was to come should be settled before they decided upon the relative measures of authority to be vested in the Local Government Board and the Boards of Guardians was this— that if the money was to come from the Imperial Treasury it might then be deemed to be reasonable that the Central Board in Dublin, representing the Government, should have some control over the money, or guidance over the expenditure of the money so provided; but if it was to come out of the local rates, then he and his hon. Friends thought his hon. Friends around him would be disposed to resist any proposal to give control or even guidance to the Local Government Board in regard to the expenditure of the money, because they thought that if the Guardians contributed the money out of their local rates they were entitled to control it. He thought that at the present moment they were putting the cart before the horse, and that it would be better that they should at first say from what source the money should come before they proceeded to consider as to whether the responsibility for the expenditure should be vested in the Local Government Board or the elected Boards of Guardians in Ireland. The objection he had to any reference to the Local Government Board was the grave objection of delay. In this matter time was of the utmost importance. Every day was now of great value; and if the Local Government Board were to have this function under the Bill of fixing the remuneration, nothing would be done until the measure was passed into law. If the Local Government Board saw that it was proposed to confer the function upon them, they would not move a finger until the Bill was passed; and his contention then was, that it would be too late to do the work properly. On the other hand, if they indicated to the Guardians by a Motion in that House that they were to have the authority vested in them, then he presumed those Bodies would immediately act on the in-

  737
  dication contained in the Bill, and would proceed next week, or in the course of a few days, to fix the rates of remuneration. At present, the whole thing in Ireland was in a state of chaos. The Guardians did not know whether they were to pay the money, and the collectors did not know what they were to receive. Not long ago the Sligo Board of Guardians asked their clerk whether it was the duty of the collectors to make out these lists, and he answered in the negative. The collector had said that he would not proceed with the work until he knew what remuneration he was to receive. The Guardians asked him if he would not go on with the work for a fortnight; to which he replied that he should not like to do so unless he knew what remuneration he was to receive, pointing out that the work would be extremely heavy. A Guardian then said—"Won't you trust our honour for a fortnight?" And the reply was that the collectors could hardly do that after the manner in which they had been treated by the Guardians under the Seeds Supply Act. One of the Guardians then suggested to the collector that he should go on with the work behind the backs of the Guardians—that the Guardians should know nothing about it—and the clerk then exclaimed— Say you will pay the collectors if the Government do not. "To that a decided negative was given. The collector stated that if the Board would give him £40, he would at once proceed with the work; but the Guardians could not promise to do that. That was what had taken place in Sligo, and the same thing was going on all over Ireland every day. The important work of making out the lists was therefore delayed, and every moment was of the utmost importance in connection with such an important matter. The Guardians did not know what they were to do; and until the matter was settled in a definite manner, no satisfactory Return would be made. He agreed that the first step which ought to be taken should be to decide from what source the money was to come. He thought it would be inadvisable to leave the Local Government Board any power in the matter, because of the tendency in connection with that Office to bring about delay—because in all probability several weeks would elapse before anything was done, and
  738
  the present chaotic state of things would continue.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he was sorry the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had not acceded to the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), to which suggestion the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power) had at once given way. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, after a conference with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, had taken up this matter. [Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL: No, no!] Weil, after an apparent conference with the Solicitor General for Ireland, the hon. and learned Gentleman had moved a modification of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Watorford (Mr. R. Power), which involved almost all the objectionable portions of that hon. Member's proposal. He (Mr. Callan) begged to move, on the proposed Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, that the word "control" be left out, and the word "approval" be inserted. He made that proposal on the ground of precedent, because he found that in the Act of 1850, and in the 13 & 14 Vict, c.69, intituled "An Act to amend the Laws which regulate the qualification and registration of Parliamentary Voters in Ireland," that altered the law for rating in certain boroughs, the language used was such as he proposed. He did not know why the Government should pretend to think that the wording of an Act of Parliament which had existed 35 years was unsatisfactory. The 73rd section of the Act stated—
  "Be it enacted, that the guardians of the poor of each union shall, by an order, make such annual allowances out of the rates to the clerks of the unions"—
  the very words used in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork—
  "as compensation for the duties imposed upon them as the said guardians shall think proper …hut no payment shall be made thereunder unless the same shall be approved of by the Poor Law Commissioners"—
  that was to say, by the Local Government Board. Why should they change the wording of that Act? Why not make the proposed Amendment read so that the payment should not be subject to the control of the Local Government Board, but subject to their approval? He begged to move that the word

  739
  "control" be left out for the purpose of inserting in place of it the word "approval."
  Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "control," and insert the word "approval."—(Mr. Callan.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'control' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. LEWISsaid, he had understood the reference of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to the proceeding which had taken place before the Sligo Board of Guardians in a very different manner to the hon. Member himself. The hon. Member seemed to think that what he had said showed the necessity of having some independent body to stand between the Guardians and the collectors. It seemed to him (Mr. Lewis), however, that the very last body to whom the collectors were inclined to give their confidence were the Guardians. The collectors appeared to distrust the Guardians altogether.
  An hon. MEMBER: The Guardians cannot make terms with them.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that if this alteration were not made the power given to the Boards of Guardians would be beside the question entirely. Many of them remembered what was the result of giving the Boards of Guardians power to increase the remuneration of the teachers under the Education Act. They knew what a great difficulty there had been in obtaining additional remuneration for teachers in spite of that provision; and it seemed to him that that was rather a warning why the present matter should come under the specific form of the proposal in the Bill, or why in some way or other control should be kept over those payments. The discussion which had been going on for the last two hours and a-half was entirely owing to the indisposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to show any inclination to stand by his own clause.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that as between the two words "approval" and "control" he did not think there was much to choose, though personally he should prefer the word "approval." He found "approval" used in almost every case of the kind.
  740
  In the Bill on the subject of registration, two years ago, which measure was sent up to the House of Lords, a proposal was made on this very subject that the Guardians should fix the remuneration, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. That was an additional reason why he was in; lined to think that the Committee should accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had enjoyed the benefit of a frightful wigging from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson); but, after all, he certainly did not think there was any-think very unreasonable in his desiring to arrive at what was the general feeling of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland on this subject. He had explained what the object of the Government on the whole matter was; and he thought, on the whole, that the object might be sufficiently met—that was to say, that of the interests of the persons affected would be sufficiently secured, together with uniformity, by the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, even with the word "approval." He should be very glad to give the Local Authorities any additional power it was thought they ought to exercise.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not care in the least to defend any particular words in his proposal, and if the right hon. Gentleman desired to have the word "approval" in place of "control," he should not defend his own word. He would point out that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) were adopted, there would be a consequential Amendment necessary—that was to say, that the word "may" would have to be substituted for the word "shall."
  MR. DEASYsaid, he had frequently heard the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Charles Russell) speak strongly against the control of such a Board as the Local Government Board in Ireland. On a question of this kind the hon. and learned Gentleman came in and made a proposal which would have the effect of giving the Local Government Board the control over an enormous annual sum of money which was paid by the unfortunate ratepayers of Ireland. There was a very strong feeling on this point in

  741
  the South of Ireland from the district he (Mr. Deasy) came from. He had had frequent conversations with collectors on the subject in one of the largest Poor Law Unions in Ireland. The tendency of the Local Government Board, for some years, had been to get as much control as they could in their own hands in regard to the administration of local affairs in that country. Seven or eight years ago the Secretary to the Poor Law Board had given evidence in that House in favour of allowing the Boards of Guardians to fix the amount of superannuation of Poor Law officers; but last year a change came over that gentleman, and he gave evidence of a different character. He was now in favour of giving the control of everything of this kind to the Local Government Board, and of taking it out of the hands of the representatives of the ratepayers. He (Mr. Deasy) considered that evidence extremely vexatious. It had very much annoyed the people of Ireland. Certainly, the Local Government Board deserved no consideration whatever at the hands of the Irish Members; and no one in the habit of attending that House Session after Session could fail to observe that on every occasion on which the Irish Members had obtained the opportunity they had brought forward and substantiated charges of incompetency against that Board—charges of gross favouritism in the carrying out of the laws. He hoped the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) would withdraw his Amendment, and that the Government would not show any favour to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Charles Russell). He trusted that they would carry out the principle they had always been advocating—that was to say, to place the control over the expenditure of the rates, wherever they could properly do it, in the hands of the representatives of the ratepayers. He had never known in any Union in the South of Ireland any Poor Law officer inadequately paid by the Guardians; and as for the likelihood of their paying salaries unduly large, there could not be much fear of that when they took into consideration the large number of ex officio members on all the Boards. He could not understand why it was that this proposal had been made, or the course which had been taken by the
  742
  right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment, for the reason that the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. P. Power) had withdrawn his Amendment, on the understanding that a vote would be taken for or against the clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Charles Russell) had evidently been a party to that understanding; and why he should have jumped up to propose the Amendment now before the Committee, he (Mr. Deasy) could not understand.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that after he had proposed the Amendment, which he considered a fair compromise, he was assured by the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. R. Power) that he was ready to accept it. The hon. Member subsequently left the Committee, and he (Mr. Charles Russell) had understood from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) that he bad been asked by the hon. Member for Waterford to state that he was prepared to accept the Amendment.
  MR. CALLAN: I did not say anything about accepting it; but I said. I believed the hon. Member would accept it. To save discussion, I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Amendment again put.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he now begged to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "Local Government Board of Ireland."
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not appropriate to the present Amendment. The Amendment still stands to insert "several Boards of Guardians, subject to the control of," &c.
  MR. CALLAN: Then I beg to leave out the words "subject to the control of."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that would not make sense, for the clause would then read—
  "Several Boards of Guardians…the Local Government Board may from time to time," &c.
  MR. CALLANsaid, his desire was to leave out the words "Local Government Board of Ireland," and to provide simply that the "several Boards of Guardians may from time to time," &c.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The proper way to do that would be to negative the present Amendment, and then to propose, instead of those words, "the several Boards of Guardians."
  MR. CALLANsaid, that for the purpose of saving time, he would move at once the omission of the words "subject to the control of," his object being to leave the Guardians uncontrolled in this matter by the Local Government Board. He had a precedent for that, and he was in Order, seeing that it was his declared intention that he intended later on to move a consequential Amendment to leave out other words.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that on the point of Order, he wished to remind the Committee that it had been distinctly ruled by the Speaker that Amendments might be moved, having the effect of leaving the Question before the House merely the word "That." Of course, "that" was not sense in itself; but it was possible to move to add words to it which would make sense. They had the famous case where the word "That" once remained on the Journal of the House.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the question of Order is to be disposed of first, it is true that the word "That" has been left the Question before the House, because "that" can be added to. It is always possible to add to "that" to make sense. In the present case, however, two Amendments would be necessary to make sense.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had a right to move his Amendment according to his discretion, and he contended that if the Amendment he proposed were carefully read it would be seen that there would be no difficulty in making sense of it.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the Amendment, as he understood it to have been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), was as follows:—
  "That the several Boards of Guardians in Ireland may, subject to the control of"—
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELL: The word "may" does not occur.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, "subject to the control of" occurred. There appeared to be little sense in that if it stood by itself; but, taking it in connection with what followed, it would read—
  "The several Boards of Guardians in Ireland, subject to the control of the Local Government Board in Ireland," &c.
  744
  He wished to ask the Chairman if that statement of the premises were a correct one? It was their desire that the several Boards of Guardians in Ireland should not be subject to the control of any authority—either of the Local Government Board or any other Central Board. They were, however, willing to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk, for the sake of peace and quietness, and for the purpose of raising a question they desired to raise subsequently; but only so far as this—namely, "several Boards of Guardians in Ireland." Then they would not be shut out from raising the subsequent question of the control which was not made. No doubt, there must be a control of some kind. If they agreed to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Committee would have decided on some control; and Irish Members objected to any control being agreed to at present.
  THE CHAIRMANThere is no doubt that "subject to the control of" is consistent with what follows for the purpose of making sense. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) is to strike out words without which the Motion would not make sense. The object aimed at would be perfectly accomplished by rejecting this Amendment, and then moving, subsequently, to omit the words "Local Government Board of Ireland," and to insert instead, "the several Boards of Guardians of Ireland." That, I take it, is the object of the hon. Member for Louth, which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) desires to support. We must first, however, dispose of the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. PARNELLsuggested that, as the two questions were involved, it would be advisable for the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) to withdraw his Amendment and move it in a more simple form.
  MR. LEWISsaid, the proposition now made had been already suggested, and had been discussed for two hours, after which the Amendment had been withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk whether he would withdraw his Amendment in order to move one to the following effect — to which the Irish

  745
  Members, generally, would be prepared to assent—thatthewords "several Boards of Guardians in Ireland" should be inserted?
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he could not properly do that, as it would be inconsistent with the view he had taken and had submitted to the Committee.
  MR. CALLANpointed out, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted that proposition there would be no difficulty in the case, as the words would read—
  "The several Hoards of Guardians in Ireland, subject to the control of the Local Government Board in Ireland."
  He put it to the Chairman—having had some experience in the House—that it was not necessary to consider any future portions of the Bill. It was proposed by an hon. Member to strike out certain words, and it would be in the discretion of the Committee afterwards to say what words should be added. He (Mr. Callan) would like a distinct ruling on the matter, so that they might have a record of what had taken place hereafter. The Amendment," The several Boards of Guardians subject to the control of," had been proposed, and he (Mr. Callan) had moved an Amendment to leave out "the control of," with the intention, subsequently, of inserting "the Local Government Board for Ireland." That would make sense of the Motion. He thought he would be within his right in moving that. At any rate, before he was satisfied he would ask to have it distinctly ruled that he was not entitled to move to leave out the words "subject to the control of." If the Amendment made nonsense of that which preceded it, then, no doubt, it would not be competent to move it. But here he wished to leave out certain words, in order, subsequently, to make another proposal which would make sense. He wished to know whether an hon. Member could be deprived of his right of moving an Amendment to an Amendment sprung on them, and not on the Paper?
  MR. GORSTsaid, that with great respect to the Chairman, he wished to say that he had always understood the Rule of the House to be this—that no hon. Member could move an Amendment which would make nonsense of that which the Committee had already determined should stand part of a clause.
  746
  But the Amendment the hon. Member had moved would not necessarily make nonsense of the Bill, because the Committee had not yet determined what should follow the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk. The Committee was entirely at liberty to make sense of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth by the determination they might arrive at on the subsequent words. He (Mr. Gorst) thought he was right in saying that Amendments to clauses which did not in themselves make sense, but which required consequential Amendments to make sense of them, were constantly admitted.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment proposed could, no doubt, be made to make sense by a subsequent Amendment. The hon. Member for Louth, indeed, has suggested words which he could afterwards move, which would make the clause intelligible; but it is unfortunate that this method of proceeding involves the consideration of two Amendments together. If it is the sense of the Committee that we should take that course, I will put the Amendment.
  MR. HEALYsaid, this question had been raised by the Poor Law Superannuation Bill. They had wrangled over it for some days; and the Government, owing to the strong objection to the system originally proposed, decided that the matter was within the competence of the Guardians. The Government now proposed to throw the whole thing over again on the Local Government Board, and they had accepted an Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) which was really worse than nothing, because it was simple hypocrisy. The consent of the Local Government Board meant this—that the Local Government Board were in full charge, and could upset any Union Guardians they did not like. It would be more respectful to the Boards of Guardians if this species of control were not given to them at all. Whatever they might do, they knew that the Local Government Board might, or might not, agree to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) professed to be most anxious to place increased responsibility on the local bodies. Very well, Irish Members made a proposal to

  747
  intrust local affairs to the Local Boards, of which the landlords generally formed three-fourths; and yet the right hon. Gentleman mistrusted those bodies. The landlords, as ex officio members, formed half of the Boards of Guardians; and then, by reason of the proxy or multiple vote, they generally managed to get a fourth of the elected Guardians, Notwithstanding that, the Government declined to intrust them with so small a matter as the payment of their collectors. This was really a matter upon which nothing could be fairer than to except the Boards of Guardians, and for the very reason that upon those Boards the Tories and the Nationalists were represented; the landlord Party would see, by means of the ex officio members of the Hoards and the gentlemen they elected by the multiple vole, that the collector did his duty to the Conservative section of the people. The Nationalist Party, by means of the elected Guardians, would see that the collector did his duty fairly by the popular Party; and therefore he considered that the Boards of Guardians were ideal bodies for this purpose. He was far from saying that Boards of Guardians generally were ideal bodies; but for this purpose they were exactly the bodies competent to deal with this question. He and his hon. Friends objected to the principle of leaving this matter to the Local Government Board for another reason. When a Bill similar to this was before the House in 1883, he moved an Amendment leaving out a clause similar to this, and he induced the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) to accept a clause dealing with the remuneration on the basis given under the 9th section of the Juries Procedure Act of 1877. What was the remuneration? It was a capitation allowance, and the Conservative Party supported him on that occasion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel King Harman) cordially supported his Amendment, because, as they all knew, those officials in Ireland, as a general rule, belonged to the Tory Party. The Government had allowed capitation allowance in the case of jurors; and it was equally the view of the Irish Members that there should be some distinct incentive to the clerks of the Unions and rate collectors
  748
  to put voters upon the list. He thought that a higher pay ought to be given to the rate collectors—he did not care much about the clerks of the Union, because their work was less important. If a collector received a capitation grant he would see that a full complement of voters were put upon the list. That was the principle Parliament had adopted in the case of the jury list, and why not adopt it in this? He would leave the clerks of the Unions to the Guardians, but he strongly objected to the amounts allowed to the rate collectors being curtailed; unless the collectors got so much per head they would not be stimulated to as active energies as they otherwise might be. Seeing that the Government considered that a sound principle in the case of juries, he could not understand how they could object to apply it in this instance. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) could not take a different stand to that he did three years ago. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) might say that the same principle could not be applied in this case as in the case of the jury lists, because the numbers were so very disproportionate. He (Mr. Healy) would suggest to meet that by proposing only a proportion of the amount given under the Juries Act. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had a series of Amendments on this point; but if they were to get at that principle at all, it would be necessary that this proposal about the Local Government Board should be completely abandoned. He did not see why the Government should see fit to depart from what it agreed to in 1883, especially that now there was far more necessity for care on the part of the rate collectors, seeing that there were such large numbers of voters to bring in.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would have stated what the views of the Government were with regard to the remuneration, and the way in which the collectors of rates and other Poor Law officials were to be remunerated in connection with their duties under this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he would get through this Bill more easily by shrouding him self in perpetual silence,

  749
  and by leaving to such Members as the lion, and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) the duty of repress!) ting the Government on this occasion. He (Mr. Parnell) did not think that the interposition of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had been advantageous or useful to the Government, or calculated to help the Committee in its proceedings, or calculated to save or economize the time of the Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had not put down a single Amendment to this Bill, so far as the Committee knew; and, if they were to believe the announcements in the public Press, the hon. and learned Member did not intend to stand at the approaching General Election for an Irish constituency; it would, therefore, appear that the hon. and learned Gentleman's interest in the Irish Franchise Bill was not even one of a very remote or limited description; in fact, that it amounted to nothing at all. He (Mr. Parnell), therefore, thought that the hon. Gentleman's action in taking advantage of the course adopted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. 14. Power), who withdrew his Amendment on the understanding that the question, as to the source from whence these expenses were to be derived, should be discussed first —the action of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Charles Russell) in taking advantage of the withdrawal of an Amendment upon such conditions to take up the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. Power) immediately afterwards, and move it as his own, was not creditable to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was, however, not altogether an unprecedented action on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because the Committee would remember that on a certain celebrated occasion he tried to appropriate a clause in the Land Act which went by the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). The subsequent course of the hon. and learned Member in refusing to allow the Committee to discuss the principal portion of his Amendment was not at all a convenient course. For his (Mr. Parnell's) part, he had endeavoured, during the progress of this Bill, to facilitate its course as much as he could; but if they were landed very often in such entanglements, and placed at such disadvantage
  750
  as they were placed in by the action of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), he did not see how they were to make any progress at all. The hon. and learned Member had evidently not studied the Bill—he had not placed a single Amendment on the Paper. He (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends had studied the Bill, and they had placed on the Paper Amendments calculated to carry out their views; and he thought they should have been entitled to place their views with regard to the remuneration of collectors, and the source from whence that remuneration should be taken, before the Committee, instead of being pounced upon by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, and cut off from all discussion, and all opportunity of expressing their opinions upon those points, by his action. He (Mr. Parnell) was bound to say he did not think the course chosen by the hon. and learned Member would be found one convenient to the Irish Members, or to the hon. and learned Member himself, or to the Committee in general. But now with regard to the immediate question of the authority of the Local Government Board over the doings of the Poor Law Guardians. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk should do one thing or the other—he should either trust the Poor Law Guardians or the Local Government Board. He (Mr. Parnell; did not see in what way the registration of voters was likely to be benefited by this mixing up of authority. As he had said before in the discussion on the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), speed was of great importance in this matter. There were very large numbers of men to be added to the voters' list, amounting,' according to the calculations of those best qualified to judge, to something like 600,000. There was a very limited number of officials to do the work, and it was of importance that those officials should know, on as early a date as possible, what remuneration they were to receive. They would not go to work with any appetite for the work, or any desire to complete it thoroughly and effectually, until they knew what they were to get. "What did the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Charles Russell) propose? The hon. and learned Member proposed that after the Board

  751
  of Guardians had got over their natural sluggishness, and after they had fixed the rate of remuneration, a further delay should take place until the approval of the Local Government Board was obtained as to the rate of remuneration. He (Mr. Parnell) would have liked to see the remuneration of the collectors fixed by the Act, so that the officials, who ought to be now at work in order that there should be any hope of their completing their task, should get to work, even before the Act was passed, with the knowledge of what they were to receive. The hon. and learned Member proposed as the first delay that the Boards of Guardians would have to wait until the Act was passed before they could hold a meeting. Now, that meeting might not take place for a fortnight, or, in some cases, for a month after the passing of the Act; indeed, it might not take place at all, as there was nothing in the Act to compel the Guardians to fix any rate of remuneration. In some of the most critical counties in Ireland, in counties where it was absolutely necessary that the officials should go to work at once, the time might elapse within which the work was to be done before the officials interested would have any opportunity of knowing how much they were to get for their work. After the Boards of Guardians had taken action, supposing they did take action, would come the further delay occasioned by the necessity of the rate of remuneration fixed receiving the approval of the Local Government Board. Suppose the Local Government Board disapproved of the rate of remuneration, then another meeting of the Boards of Guardians would have to be held. The meeting would have to be summoned by notice, and, therefore, a further delay would have to take place. Perhaps the Board of Guardians would get into a long correspondence with the Local Government Board with regard to the merits of the case, and the question of the rate of remuneration might not be settled until the time allowed had elapsed. Those were serious considerations; they were considerations which would have occurred to the mind of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) if he had taken the trouble to look into the matter. Unfortunately, he bad not taken that trouble. He (Mr. Parnell asked the
  752
  Government whether, if this was a case in which they were interested, they would not provide efficient machinery for the purpose? What did they do under the Juries Act. They fixed the rate of remuneration by Act of Parliament; they gave power to the Lord Lieutenant, in Council, to make his Order, and they settled that that Order should be of such a practical nature that the rate collector would have an interest in returning a full list of men fit to serve on juries. If it was a question such as that connected with juries, where the Government might easily hang, or imprison, or send some unfortunate peasant into penal servitude, the Government would set their wits to work and produce a complete Bill; they would not be drawn aside by such catchpenny Amendments as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). He also objected to the proposal on other grounds than that of delay. If they were going to trust the Boards of Guardians, why not trust them altogether, why give to the Local Government Board power of which they had got too much already? He entirely objected to this trammelling by the Local Government Board. Parliament had a right to trammel local bodies; Parliament had undoubtedly a right to fix the rate to be paid to the collectors. But what was this Local Government Board in Ireland? It was a Board which was composed of the nominees of Earl Spencer, men who were perfectly notorious for their hatred of Irish national life; for their desire, first of all, to starve the people of the country into submission and then to banish them out of the country altogether. Such was the Local Government Board to whom it was proposed to hand over this important duty connected with the registration of voters. The Committee knew what the result had been of the action of the nominees of Earl Spencer in the case of the Irish boundaries. He (Mr. Parnell) objected to follow the precedent set in that case. He objected to handing over the counties in Ireland to be again manipulated by the nominees of Earl Spencer, especially where Parties were equally divided, and where it would be of importance to obstruct and delay the preparation of the register of voters. He objected to the interference of the Local Government Board in this matter,

  753
  because they would adopt methods of procedure which would have the effect of rendering it impossible for the peasantry of Ireland to be placed on the voters' lists. The sooner those initial proceedings were taken the better. A great deal too much time had been lost already by the dilatory proceedings of the Government. Why did not the Government follow the precedent set by the Registration Bill of 1883, which the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) agreed to? In that Registration Bill Parliament decided that so much per head of the persons placed on the list should be given to the rate collectors. What had happened in the meantime to induce the Government to change their mind? Surely, if such a provision was good in 1883, it was good now? The Committee had heard no argument whatever from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), or the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) against the merits of that provision. Why, if it was good then, was it not left open to the Committee at least to move the introduction of a similar provision on the present occasion; why was this Bill framed upon entirely different principles with regard to the remuneration of rate collectors to the Bill of 1883? The Government knew very well that if they did agree to the addition of a beneficial provision in the Registration Bill of 1883, they might rely on the House of Lords throwing the whole Bill out. They were not quite so certain of the co-operation of the House of Lords on the present occasion. It might be that the House of Lords would refuse some of the provisions, but it was certain they could not throw the Bill out in its entirety. He protested against the conduct of the Government upon the present occasion. It was not fair to the people of Ireland that the Government should take advantage of every side-wind to prevent the peasantry of Ireland obtaining their just electoral lights.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that if the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) seriously believed that the object of the Government, and his (Mr. Trevelyan's) object in coming down
  754
  that night, was to do their best so as to diminish the number of Irishmen who were to give votes at the next General Election, he was quite welcome to his belief. He (Mr. Trevelyan) certainly never heard a speech which went so little home to his conscience as that which the hon. Member for the City of Cork had just delivered. His (Mr. Trevelyan's) only object on the Representation of the People Bill, on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, and on the Registrations Bills which he had the honour of bringing forward in that House, or in supporting in the House, and in the support he was now giving to this Registration Bill, which he hoped might soon become an Act, was that the greatest number of Irishmen who were entitled to votes should enjoy the vote. Why was it that the Government were supporting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell)? It was because it was in the form which had commended itself to previous Governments, which had worked well in Ireland, and which, in the opinion of the present Government, was the form which would work the best. The Registration Act of 1864 contained a provision of this exact nature—namely, that the Guardians of the poor of each Union might, by an order, make some annual allowance out of the rates to the clerks of such Unions respectively as the Guardians might think proper, but that such order should not be acted upon, or any payment made, until the same was approved by the Poor Law Commissioners, and payment sanctioned by them. He was not aware that any complaint had been made against the operation of that Act. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had quoted the Bill of 1883. Now that Bill, as brought in. provided that the Guardians of the poor of each Union, might, by order, make such annual allowance out of the rates to the poor rate collectors as the said Guardians might think right, but no such order might be acted upon, or payment made thereunder, until the same should be approved of by the Local Government Board for Ireland. Pressure was put upon the Government, and the fixed scale of payment was agreed upon. That, however, was not the original proposal of the Government; but the hon. and learned Member for

  755
  Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) must remember that the constituencies to which that provision was applied were extremely different constituencies to which this Bill applied. To what extent would the county constituencies of Ireland be increased? The hon. Member for the City of Cork himself had said that the Franchise Act would cause an addition of 600,000 men to the Register.
  MR. PARNELL: I do not think they will add half that number under the registration proposals of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that according to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, 600,000, or some large number of men, would have to be dealt with under this Act. Now, that was a different thing from the miserably and scandalously small number of county electors who would have to be dealt with under the Bill which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had the honour to introduce to the House in 1883. He thought it was extremely important that there should be some Supervising Body who could remove from the minds of rival politicians in Ireland the suspicion that the overseers and rate collectors could in any way be influenced by the politics of the Boards of Guardians. He did not think the Local Government Board would find it very necessary to interfere. He felt certain that the interference would not cause the inconvenience or the delay which had suggested itself to hon. Members opposite. He did not think that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) deserved the hard words bestowed upon it by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell): his own belief was that the Committee would take a quieter view and a more practical view of the question and support the Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he hoped the Committee would not consider it improper that he should again ask its attention for a moment or two, especially after the observations which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had thought proper to address to the Committee. So far as the observations of the hon. Member related to his (Mr. Charles Russell's) conduct, apart from the present Amendment, he should certainly not notice them. He
  756
  did not think that the hon. Member for the City of Cork would, when the heat of the moment had passed away, look back with entire satisfaction to what he had said in relation to him (Mr. Charles Russell); indeed, he doubted whether the hon. Member, even at that moment, was quite satisfied that his observations were just. He did not think it would be becoming that he should occupy the attention of the Committee with personal matters which had nothing to do with the present discussion; but in relation to his conduct as to the matter now before the Committee, he must take leave to correct the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It was not true that he had taken no interest in this Bill. It was true that he had been here during the entire discussion, which had now lasted for a considerable time; and it was equally true that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had not been present during the whole discussion. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been present when the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) was before the Committee, it would have been within the competence and right of the hon. Member for the City of Cork to have pointed out that there might be certain inconveniences in the course which was being pursued. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been here, he would have known that it was stated to him (Mr. Charles Russell) in the House by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan)—although, as the hon. Member now said, and, of course, he (Mr. Charles Russell) must accept the statement, not by the direction of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power)—he (Mr. E. Power) was prepared to assent to the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had made no communication to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Charles Russell), except across the floor of the House.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLthanked the hon. Member for reminding the Committee that that was his (Mr. Charles Russell's) only mode of communication with the hon. Member. He asked to be allowed to remind the Committee of the course which this discussion had taken. When the discussion was initiated, some hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, prominently his hon.

  757
  Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), was insisting upon the Government proposal being adopted; because, he said—and therein he was corroborated by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—that representations had reached hon. and right hon. Members from clerks of Unions and rate collectors that the Boards of Guardians were making no arrangements for compensating thorn for the extra labour that would be put upon them. He believed that it would be necessary that there should be some controlling power, not only for the purpose of requiring that remuneration should be fixed, but also to decide what the scale of remuneration should be. Accordingly, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. E. Power), he had suggested the Amendment standing in his own name in opposition to the Government proposal embodied in the clause. He had said that the principle he was in favour of was that the Boards of Guardians, who raised the money, should have the control of that money, and he said that that was the principle he should like to see carried out. But inasmuch as it had been suggested that in this case the matters to be dealt with were somewhat of a delicate nature, and that complicated considerations might arise which would lead to a want of uniformity of payment—that was to say, a larger payment in some cases than in others, and, in some cases, no provision for payment at all—he said that, while it was necessary that remuneration should be given, there should also be some machinery which would insure uniformity of payment in proportion to the work done; and he had said, in justification, that by that contrivance Parliament would secure uniformity of payment, and also secure the practical control of the Boards of Guardians, who raised the funds, and that, if there were control by the Local Government Board, it would be exercised in the face of the country, and in view of the elected Guardians on the spot. Those considerations, he might add seemed to have some weight with hon. Members on the other side of the House. But there was one more word which he desired to say. What right had the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to address to him the language which he had made use of in reference to this question? The hon. Mem-
  758
  ber for the City of Waterford rose in his place and proposed to withdraw his Amendment; and the hon. Member for the City of Cork taunted him (Mr. Charles Russell) as if he were a party to the Amendment being withdrawn on the understanding that his (Mr. Charles Russell's) Amendment should be withdrawn. He denied that. The hon. Member for the City of Cork charged him in effect with having been a party to an arrangement from which he had dishonestly withdrawn, and that baseless insinuation of the hon. Member he repelled with contempt and scorn.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, having listened to the discussion on this question, there appeared to him to be great force in the view taken by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the Committee should settle the basis on which those expenses of the clerks of Unions and poor rate collectors should be charged before they settled by whom they were to be regulated. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had more than once insisted on that proposition being admitted; and on that account the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. E. Power) had been induced to withdraw the Amendment he had moved to the clause. As the Bill now stood he (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) could very well understand that Her Majesty's Government should feel some difficulty in adhering to it, for it provided that the expenses in question should be paid by the Boards of Guardians, and that the Guardians should have no voice whatever in deciding what the amount of those expenses should be. It had been suggested that the Local Government Board should be the controlling authority in this matter over the Boards of Guardians. Now, the control must either be real or not—if unreal, it would be of no use; and if it were real, it certainly involved interference with local government, which was an objectionable principle, and one which he thought the Committee ought, if possible, to avoid. He must not be understood to say that some control might not be necessary in this case; but he said it was an unsatisfactory way of settling this question, and he would rather like a settlement to be found in the alteration of the incidence of the charge—that was to say, by placing it upon the Treasury rather than upon local rates. If the expense

  759
  of registration had been for some time past imposed on the localities, he could not conceive that anyone would propose that it should be so imposed now. These charges related to matters which concerned the nation at large as well as the local ratepayers; and it might be said that they were not a local but a national charge. Therefore, it appeared to him that there was force in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that there should be some scale established for the remuneration of the officials in question, and that they should be paid according to that scale by the Treasury. Of course, if that change were to be made in respect of Ireland, it should also be made in respect of England and Scotland; and he could see no reason whatever for continuing the incidence of these expenses upon the rates. He hoped that the incidence might be so altered as that it should be placed on the Treasury.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he had stated that he preferred the clause in the Bill, but that he would support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). He was prepared to do that if the clause were withdrawn and a Schedule brought in fixing the scale of remuneration not only for poor rate collectors, but also for clerks of Unions and Clerks of the Peace, so that the remuneration of all those officials might be fixed. His object was to secure independence of action on the part of those persons. Let the Committee suppose that the poor rate collector or clerk of any particular Union had incurred the displeasure of the Board of Guardians, and that the latter refused them any, or scarcely any, remuneration. Therefore, he said, make the rate collectors and clerks of Unions independent of the Board of Guardians in this respect, so that they might be in a position fearlessly to discharge their duties. Let them be placed in a position of independence with regard to any political Party. He would certainly prefer very much that a scale of remuneration should be fixed in the Bill to which poor rate collectors and clerks of Unions could appeal.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the position they were now in was the result of the Government never accepting the suggestion of anyone, however well acquainted
  760
  he might be with the subject under consideration. He need not say that hon. Members from Ireland knew more about this question which related to Ireland than any other Members of the House; but, notwithstanding that, they had to come down to the House and hammer away at the Government for hours on a simple question, and then the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) and the Government supporter, the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), came in and supported the proposal of hon. Members on those Benches. What excuse did the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) give for not accepting their suggestion? The proposal of the Government amounted to this—that the Local Government Board had more intelligence than the House of Commons. It was proposed that they should abdicate their functions in favour of Messrs. Brown, Jones, and Robinson. There were 30 or 40 Members on those Benches in favour of a certain proposal; it had received the support of several hon. Gentlemen representing the Whigs, and the support also of the right hon. Baronet on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); and surely, under those circumstances, their proposal was entitled to acceptance by the Government. But the Government said —"No, we will not accept your suggestion." The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave it as one reason why the Government could not accept their proposal that they did not know how many voters would come on the list. But he would ask, if the Government did not know, how was the Local Government Board— how was Mr. Robinson—to know how many voters would come on the list? If the clause remained in its present form, there would always be uncertainty; whereas if their proposal were embodied in the Bill, all the Government scruples would be removed, and all difficulty about the matter would be at an end. With reference to the clerks of Unions, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Tyrone in thinking that they ought to take the same trouble over the matter of their remuneration as they did in the cases of the poor rate collectors. His opinion was that Her Majesty's Government should withdraw this clause entirely, and consent to bring up another

  761
  clause on the Report stage of the Bill, embodying the capitation principle.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that after the many suggestions made in the course of this discussion, the proposal was now made that the clause should be withdrawn, and a clause based on the capitation principle brought up on Report. Now, he objected altogether to the principle of capitation payment being applied in this case. He thought it would furnish an inducement to overseers to put unqualified persons on the list. [Mr. HEALY: They will not be paid.] He did not know that; they would be paid according to the list made up. The list of voters would be very different from the jury list, which was only for the purpose of getting the names of a comparatively small number of persons qualified to serve on juries. This was a totally different case, and, as he said before, he believed the introduction of a capitation grant would lead to a number of unqualified persons being put on the list. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) proposed that the remuneration should be at the rate of £2 10*. per annum to each collector for any number of names up to 25, £2 for every additional 100 names up to £500, and £1 for every succeeding 100; provided that no collector should receive a greater sum than £50 in any one year. It seemed to him that a very fine thing might be made out of that; the collectors might sweep into the list any number of persons for which they would be paid so much a head, and the county would have to be satisfied with it. He hoped that the suggestion to withdraw the clause arrived at after four or five hours' discussion would not be assented to, and that Her Majesty's Government would adhere to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell).
  MR. GORSTsaid, that the course taken within the last few minutes seemed to have brought the Committee into a state of unanimity on one point. They had agreed to sink objections and come down upon the Consolidated Fund for the cost of registration. But there was one Member of the Committee who had not spoken, and whose opinion on this matter was entitled to some consideration. He would like to hear what were the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the
  762
  subject, because if the expenses of registration, as was now proposed, were to fall upon Imperial and not upon local funds, they must first get the right hon. Gentleman to open the bank for them. His own opinion was that it was not competent to any hon. Member to move such an Amendment; and he supposed that the Members of the Government who had charge of Irish affairs could not assent to it until they had obtained leave of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should like to know whether that right hon. Gentleman would hold out any hope that the Consolidated Fund would bear the cost of registration of voters in Ireland? If they were informed by the right hon. Gentleman that that would be the case, the Committee could proceed on the line that had been debated; but, if not, he would suggest that the time of the Committee was being thrown away, and that they must look for some other alternative.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he had never been more surprised than when the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) sprung upon the Government the proposal he had made. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) himself had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Clause 6, and to substitute for it a clause calling on the Guardians of the poor to make certain payments in connection with the registration of Irish voters out of the rates—that was to say, £2 10s. per annum to each collector for any number of names up to 25; £2 for every additional names up to 500, and £1 for every succeeding 100. No one could, after this, have guessed that there was any serious intention to remove these charges from the rates, But the right hon. Baronet suddenly came down and proposed, not only with respect to the incidence of the charge in Ireland, but also with respect to its incidence in the other parts of the Kingdom, that the whole of the registration expenses should fall upon the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Baronet made that proposal without any Notice whatever, his Friends having made a proposal with respect to County Court Judges in principle similar to that of the arrangement now existing. The Government were suddenly asked with

  763
  respect to the whole Kingdom, in the course of the discussion on an Irish Registration Bill, to establish a principle throwing a very large charge on the Consolidated Fund. In reply, therefore, to the appeal very properly made to him by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he at once said that he certainly could not consent to make such a change as was proposed in the Bill, the effect of which would be to cast a very heavy additional charge on the Consolidated Fund at once, and probably a much heavier charge hereafter. He had felt it his duty to make these observations to the Committee, and the question having been put to him by the hon. and learned Member opposite as to whether it would be competent to move an Amendment to that effect, he answered it by saying that no such proposal could be made without the consent of the responsible Minister.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had never heard a more technical answer given on a large subject. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to argue the question on those broader grounds on which he (Mr. Stanhope) considered it ought to be argued. His right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had raised this question—Were the expenses of registration a matter of local interest, or were they a matter of Imperial interest? And he might point out to the Committee that that question was not a new one. It had been argued in that House on former occasions, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that it would come forward in connection with the Bill; at any rate, if the right hon. Gentleman did not know it, he would know it before the English Registration Bill left the House. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side felt that the charges in-question were matters of Imperial interest. They believed that it was a gross injustice to charge the enormously increased expenditure that would be incurred under the Representation of the People Act upon the local rates, and that somehow or other they must find a remedy for the evil.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would ask the Committee to carry their minds back to the year 1868, when greatly increased
  764
  charges were thrown upon the boroughs of England. At that time Parliament enfranchised a large number of new voters, and the boroughs had to pay in consequence greatly increased registration charges; but not one word was said then about throwing those charges upon Imperial funds. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had nothing to say then in favour of relieving the small towns of the increased burden of registration charges which the Act of that year threw upon them; they were not a matter of Imperial interest then, and the localities were left to bear the charges themselves. But now—17 years afterwards—when Parliament was doing for the counties what in 1868 it did for the boroughs, the county Members came forward, and said—"You must not do for the counties what you did for the boroughs." They were now giving the counties increased representation; and did hon. Gentlemen opposite think it fair or right, in Committee on a Registration Bill, to raise this broad question, and to introduce the novelty of making Imperial taxation pay for the increased representation of the localities? How could they in justice make the boroughs pay their own registration expenses as they had hitherto done, and then say that they should not only pay for themselves, but for the registration expenses of the county?—for that was, practically, what the proposal amounted to. ["No, no!"] Imperial taxation, he contended, did pay for the expenses of representation; but until a week ago there had never been a suggestion that the expenses of registration should be defrayed from any other source than that of local taxation. ["No, no!"] If he was wrong in saying that, why, he asked, was not the same practical view taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite when the boroughs were saddled with increased registration charges '? Having allowed the boroughs to pay those charges in 1868, why was it that the county Members now asked that an opposite course should be followed? The proposal was not only novel, but there was a practical objection to the course proposed.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he must point out the double irre-

  765
  gularity that was being committed. The Question before the Committee was whether the Local Government Board or the Boards of Guardians should fix the rate of remuneration to officials for carrying out the registration of voters under the Representation of the People Act. The question under consideration was not as to the source from which that remuneration should come. That was the first irregularity. The second irregularity was the discussion as to whether the registration charges should be thrown on the Consolidated Fund, with regard to which he would point out that the question could not be discussed on this Bill without the consent of a Committee previously setup.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he asked pardon for having transgressed the Rule of the Committee. He was answering the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope).
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the position taken up by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney Gentleman appeared to be this. Being a borough Member, the hon. and learned Gentleman argued that, because the borough Representatives neglected their duty in 1868—
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Order, order!
  MR. GLADSTONE: We hear now, Sir, of 1868—
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Order, order!
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he rose for the purpose of appealing to the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) to withdraw his Amendment, in order that the Committee might proceed to discuss the more important question raised in the second paragraph of the clause. He believed it would be very much for the convenience of the Committee if he would take that course.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, the Bill had been wrongly drawn. The draftsman had first made them spend a lot of money, but had never said until afterwards where the money was to come from. All that confusion arose from the way in which the Bill had been drafted. He saw the Chief Secretary laughing; perhaps the draftsman had drawn it wrongly on purpose. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn,
  766
  and then they could get to the main question as to where the money was to come from.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that if it was the general wish of the Committee, he should be most happy to withdraw the Amendment; but he must first have it made clear to his mind that that was the general wish of the Committee; and he was by no means clear upon that point at present.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the matter stood thus. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) proposed the Amendment as a compromise to the suggestion that the matter should be dealt with by the Boards of Guardians, and not by the Local Government Board. When that suggestion was made, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Charles Russell came forward and proposed as a compromise that it should be in the hands of the Boards of Guardians, subject to the control of the Local Government Board. He (Mr. Gibson) assumed that, having regard to the discussion which was going to be raised on the 2nd paragraph, the Boards of Guardians would not be mentioned again at this stage; and therefore he would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and the whole of the 1st paragraph should remain as it was. They would then be able to make such observations as might occur to them on the 2nd paragraph.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk was willing to withdraw his Amendment, he (Mr. Callan) was ready to facilitate that operation by withdrawing his proposal to amend the Amendment.
  Amendment (Mr. Callan), by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Is it your pleasure that the original Amendment be withdrawn?
  MR. LEWIS: No, no.
  MR. CALLAN: Then, if the original Amendment is not to be withdrawn, I beg to move that my Amendment to it be restored, and that we leave out the words "subject to the control of."
  MR. HEALYsaid, that as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had withdrawn his Amendment to the Amendment on the understanding that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) would with-

  767
  draw his proposal, surely the Government would not now place the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk in the position of not allowing him to withdraw it. If the Government or any Member of the House intended to take that course, the proper thing to do would have been to have objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not see that they could proceed profitably with a discussion upon the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, because after they had arrived at a decision upon it they would really only be at the beginning of the clause, and they would have to discuss further Amendments subsequently, which would undoubtedly come from different sides of the Committee and from different points of view, all of which would take up a great deal of time. He, therefore, thought there were only two courses open to the Committee, if they were to proceed with any hope of making progress—either that the clause should be withdrawn, to give an opportunity to the Irish Executive to consider the question, with the view of bringing up a fresh clause upon the Report; or else the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), who had objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment, should take into account the fact that he would be able to raise this particular question in the subsequent discussion on a new clause which would undoubtedly have to be moved, and that he would not debar himself from adopting the principles he wished to adopt with regard to the control of the Local Government Board, or whatever other principles he might be desirous of inserting, and should, therefore, consent to allow the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk to be withdrawn. There was, undoubtedly, a very general wish on both sides of the Committee that they should proceed to the settlement of the question involved in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), and thus utilize the favourable opportunity which had now presented itself. If the hon. Member for Londonderry did not persist in his refusal to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, the hon. Gentleman would not debar himself from the assertion of the principle which he wished to
  768
  assert, because it could be asserted in the discussion of the new clause which would have to be moved.
  MR. LEWISwished to say why he had objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment. During the earlier part of the evening, when there were probably not above 10 or 12 persons in the House, and after they had discussed for two hours and a-half the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Water-ford (Mr. K. Power), that Amendment was allowed to be withdrawn. But 10 minutes afterwards, it was proposed to be moved again, and when he (Mr. Lewis) raised some question on the point, the Chairman told him that he could not object because the previous Amendment had been withdrawn and not rejected. That was why he had wished to draw attention to the matter, and to point out that the withdrawal of Amendments, when followed by re-proposing them directly afterwards, was most inconvenient. However, he had no desire to press his objection any further.
  Amendment Mr. Charles Russell, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL NOLAN COLONEL NOLAN moved an Amendment to Clause C, page 3, line 17, to leave out all the words after the word "defrayed" to the end of the clause. He said, he did not intend to go minutely into the merits of this question, for the reason that a large number of hon. Members had already made up their minds, and several had already spoken upon it, although on a different Amendment. Hon. Members' minds were, therefore, full of the subject. But he would just explain one point. He had proposed no charge upon the Consolidated Fund, because he knew that that would be out of Order; but what he did propose was to leave out the charge upon the local rates; and if that were agreed to, it would then be the duty of the Government to propose some other way of paying the people who did that work. He thought the Amendment ought to be carried, both upon its merits and according to the strength of Parties in the House. That was not a question of asking that a local rate should be paid out of Imperial resources, but of refusing to pay an Imperial tax out of local rates. They were asked to pay out of every poor Union in Ireland

  769
  £200 or £300 to return Members to Parliament. Why should the ratepayers have to pay that? They might as well have to pay the Members. If the payment of Members had to be proposed at any time it would have to be proposed out of Imperial taxes, and not out of local rates. The expense of registration should properly be a rate on the whole country at large. He did not see why barristers and rich merchants, who lived in fine houses, and who were rated to a very small extent on those houses, should not take their share of the burden; and why this charge should not be paid out of Income Tax instead of out of the poor rates of the miserably poor. The Committee ought to be strong enough to any this Amendment. He did not see why Irish Members on the Ministerial side of the House should not unite with Irish Members on the Opposition side to vote on behalf of the Guardians of the Poor, and probably some of the English county Members would support them. If he could only get the Irish Members on the Ministerial side, or even one-half of them, to vole with him, and if they would stick up for the Guardians, they ought to be able to carry the Amendment, even in a full House. He would now leave the Amendment to the Committee. It was perfectly plain what it meant. Under it, the charges would not have to be defrayed out of the local rates, and the Government would be left to propose some alternative afterwards.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 17, to leave out all the words after the word "defrayed," to the end of the Clause.—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'the boards of guardians of the several Poor Law Unions are hereby required to pay out of union funds the amounts so fixed by the Local Government Board:
  This section shall apply to the Collector General of Rates in Dublin,' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, if I understand him lightly, says that if the Committee negatives the imposition of this charge upon the local rates it will be the duty of the Government to find some other source. It is my duty in some degree to consider what is the duty of the Government, and I differ entirely from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I give
  770
  the hon. and gallant Gentleman clearly to understand that he must not reckon upon me to discharge the duty which he seeks to throw upon me. I am not prepared to say that it is the duty of a Government, in considering a Registration Bill, to enter upon the question of the incidence of a particular charge, hitherto paid out of local funds, upon the Consolidated Fund, and I claim for myself entire liberty to decline that responsibility, and to throw upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman—and upon all who may support him, the consequences, as regards this Bill, and any portion of the settlement to which it is directed, that may flow from the vote he intends to give. I will have nothing to do with giving it any countenance, so far as I am personally concerned. [Colonel NOLAN: Hear, hear!] Yes, "Hear, hear." I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman understands me. I will give no countenance to the principle that upon a question of this kind, with regard to the incidental consequences of an enlargement of the franchise, with respect to a charge always imposed upon the local rates, that à propos of this clause, the question can be legitimately raised of imposing this charge upon the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will clearly understand that I decline to undertake the duty which, by the vote he proposed to give, he desires to impose upon me.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he wished to represent the claims of an important body of public officers. He had had very strong representations from the City of Dublin—
  MR. GORSTrose to Order. The hon. Member was addressing himself to the 3rd sub-section of the clause. The Question was whether the 2nd sub-section should stand part of the clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The Question before the Committee is to omit both the 2nd and the 3rd subsections.
  DR. LYONSsaid, that his attention had been drawn to this matter by a very important body of public officers, who had asked him to represent their claims to that House. No provision whatever was made for the payment of the collectors and the Collector General for Dublin; and yet special provision was made that this section should apply to

  771
  the Collector General of Rates in Dublin. They were advised—and they had taken care to obtain first-class advice upon the matter—that their position would be indeterminate if the Bill passed as it was now worded; and, therefore, he desired to point out this blot in justice to this body of very responsible public officers, upon whom the collection of the rates would fall.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I should like, if I may, to call the attention of the Committee to what it is that is now proposed. The franchise has been lowered, from time to time, and the localities which have profited by the widened constituency have hitherto borne the burden of the increased expense of registration. While the franchise was being gradually extended in 1he boroughs, the county Members have never once advised that the localities should be relieved from this increased cost of registration. I would respectfully ask the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire who has already spoken (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to this point—that wherever there has been an increase of the franchise given to localilies, up to the present moment, those localities have been allowed to bear the increased expense of registration. If he will give an instance to the contrary, I shall be glad to hear it; but, from time to time, when the franchise has been increased, the localities have borne the increased expenditure. There has not been an instance in which there was any suggestion to the contrary. In 1867 we threw upon the boroughs an increased expenditure amounting to a sum of very nearly £1,000,000. Was one word said then about the increased expenditure being borne by Imperial taxation? I must ask the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who are now representing the counties, to reflect whether there is not a little want of generosity in their proposal? They allowed the boroughs to bear the increased expense. No suggestion came then that there should be aid from Imperial taxation; and, without grudging, the boroughs had borne the cost of the advantage which they had obtained, without a whisper that there should be any aid from Imperial taxation. Now, Sir, progress has
  772
  been made, and the counties are going to obtain the same benefit this year which the boroughs obtained in 1868; and now the county Members, represented by the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman, who allowed the boroughs to bear the increased expenditure because it was a local benefit to the boroughs, and not an Imperial benefit, which was then obtained, and who allowed this to go on for 17 years past, come forward and refuse to pay the money. They refused to be placed on an equal position with the boroughs. They say that that which was only local when applied to the boroughs in 1868 is not a local benefit when given with equal hand to the counties, but has become an Imperial matter.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to Order. I wish to call attention to the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is repeating over and over again the same arguments, in almost the same words; and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether he does not thereby make himself obnoxious to the Rule against tedious and irrelevant repetition?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am speaking to a different Amendment.
  MR. HEALY: Against time. Obstruction.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am speaking to a different Amendment. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) was that this expenditure should be borne by Imperial taxation. [Colonel NOLAN: No.] Well, at all events, that it should not be borne by the local rates. The Members for the counties allowed the boroughs to bear it in 1868, and for 17 years they have borne it; but directly it is put on the coures the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire say—"You shall hear more of this if you do not relieve the counties from bearing the expense of their own registration." Well, Sir, may I not ask that there should be equal justice dealt out to the counties and to the boroughs? The Members for the counties, having cast upon the boroughs of England the expenses of this registration, now come

  773
  down to this House and—I will not use the word I was going to use—I will not say what I mean—but why should they not bear the same burden which they willingly cast upon the boroughs in l868? Are they not as well able to bear it? Have they not the same generosity—the same sense of justice? Why should they cast on the boroughs in 1868 this expenditure, and seek to evade it for the counties now, in 1885? May I point out to the Committee the great danger that they run if once they make one body bear the task of spending money and another body the task of paying for it? The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member opposite is to allow local bodies to incur this expenditure; and it will be extremely difficult to check them. You will have to deal with Revising Barristers and others, and you will allow all this to be paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer. Thus there will be two elements; one body will have to spend the money, with very little controlling power over it, and another body will have to bear the expense; so that you may produce a reckless amount of expenditure on the one hand, and on the other a burden cast upon those who do not derive immediate benefit from that expenditure. I do not know that anything I can say will shake the present combination between Irish Members and English county Members; but it will be found that the principle is not one which ought to receive the support of any of those who reflect calmly and with justice on the subject.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not profess any tender regard for the Consolidated Fund, and he did not see anything objectionable in principle in a charge of this nature, which unquestionably might be said to be a charge of an Imperial character, being met from Imperial sources. But the practical question on which he would like to be informed before he gave his vote was this —supposing this Amendment were carried adversely to the view of the Government, what course would the Government take with reference to the Bill itself? He wanted to be informed on that point, because whatever suggestions might be made in the hurry of the moment about his want of interest in Irish affairs he certainly did take a deep interest in them. The Government were
  774
  entitled to take this credit to themselves—that on a previous clause which had already been disposed of, and by which, it was sought by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to disfranchise a large body of the people who would otherwise be entitled to the franchise, the Government loyally stood to their guns. He (Mr. Russell) was anxious that the Irish people should have more and more effect given to their vote. He had little doubt about the purpose of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) in moving this Amendment; but he was certain that that hon. and gallant Member would be unwilling to take this course if he believed it would risk the chance of the Bill being passed, and speedily, into law. He therefore thought the Committee were entitled to know what would be the position of the Bill in ease the Amendment should be carried against the Government?
  MR. THOROLD ROGERS(who, on rising, was greeted with interruptions from Irish Members) said, he did not understand the meaning of that outrage. His hon. and gallant Friend had suggested that Imperial taxation should be applied for the purpose of meeting the obligations of the local rates; and he was bound to say that it was absolutely irregular that the Committee should be called upon suddenly, without any notice of any provision of the kind, to decide whether it would made a fundamental change in the machinery by which local government and local representation were carried on, and have put before it the issue that there should be a charge put upon Imperial taxation for the purpose of meeting this local obligation, He had entered into an arrangement by which he had paired for the night; but though he should be unable to vote, he would move that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry to find that a very serious question has been raised of a nature calculated to interfere in the gravest manner with the purposes of the Government. As so stated, as the purposes of the Government, they have very little special claim upon the Committee; but they are purposes connected with a great extension of the

  775
  franchise in Ireland—a great enlargement of the legitimate Constitutional power of the Irish people. To the whole of the arrangements connected with these purposes we attach a very great value and importance; and it would be to us a matter of extreme regret if any vote given by the Committee—
  MR. ONSLOW: I rise to Order. The Motion before the Committee is that you, Sir, do report Progress. The right hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to that Motion, but to the Main Question.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The right hon. Gentleman, as far as I have heard, is in Order.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I would be the last person, Sir, to disobey the ruling of the Chair, and I hope that the moment you perceive that I am travelling beyond the Question you will call me to Order; and I hope, by my obedience to your call, without raising any question upon it as has now become almost a settled rule, that I shall set an example which I think it my duty to set. But I understood that the hon. Member for Southwark moved to report Progress in order to get rid of a discussion which he deemed to be illegitimate. My desire would be to discuss the matter at no great length, but briefly, either upon this question or upon the Motion when it comes on. If there is any doubt as to whether I should be in Order in objecting to the proposal made on the question now raised, in the present circumstances I would far rather postpone any observations which I should otherwise make.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Before you reply, Sir, to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask leave to draw your attention to Rule 10 of the Standing Orders, which requires that when a Motion is moved for the adjournment of the debate or of the House during any debate, or when a Motion is moved that the Chairman of the Committee do report Progress, the debate thereupon shall be confined to the matter of such Motion.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I was quite aware of the Rule to which the right hon. Baronet has called my attention. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government opened his argument; but I did not see what the scope of that argument would be.
  776
  As far as it was opened, it was strictly relevant to the Question before the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman ha diverged from the Question before the Committee to report Progress to discuss another question, I should have done what I have done already this evening—I should have called him to Order.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question again proposed,
  "That the words 'The Boards of Guardians of the several Poor Law Unions are hereby required to pay out of Union funds the amounts so fixed by the Local Government Board:
  "'This section shall apply to the Collector General of Rates in Dublin,' stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I must again apologize to the Committee for intervening in this discussion. I must ask the Committee to pause before they agree to this proposal, coming as it does upon us in an unexpected manner. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) stated that the effect of this Motion would be, in his opinion, to charge upon the Consolidated Fund the whole of the registration expenses of England, Scotland, and Ireland. I repeat, that the Committee should pause before it adopts that proposal, which certainly no one expected would be put forward. I want the Committee to consider what would be the effect of agreeing to this Motion. If the Motion were agreed to, the Committee would then have expressed the opinion that at the present time, when the Government found great difficulty in providing for the increased expenditure of the country, it was right, as the right hon. Baronet proposes, to add to that expenditure something like £120,000 or £130,000 a-year. Now, I ask the Committee to pause before it makes that addition to the charge upon the Consolidated Fund. As I have said before, it is a serious matter at the present time to propose to increase the charge of £100,000 by the additional sum of £120,000 or £130,000. I ask whether on such short notice, on the proposal sprung upon us by the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Committee is to determine, in view of the great difficulties I have alluded to, to increase the expenses of the taxpayer by that sum?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not intend to deliver on that occasion any fixed opinion on the question as to whether the burden of the registration expenses should be borne by local funds or should be a charge on the Consolidated Fund. He did not intend to give any final opinion on the question. He thought it was open to discussion. He was not much moved by the observation that the charge was an Imperial matter, because there was hardly any charge to which that expression was not applicable; but he said that that was not the proper occasion for the consideration of the question, whether the burden of registration expenses should be borne by local funds or should be a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. As regarded the Amendment, he protested that it was not the function of the House of Commons to be the originator of a public charge. But there was one thing worse than that. If the House was to be the originator of public charge at all, let it be the originator of public charge openly, and let the country know that this or that charge, which was formerly on the ratepayers, had been transferred to the Consolidated Fund, supported as it was in great part by the labour of the country. Let the country know that that had been done by their own Representatives in the House of Commons on their own responsibility. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) was prepared to propose that change in the Constitution, and if the Guardians of that Constitution, who sat opposite, were prepared to support it, it might be that they could overcome any resistance he could offer. They would have a fair discussion; but at present the principle of the Constitution was that the Government were to be the originators of charge, and were to be responsible for placing burdens on the taxpayers of the country. He told the hon. and gallant Gentleman fairly that he did not accept his instruction; he would not work under his instruction, and he reserved to himself and his Colleagues absolute discretion as to what their course with respect to this proposal should be. The Government could not consent to any such proposal on a Registration Bill, because it was not their duty to accept the responsibility, and because it involved a total revolution with respect to the mode of providing for the expenses of registra-
  778
  tion, which had been established by a long and undisputed series of precedents, and which had never been the subject of complaint until they came to the sacred question of counties as compared with the boroughs of the country, which former, it would appear, were not to be subject to the same taxation as the latter. He answered his hon. and gallant Friend with the fullest acknowledgment of the fairness and excellent temper with which his proposal had been put, that those who chose to introduce a change of this kind, in the opinion of the Government, illegitimate in principle, and not bearing on the present discussion, into the Bill, must be responsible for the progress of the Bill itself, and that the Government must claim for themselves perfect freedom in regard to the course which they might consider it their duty to pursue in respect to the Constitutional principle involved.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 56; Noes 62: Majority 6. (Div. List, No. 127.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: As the division which has just taken place will make it necessary, in conformity with the distinct intimation previously given to the Committee, for the Government to consider at large the course they should pursue in respect of the further prosecution of this Bill, in order to give us an opportunity for that further consideration, I move, Sir, that you do now report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought that before the Motion was agreed to, which, of course, he regarded as a natural one under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister might give the Committee some intimation as to what course he proposed to adopt with regard to the English and Scotch Registration Bills. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to agree to similar Amendments in the case of those Bills?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I propose to go forward with the English and Scotch Bills, and to see whether the House of

  779
  Commons will give similar votes on those Bills.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [23rd April] reported.
  First Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that this Resolution related to a Vote to which Irish Members had taken objection, because the people of Ireland had to pay a very substantial proportion of it without getting anything in return. They thought that if those grants were made for the maintenance of roads in England and Scotland, the same contribution ought to be made towards the maintenance of roads in Ireland; and because that principle was not applied, they considered that a great injustice was done to the people of Ireland which ought to be redressed. They had heard over and over again the argument that this charge was only temporary, and that the matter would be considered when the Local Government Bills for England and Ireland were passed; but they thought that in the meantime, seeing that those Bills had been promised so long, and that there was very little prospect of getting them passed into law, the Government should bring in a Supplementary Estimate during the present Session which would afford the redress claimed by Members for Ireland. If the Government would undertake to do that, they would be well satisfied. They did not, of course, want the large amount now being voted for English roads, but an amount proportioned to the taxation as between the three countries. The rates raised in Ireland for the repair of roads were called county cess levied by the Grand Juries. If a grant were given to Ireland and divided amongst the different counties, the counties would be thus indirectly benefited. For those reasons he opposed the present Vote.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes 61; Noes 21: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 128.)
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

MOTOIONS.
  INDUSTRIES (IRELAND).

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on Industries (Ireland) do consist of Twenty-four Members."—(Sir Eardley Wilmot.)
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry that the Government had adopted such an extraordinary course in reference to the nomination of this Committee as that which they had adopted. It was towards the end of last Session that the Government agreed to the appointment of such a Committee upon the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot), who had now moved its nomination; and upon one pretext or another they had delayed, since the commencement of the Session, the nomination of the Committee, and refused the just claim of the Members with whom he (Mr. Parnell) was associated for representation upon the Committee. He and his hon. Friends considered that a Committee embracing such a very wide field of investigation as that connected with the industrial resources of Ireland should have upon it a sufficiently strong force of Members belonging to the Irish Nationalist Party as to have enabled them to take a leading share in its deliberations. He admitted to the fullest extent that if the Committee were suitably constituted, and if it had time to pursue its investigations thoroughly, they would be of enormous value, and would result in the obtaining of very much valuable information as regarded the industrial resources of Ireland. But he should look upon an incomplete investigation as a great disaster. In the first place, if the Committee reported that Session, and he had no doubt it would report, if nominated, because if it had not completed its investigation by the close of the Session, it could not claim, from an expiring Parliament, its reappointment the following Session—if the Committee were to make a Report by the close of the Session, it could not be anything but a very incomplete and imperfect Report.
    MR. MONKrose to Order. The House had already decided, on the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot), that this Committee should be

    781
    appointed. The Question now put to the House was that the Select Committee do consist of 21 Members. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) seemed to be going a little beyond the Question.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have not put the first name of the hon. Members who it is proposed should form the Select Committee; and therefore the wider question is still before the House on the Question that the Select Committee do consist of such and such Members.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he should endeavour to confine his remarks as much as he possibly could to the immediate Question before the House. Of course, he did not desire to detain the House unnecessarily at that time of the night (12.45). Apart from the question of the probable incomplete nature of the Committee's Report, owing to the fact that so little time of the Session still remained to investigate such a wide subject, he wished to say that he certainty should not like to undertake the responsibility of being a Member of the Committee with only four Colleagues to assist him in overcoming the opposition of 19 English Members, which would almost certainly be exhibited against any proposal of theirs tending to make the operation of the Committee an effective one. If the Irish Party had such a number of Members on the Committee as would be likely to give them their suitable share in directing the issues to which the Committee might come the case would be different. But it was only proposed that the Committee should consist of 24 Members. Of that number the Irish Party were only to be given live. The Committee was, he understood, to consist of 10 Liberal Members, nine Conservative Members, and five Members belonging to the Irish Party. That would leave only five Members of the Irish Party against 19 other Members of the House; and his experience of the working of other Select Committees was that it would be exceedingly difficult for the five, under the circumstances, hampered as the Committee would be by the short period of the Session still remaining, to obtain from the majority of the Committee such a full discussion of the subject, and such a full examination of the subject, as would be satisfactory, or as would render the proceedings of the Committee of any
    782
    importance or value whatever towards the promotion of the industrial resources of Ireland. He said that, having some knowledge himself of the difficulties which Irish Members had to contend against in Committees of this kind. The difficulties were very much enhanced when there were only a few Irish Members endeavouring to press their views and ideas upon a large number of Members belonging to the two English Parties. The work then became insuperable, and he doubted very much whether, at that period of the Session, the trouble which would be entailed upon the Committee would be justified at all by the results which would attend its labours. He, for his own part, should feel obliged to decline the honour of nomination to the Committee, because he felt he could not be of any real use with regard to the very important object with which the Committee would meet. He therefore asked the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) to consider whether he was really likely to advance the cause of the industrial resources of Ireland by persevering with a Committee from which no good could come? He had always recognized the desire of the hon. Baronet to promote the industries of Ireland. The hon. Baronet's name was distinguished in connection with that matter, and he (Mr. Parnell) was quite ready to acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was anxious that some of the misery which prevailed in Ireland should cease. Undoubtedly, if the hon. Gentleman could obtain the appointment of the Committee at an earlier period of the Session, and if it were suitably composed, the Committee might do a very considerable amount of good towards disseminating information with regard to important branches of Irish industries. Under the circumstances, he (Mr. Parnell) thought it would hardly be possible for the hon. Baronet, by this Committee, to do much good that Session. They had been treated very unfairly by the Government in this matter. Originally the Government offered them four Members, and, after considerable hesitation, they offered them five. The original claim of the Irish Representatives was that they should have six Members upon the Committee—a very fair claim indeed, and one which he should have thought the Government would have had no difficulty in agreeing

    783
    to, if they really desired to promote the success of the Committee. Even if they could now obtain six Representatives on the Committee, he doubted whether the appointment of the Committee would be of much value, seeing that such a very short period must elapse before the Session would come to an end. It was obvious that once the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill and the Registration Bills had passed, the Session would come to a speedy conclusion. He thought that, as business men, they were entitled to consider whether they ought to proceed with a hasty and limited inquiry from which no good result could come. He therefore begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. MOLLOYseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought it was necessary he should say a word or two with respect to the position of the Government in this matter. He was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) say that it was proposed to appoint upon this Committee 19 English Members.
    MR. PARNELL: Nineteen Members of the two English Parties.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: English Parties! There were 12 Irish Members out of the 24, besides the Chairman of the Committee. Now, what was this Committee? It was a Committee to inquire into the industrial resources of Ireland; and would the hon. Member for the City of Cork exclude from the Committee every Irish Member returned by an Irish constituency who did not belong to his Party? Did the hon. Member mean to say that upon a Committee of Inquiry into the Industrial Resources of Ireland the hon. Members for Belfast, for instance, were not to be nominated, but were to be treated as English Members? Really, the whole argument of the hon. Gentleman was to deny the right of any Member elected by an Irish constituency to be regarded as an Irish Member unless he belonged to his (Mr. Parnell's) Party. ["Oh, oh!"] What else, then, was the hon. Member's argument? Why, then, did he complain if there were 12 Members, who belonged to different Parties, and
    784
    who sat in diffeernt parts of the House, but all of whom were elected by Irish constituencies, to sit upon a Committee of this description? It seemed to him (Sir William Harcourt) that the argument of the hon. Member was one which could not be sustained. If what he had stated was not the hon. Gentleman's argument, what was it? The hon. Member had said that the 19 Members belonged to the two English Parties, and he said that there were only five Members of the Committee who could be recognized as Irish Members. Did he repudiate the Members for Belfast and the Members for Dublin—Members who certainly had something to say on such a subject? That was all it seemed to him (Sir William Harcourt) necessary to say in vindication of the fairness with which this Committee had been constituted. The Irish Members of the Committee and the Chairman of the Committee constituted together the majority, and therefore the assertion that the Committee had been unfairly constituted could not be sustained. The hon. Member had stated that the Session was so far advanced that it was not likely that the Committee would answer any useful purpose. That, of course, was an argument which stood on a very different fooling. It was an argument which the hon. Gentleman must settle with the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) who moved the Committee. He (Sir William Harcourt) only rose to repudiate, on the part of the Government, the assertion that the Committee had been unfairly selected. He thought that anybody who looked at the names of the Committee would see at once that the various sections of the Irish Members were very fairly represented.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he begged to thank the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) for the kind manner in which he had alluded to himself. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) could only say that he had only one object in endeavouring to get this Committee before the House—the same object which had induced him, at a late period of his life, to undergo the toil and labour of Parliamentary work. He had found for a long period that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom to which adequate justice had not been done; and, therefore, with that feeling he had sought a seat in that House, and,

    785
    as the hon. Member had said, he had on many occasions shown his anxiety to serve the interests of that country. Entertaining these feelings, in the month of August last he had put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, asking him whether he would consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the industrial resources of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, had stated that he had conferred on this matter with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and that they were both of opinion that the object he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) wished to attain would be better arrived at through the medium of a Select Committee than that of a Royal Commission. Upon that he Sir Eardley Wilmot) had immediately given Notice of his intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the industrial resources of Ireland. That, as he had said, was in August last. He had brought the matter forward at such a period that no opportunity presented itself for bringing the question to a conclusion. In the Autumn Session, having given Notice on the 21st of November last, he brought the question before the House, and asked for a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was present and had listened to his speech, and at his side was the then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan). Alter they had heard what he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had to say, and had heard the arguments put to the House by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) and many Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House below the Gangway—indeed, from hon. Members on both sides of the House—the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rose to inform him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) that at that period of the Session it was useless to suppose the matter could be thoroughly gone into; but that if at the beginning of the present Session he would renew his question the matter would be favourably considered. Accordingly, on the 10th of March, having given due Notice through the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons), he himself having been out of England, the matter came on. On that evening he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had an interview with the right hon. Gentleman the
    786
    Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who had not only always treated him, but the subject that he had in hand, with the greatest courtesy and consideration, and the right hon. Gentleman had told him that the Government had consented to the appointment of a Committee. The Committee was assented to on that evening, and he had set about preparing a list of names for the consideration of the Government. He did not hesitate to say that he had included in that list a greater number of Members of the National Party than were now to be found upon it. He had thought that, upon the whole, that Party represented, as he considered it did, the great majority of the people of Ireland, and the feeling and sentiments and wishes of the people of Ireland ought to be considered, and that the number of seven—the Committee at that time consisting of 21 Members—would not be too large for the representation of that Party. He wished to return, on this the first opportunity, his best thanks to the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) for the uniform kindness and courtesy with which he had on every occasion assisted him and conferred with him with regard to the appointment of the Committee, the names of the proposed Members of which were now before the House. There had been great difficulties for the noble Lord to overcome no doubt—difficulties which hon. Gentlemen sitting on both sides of the House could well understand; but ultimately, only a short time ago, the noble Lord had told him that the names had been agreed upon. They were those now on the Paper, with the exception of three, who had only been aided to the list within the last few days. Two of those names were such as would do honour to any Committee, he did not care how important it might be. He referred to the names of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith)—a Cabinet Minister and an ex-Cabinet Minister headed the list of this important Committee. In addition to those, the name of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) was added to the list. He must say he quite dissented from what had been said by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that this was a Committee that.

    787
    would not do justice to Ireland. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) had said, the number of Irishmen—
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Baronet that the Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he found it rather difficult to confine himself to the Question of adjournment when the whole matter had been so thoroughly dealt with by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who had gone into the whole history of the question, and thus he had found it difficult to abstain from general remarks. But he respectfully be wed to the decision of Mr. Speaker, and he would confine himself entirely to the reasons why the debate should not be adjourned. They had before them now three good hard-working months, up to the end of July; and he must say that he had received from every part of Ireland a universal expression of a desire that they should commence the inquiry. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork that they could not exhaust such a vast question as this that Session; but, at any rate, let them commence the inquiry. There were Gentlemen in the House who were ready to devote all their time and labour to the prosecution of an inquiry fur the purpose of benefiting the Sister Kingdom; and he really was surprised at the observations which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork, that owing to want of time and to the near approach of the end of the Parliament that the inquiry would be altogether useless. He could tell the hon. Member that if the House granted the inquiry, Ireland would never allow so distinguished a Member of the House and so distinguished an Irishman to stay away from it. Looking at the magnitude and importance of the inquiry, Irishmen would not consent to the hon. Member holding aloof from it, so well knowing, as they did, that his opinions, his feelings, and his influence with his fellow-countrymen would be of so vast an amount of assistance to the Committee, and would do so much good. Therefore, if the Committee were granted, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) did not feel any apprehension in his own mind that either the hon. Member for the City of Cork, or those hon. Gentle-
    788
    men of the Nationalist Party whom he proposed to nominate with him, would abstain from taking any part in the inquiry. He respectfully asked the House not to agree to this adjournment, after all the labour and anxiety he and his Friends had had in endeavouring to put the Committee on foot; he asked the House to give him an opportunity of going to work at once. He saw the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in his place, and knew how glad he always was to embark in any Parliamentary work when his opinion and service might be beneficial to his country. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) might disagree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the fundamental principles on which his (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) labours were founded; but he cordially paid a tribute of admiration and respect to the energy, and zeal, and great talent which the right hon. Gentleman had displayed in piloting the Bill for the redistribution of seats through the House. As a private Member, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was in a similar, though lesser degree, anxious to devote what strength and power he had to a work which he firmly believed would benefit the country of hon. Gentlemen who sat on his right. Let him have the opportunity he sought, and he thought he would be able to prosecute the undertaking in such a manner that neither the House nor the country would have reason to regret it.
    MR. ONSLOWwished to say a word on this subject, for the reason that on Wednesday last he had prevented the nomination of the Committee. Everything, he thought, which had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot) that night only confirmed him in the action he had taken on Wednesday. The hon. Member (Mr. Parnell), in suggesting the adjournment of the debate, said he did not think a Committee would be of any use, or that its labours could be brought to a termination that Session. He (Mr. Onslow) knew very well the great importance of the Committee, and it was for that reason that he should support the hon. Member for the City of Cork if he went to a division. He (Mr. Onslow) had had great experience in connection with those large Committees, and he knew the larger the

    789
    Committee was the more time would it require to go into all the matters brought before it. It appeared to him to be an absolute farce on the part of the House to appoint a Committee of that kind at that period of the Session, when the interest of every Member was concentrated upon the next Election. There was another objection he had to raise against the appointment of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) was rather in favour of the appointment of the Committee; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, during his whole experience, he had ever known a Committee appointed with only nine of one Party upon it and 15 of another. That was a mode of procedure which, at any rate so far as he was concerned, he had never known before. The light hon. Gentleman had alluded to it, and though he did not wish to be out of Order—
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he is not speaking to the Question of the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was merely replying to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not see why the Committee should not be appointed, because everyone knew who the Chairman was to be. Well, it was the first time he (Mr. Onslow) had ever known the Chairman mentioned before the Committee met. If anyone was to be appointed by the Government, or by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, before the Committee met, he was afraid they would be forming a very bad precedent. He thought this would be a wholly useless Committee, so far as the present Session was concerned. The subject was a vast one, and a Committee to properly consider it would have to sit at least two years. It was, therefore, an idle thing to agree to its appointment at that period. The hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had said there were two Members on the Committee he was proud of. Undoubtedly. The names were "Mr. Trevelyan" and "Mr. W. H. Smith." It was only within the last few days that those Gentlemen had consented to serve on the Committee; and it seemed to him (Mr. Onslow) that they had only consented to serve in order to give a colour to this
    790
    matter. Pressure had been brought to bear upon them to grant the use of their names, and he did not think that was the sort of thing that ought to take place in that House. He deprecated the nomination of the Committee at the present time, and should accordingly support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
    DR. LYONSsaid, the House, he hoped, would support the action of the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) in nominating this Committee without delay. He (Dr. Lyons) could testify there was great anxiety throughout the length and breadth of Ireland for the appointment of the Committee, and that there would be great disappointment if it were postponed any longer. He might be allowed to mention, as a reason for not postponing it, that a very considerable number of persons had been communicated with with a view of receiving their evidence—gentlemen eminent in science and practical arts in Ireland. Although the Committee had not yet been appointed, an expectation had existed which had been operating in Ireland for the last six or eight months; and gentlemen of the greatest experience had been preparing evidence, and making inquiries, and taking notes, with a view of giving the Committee the benefit of their knowledge on the subject. Special inquiries had been prosecuted during the whole of the winter; and not only had the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) been in active correspondence with gentlemen connected with manufactures, with science, and with art in Ireland, but he (Dr. Lyons) himself had been in constant communication with all those gentlemen in Ireland. Therefore, the work of the Committee was prepared, and if it were now appointed it would be able at once, without further delay, to take valuable evidence. As he had already said, immense disappointment would undoubtedly result from further delay. He regretted that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had chosen to take his present action, because he believed that the hon. Member and his Friends could, if they liked, lend very important assistance to the Committee. The House would be able to judge from the number and character of those who were prepared to give evidence rather

    791
    than from the constitution of the Committee, that he did not underrate the importance of the inquiry, and the necessity of its being a representative Committee. An endeavour had been made to make it as widely representative as possible, and he thought the nomination in the proposal before the House was a fair one. He believed for all those reasons the House would support the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot).
    MR. R. POWERsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down (Dr. Lyons) that the Irish Members and the Irish people ought to be indebted to the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) for the interest he had taken in this subject. Not only ought they to feel indebted to him, but they did feel indebted to him; but, at the same time, he believed at that period of the Session it was too late to commence the inquiry, particularly in view of the statement of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that so many important witnesses would have to be examined. It had been said, and no doubt with truth, that the inquiry would be of such an important and exhaustive nature that it would occupy fully two years, possibly three. Then, when they looked at the list of Members to be nominated on the Committee, they could not but remember that a General Election was very likely to take place before the end of next Session, and that some of those hon. Members, whose names were down, were not likely to be again returned to the House of Commons. Of course, he did not refer to the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Dr. Lyons); but still it would be very inconvenient if Members who had sat upon the Committee and had listened to the evidence, and were familiar with the inquiry from the commencement, were to be replaced by others who would come upon the inquiry in the middle of the evidence. In that way it might be necessary to go over the whole ground again. He really thought that taking into consideration the late period of the Session, and the importance of the subject, and the number of witnesses that would have to be examined, that it would be better to wait until next Session and the new Parliament was elected, and they knew what Members were likely to serve upon the Committee from beginning to end before they made the
    792
    appointment. Under all those circumstances, he felt bound to support the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
    MR. SEXTONsaid, there could be but one opinion as to the public spirit and energy displayed in this matter by the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot); but if anything was required to complete the argument of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), it was supplied by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Lyons). That hon. Member, it appeared, had taken time by the forelock, and before the Committee was appointed had written to important personages in Ireland with a view of securing them as witnesses. The hon. Member had secured them for the inquiry, although he himself was not yet connected with it, and, as a matter of fact, was never likely to be connected with it. Even if the Committee were appointed, and the hon. Member were to bring over those witnesses, a considerable number of them would have to remain unexamined until next Session. It must be remembered that they had now reached the month of April, and that the Session was not likely to last as long as ordinary Sessions. The appointment of the Committee should be put off until next Session, as it was necessary that there should be continuity of action with regard to it. If it were not put off the inquiry would be finished by a personnel different to that which commenced it; and, to his mind, it seemed desirable that they should have the same Members upon it throughout. By next Session the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) would have received ample response. The right hon. Gentleman did not know who was "the Party representing Ireland" in the House; next Session he was likely to have as much proof as he could desire on that point. He was in favour of the postponement proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), because he believed that if the Committee were appointed now it would go into action doomed to failure. At any rate, if it were proceeded with he should respectfully desire to withdraw his name from it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.

    WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HOLMS, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Barton-upon-Humber and District Water, Chiltern Hills Spring Water, Great Berkhampstead Water, Herts and Essex Water, and Holyhead Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.

    SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MORGAN LLOYD, Bill to amend the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881, and the Licensings Acts 1872–1874, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MORGAN LLOYD, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. RICHARD.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 141.]

  ADJOURNMENT.

    EGYPT—SEIZURE OF THE "BOSPHORE EGYPTIEN"—RECALL OF THE FRENCH CONSUL.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
    MR. MONTAGU SCOTT: Before the House adjourns I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. There is a very general impression throughout the House and the country that there might be an addition made to the information conveyed to the House by the Prime Minister this evening. I wish to ask whether any further information has been received beyond that which the Prime Minister laid before the House, that the Chairgé d'Affaires of France at Cairo had left?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have nothing further to add.
    MR. MONTAGU SCOTT: May I take it that the information was correct, and that the whole telegram was conveyed to the House from the Foreign Office this afternoon?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not quite catch the hon. Member's observation. We have no knowledge—at least I have none—which would induce us to modify in any respect the statement made by the Prime Minister.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Has the French Chargé d'Affaires left Cairo?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My reply must be that I have nothing to say to modify what the Prime Minister said earlier in the evening.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Has no other Member of the Government any
    794
    information to give to the House? The statement was that the French Chargé d'Affaires had left Cairo; is that correct?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have no further answer to give.
    MR. MONTAGU SCOTT: May I ask whether the telegram received by the Foreign Office this afternoon was not to the effect that the Chargé d'Affaries had left a note with the Khedive or Nubar Pasha stating that France retired from the Convention?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I must entirely decline to state the contents of a telegram which I have not in my hands. In matters of this importance it is the duty of everybody to be extremely careful in stating facts, and I must decline to make any further answer.
    MR. ONSLOW: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether there was not a mistake made when the Prime Minister read the telegram about half-past 5 o'clock to-day?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think not.
    MR. ONSLOW: The Prime Minister distinctly stated then that Sir Evelyn Baring had sent a telegram stating that the Chargé a'Affaires had left Cairo. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has not the telegram in his pocket; but can he say whether there was any mistake?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I believe there was no mistake at all in what the Prime Minister said. At all events, I have nothing to add or to modify.
    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Metropolis (Tabard Street, Newington) Provisional Order Confirmation* (81); Metropolis (Hughes Fields, Deptford)* (82); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Public Health Act) (No. 2)* (83); Local,
608
Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 3)* (84); Arbitration* (85).
Second Heading—Referred to Select Committee— Burgh Police and Health (Scotland)* (57).
Committee—Report— Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (70); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2)* (71); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) * (72); Royal Irish Constabulary Redistribution* (75); Egyptian Loan* (74).
Report—Infants* (78).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders* (66); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* (67); Solicitors (Ireland)* (53), and passed.

BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 57.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 57.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that about a week ago a Memorandum was circulated among their Lordships describing the general scope and operation of the Bill. That statement contained a very concise and lucid description of the provisions of the Bill, and as he presumed that those of their Lordships who were interested in the subject had read the document, they would not expect him to enter into the matter at such length as would have been necessary if that Memorandum had not been issued. He would, neverthless, say a few words as to the reasons which had induced the Government to deal with the subject in this particular form. In the first place, he would remind their Lordships that this Bill was no new measure. It had already been before the House of Commons, and, in fact, had passed through a Select Committee of the House last year. The Bill was now before their Lordships precisely in the shape in which it left the Select Committee of the House of Commons last year, with the exception of a few verbal changes. The Bill dealt with the whole municipal administration of towns. It consolidated and amended the existing legislation. It covered the same ground as was covered by the Police Bills of 1883 and 1850, and the General Police Act of 1862. The series of enactments had a twofold object. In the first place, they provided a municipal government for populous places which had grown up without

  609
  having any constitution granted them by Royal Charter, or any other form of municipal government. And, secondly, they conferred upon the authorities of the existing Royal burghs and other burghs such additional powers as they did not then possess. These burghs had already a constitution of Magistrates, of Councillors, and other officers. The Magistrates exercised considerable jurisdiction, both criminal and civil; but under their constitution the powers of assessment which they possessed were of a very limited character. They had no means, and, indeed, it was not their duty by statute, to support any regular Police Force. Neither had they the means of making improvements of any kind—of providing for a water supply, or of taking any effective measures in reference to public health. These serious defects it was intended to remedy by these several Acts. The previous Acts of 1850 and 1862, were permissive in their character. They could be adopted either in whole or in part; but, as a matter of fact, they generally were adopted by a great majority of the towns. The last Act, that of 1862, was adopted by a very large majority of the burghs of Scotland. That Act was passed five years before the present Public Health Act, and it dealt with various topics relating to public health. Some of these matters were afterwards dealt with by the Public Health Act, such as cleansing of streets, the ventilation of buildings, the management of public sewers, the management of slaughterhouses, and many other matters of that kind. But it was a matter for serious consideration whether these subjects should be left out of this Bill, in order to be dealt with by some future measure as an amendment of the Public Health Act, or whether the Municipal Code, which was already provided by the series of Police Acts, should in these matters as well as in other respects be brought up to the present day. After much consideration the latter course appeared to Her Majesty's Government to be, on the whole, the best course to pursue. In the first place, the Public Health Act was a general Act, and applicable not merely to the urban, but also to rural communities. Any amending Act would also have to be general in its character, and would have to apply to all sanitary matters in urban as well as in rural dis-
  610
  tricts. It appeared to the Government that any such general measure of amendment ought to be followed by a reform of local county government. The Government were already pledged to deal with that question; but the period at which they could hope to deal with it was still distant, and the matters requiring to be dealt with were of most urgent importance. The second reason was, that the municipal burghs of Scotland were taking a great interest in this Bill, and were very anxious that their sanitary provisions should be incorporated in a Burgh Police Code. In proof of this, he might mention that the largest towns in Scotland had private Police Acts of their own, and that most of these had been passed subsequent to the passing of the General Public Health Act. The Convention of Royal Burghs, to whom the Government were very much indebted for their careful consideration of this Bill, had unanimously approved of this manner of dealing with the subject. In fact, the opinion of Scotland was unanimous, with the exception of the Police Commissioners of Glasgow. Their objections, however, were only recently raised, and until quite lately this Bill had the absolute and unanimous approval of the burghs of Scotland. As he had already said, the previous Acts were permissive in their character; but after an experience of 50 years of nearly all the towns of Scotland, it was thought that probably the right principle of dealing with the municipal administration in Scotland ought to be pretty nearly settled. The great majority of the existing police burghs and the inhabitants of those populous places which had no previous municipal constitution of their own, having adopted the Permissive Bills, the provisions of the present Bill were made compulsory. But there was a partial exception. Six of the largest towns in Scotland had obtained in recent years private Police Acts of their own. These Acts had been found to meet the peculiarities of each case. These Acts, consequently, the towns themselves were very anxious to retain so far as they possibly could. It seemed reasonable, however, that those provisions in the Bills which applied to certain matters pertaining to the public law should be made compulsory in all towns—such provisions, for example, as the estab-

  611
  lishment and regulation of the Police Force. The Police Force was, of course, supported in great part by the Imperial Government of the State. That alone was some reason for dealing with it in a compulsory manner. But it was desirable that the case should be dealt with by one uniform system. The second matters which were compulsory were those portions of the Bill which related to public health, and also matters pertaining to the Criminal Law. While all these portions of the Bill would be compulsory, the remainder would be optional to the large towns. Therefore, while the Bill provided for a general repeal of the Police Acts, those parts of the private Police Acts which dealt with other matters which the Bill did not make compulsory were saved; while the other parts of the private Police Acts dealing with matters which were dealt with compulsorily by this Bill were repealed. This might, perhaps, seem rather a complicated explanation; but the Bill itself was as clear and as well-arranged as the complicated nature of the subject admitted of. The complication was in the subject, and not in the Bill. To sweep away all existing Private Acts, as was suggested, and to substitute a General Act of Parliament to simplify the law, would be a very unpopular measure, and would meet with considerable opposition. An objection to this Bill was that it had a somewhat grandmotherly tendency. To that he would reply that there was scarcely anything in the Bill that was not already contained in Private Acts of Parliament. There was very little new matter in the Bill, and certainly it contained no new principle. Therefore the Government, in asking the House to pass the measure, were not asking their Lordships to take a leap in the dark. An experience of 20 years, it seemed to them, ought to suffice to discover the right method of dealing with municipal matters. If their Lordships sanctioned the second reading, he would move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. It was a very long measure, and one which the House would hardly care to deal with, except by a Select Committee. He begged, therefore, to move the second reading, on the understanding that it would be afterwards referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Dalhosie.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he was glad to hear from the noble Earl that he proposed to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. When their Lordships considered that there were 529 clauses in the Bill, besides 50 pages of Schedules, they would probably be of opinion that that was the right way of dealing with it. At the same time, there were one or two matters of general principle in the Bill to which he wished to call the attention of the House before the Bill went to a Select Committee—chiefly some of the provisions in regard to the police administration, and as to the enormous powers—he believed the unprecedentedly large powers—given to magistrates in burghs to deal with offences, many of which were of the most petty kind, and which he could not help thinking would be much better left to the general good sense of the community. With regard to the administration of the police, the present state of the law was this—that all burghs of 7,000 inhabitants or more might, if they chose, maintain their own police. The proposal in the Bill was that all burghs of 20,000 inhabitants should do so, and that all burghs which had more than 5,000 inhabitants, and which at present maintained their own police, should continue to do so. He thought it would be much more satisfactory if this Bill had gone a little further in abolishing independent jurisdiction in the matter of police. The Bill itself admitted this principle, because it said that in future no more new independent jurisdictions of this kind would be created, and it just continued those which were at present in existence. He did not think he should be contradicted when he said that it was in conformity with the general policy of Parliament—and it was a sound policy—that these small independent jurisdictions in the matter of police should be as far as possible abolished; and he ventured to express the opinion that no burgh which had less than 10,000 or 12,000 inhabitants was large enough to maintain its own police. It was the experience of everybody connected with the administration of police matters in Scotland that these small jurisdictions were very prejudicial to the efficient service of the

  613
  police; that in many cases in small burghs there were constant complaints that the discipline of the police was not so efficient as in the counties; and there were also frequent complaints that in the small independent jurisdictions obstacles were raised to prompt apprehension of criminals who had committed crime within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In a small community of 5,000 or 6,000 inhabitants it was impossible to expect that the authorities would be able to engage a Chief Constable of the same education, efficiency, and ability as was the case in a larger community. There was not scope for the energies of an energetic and efficient public servant in such a small district. He wished to call their Lordships' attention to some of the large powers which the Bill proposed to confer on magistrates. He did not think it would be possible for the State regulation of individual conduct to go further than this Bill proposed. There were pages upon pages dealing- with some of the most minute offences. How far these provisions were in advance of some of the Private Acts of burghs he was not able to say; but this he would say—that if the present Code as it stood was to be extended to all the burghs in Scotland, it would cause a very great deal of inconvenience and heartburning, and it would be a great surprise to the population, because he did not believe that one-half of them knew what was being proposed in their name by the magistrates and Commissioners of Burghs. He would like to mention one or two of the provisions of the Bill by way of illustration. It was provided that no refreshment of any kind might be sold after 12 o'clock at night, not even in a baker's shop, under a penalty of £5. A chimney sweeper might not walk on the footpath, and you might not carry a bundle on the footpath if it incommoded anyone else. There was no definition of a bundle, and he believed this would be a fruitful cause of litigation. If anyone had a spite against a person, he might jostle against that person when he was carrying a bundle, and that person might be taken before a magistrate and accused of "incommoding." Then there was a provision that no colourable imitation of a bank note was to be made or exhibited. That was a reasonable provision; but he did not see why there
  614
  should be any further regulations as to a forged bank note in a burgh than in a country district. Then there was a provision against unlawful games, and a person could be find 40s. for playing any unlawful game in the streets. But there was no definition of an unlawful game. All tables for billiard playing were to be licensed; and if they were kept open and anyone was found playing upon thorn between 12 o'clock at night and 8 in the morning, they were to be fined 40s. or £5—he forgot which. Just to show their Lordships how very far-reaching this Bill was, he would tell them what it was thought necessary not to make an offence. Sub-section 36 of Section 393 provided that—
  "It shall not be deemed an offence to lay sand or other materials in any street in time of frost to prevent accident, or litter, or other suitable materials, to prevent the freezing of water in pipes, or, in case of sickness, to prevent noise, if the person laying such things causes them to be removed as soon as the occasion for them cases."
  When anything of that sort had to be specially exempted, it showed how far-reaching the provisions of the Bill were. There were provisions which were extremely onerous upon another matter. As had been shown more than once on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, there was a difference of opinion as to the clauses anent the keeping of disorderly houses; and he thought a very general opinion had been expressed in the House, or a very considerable body of opinion, that many of these clauses were not in conformity with public policy. They would find all these clauses embodied in this Bill. He knew what the answer would be. Some large towns had got Acts, such as Edinburgh and Glasgow and Dundee, and he thought Greenock, in which these clauses were incorporated, and the surrounding districts and other burghs, such as Leith and other places, complained of the effect of these clauses in Private Acts for large towns. Houses which these clauses were intended to suppress simply migrated beyond the bounds of these large towns, and went to the country district; and if they extended all these clauses to other parts of Scotland round the outskirts of every town, the same class of houses would grow up, and there would be no proper supervision. There would not be even

  615
  the same amount of possibility of dealing with these matters as in towns. He thought it would be better if these matters should be dealt with comprehensively in one general Bill for the whole country. As the noble Earl had said, this Bill was now compulsory. Formerly any burgh might or might not adopt the measure if it wished it, according to a plebiscite of the inhabitants; but under this Bill, in any burgh of 2,000 or more inhabitants, any seven ratepayers might present a petition to the Sheriff, and the other inhabitants of the burgh would have no option but that the Act should be adopted. Surely the 1,993 other inhabitants might be allowed to have some say in the matter as to whether this Bill was or was not to be adopted. There were also some provisions as to the compulsory taking of land which he should certainly like to have explained. He did not know how far they came in advance of the present law; but there were provisions in the Bill to enable the Commissioners of any burgh to take land compulsorily for the purpose of storing manure, and for making gasworks and waterworks. They had not to go to Parliament for the powers, but might go to the local Sheriff-substitute, whose judgment was final. It seemed to him that this was a provision which should be very carefully considered by Parliament before it was allowed to pass. Then there were various other matters of detail; but he thought he had said enough to show that this Bill required most careful consideration, and that the Select Committee upon it should be a strong and representative one, and that plenty of time should be given for its consideration. He might venture to make a suggestion. He had a strong impression that before such a Bill was passed affecting Scotland everybody should be made thoroughly aware of its provisions, and he would not be sorry to see the Select Committee sitting in public. He had no intention of opposing the second reading; but the subsequent stages of the Bill would require most careful consideration.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, from the speech which the noble Lord had just delivered, their Lordships must see how desirable it was that a measure of this character should be carefully considered before it became law. The Bill
  616
  embodied, in a compulsory general Act, all those different provisions intefering with men in their private business; and it confirmed, he thought unnecessarily, those provisions which had already been passed by both Houses of Parliament in Private Bills. When clauses such as these were inserted in Private Bills, those who were opposed to them had an opportunity of appearing by counsel or otherwise in opposition. It became, therefore, more necessary, when all these provisions were to be embodied in a general Bill, to carefully consider how far they should apply. Under the provisions of this Bill the municipal authorities could regulate the size of every room and of every window in every dwelling house, and the ventilation of every dwelling house. It imposed heavy fines on omnibuses that were not in a proper state of repair; and if the horses were not properly trained there was a heavy penalty. There was a penalty of £2 or £5 if a slow vehicle did not immediately get out of the way of a faster vehicle passing. But he thought the most extraordinary provision of all was one dealing with morals. The object, no doubt, was that everyone should live in the Palace of Truth. It was provided that anyone who attempted to commit a falsehood would be liable to a penalty of £10 or two months' imprisonment. What they were fast coming to, if this kind of legislation was about to pass, was a state of things where every citizen would only be able to live and move and have his being by the favour of the Secretary of State, or of some municipal authority. He hoped their Lordships would put their foot down on this kind of legislation, and that the Bill would come out of the Committee very different to what it was now.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, this was, no doubt, a very important Bill. Having devoted weeks to the consideration of the measure, he had tried to understand it, but had failed to do so. The whole principle upon which the Bill was drawn up was most inconvenient. It was partly a mere condensation of the existing law, and it was partly an addition to the existing law. It was very difficult to make out what clauses were new legislation and what clauses were old legislation. He suggested that what was a mere re-enactment should have been treated in one type, and what was

  617
  new in another type. His noble Friend who had charge of the Bill (the Karl of Dalhousie) said there was very little in it that was new; but he (the Duke of Argyll) could not believe that all the provisions that had been detailed could be found in existing Statutes. Certainly, he had never heard any such powers in regard to the classes of offences which had been mentioned being exercised by magistrates, although he had no objection to sweeps being prevented from walking on the footpath. There were one or two clauses in the Bill with respect to which he bad heard very serious remonstrances. One in particular was a very important one—that was the power given to populous places to annex parts of counties with the view to include them in the rates. That was a very important question. He had heard contests on behalf of his own tenants and feuars, who objected to be included in towns or cities that wanted to annex them. As he understood the Bill, this power of annexation was carried much further than under the existing law. Under the Bill, not only great cities and important towns, but populous places, constituted into police burghs, would have the power of annexing parts of neighbouring counties at the discretion of the Sheriff of that part of the district which had the majority of ratepayers, which was, of course, the populous place itself. Therefore, the Sheriff had the power of annexing new land to these populous places; and if the Sheriff of the less populous place objected to the annexation he would have no power to resist it. He had heard remonstrances on these points from persons well versed in the law. It would be absurd to oppose such a Bill as this on the second reading; but it was one that would require the very close attention of their Lordships.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, it might be as well to state, with reference to the expression "falsehood," which had a somewhat ridiculous appearance, that the Scotch law phrase "commit falsehood, fraud, and wilful imposition," was a synonym for the old English word "swindling."
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

INFANTS BILL.—(No. 78.)
(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
INFANTS BILL.—(No. 78.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 3 (Mother may appoint guardian).
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he objected to the provision in the clause which gave the mother of the infant power to appoint and nominate a guardian by deed or will. Whatever was to be done on behalf of the wife ought to be done openly during her lifetime. It ought not to be possible for her to make an arrangement in secret, which should be kept secret until after her death. It was a dangerous and invidious power to give to enable a wife to appoint a guardian by will. He, therefore, proposed to amend the sub-section of the clause by providing that the Court might, upon the application of the mother of an infant, appoint a person or persons to act as guardian or guardians jointly with the father if the Court was satisfied that this was necessary or desirable.
  Amendment moved,
  In Sub section 2, line 22, leave out from ("The") to end of sub-section and insert ("court may, upon the application of the mother of any infant, appoint some fit person or persons to act as guardian or guardians of such infant after her death, jointly with the father of such infant, if satisfied that such appointment is necessary or desirable for the welfare of such infant."—(The Earl of Limerick.)
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, the objections of the noble Earl would in some respects apply to any appointment of a guardian by will, for until the death of the testator, if it was the testator's wish, the provisions of a will must be kept secret. As the clause stood, it was the clause of Lord Cairns; and the Amendment would restore the clause to its original form. There might be cases in which the wife had the strongest reason for believing that her husband was not a proper person to be intrusted with the charge of their children after her death.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he could not agree with either the Amendment or with the clause as it stood. The noble and learned Earl (the late Earl Cairns) said that in case of a temporary differ-

  619
  ence between the husband and wife the latter might make an application to the Court to annoy him and put him upon his defence. In any case the clause would be a fruitful source of inconvenience. The person or persons appointed by will would most likely be hostile to the husband, and even if not hostile could scarcely assert a claim to act without offending the father. The father might say that if he was to be interfered with the children might be taken from him altogether, and he would not leave them any of his property. There might be individual cases in which the father should be interfered with; but for that the law already provided. He should, therefore, move that the sub-section of the clause be omitted.
  Amendment moved, to leave out Subsection 2.—(The Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD WATSONsaid, he approved of the clause as it stood rather than of the proposed Amendment. The clause could have no operation until it was proved that the father was not a fit person to have the control of the children, and that the person nominated was a fit person. A person nominated as guardian would have to make up his mind before applying to the Court whether he was likely to obtain the confirmation of his appointment. He would enter the Court with the responsibility that the case for his appointment must be proved.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there was some inconvenience in having two Motions before the House at once. He had already explained that the law at present was very different from what it would be under that clause. It was true that the Court had power to take children from their father, either in the lifetime of the mother or at any other time, for causes which the precedents had established as sufficient. But that power was circumscribed by the rules for its application laid down by Lord Eldon and other Judges, and was never exercised save in the most extreme cases, not only of immorality or profligacy on the part of the father, but of such immorality as was proved to be likely to directly influence or affect the child. Even if the father was living in scandalous profligacy, but did not bring his children into the society of his paramour, or did not deprave the child
  620
  by wicked teaching, the Court would not interfere. The cases chiefly meant to be provided for by the sub-section were those in which, in the opinion of all reasonable persons, it must be altogether wrong to allow the child to fall back under the power of the father. Take an extreme case. When the father and mother were living apart, and when there were young children, girls, living under the care of the mother during her life. In such cases, after the mother's death the children fell back under the power of the father, however undesirable such a result might be, and even if the mother, herself being pure and blameless, had obtained a divorce from her husband. In such a case as that, this clause would enable the wife to anticipate and make provision for the event of her own death, and to name the person whom she would wish to succeed to her own place, so far as that was possible. But the clause as framed by his lamented Friend Lord Cairns did not give her an absolute power, or enable her to do even this, for any reasons which were not grave reasons. The Court could only confirm the exercise of the power in cases where it was absolutely necessary to do so for the benefit of the child.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he must protest against the use which had been made of the name of his noble and learned Friend the late Earl Cairns, whose authority was so great in that House. He knew that at the end of last Session his late noble and learned Friend had expressed himself privately as perfectly horrified with this Bill, and his wonder that it had ever been allowed to pass the House of Commons. What Earl Cairns might have said to the Committee to mitigate legislation which he did not feel himself strong enough to avert in the way of compromise he did not know; but as the noble and learned Earl was now no more, he asked their Lordships to dismiss from their mind any prejudice in favour of this Bill which might be raised by citing the name of Earl Cairns. It was impossible to exaggerate the importance of the decision at which they had arrived, because it was a decision which might affect the happiness of any married man who had the misfortune to be a widower. A man might be exposed to interference to which he had never been exposed before. It became them,

  621
  therefore, to watch whether the securities were sufficient to save a father against whom there might be no complaint from undue and improper interference. The language of the noble and learned Lords who had spoken was very different from that of the Bill. They said it was necessary, where a wife was living separate from her husband, and the father's influence would be dangerous to the children, that they should be saved from his influence; but there was nothing of that kind in the Bill. If their language could be imported into the Bill he should not have so much objection to it. The Bill said nothing of the cases to which the Lord Chancellor had referred, or of a father who wilfully corrupted his children's mind. It allowed a wife, by a will secretly made and locked up in her desk, to appoint any guardian or guardians, male or female, no matter what their character or capacity as guardians, who were to have equal power with the father; and if there were two of them they could outvote the father in everything which appertained to the bringing up and management of his own children. What security was there that the wife would exercise such a power wisely? None whatever. Of course, in a vast number of instances the power would not be exercised at all, or if it were it would be rightly exercised; but there might be a case where a woman, living in loneliness, subject to the influence of mischievous or gossiping persons, misled by false stories, or guided by mistaken spiritual advisers, might exercise this power in circumstances which would make it improbable that she was exercising it wisely. The mother would have the power of projecting into the family of the father two representatives of her own, who would have the right of determining how the children should be educated. Let their Lordships consider what cases might arise. There might be the case of a Catholic or a Protestant mother, the father being of the opposite religion. Or there might be a very Low Church father and a very High Church wife, and the latter might appoint two High Church guardians, who would proceed to bring up the children in a manner wholly opposed to the wishes of the father. The Bill would enable the wife to exercise after her death a. power which she could not
  622
  have exercised while living. The two guardians appointed by her would obtain a power which she never possessed, and however odious they might be to the father, she, being dead, would be incapable of retracting what she had done. Keeping cases of scandal out of view altogether, they would wreck hundreds of households if they were to allow guardians to be forced into a family at variance with the opinions of the father. The father might be a man who took an old-fashioned view as to the way his daughters should be educated. The wife might be a strong-minded woman, and appoint as guardian a woman with a taste for male studies and occupations. They might, on the other hand, have a father with an austere view of the duties of life, and wished to bring up his sons in virtue and frugality, and perhaps an undue abstinence from the amusements of the world; and the friends of the wife might be of an opposite character. They might be persons who had a great love of amusement, who might, perhaps, attach an exaggerated importance to our great national sports at Epsom and Newmarket. What would be the effect on the children? It was bad enough for the father, for he could not imagine anything more deplorable to a father than having his children wrested from him in this way, and brought up in a manner he did not approve of. But what would be the effect on the children? There would be constant squabbling between the father and the guardians as to what kind the religious teaching should be—what morality should be considered right or wrong. It would completely wreck the morals and the faith of the children, who would see those who had the bringing of them up differ on every point on which their bringing up depended. He was aware the answer would be that this was not to take place unless a Court deemed it necessary and desirable. No doubt, there was a great deal of majesty in a Law Court, and his noble Friend thought he had disposed of every question when he said it would be decided by a Court. For his own part, however, he was not an absolute believer in the divinity of a Court. He was not prepared to give that absolute confidence to the Court except under well-defined conditions. Under the Bill, if only a single Judge thought it desirable not to interfere

  623
  with, the dying wishes of a wife, the guardians she appointed would be thrust upon the father.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, no. The burden of proof was the other way.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The words of the Act were—
  "The court, after her death, if satisfied that such appointment is necessary or desirable for the welfare of the children," &c.
  He did not say that in a considerable number of cases the Judge would not insist on confining the confirmation to cases of proved incapacity or unfitness of the father; but they had no security whatever that that would universally be the case. If they laid down in an Act of Parliament what they required to be done, no doubt the Judges would give effect to their wishes; but if a Judge were to decide, without any guidance whatever, whether he would set aside the nomination of guardians by the mother, the decision would be left absolutely to the accidents of his own individual disposition. The Judge's intentions might be good, but then he might be a man with peculiarities. For instance, he might think that religion was not of much importance. He had been treating the matter on the supposition that the High Court would have to decide the question; but, under the provisions of the Bill, a County Court Judge would have the power of forcing guardians into a family at the will, perhaps, of a wicked, an infamous, or a frivolous wife. He could not conceive that their Lordships would, with light hearts, make such a revolution in all English families as was shadowed forth by this Bill. If words were introduced to supersede the father, where he was shown unfit to have the guardianship, he would not resist any such proposal; but the Bill, as it stood, seemed to him to be the greatest interference with the rights and privileges which men valued more than they did their own lives, on the mere opinion of a County Court Judge. To oust the father from all care of his own children seemed to him so unwise, and so unlike anything ever done in legislation before, that he earnestly hoped the House would pause before agreeing to it. He thought the best plan would be not to divide, but to bring up a clause dealing with those cases on which they were all agreed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Marquess had spoken in an impassioned way against reference to the opinion of the late Earl Cairns, and had called on their Lordships not to allow their minds to be biassed by what had been said in that connection, and then the noble Marquess proceeded to give a very strong expression of opinion on the part of Earl Cairns against the Bill, which, it appeared, had been confided to the noble Marquess last year. He (Earl Granville) thought it better to be guided by the public utterances of Earl Cairns; and, so far as he knew, Earl Cairns had never expressed his opposition to this Bill, though he had said it was a Bill which required great care and attention with regard to its details. Acting upon that opinion, Lord Cairns suggested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and in that Select Committee he took immense pains himself. It was an extraordinary thing for the noble Marquess to ask the House to vote against a clause on the authority of Lord Cairns, which Lord Cairns himself had framed. The noble Marquess went further, and made a speech in which he spoke of the danger of giving a posthumous power to a wife to overrule her husband in respect of guardians, and then, at the end, the noble Marquess anticipated what their answer would be—namely, that they should read the words of the clause, which showed that there was no such power given. The Bill provided simply that the Court should have power to intervene, and if it thought proper might confirm the appointment of the guardians so nominated. But if the noble Marquess was right, the argument was strong against the power which the Court of Chancery possessed in regard to children. Then he said he was putting his case too weakly; this decision was to be taken, not by a Court of Chancery, but by a County Court Judge.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: Hear, hear!
  EARL GRANVILLE: Of course the noble Lord was quite right to cheer his Leader, whatever he might say. But he was going to state what was in the Bill itself. If the noble Marquess had read the Bill, he would have found that it was in the option of either of the parties to go to the County Court Judge or require the case to be taken to a higher Court,

  625
  and if first decided by the County Court Judge, there was a right of appeal to the highest Court in the Kingdom. He really never saw a case which more completely disposed of the arguments of the noble Marquess than the present.
  LORD BRAMWELLpointed out that by the 5th clause of the Bill the wife would have the power to go to the Court in the lifetime of her husband; and it occurred to him that unless some such provision as that under consideration were inserted, the wife, if she had reason to be dissatisfied with her husband, would be almost driven to go to the Court in his lifetime to get the power to appoint guardians, and scandals would thereby arise which otherwise would never be made public.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Question, That Sub section 2 stand part of the Bill?
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he hoped the clause would not be struct out altogether, as he felt the force of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down, as the wife might be driven into Court to do what, under the Bill, she could do in private. He thought it would be most undesirable to drive the husband and wife into a quarrel. There were many cases in which a wife would endure a great deal for the sake of the children rather than raise a scandal.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsuggested that it would be well to strike out this particular clause then, and to bring up another clause which would more completely meet the views of noble Lords on the third reading. He thought the power of the wife in respect to appointing guardians to act after her death should be confined to cases in which the husband had been guilty of misconduct as to make him an improper person to have the absolute control of his children. What was desired was, the introduction of words which would set out the cases in which it would be desirable the wife should have the power to appoint guardians.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORhoped his noble and learned Friend would not agree to the suggestion. It would be better to amend the clause on the third reading if thought necessary.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 42; Not-Contents 28: Majority 14.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Court may make orders as to custody).
  EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved an Amendment limiting the power of the Court to make an order to cases in which the father and mother are separated by deed or decree of a Court or otherwise. He explained that the Amendment was drafted and proposed by the late Lord Cairns, when the Bill was before the Select Committee. If some such alteration were not introduced into the clause a mother would be able to make an application to the Court upon any frivolous pretext. To prevent such occurrences the power of applying to the Court ought to be limited to cases where the parents had separated. Under the clause as it stood husbands would be at the mercy of their wives, should the latter choose to carry their domestic quarrels into Court.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 12, to insert at the beginning of the clause ("Where the father or mother of any infant are living separate under a separation by deed or decree of the Court or otherwise.")—(The Marl Beauchamp.)
  LORD FITZGERALDopposed the Amendment. There was no public expression on the part of Lord Cairns as to the proposal contained in the clause. Was it not a shocking thing that this right should not be given to the wife unless she was divorced or lived separately from her husband?
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that by the clause as it stood when the husband and wife were living together the wife might require the Court to make an order, the effect of which would be to transfer the control of the children, which the father now rightly possessed, to both father and mother. That would be a Dual Control of the most vicious kind. The reason why this right should be given. to the wife when living separately was that she was no longer a member of the household, and then it might be proper that she should have a voice in the management of the children. When husband and wife were separated in that way there was no increase of scandal

  627
  in her going to the Court. What he remembered that great lawyer and. consummate Judge, whose loss he so much regretted, did when he dealt with this provision was, he objected to it on the ground, among others, that every little quarrel between husband and wife, which might otherwise be easily made up would enable her to rush off to the Court.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that whilst the Law Lords on the Select Committee had differed upon this Amendment, the three Lay Lords had all voted against it; and as he had the honour to be one, he wished to say why he had ventured to dissent from Lord Cairns's opinion. In most cases of husband and wife disagreeing, the wife would never desire to apply to the Court, and the question would never arise. But there might be cases—as for instance, when it had been agreed before marriage that the children of one sex should be brought up in one religion, and those of the other sex in another—in which the wife might desire so to apply. If this Amendment were carried, she could not do so whilst she lived with her husband; but the moment she separated from him, "either by the decree of a Court or otherwise." she could make the application. Therefore, this Amendment would offer a direct premium to the wife to separate from her husband, by making that separation the only way by which she could acquire a right which it was generally conceded that she ought to have. His (Lord Brabourne's) noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) said that the clause without the Amendment would strike at the supremacy of the husband; but he should recollect that the whole of this Bill was based upon the desire to elevate the status of the mother, and give her a greater right over her children than she had hitherto possessed, and if his noble and learned Friend wished to maintain unimpaired the entire supremacy of the husband, he should have opposed the Bill upon its second reading.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 28; Not-Contents 30: Majority 2.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH—CREMATION.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, he wished to call attention to the erection of a public crematorium at Woking, and the cremation of a body there on the 26th of March last, and to inquire, Whether Her Majesty's Government would use whatever powers they had in the matter for the discouragement of the practice?
  THE EARL or DALHOUSIEasked what powers the noble Earl referred to?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, he understood the Home Secretary to state in "another place" that Her Majesty's Government had power to discourage the practice.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was not aware of the existence of such power. Some time ago the Government was asked to legislate, with a view of surrounding the practice by certain safeguards. The reply of the Secretary of State was that the people of this country were not in the least inclined to adopt cremation as an ordinary mode of disposing of the dead. He would, however, endeavour to ascertain what the views of the Home Secretary were upon the subject, so that he might be able to give the noble Earl a more satisfactory answer if he desired it.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, he would repeat the Question on a future occasion.

  METROPOLIS (TABARD STREET, NEWINGTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.] (NO. 81.)
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the improvement of an unhealthy area situated at Newington, within the Metropolis: And
  METROPOLIS (HUGHES FIELDS, DEPTFORD) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.] (NO. 82.)
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the improvement of an unhealthy area situated at Deptford, within the Metropolis: Were presented by The Earl of DALHOUSIE; read la; and referred to the Examiners.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (PUBLIC HEALTH ACT) (NO. 2.) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 83.)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland re-

  629
  lating to the Drumcondra, Clonliffe, and Glasnevin Township, and to waterworks in the town of Cavan: And

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (LABOURERS ACT) (NO. 3) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 84.)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, relating to the Ballymahon, Carrick-on-Shannon, Enniscorthy, Gorey, Kanturk, Longford, Wexford, and Youghal unions:
  Were presented by The LORD PRESIDENT: read 1a: and referred to the Examiners.

  ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate the law relating to arbitration—Was presented by The Lord BEAM-WELL; read 1a. (No. 85.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.