Sitting of 1 May 1885

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—Considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 30] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Regent's Canal, City, and Docks Railway.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—East India (Unclaimed Stocks) [Expenses].
Ordered—Customs and Inland Revenue.
Ordered—First Reading—Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2)*[149].
First Reading—Honorary Freedom of Boroughs*[133].
Second Reading—Metropolis Management Acts Amendment*[138]; Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment*[139].
Committee—Report—Registration of Voters (Ireland) [110–gistration of Voters (Scotland) [132–etropolitan Streets Act (1867) Extension [137]; Waterworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment [7–152].
Considered as amended—Third Reading —Highways* [89], and passed.
Withdrawn—Private Bill Legislation*[25].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  REGENT'S CANAL, CITY, AND DOCKS RAILWAY BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, he had placed a Notice on the Paper, which had now been there for some time, of his intention to move—
    "That it is not expedient to pass any Railway Bill which involves the payment of interest out of capital during the construction of works, pending the introduction of a public measure on this subject, as recommended by a Committee of this House in 1882, especially where such a Bill practically makes the alteration of the Standing Orders of this House retrospective in their action."
    In moving that Resolution as an Amendment to the second reading of the Bill, it was scarcely necessary to explain that it was, of course, a direct attack upon the second reading. He would state to the House at once the position in which he stood in regard to this measure. He had taken up the question entirely as a matter of public duty. Whatever might be the opinion of the Railway Association, which he had sometimes represented in

    1287
    that House, he did it without regard to any resolution which they might have come to upon this subject. He had nothing whatever to do with, the Railway Shareholders' Association. He was not a member of that Association; but, on the contrary, he had declined to become a member of it, as he felt that his own work was more particularly connected with railway direction and management generally than it was with railway shareholders in particular. He had always maintained that it was the duty of a Railway Director to try and hold the balance as carefully as possible between the traffic senders and the shareholders. He had, therefore, declined to become a member of that Association, which, he believed, had sent out a Circular that afternoon, stating reasons why the House should support him in the Motion he had just made. He had been under the impression that the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) stood first on the list that afternoon, and the proposal of his hon. Friend was a direct negative to the second reading of the Bill. His (Sir Joseph Pease's) ground was a somewhat different one; and probably his hon. Friend would be able to explain the different reasons for opposing this Bill much better than he could. His hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had in 1882 also opposed the Regent's Canal Bill upon the same ground as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks)—namely, that the operations of this Company would probably result in the closing of the old Regent's Canal, and if that were done that the practical effect would be to close some of the important branches of inland navigation, which his hon. Friends considered to be for the public interest to keep open with a view of benefiting the trade of the country generally. His (Sir Joseph Pease's) argument was altogether different. It was an argument entirely based upon principle, and it had nothing to do with the railway accommodation of the district traversed by the Canal Company. He opposed the Bill, because he considered it to be wrong financially to pay interest out of capital during the construction of works. He would now endeavour to explain the position in which the matter stood, and he hoped that he would be able to lay a clear statement before the House, so
    1288
    that the whole matter might be thoroughly appreciated. The line was about 18½ miles long, and it ran from Paddington along the old Regent's Canal bank—which would be familiar to many Members of the House—as far as Islington, reducing the width of the Canal navigation in certain portions. The Canal was protected, as far as he could see, by clauses in the Company's Act of Parliament. Those clauses were undoubtedly inserted in the first instance, whatever might ultimately become of them, for the purpose of protecting the traffic upon the Canal. At Islington, the Railway divided itself into three distinct lines. No. 1 branched off south to the Barbican; No. 2 branched off north to the Midland and Great Northern Goods Yards; and No. 3, which was the main line, ran eastward from Islington, over Plaistow Marshes, to the Albert Docks. The Act authorizing those lines was passed in 1882, and the ordinary shares authorized by that Act were set down at £8,100,000, and the borrowing powers at £2,390,000; making a total of £10,490,000. Of this sum, £1,500,000 had been relegated to the Regent's Canal purchase, and of that £1,275,000 had already been applied to the purposes laid down in the Act of Parliament. As he understood the present Bill, it authorized the raising of an additional share capital, with the consent of Parliament, to the extent of £660,000, which was to pay interest out of capital during the construction of the works. The total amount of capital involved, which would be handed over to the care of the Directors of the Regent's Canal Company, would thus be about £11,150,000. Now, immediately to the north of this line was the North London Railway, which had cost £3,900,000, and towards which the North-Western Railway Company was a contributor to the extent of £168,000. Over the line of the North London Railway the North-Western Company had power to run, and there were junctions with the Midland, the Great Northern, the Great Eastern, and the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railways, which, together with the North London Railway, all had thus access to the Albert Docks. Immediately to the south of the western end of this line, from the Harrow Road, at Paddington, to Aldersgate Street, close to its termination at the Barbican, was

    1289
    the Metropolitan main line, over which ran the Great Western Company. This railway had four lines of rails all the way from St. Pancras to Moorgate Street Station. The Midland and Great Northern Companies ran over two of those four lines of rails, the Metropolitan having constructed them for their special traffic. That line ran parallel with the Regent's Canal line, and had been made at a considerably less cost than the estimate for the corresponding section of the Regent's Canal line. The cost of the three miles of railway had been less than £3,000,000, or about £1,250,000 less than the estimate of the line proposed to be made by the Regent's Canal Company. Where the east end of the Canal lines ran through Plaistow Marshes, there already existed the Great Eastern line, the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway, and the North London line, all being more or less in connection. These were the Companies with which, the new line, when made, would have to compete for all its traffic. He did not wish to enter at all into the merits of these railway systems; but they were there already, and they were lines with which the new line would have to compete for the traffic of the locality. After entering upon this competition, could it go on paying 4 per cent? He put it to the House plainly whether they thought it at all likely, judging from past experience, and with the competition of the Metropolitan Railway, that this line would pay the original shareholders? What, however, he particularly objected to was that the House of Commons should take upon itself to guarantee, as it were, 4 per cent for the payment of interest out of capital while the works were in the course of construction. In his humble opinion, the House would not be justified in authorizing the payment of 4 per cent, while the works were being constructed, unless they were perfectly and morally satisfied that after the railway was opened the same rate of dividend would be continued. The sole object of this Bill was to create £660,000, which was to be drawn from shareholders' subscriptions, and then returned to them during the construction of the works, and to be called interest out of capital. Instead of holding their own money, and using it as they liked and as they desired, the shareholders were to intrust it to the
    1290
    Canal Company, and to receive it back again, little by little, as the Directors were prepared to pay what they called interest out of capital during the construction of the works. He could not conceive how any advantage whatever could be obtained by this class of shareholders. There might be some advantage in this process to the financial arrangements of the Directors; but it was absolutely without any advantage, as far as he could see, to the deluded innocents who consented to receive their money back again out of their own capital. The old Canal shareholders got £130 for a £100 share. That, so far as he knew, was a fair and proper arrangement. But there was one curious transaction to which he should like to call the attention of the House, because it showed how some of these schemes were got up. The Canal Directors secured seven years' purchase on their fees, notwithstanding that some of them, as it was stated before the Committee on the Bill, were already 75 years of age. Beyond the Canal shareholders there seemed to be very few shareholders, and the only object the Directors had in bringing the Bill before the House was to secure additional shareholders. He could not find that there were any landowners who wanted the Bill. There might be some Local Authorities in favour of it; but no residents, as far as he could ascertain, were asking for it. In the three years which had elapsed since the Bill of 1882 was passed there had been no shareholders registered who were willing to take hold of the scheme and work out the railway. When the Bill was brought before the House of Commons in 1882 it contained a clause—No. 117—authorizing interest to be paid out of capital. That clause was struck out by the Committee of the House of Commons as a condition precedent to the passing of the Bill at all. That took place on the 23rd of May, 1882, and Clause 201 was put in to provide that no interest should be paid out of capital during the construction of works. On the 20th of July, 1882, the Bill was in the House of Lords; and Mr. Pope, the eminent Queen's Counsel, who had charge of the Bill, in addressing the Committee of the House of Lords, said—
    "The promoters of this measure are responsible, and respectable, and enterprizing magnates of the City of London."

    1291
    True; but the learned counsel went on to tell their Lordships that such a Directorate, and such a scheme, would be abundantly able to raise the sum required (£8,000,000). It must be borne in mind that this statement was made after the clause providing for the payment of interest out of capital was eliminated from the Bill by the Committee of the House of Commons. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair would have a lively recollection of the proceedings of that Committee, as he had happened to be a Member of it. It was, therefore, after the Committee of the House of Commons had designedly and pointedly struck out the clause, and after their Lordships had been assured, as positively by counsel as they could be, that without any such clause the Bill would be in safe and good and rich hands, and that the money would be forthcoming, that the Bill passed the two Houses. Therefore, he alleged that the promoters of the scheme, after this circumstance had occurred, in asking that the decision of Parliament should be set aside, were not keeping good faith with Parliament, seeing that the Bill had been readily accepted by the Company without this clause. A new Standing Order had been passed in 1883 by the House subsequently to the promotion of this Bill. It was proposed by the Committee that there should be general legislation upon this subject. Such legislation had never been attempted. The new Standing Order said that the Committee on the Bill might, in certain cases, if they thought fit, allow interest. The Committee before whom this Company made their proposal was a strong Committee. It had the whole of the facts before it, and went fully into the question, and yet the result was that the clause was omitted. The promoters of the Bill alleged that they were acting in conformity with the Standing Order on the interest question adopted by the House of Commons in 1883. This was manifestly not the case. The Standing Order in question was not retrospective; and, moreover, provision was made that interest should only be permitted when the Committee charged with the inquiry into the merits of the Bill reported in favour of such a practice. In this case, the Committee decided just the reverse; and it would be
    1292
    most unjust to the numerous Canal Companies, and other opponents who then opposed the Bill, if a question of this magnitude, after having been decided by a Committee, where opponents could be heard, was to be re-opened before another Committee, where the same opponents would have no right to be present. This was a case in which the Committee clearly decided that interest should not be paid out of capital. The present Bill was a Finance Bill; and no inquiry as to works, or the position of the Company, or the probability of paying dividend hereafter, had been made, or could be made. As a practically unopposed Bill, it would go before his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means; but that was not what was intended by the Standing Order. It was intended by the Standing Order that every application of this kind should be thoroughly investigated by a Select Committee, in order to see whether there was a reasonable prospect of being able to pay 4 per cent during the construction of the works, and whether the same amount of interest was likely to be paid after the line was opened to the public. In 1883, under much more special circumstances, the House declined to pass a provision of this kind in the case of a Bill brought in on behalf of the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company to enable them to pay interest out of capital. His hon. and gallant Friend who sat not far from him, the Member for Wycombe (Colonel Smith), stated the case of that Company with great fairness; and although there were special reasons for passing the Hull and Barnsley Interest Bill, the House considered the principle a bad one—namely, the principle of paying interest out of capital, and they declined to pass the measure. The decision come to at that time had, he thought, been amply justified by subsequent facts. He was not concerned in these railways; but he was concerned in maintaining commercial integrity, especially in the railway world; and, looking at this as a matter of principle, he might say that all our great financiers had objected to the proposal to pay interest out of capital. Mr. Hume and Mr. Ricardo were both opposed to it—Mr. Ricardo saying that when the Directors wanted £2 10 s. they called it £2 15 s., and paid 5s. back again. Sir Charles Wood, Sir

    1293
    James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel were all opposed to it. He came now to our own times, and there had certainly been some great men who had left the House of Commons for the other branch of the Legislature who were strongly opposed to this principle. What did the Lord Chancellor say on the 26th of June, 1883, in the House of Lords? He said—
    "I cannot help thinking that we ought to proceed with great care, for it is a very serious thing to change, without ample deliberation, a Rule founded on the sound principle of letting it be understood that when Parliament sanctions a certain amount of capital it means what it says, and not something else. If you are to permit the deduction of £20 per cent from £100 of nominal capital as a dividend, that will reduce the real capital to £80 instead of £100, and will be a delusion; it is simply returning to the subscriber 25 per cent out of the money which he has nominally invested. He might just as well keep the £50 in his pocket, and let the capital be called £80."—(3 Hansard, [280] 1541.)
    The Marquess of Salisbury, who, whatever his politics, was a man of astute intellect in regard to railway matters, and had solved some of the most difficult railway problems that had been brought forward, said—
    "Considering the enormous amount of property affected, this is one of the gravest Resolutions this House could pass as regards it. There is an obvious objection which must strike everyone, for it is really a proposal to enable a certain number of investors to practise upon themselves a species of wholly innocent self-deceit, and to take, in the form of interest, what is really a little of their own capital returned to them. This is entirely a question whether the kind of railway, which its friends call a contractor's railway and its enemies call a bogus railway, is a kind of railway which it is desirable to multiply."—(Ibid, 1544.)
    Earl Granville said—
    "A good many years ago, Parliament came to the conclusion that it was unsound in principle to sanction a nominal payment of interest, which was only a return of a portion of the capital."—[Ibid. 1545.)
    Lord Kimberley also said, in the course of the same debate, that the proposal to repeal the law which prohibited the payment of interest out of capital was neither made by nor supported by the Government. Our whole Statute Law was opposed to it, and every Bill passed by Parliament, with this power in it, was a repeal insomuch of wise and good Statute Law. Our financial laws had been well tried, and were, for the most part, founded on sound principles. They de-
    1294
    clared that it was unwise and financially immoral to pay interest out of capital. The Limited Liability Companies were prevented by law from paying interest out of capital during the construction of works. Our financial laws had done much to build up the commercial standing of this country. There was no reputation in trade so high as that of an Englishman; and wherever he went he received the highest credit for the manner in which he carried out his financial engagements. To repeal these laws in whole or in part, unless some very good cause were shown, would be an infraction of principle for the sake of expediency; and was there in this case such an expediency as ought to be allowed to conquer principle? Surely, when they were framed upon right principles, these laws ought to be kept as they were. Whenever the House pursued a different course, they established dangerous precedents in regard to the credit of the commercial community. Whenever this plan was resorted to, the House might be quite certain of two things— that the rich and knowing would not make the investment, because they did not see its soundness; but that the poor and ignorant would be led into it. Those who had money to invest, and who were looking out for substantial investments, would not touch shares of this description; and it was only by putting forward proposals of this character that Companies were able to induce poor and ignorant persons, with a little capital in hand, to become shareholders. He did not wish to say anything in any way to hurt the feelings of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe; but he had mentioned the case of the Hull and Barnsley Rail-way, and he would refer to it again. When that line was brought out, his hon. and gallant Friend fairly and boldly stated to the House that it was a line which promised 5 per cent to the shareholders. He found, from the list of shareholders, that it was contributed to by persons all over the country—from Hull, Birmingham, London, York, Harrogate, Bedford Square, Nine Elms, Barnsley, Cornhill, Manchester, Easing-wold, and many other places, who were described as fish curer, gentleman, broker, spinster, ship broker, innkeeper, cabinet maker, manager, painter, artist, builder, architect, far-

    1295
    mer, engine driver, city agent, bank manager, bank clerk, and cooper. Those were the class of persons who were deceived by these investments; and although in this case, during the construction of works, the shareholders received 5 per cent, in whole or in part, there was hardly a man in Yorkshire who imagined that the line, although paying 5 per cent during construction, would even pay 2 per cent to the shareholders when at work. His right hon. Friend below him, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), when a similar question to this was raised on a previous occasion, spoke of the shareholders as being able to take care of themselves. He (Sir Joseph Pease) thought he had proved to the House by the list he had read that, in the instance he had referred to, that was scarcely the case; and he, therefore, thought that the law ought to make the matter perfectly clear. Could it be for a moment believed that when this Regent's Canal line, nursed as it was by other lines, was opened, it would pay the dividend proposed to be paid during construction? It was well known that the dividends on all the great railway properties in the Three Kingdoms together were not worth much more than 4 per cent, or, at any rate, not more than £4 3s. 4d. The money invested in railways during the last 10 years amounted to £210,000,000; and if this particular investment was a good one, there could be no reason for supposing that the necessary amount of capital would not be readily subscribed. Nevertheless, out of £280,000,000 of ordinary Stock, £60,000,000 did not pay 2 per cent. The principle was bad; the expediency was bad; but it was worse still when it was as clear as reason could make it that the dividend paid during construction could not be maintained when the line was opened. He had now stated all that he considered it necessary to lay before the House on this subject. He believed that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would contend that competition generally was good; but in this case, as soon as competition was entered upon, they would have no 4 per cent, but if competition became combination away would go all the arguments of his right hon. Friend in favour of competition. He thought he had proved that this Bill was not in accordance with the Standing Order which
    1296
    at present existed; that it went against the decision of their own Committee on the original Bill—that the principle of paying interest out of capital was fictitious and a trap for the unwary, and that no sound undertaking required this expedient; and, therefore, he hoped the House would affirm to-day—as it had affirmed in 1883—a principle which all our leading financiers and statesmen had approved. He begged to move the Amendment which appeared on the Paper in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is not expedient to pass any Railway Bill which involves the payment of interest out of capital during the construction of works pending the introduction of a public measure on this subject, as recommended by a Committee of this House in 1882, especially where such a Bill practically makes the alteration of the Standing Orders of this House retrospective in their action,"—(Sir Joseph Pease,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, that it was altogether impossible for the House to enter into the details of a Bill of this kind. He considered it a monstrous thing that people should not be allowed to take care of their own money, and invest it in such concerns as they thought desirable, and in the mode which they thought most expedient. He understood that the object of this Bill, and of the Standing Order, was to enable a certain class of persons, who had funds at their disposal for investment, to have interest paid to them during the time the works were in progress. But the proposition of the hon. Baronet opposite was that persons who were disposed to make investments of this sort should not have their money returned in the shape which they themselves desired. The hon. Baronet said he wished to protect the poor by throwing the mantle of that House over them, and preventing them from, adopting their own independent action in regard to the investment of their own money. If a man chose to say—"I have £100, and I desire to invest it in an undertaking which I think will be profitable; but I cannot forego the income which that £100 now brings me in, and, therefore,

    1297
    I must have some return while the works are being carried out," why should he not be able to give effect to his wishes? It was a principle that was now carried out in the ordinary affairs of life. Take, for instance, the case of a farmer. A farmer had £3,000 to invest in land, and he said—"While the crops are growing I must have something to live upon, and something to enable me to clothe myself with." The proposition of the hon. Baronet amounted to this—that the farmer must invest the whole of his £3,000 in the farm, according to some great principle, and he must not use any portion of it in any other shape, but must wait until the proper time came round for realizing a profit upon his produce. Until that moment arrived the farmer would be required to starve. But, altogether apart from that point, he was prepared to support the construction of this particular railway. He knew nothing more than what the hon. Baronet had himself stated; but he gathered, from the remarks of the hon. Baronet, that the line was designed for the benefit of the working classes. The House was aware that the Commission, in which his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) took an active part, and which contained among its Members some of the highest persons in the land, was engaged at this moment in ascertaining what measures could be carried out for improving the condition of the working classes. He understood that this line was designed mainly for the purpose of connecting certain outlets with the City of London, and to facilitate the conveyance of the working classes, who, of necessity, must be employed in the Metropolis, to and from their homes to certain points at a cheap rate—an object of great importance in connection with the problem of how to house the labouring population properly. The only argument against the line was that there were certain other railways with which it might run in competition. He thought it was a most important object to house the working classes cheaply, and to do so comfortably, with a fair amount of space in their dwellings, and in situations where they could obtain the advantage of fresh air. That in itself was, to his mind, a far higher moral object than the principle of preventing the general public from using
    1298
    their own money as they pleased, by providing that they should receive no portion of it back again for a certain number of years while the works were being constructed. If the House read the Bill a second time, the Standing Order would be fairly considered by a Select Committee upstairs. That was all that the Bill asked; and the hon. Baronet was endeavouring to throw a mantle of Parliamentary prevention over persons who wished to cut their cloth according to their own fashion, and to enter into what, according to their own judgment, they regarded as profitable investments. He trusted that, for the sake of laying down an abstract principle, the House of Commons would not consent to stifle a Bill which ought to be inquired into through the ordinary tribunal established by the House.
    COLONEL GERARD SMITHsaid, he opposed the Amendment, for he contended that the Bill ought to be allowed to go before a Select Committee, instead of being disposed of on the second reading. The object of the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph W. Pease) was, no doubt, a laudable one; and among other reasons which the hon. Baronet assigned in support of it was the ground that the Bill was unopposed. The hon. Baronet, however, was entirely in error in that respect, seeing that there were four strong Petitions against the measure. He, therefore, ventured to submit that the time of the House would be saved by allowing the Bill to go to a Committee upstairs in the usual way, instead of fighting it on the second reading.
    SIR WHITTAKER ELLISsaid, he wished to make one or two remarks upon the Bill, and upon the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Joseph Pease). The hon. Baronet appeared to take exception to the principle of paying interest out of capital while an undertaking was in the course of construction. Now, he (Sir Whittaker Ellis) submitted to the House that there was no great undertaking in this country which did not pay interest during the construction of works. Why was a railway to be treated differently from a public street? If the Board of Works were making a new street, they raised the money to pay the cost of that street, and to make provision for the poor who were unhoused by their operations, and to compensate others

    1299
    who were disturbed in their business arrangements, and the money so raised paid interest until the new street was opened. He ventured to say, if the Board of Works were to propose not to pay interest until a new street was opened, they would find that it would be necessary to pay a very much higher rate of interest on the money required, or they would have to issue their bonds at a much lower rate than they were able to do under present circumstances. Then, again, take the case of the new block of public buildings which Her Majesty's Government intended very shortly to commence. He took it that the Government would have to obtain the money necessary for the erection of the new offices from the public, and that they would pay interest upon the money they obtained while the buildings were being constructed. In that case the principle was entirely analogous, and he could not understand why the Amendment of the hon. Baronet had been placed on the Paper. He had been appealed to by a great many persons to vote against the present Bill, and he had written to some of them to know why they did not wish the Bill to pass in its present form. They told him that if interest was to be paid out of capital while the works were being constructed there would be a great many more railways laid down than there were at present. Now, he did not know whether the House or the public would care to prevent the construction of great railways; and certainly it would be a monstrous thing that a railway should be treated differently to other undertakings of a similar character. If a man built a house, he had to use his capital during the construction of that house; and if he lost the interest on the money he was thus utilizing, if he understood finance in a proper way, he would necessarily add that lost interest to the cost of the house. With the provisions that were contained in the amended Standing Order, No. 167, there was no reason whatever why this or any other railway should not be allowed to pay a reasonable rate of interest while it was being constructed, and it would be a great injustice if the line were not permitted to be made. The clause in the Bill provided that only 4 per cent per annum should be paid; and it would be monstrous to prohibit this railway, or any other railway, from paying interest
    1300
    in that way during the progress of the works. There was one other practical point which he wished to put to the House; and it was that if they debarred this Railway Company from paying interest and adding it to capital during construction, they would compel the Company to issue their bonds and securities at a very much lower rate per cent than they would otherwise obtain for them. What he meant was that, instead of getting 90 per cent for their issue, they would have to take 80. He opposed the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, because he thought it was undesirable that public enterprize should be checked for the benefit of the shareholders of the large existing undertakings.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he rather regretted that his hon. Friend behind him (Sir Joseph Pease) should have thought it necessary to move this Amendment. He knew that his hon. Friend was a man of great public spirit, and he was sure that he was controlled by a sense of duty. But at the same time he thought he would be able to show that the course proposed by his hon. Friend was inconvenient, and would be attended with considerable disadvantage. They were not now dealing with one of those bogus Companies about which his hon. Friend was so very anxious. This was a very large and important concern, involving a capital of something like £10,000,000, and it was intended to connect the whole of the Docks at the East End of London with the Great Northern, the Midland, and the North-Western Railways, and therefore it was an enterprize of first-rate importance in regard to the convenience of trade. There was another consideration which at that moment was not altogether unworthy of the attention of the House. If this Company went on and capital was raised, a very large amount of employment would be given to the working classes of London; and just now, when there existed so much depression of trade, it would be a serious thing to throw any obstacle in the way of such employment being afforded. What was the reason his hon. Friend proposed that day to take the unusual course of refusing to allow a Select Committee to consider the provisions of this Bill? It was, he said, because the Company proposed to pay interest out of capital. The hon. Member, then, was proposing by a side-wind to

    1301
    reverse the solemn decision of the House, because the whole question of whether such Companies should be allowed to pay interest out of capital was decided in June, 1883, when, by a majority of eight, the House passed the amended Standing Order permitting that practice. It was quite true that about a fortnight later the Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill was thrown out on the second reading; but that was because the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company did not coin-ply with the Standing Order, but proposed a larger rate of interest than was sanctioned by the Standing Order. What happened? It did not prevent the construction of the Hull and Barnsley Railway, because the Company obtained powers in the subsequent year that enabled it to evade the decision of the House by raising Debenture and Mortgage Stock, which attained practically the same result as paying interest out of capital, and he believed the works were now approaching completion. Why, as a matter of principle, should that privilege be denied to Railway Companies? It was not denied to numerous other undertakings. There were numberless undertakings in which it prevailed. It prevailed without exception in foreign trade, and in almost every commercial speculation. For instance, there had been a very large enterprize entered into on this principle in reference to the refinement of sugar in Brazil. There was a State guarantee given, and that guarantee applied to payments during the construction of works. The Indian Railway Companies had a guarantee from the Government for the payment of interest during construction. His hon. Friend, speaking with the authority and position of one who represented the great established railway lines, was very hard on the new undertakings which required a provision of this kind to induce their Stock to be taken up. After all, it was a great convenience to the shareholders. In some way or other a man who had not got a large sum of money at his bankers upon interest, but had to contrive to be able to live, must provide something like an annual income, and by an investment of this sort it was very convenient for him that payment of interest should go on during the construction of the line. His hon. Friend told the House he was not now acting in the interest of the widows and
    1302
    orphans, but in that of high financial morality. But there was another explanation, not of the action of his hon. Friend, but of the opposition offered by some of the other opponents of the Bill. Now, he himself happened to be a shareholder of the South-Eastern Railway Company, and in his capacity as a shareholder he had received a Circular signed by the Secretary of the South-Eastern Company; and in his capacity as a Member of Parliament he had received another, both of those documents containing this statement—
    "This Bill is promoted by a Company of which Mr. J. S. Forbes is Chairman, and it seeks power to pay interest out of capital upon £10,000,000. If the precedent for such an objectionable practice be once set in this case, it will be followed by many more instances of a similar character. The result will be loss and ruin to vast numbers of shareholders, without any compensating advantages to travellers or traders. You will materially help the Directors who are assisting to oppose this Bill if you will kindly write at once to your Representatives in Parliament, requesting them to oppose this Bill on second reading."
    He had not written to his Representatives in Parliament; but he thought that Circular threw a great light upon this opposition. The interests of these great lines were opposed to competition. Were the interests of the country opposed to competition? There had been a great agitation lately in favour of a reduction of railway fares, and the only chance of obtaining that reduction was in the existence of competition, actual or potential. Everything, therefore, that tended to check competition and to keep up a monopoly helped the Companies in resisting any attempt on the part of the public to gain a reduction. He confessed that he was more anxious to protect the public than the foolish investor, even if the result was to establish competing lines; and he thought that the House would do wisely in passing a Bill of this kind, the proposal of which was undoubtedly a bonâ fide one, and one which involved a largo and important addition to their means of communication.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that if one thing would have done more than another to prevent the encroachments of the great Railway Companies and keep them perfectly in check, as far as the fares were concerned, it was the adoption of the strong and unanimous recom-

    1303
    mendation of the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons which sat about 20 years ago, and of which he had had the honour to be a Member. That Committee recommended that the Canals should not be allowed to fall into the hands of the Railway Companies; but he was sorry to say that that unanimous recommendation of the Joint Committee had not been acted upon when Private Bills came before the House. He thought it would have been very much better if the Committee, which sat upon this Bill two or three years ago, had borne that recommendation in mind, and had kept up this Canal, instead of allowing it to fall into the hands of the Railway Company. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had the question really at heart, he might yet do much good by putting the Board of Trade in action, whenever it was desirable, to give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to him. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could not be aware that there was in the present Bill a provision for keeping-open the navigation of the Regent's Canal.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Canal was practically handed over to the control of the Railway Company, and the Proviso referred to by the right hon. Gentleman would have very little effect except in misleading the House. ["Oh!"] He did not for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman himself intended to mislead the House; but what he felt was that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was calculated to mislead many Members who were not aware of the real provisions and scope of the Bill. The question came before the House in this way. This clause, having reference to the payment of interest out of capital, had been in the original Bill, and when the Bill was before the House of Commons it was thrown out. Therefore, although in the first instance the Railway Company tried to get the benefit of the clause, the House would not allow them to have it; and when they were questioned upon the subject when the Bill was before the House of Lords, their Chairman said that he had no fear about being able to raise the money, whether the Standing Order was enforced or not.
    1304
    He added that the Company probably might have a little more trouble in persuading people to subscribe; but that was all. What had been the result? The Company got the Bill without that clause, and they had not been able, during the last three years, to persuade people that this was such a good undertaking that they ought to invest their money in it. If any hon. Member would look at the Preamble of the Bill now before the House, he would find that the Railway Company had itself inserted that fact in the Bill. They said—
    "And whereas by the Act of 1882 it was provided (Section 201) that the Company should not out of any money by that Act authorized to be raised pay interest or dividend to any shareholder on the amount of the calls made in respect of the shares held by him, but that nothing in the said Act should prevent the Company from paying to any shareholder such interest on money advanced by him beyond the amount of the calls actually made as was in conformity with the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845."
    The next paragraph said—
    "And whereas the practical effect of the said Section 201 of the Act of 1882 has been to render it impossible for the Company to raise any part of the capital (other than the Canal capital) required for the execution of their authorized works, and it is expedient that the said section be repealed and the Company be authorized, subject to the provisions hereinafter in that behalf contained, to pay interest or dividends upon the amount paid up from time to time in respect of shares or stock in their capital, and for that purpose to raise further money by shares or stock as by this Act provided."
    The Bill now came before the House in this way—the Company had obtained a railway which they thought would attract investors. But although it had been before the public for three years the public refused to invest; and, accordingly, the Railway Company had arrived at the conclusion that unless they could get the insertion of this particular clause to enable them to pay interest out of capital during the construction of works their undertaking was not likely to be a success. The Company said that there was a Standing Order in existence which would enable them to do this, and that they ought to have the benefit of it; but he would point out that the Standing Order was not retrospective; that the original Bill had been carefully considered by the House; and that, notwithstanding what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen in support of the Bill, there was no certainty

    1305
    and no guarantee that if the House allowed the second reading to pass, the Company would not be in a position to buy up the opposition with which it was threatened. In that case it would become an unopposed Bill, and would not come under the consideration of a Select Committee at all. Therefore, this particular question of whether interest was to be paid out of capital would run the risk of being virtually withdrawn from the cognizance of the House. He had been glad to hear the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) take such strong ground, because he believed that if they held out inducements to people that they were to have interest at 4 per cent until the railway was made, there were a great number of persons who did not thoroughly understand the matter who would be misled. They would invest their money in the belief that they were certain to receive a fair rate of interest for a good many years. He was now speaking entirely in behalf of a number of persons of small moans who were constantly having prospectuses of this kind sent to them. He happened to have been Trustee for a number of poor ladies at different times, and they had sent to him many prospectuses offering them, as an additional inducement to invest, the payment of interest at the rate of 4 or 5 per cent out of capital during construction. What was the result? They invested their money, and they received 4 or 5 per cent during the time the works were being constructed, and then, when they expected their income to be increased, they found that it was suddenly diminished, and that what they had received in one pocket had been, in reality, taken out of another. He thought, as a matter of commercial honesty, that the House of Commons was bound to protect that class of people who were so easily induced to invest their money in these undertakings. He, therefore, hoped that the House would assent to the Amendment.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was bound to say that the main argument used by his right hon. Friend was not one which had impressed him very strongly. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his remarks by telling the House that it would be very much better if Parliament would prevent Canal Companies from being bought up by Railway Com-
    1306
    panies. But that was not the question which the House had to consider at the present moment. The Committee of the House of Commons had, as he understood, permitted this operation to be carried out after a full and adequate examination; and, so far as the Bill itself was concerned, they were told that it made adequate provision for keeping up the navigation of the Canal. That, however, was not the point which the House had to discuss. The main argument used by his right hon. Friend was that the Company, not having been able to persuade people that their undertaking was a good one, desired now, in order to induce the public to invest, to obtain a clause empowering them to pay interest on capital during the construction of works. Surely his right hon. Friend must have a poor idea of the intellect of the investing public if he imagined that a power of paying 4 per cent during the progress of construction was likely to convince those who had formerly thought the undertaking a bad one that it was now a remarkably good one. That was the main contention of his right hon. Friend; but he thought it was not sufficiently strong to induce the House to throw out the Bill. This was a Bill in which considerable interest was felt in the East End of London upon two grounds. In the first place, it would connect the Docks in the East End with the great railways in a way which would prove beneficial to the East End of London. There was another ground which to his mind, at the present moment, was of even greater importance. It had already been touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. During the present time of distress he had several times formed part of deputations which had waited upon Ministers of the Crown with reference to the employment of the working classes; but it had been very properly pointed out by the President of the Board of Trade that it was impossible for the Government themselves to take any step in the direction indicated. At the same time, the deputations had been reminded that there were great undertakings before Parliament which it was hoped would, if carried, provide employment for the working classes. This was certainly one of those undertakings, and he imagined that it was in the mind of the right hon.

    1307
    Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade when he gave that advice. It was an undertaking which the House of Commons had declared to be a good and sound one, and one that ought to be carried out. Hitherto a difficulty had been experienced in raising the necessary capital, because the Company were unable to pay a small percentage of interest out of capital during the construction of works. That had nothing to do with the question whether the undertaking was good or bad. There was a vast number of people who could not afford to subscribe to an undertaking unless they received some interest in the meantime before the scheme was in operation, and it was for that reason that the capital in this instance had not been subscribed. If the Bill were passed, it would undoubtedly give ultimate employment to a large number of persons. It was a good undertaking in itself, and he could not imagine that any of the arguments which had been used against it that day would induce the House of Commons to throw out the Bill.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he did not propose to enter into the merits of the Bill, or to discuss the question raised by hon. Gentlemen who objected to the Bill as to the financial morality of paying interest out of capital during construction; but he must tell his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) that he was mistaken if he supposed that there was a general concurrence in the views he had expressed. That question had been fully investigated by a Committee, which had reported to the House. Their Report showed that their opinion was very different from that which the hon. Baronet had expressed. He (Sir Arthur Otway) could hardly see anything financially immoral in a proposition which at the present moment governed commercial undertakings abroad, and was adopted with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government in reference to their own Dependencies in India. Nor did he propose to enter into the other questions which the hon. Baronet had brought under the notice of the House. His hon. Friend had been quite eloquent on behalf of the cooper, the painter, the managing clerk, and the spinster, who were about to be deluded into investing their money on the promise of being paid 5 per cent during
    1308
    the construction of the works. His hon. Friend was quite in error as to the amount proposed to be paid as interest; it was 4 per cent, and not 5.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, he had been referring to the payment of interest under the Hull and Barnsley Bill; and he had stated that the proposal to pay so high a rate of interest had probably induced many investors to subscribe.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had also been eloquent on behalf of certain poor ladies for whom he was Trustee; but the point which he (Sir Arthur Otway) wished to bring before the House was that there was already a Standing Order deliberately sanctioned by a Committee which dealt with the subject. This proposal had been discussed in connection with several Public Departments, and it was considered absolutely necessary to do something to prevent the constant violation of the Standing Orders of the House. When he first took the Office of Chairman of Ways and Means, he found that the Standing Order was constantly evaded; and after much consideration he came to the conclusion that it was desirable, and even necessary, to deal with the matter by amending the Standing Order. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) seemed to forget altogether the protection afforded to the public by the existing Standing Order of the House. The Select Committee before whom the Bill would come would have it in their power to refuse their sanction, if they thought fit, to the payment of interest out of capital. Moreover, a Report of the Board of Trade was required, and there was no prospect of the public being deceived, or for any deception of any kind, he apprehended, to be practised. All the circumstances would have to be made known. In fact, so far as the public were concerned, every protection was afforded to them by the Standing Orders which now existed; and he thought that the House, having amended the Standing Orders only two years ago, seeing that no complaint was made of the way in which they worked, would be acting most unwisely if they were now to reverse their recent decision. His hon Friend had certainly made one statemen which, if correct, would be important

    1309
    He had said that the Bill would be an unopposed Bill, and, therefore, that there would be no Committee to decide whether it was proper that this privilege should be conceded or not. That was, no doubt, a very important point; and if the Bill came before him as an unopposed Bill, all he could say was that a measure involving such large and important considerations would not be one that he would undertake to adjudicate upon. As a matter of fact, however, the Bill was not unopposed, and it would go upstairs to a Select Committee, who would be perfectly competent to decide the various questions involved in it, and would be able to say whether this was an undertaking to which the privilege of paying interest during construction should be applied or not, or whether the sanction of the House should be refused to it. Therefore, there was on this point also no ground for the apprehensions of his hon. Friend. It was not necessary that he should detain the House by going into details further; but he thought he had said sufficient to induce the House to read the Bill a second time.
    MR. HICKSsaid, that, as one who had opposed the Regent's Canal Bill in the first instance, he would ask the indulgence of the House while he explained the ground of his opposition, and while he called attention to one or two points which had not been fully raised. Of late years the House had been extremely jealous of the absorption of the inland navigation by Railway Companies; and in regard to this very Company, so recently as 1882, a Select Committee refused to sanction the payment by it of interest out of capital. When the scheme first came before the House for the purpose of taking possession of the Regent's Canal, and converting it into a railway, an opposition was raised to it on the ground that if this Canal, the head of all the English navigation, were once allowed to fall into the hands of the Railway Company, the North, North-East, and West of England would be cut off from the Metropolis. It was then said that the great object of the promoters of the Bill was to make a cheap railway for the purpose of taking the labouring classes from the East End of London into cheaper districts, where they would be able to reside more
    1310
    economically, and enjoy purer air. On the faith of that representation the House passed a Bill, and it went to a Select Committee, who, in consenting to the measure, refused their sanction to the clause for the payment of interest out of capital. That was in the year 1882. What had happened since? In the very next year, this Company, which professed to make a railway for the purpose of carrying passengers at a cheap rate, came to the House to ask for fresh powers to enable them to raise their rates and charges for carrying goods. Thus they tore a portion of the mask from their faces. It was still, however, to be a goods line or a passengers' line, and nothing was said about the way in which the money was to be raised. But now, at the end of three years, finding that they had been unable to raise the money, they came again to Parliament and asked for power to override another important Rule of the House, which prevented them from paying interest out of capital during the construction of works. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told the House that they ought to grant this privilege for two reasons, one of which was that the principle was sanctioned in connection with foreign undertakings, and the second that it was also done in connection with the East India Railways. He did not think the House ought to be governed by foreign precedents; and as to the East India Railways, unless he was very much misinformed, the dividends were not guaranteed during construction, but were guaranteed in perpetuity after the construction was complete. He therefore failed to see what that argument had to do with the case. It was an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the House. This was a proposal to pay dividends out of capital during the construction of the railway; but there was no guarantee whatever of any payment after the works were completed. Then, again, another reason assigned by the President of the Board of Trade, and a reason supported by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), was that there were a great many persons out of employment in London to whom the construction of this railway would give employment. They all knew that there were many of the working classes out of employment

    1311
    in London, and the circumstance was much to be lamented. But, he would ask, was this the first time that Her Majesty's Government had heard that the working classes were suffering from want of employment? Had it never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman, or to Her Majesty's Government, that there was another way of getting out of that difficulty? Had they never heard of the great distress which prevailed among those who suffered from the Sugar Bounties; and would not the Government at once seek in their Budget to put a duty upon foreign sugar? By so doing they would give abundant employment, and very much relieve the deficit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to meet—a deficit which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had described as "grossly immoral."
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the Question before the House.
    MR. HICKSapologized for appearing to have wandered from the subject, and said, that he was only replying to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that the Bill would find employment for a large number of the working classes. What he ventured to ventured to say was, that if they could find employment for the sugar industries by not allowing sugar to come in upon foreign bounties, the labourer of the East End of London would find abundant employment and the deficit would be avoided.
    MR. GILESsaid, he had had some little experience of public Companies, and he ventured to protest against the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) upon general principles. If it were adopted it would put a stop to the progress of all public Companies. The hon. Baronet said that he brought it forward in the interest of the innocent and unwary, who might be deceived into subscribing to these public Companies if interest were guaranteed during the progress of works. But there were £700,000,000 subscribed to railways on similar principles, the holders of which must all have been innocents when they subscribed. The large and wealthy Railway Companies had no occasion to exercise this privilege, as when they wanted to carry out new lines they borrowed money
    1312
    on debentures or on preference stock, and paid interest thereon from the date of borrowing, which practically amounted to the same thing as that of new Companies paying interest during construction.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 187; Noes 117: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 145.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—LONDONDERRY ASSIZES—SPECIAL JURORS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many special jurors were summoned by Sheriff Mr. Thomas Chambers for last Derry Assizes; how many cases were to be tried; what was the character of the attendance; and, did Mr. Baron Dowse and Lord Justice Fitzgibbon make any comments on the subject?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Sheriff informs me that 48 special jurors were summoned, and that the attendance was a fair average. There were six special jury cases to be tried. Mr. Baron Dowse made some observations on the difficulty of getting a jury; but the Sheriff explains that the difficulty arose from the fact that both Courts were trying special jury cases at the same time, and that the right of challenge had been fully exercised in both cases.
  MR. HEALY: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of applying to one of the learned Judges for the information instead of to the Sheriff? The Sheriff is the person whose conduct is impugned.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think that is necessary.
  MR. LEWIS: Is not 48 the statutable number of jurors?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say.

  VACCINATION (FRANCE)—MORTALITY ARISING FROM THE OPERATION AT VILLEFRANCHE D'AVEYRON.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whe-

  1313
  ther the attention of his Department has been called to the announcement of a vaccination disaster at Villefranche d'Aveyron, in France, in La Ligne newspaper, dated 23rd March, last, where it is reported that, of forty young people vaccinated by one medical man, nine died within forty-eight hours after the operation; if not, will he be so good as to mate inquiry into the case?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL(who replied) said: We were not aware of any such statement in the French newspaper referred to. If the hon. and learned Member will furnish us with a statement of the facts on trustworthy authority, we will consider whether any inquiry is necessary.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)— SMALL POX AT WEST HAM.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been directed to the prevalence of small pox in the sub-district of West Ham; whether the death rate has reached the rate of nearly 7,000 per million; whether the inhabitants of the district are vaccinated as numerously, as in any district in or near London; whether 3,000 per million is assumed to have been the rate of mortality from small pox in the last century; and, whether, in fact, some defect in sanitary precautions is the cause of such disease and mortality?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL(who replied) said: We are aware that there has been a severe epidemic of small pox in the West Ham sub-district. The population of the district increased from 44,000 in 1871 to 101,000 in 1881, and is now very much larger. The number of deaths from small pox in the district during the present year has been 318. There are, however, in the district two small pox hospitals, one belonging to the Guardians of the West Ham Union, and the other to the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District. A considerable proportion of the persons who died in the district from small pox were brought into the district from the outside. The Returns for the last three years show that the number of children unaccounted for as regards vaccination has been greater than in other districts in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis. It has been estimated that the rate of mortality from small pox in the last cen-
  1314
  tury, during a period of 30 years, was 3,000 per 1,000,000; but it is obvious that no comparison can fairly be made between the average death-rate during a period of 30 years in the whole of England and Wales, and the number of deaths in four months during a severe epidemic in a particular locality. There has been insufficient hospital accommodation in the district; but, apart from that, we are not aware that defects in sanitary precautions have been the cause of the disease and mortality.

  INLAND REVENUE—STAMPS UPON RECEIPTS IN PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS BY CHEQUE.
  MR. BARRYasked Mr. Attorney General, If he will remove a doubt existing in commercial circles by saying whether payment of an account of over £2 by cheque, payable to order, obviates the necessity of using a receipt stamp?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, a stamp was required to be affixed to the account under the circumstances referred to in the Question.

  BOROUOH FUNDS ACT—EXTENSION TO IRELAND.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is his intention to redeem the pledge given by the Irish Government to introduce a Bill to extend the Borough Funds Act to Ireland?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government are prepared to support the Bill which the hon. Member has brought in on this question, subject to an Amendment which I believe the hon. Member does not object to.
  MR. GRAY: Owing to the Bill being blocked, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he can give me some facilities to press forward the Bill?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot make a promise; but I will be very glad to assist the hon. Member.

  COLLECTOR GENERAL OF RATES, DUBLIN.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How long the office of Collector General of Rates in Dublin has been vacant; and, when the Government intend to intro-

  1315
  duce a Bill to amend the Collection of Rates Act, Dublin?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A temporary appointment was made to the post of Collector General of Bates in Dublin pending the probability of legislation affecting the duties of the Office. The Government have not forgotten their promise to bring in a Bill dealing with this subject; but I am not yet in a position to fix the date at which it will be introduced.
  MR. GRAY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he also bears in mind the undertaking given that the present temporary appointment should not be made permanent until the Bill is introduced?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Oh, certainly.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—PROCEEDINGS FOR ALLEGED TRESPASS AT JOHNSTOWN, CO. KILKENNY.
  MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to, or any report received from the local constabulary, concerning extraordinary proceedings that have recently taken place in the police district of Johnstown, in the county of Kilkenny, that is to say, that Mr. Den. Keatinge, of Woodsfift, a deputy lieutenant and magistrate of the county, is in occupation of certain holdings surrounding his demesne from which the tenants have been evicted some two or three years ago; that the boundary fences of the same are in a very defective condition, rendering them liable to the trespass of stock; that Mr. Keatinge, and his son Mr. Morris Keatinge, holding a Commission in one of Her Majesty's Regiments of the Line, together with a large posse of bailiffs, proceeded from their residence about midnight to those holdings, and distrained certain donkeys, goats, and sheep trespassing thereon; that they escorted those animals to the various residences of the owners, and knocked violently at their doors about one o'clock a.m., some of whom were thus coerced to pay the regulation trespass fines then and there to this local justice, and others, not having cash in their houses, remained indoors, whereupon a large and continued uproar ensued, and the doors of the dwelling-houses were battered and defaced, and,
  1316
  in some portions, smashed in; that especially the residence of the National school teacher of Grane, Mr. Maher, was similarly visited, and trespass for donkeys demanded; and that, owing to the difficulty of arousing the sleeping inmates, shouting and screeching and other noises were made use of, to the disturbance and terror of the inhabitants of the entire locality, extending over a considerable area, and finally the teacher himself was assailed in abusive language, and threatened with eviction; and, whether, even if such distresses are held legal, such unusual mode of proceeding, fraught with danger to the public peace, and adopted by a justice of the petty sessions district in which these dwelling-houses are situate, will be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor or Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have directed the police, who had no knowledge of the alleged proceedings, to make inquiries into the matter; but I have not yet received their Report.

  ARMY (INDIA)—THE BENGAL CAVALRY —OUTBREAK OF GLANDERS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated in The United Service Gazette, that glanders again prevail among the horses of the 6th Bengal Lancers; whether the 6th Bengal Lancers is the same regiment that arrived glandered in Egypt in the campaign of 1882, and which, on the disease being identified by the English veterinary officers, was ordered away from the scene of operations lest it should infect the rest of the Cavalry; whether it is the regiment to which was attributed the infection with glanders of the 7th Dragoon Guards; whether he has yet received any report respecting the European officer and men of the regiment fatally infected with glanders on the voyage of the 6th Bengal Lancers from Egypt to India, concerning whom he promised inquiry on March 5th 1883; whether the regiment has ever been free from glanders since it was despatched, infected, for service in Egypt; and, what is the pay of the salootrees to whom, as he explained to the House on March 5th 1883, the veterinary care of the Bengal Native Cavalry is entrusted?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Government of India has been asked by telegram, whether the 6th Bengal Cavalry has ever been free from glanders, or whether glanders has again broken out. The 6th Bengal Cavalry is the regiment of which one troop was glandered in Egypt during the Campaign of 1882, and it is the regiment to which was imputed the infection of the 7th Dragoon Guards. The Report asked for in March, 1883, arrived in June of that year, and is at the service of my hon. Friend. The deceased officer (Major Logan) had nothing to do with the 6th Bengal Cavalry; he belonged to the 7th Bengal Infantry. No Cavalry horses were on board the ship in which he returned to India; and he died about two months after landing. Sir Anthony Home, the Surgeon General of Her Majesty's Forces in India, having investigated the case, reported that, in his opinion, Major Logan's death was not due to glanders. Though the Government instituted inquiry, no case of a Native having contracted glanders could be traced. The pay of a salootree is 38 rupees a month.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT, 1883— ANNUAL REPAYMENTS.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that the different Boards of Guardians in Ireland who have borrowed money from the Treasury for the purpose of building cottages under the Labourers' (Ireland) Act, are still debited in their bonds with the annual sum of five pounds seven shillings and two pence for every hundred pounds for a term of thirty-five years, notwithstanding the assurance given in March last that the Treasury had reduced the repayments of these loans to four pounds sixteen shillings and two pence per annum for every hundred pounds for the term above stated; and, if so, what steps he will take to get these loans brought under the amended terms?
  MR. HIBBERT: As I informed the hon. Member on the 4th of March last, the promised reduction in the rate of interest was conditional on the passing of the amending Bill of the Government. The Treasury would not be justified in risking the longer term and lower rate of interest except upon the improved arrangements proposed in that Bill. If
  1318
  the hon. Member wishes to obtain early advantage of the reduction, I should recommend him to use his influence with the three hon. Members opposite me who have blocked the Bill. As the Bill is the result of the labours of a Select Committee of the House, I would appeal to those hon. Members to withdraw their block.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN: Will the Bill be retrospective?
  MR. HIBBERT: No.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: If the blocks are removed, will the Government press on the Bill?
  MR. HIBBERT: I think so. I am told so.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to asked the Leader of the Opposition, in reference to the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury that the Government were precluded from pressing the Labourers' Bill owing to the action of three hon. Members of the Conservative Party, whether the right hon. Gentleman would use his influence with these three hon. Members to cease their opposition to the Bill, which was founded on the Report of a Select Committee that included Conservative Members?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I have no knowledge of the matter.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION COMMISSION (IRELAND)—THE LATE LORD O'HAGAN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Commissioners of National Education have decided to allow a Return of their attendances at the Board Meetings to appear in their Annual Report; and, whether any appointment has yet been made to the place at the Board vacated by the death of Lord O'Hagan?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Commissioners of National Education have decided not to publish any such Return as that suggested in the first part of this Question. No appointment has yet been made to the Board in the place of Lord O'Hagan.
  MR. SEXTON: Why do the Commissioners refuse to give the information given last year?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am only informed that they do not consider it wise to do it.

  POST OFFICE—RURAL LETTER CARRIERS—BOOT AND SHOE MONEY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Postmaster General, What steps will be taken to provide the rural postmen of the United Kingdom with boots or boot money?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The idea of supplying postmen with boots has never been entertained; and there is no intention of taking any steps in the direction indicated.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS—RETIRING PENSIONS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Government will consider a transfer of the grant of about £7,000 annually made for payment of retiring allowances to Irish National Teachers (and now about being withdrawn from that fund) to the fund appropriated for the purpose of the National Teachers' Pension Scheme?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It appears that since 1856 Parliament has voted annually a sum to enable the Commissioners of Education to award gratuities to incapacitated teachers. When the Pension Fund—which is quite independent of Parliamentary control—was started in 1879, with a large capital sum from the Church surplus, it was left optional for five years with teachers to join it. A certain number of them elected not to do so; and it is for the purpose of providing for these cases that the annual Parliamentary grant is kept up. The sum estimated for the present year is £1,800. It is intended to continue this provision only so long as there is a necessity for it; but the proposal of the hon. Member is that the Government should deprive a certain number of the teachers of their retiring gratuities, and, at the same time, make a fundamental change in the principle of the pension scheme by tacking on to it an annual Parliamentary grant. The Government could not agree to such a proposal.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—PENSIONS—CASE OF SERGEANT- INSTRUCTOR LYNE.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, If he is aware that the additional pension
  1320
  awarded to Sergeant Instructor Lyne, late of the Royal Marines, under War Office Regulations, which pension he, in October last year, after a delay of over six months, stated would be increased as soon as the necessary Order in Council had been obtained, has not yet been paid; and, whether an Order in Council has only recently been issued, although in October last year the War Office had already submitted the case to the Admiralty, curtly stating that the pension will not be increased; and, if so, what are the reasons assigned by the Admiralty for not complying with the award of the War Office?
  MR. CAINE(who replied) said: Orders have been issued for the payment to Sergeant Lyne of the additional pension of 8d. a-day. There was a misunderstanding at the Admiralty as to the precise amount of additional pension payable under the Regulations of the War Office, which caused delay; but the additional pension will be awarded retrospectively, so that Sergeant Lyne will not be a loser.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What scale of remuneration the Local Government propose to allow to Poor Law officials under the Registration Bill?
  MR. SEXTONalso asked whether, on the introduction of the Lodger Franchise in 1868, the remuneration for additional duties in that year of the Clerks of the Peace, Town Clerks, and Clerks of Unions in Ireland was defrayed by the Treasury, under 31 and 32 Vic. c. 112, s. 27; and, if so, what was the amount so paid?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In reply to the Questions of the hon. Members for Monaghan and Sligo, a statement will be made on Monday of the course the Government intend to take on this subject; and with reference to the hon. Member for Sligo's Question, I would say that we have before us the precedent to which he refers.
  MR. SEXTON: Are the matters in my Question correctly stated?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Not quite.
  MR. HEALY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has understood

  1321
  the bearing of my Question. I do not mean to ask whether it will be a local rate or an Imperial charge; but what will be the scale fixed under the Schedule in the Act?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it would be more convenient to make a statement on the whole question on Monday. I am not in a position to say at present what scale the Local Government Board will lay down.

  POST OFFICE—MADAGASCAR.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the serious complaints of the British residents in Madagascar as to the infrequent and irregular delivery of the mails from England, and as to the inability of Her Majesty's Consul at Tamatave to afford relief, he will take steps to place the postal communication between this Country and Madagascar, as far as possible, on a more satisfactory basis?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am very sorry that the mails for Madagascar are not delivered with the frequency and regularity which the British residents in that place could desire; but we avail ourselves of the only opportunity that at present exists—namely, that of the monthly French Packet—to send the mails. To establish an independent British Mail Service would be very costly; and the small amount of correspondence sent to Madagascar would not justify Her Majesty's Government in incurring such an expense as would be necessary on this account.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT—ADMISSION OF SOLDIERS TO THE FRANCHISE.
  MR. LEAHYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the clerk of the Naas Union, as reported in The Leinster Leader of the 4th instant, that the married soldiers occupying huts in the Military Encampment at the Curragh, in the county of Kildare, are entitled to be put on the voters' list; and, whether this is a correct interpretation of the purpose of the Franchise Act and the Registration Bill?
  THE SOLICITOR, GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): It is not quite possible for me, under the present circumstances, to state whether married
  1322
  soldiers are entitled to be registered. I cannot answer that Question without being aware of the special circumstances of the case.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— ENGLISH OFFICERS—PAY AND STORES.
  MR. ARCHDALEasked the Secretary of State for War, Is it a fact that the boat lanterns and filters have been taken from the officers in the summer camps in the Soudan, on the ground that they were only intended for the men, and that the officers were to supply themselves with those articles out of their field allowance; whether any provisions have been made to enable them to do so; and, is it a fact that when serving to the south of Wady Halfa the officers of the Egyptian Army's pay is doubled, while no addition is made to the pay of the British Army?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER(who replied) said: I am sorry to say that at the War Office we have no information on the subject to which the hon. Member's Question refers.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Will the Secretary of State make inquiries?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: I will make inquiries as to the third Question; but as to the other two, they will probably be rectified on complaints being made by the officers themselves.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—POLICE FORCE AT ESKER.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the police stations at Esker, between Bangher and Clonfert, are charged as extra police; and, if so, what is the nature of their duty; and, what are the circumstances which render it necessary that the district in question should be burdened with an extra police force?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The police at Esker Station are not charged as extra police to the locality; and their duties do not differ from those of the men at any other station in the county.

  POST OFFICE—PROFESSOR S. P. THOMPSON'S VALVE TELEPHONE.
  MR. KENNYasked the Postmaster General, If, since October 1884, he has had an opportunity of examining the

  1323
  valve telephone of Professor S. P. Thompson; and, if so, what Report have the officials of the Post Office made upon it?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No opportunity has been given to the officials of the Post Office up to the present time of examining the valve telephone of Professor Thompson.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—CONTAMINATION OF DRINKING WATER BY THE POLICE AT ORANMORE.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the police at Oranmore lately made a drain from the barrack cesspool into the stream from which the inhabitants of Oranmore draw their drinking water; if the Local Officer of Health and the Board of Guardians strongly objected to this contamination of the drinking water, and if the Board of Guardians succeeded in closing up this drain; if the inhabitants of Oranmore celebrated this stoppage of the pollution by assembling at the drain and playing music; if, upon this, the police prosecuted, under the Prevention of Crime Act, the Local Officer of Health and some others, and if the magistrates dismissed the summons; if he would direct that, for the future, the Crimes Act should not be used against people who, in their anxiety for pure water, assembled in a manner disliked by the Constabulary; and, if he would inform the police that cases of this kind had better be dealt with under the ordinary Civil Law?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to give me Notice of this Question, which appeared on the Paper for the first time to-day.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE— EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether it is correct that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred at Kelleythorpe, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, as announced in The Times of Tuesday last; and, if so, whether the origin of the outbreak is known; and, whether the further report in The Times of yesterday of another outbreak
  1324
  at Hale, in Lancashire, is correct; and, if so, whether the origin of that outbreak is known?
  MR. TREVELYAN: an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was reported on Monday, April 27, on a farm at Kelloy-thorpe, near Driffield, in a herd of 140 cattle, of which 23 were reported to be affected. The sick animals are now nearly recovered, and no extension of the disease has occurred. The origin of the outbreak is not known. In reference to the alleged outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Hale, it appears that the disease is pleuro-pneumonia, which was detected in a herd of 75 cattle on the 24th of April. One animal is reported to have been attacked.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether the published statement was true, that an outbreak of pleuropneumonia had occurred in Boston, and that 140 cattle had had to be destroyed, involving a loss of £2,800?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not sure as to the number; and I would rather the hon. and gallant Gentleman would give me Notice of the Question.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILLS.
  MR. GREGORYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware of the difficulty that must arise in carrying out the registration of persons entitled to vote in counties under the new franchise, unless the operations of the clerks of the peace and overseers in the different districts are facilitated by the early passing of the Registration Bill; and, whether he can give an opportunity for the consideration of that measure as reported from the Select Committee?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am quite aware that the hon. Member opposite has very good foundation for putting this Question, and we are most anxious not to lose a moment in proceeding with the Registration Bill—I mean any moment such as is fairly at our disposal for the purpose. In truth, nothing but the consideration of that urgency would justify our ceasing to proceed with the Report of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. What we propose is, to go on to-night with the Irish and Scotch Registration Bills, with a good hope that we may be able to dispose of those measures at the present Sitting. If we should not so dispose of them to-night, we shall go forward with them on Mon-

  1325
  day, and do what may remain necessary so far as the Committee stage is concerned. But there was an arrangement last night that, if it were not an inconveniently late hour, the Report of the Vote of Credit should be brought on. Probably it may be wished that that should not be long postponed. The arrangement failed last night in consequence of the prolongation of the debate on the Financial Statement of my right hon. Friend; and therefore we should be quite willing to adhere to the same arrangement for Monday night, and not proceed with the consideration of the Registration Bill later than 10 o'clock, in order to bring up the Report on the Vote of Credit. After that we should wish to proceed at the earliest moment with the English Registration Bill, the urgency being very great. Indeed, I am informed that the operation of registration cannot be efficiently performed if there is any serious delay in the passing of those Bills.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman contemplates in regard to the English Registration Bill. I understood him to say that if the Scotch and Irish Registration Bills were finished to-night, the English Registration Bill would be taken first on Monday, with the intention of suspending the discussion upon it at 10 o'clock. But supposing the Scotch Bill, which stands second today, is not finished to-night, will it be taken first on Monday? If so, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the English Registration Bill after the Scotch Bill on Monday, or will he be disposed to take the Report of the Vote of Credit?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly; we shall be very glad—and we believe it to be in the public interest, if it should be generally satisfactory to the House—to proceed with all the three Registration Bills in succession in the stage of Committee. At the same time, we desire to consult the convenience of the House as to the mode of proceeding.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It will be very inconvenient if there is no definite statement as to what is really to be done on Monday; because, when the Committee on the Irish Registration Bill arrived at a certain decision last Friday, the Prime Minister moved to report Progress on the ground of the
  1326
  very important change made in the Bill, stating that he desired to have time to consider the matter, and to convey to the House the intention of Her Majesty's Government. That was an important announcement; and this evening the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has informed us that the statement will not be made until Monday, as I understood, upon the English Registration Bill. At any rate, my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) has given Notice that he will raise on the English Registration Bill precisely the same question which was considered of such grave importance by the Prime Minister when decided against the Government on the Irish Registration Bill. All we ask for is full notice when the English Registration Bill is really to be taken, in order that so important a matter may be fairly discussed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have said already that we wish to consult the convenience of the House; and we are very desirous, if the House should be so disposed, to go forward with these measures. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that I deemed it necessary to take time, in consequence of the vote which was given the other night on the Irish Registration Bill. We have taken time to examine the matter, and we have observed what happened in 1868, and we are prepared to make a proposal which we believe will be equitable and suited to the circumstances of the case. I apprehend, as regards the reference lately made to the 6th clause, that that clause having been amended in Committee on the Bill cannot be again taken up. We must go forward with the clauses, and anything to be done with the Irish Bill must be done on the Report. Should the statement of the Government not be satisfactory to the House at large on Monday, we should certainly make no attempt to force the English Registration Bill on that day, but would postpone it till Tuesday.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked after what hour the Scotch Registration Bill would not be taken that night? He would remind the House that the Bill was only circulated on the morning of the day on which it was read a second time, and that a promise was given that an opportunity would be

  1327
  given in Committee for discussing the various points arising.
  MR. BUCHANANasked whether, if the Bill came on that night, the Government would defer taking the new clauses, which were very important, and of which the Lord Advocate had placed no fewer than six on the Paper that morning?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Lord Advocate would be better able than he was to answer those Questions. He had had no communication with his right hon. and learned Friend on the subject. At the same time, he understood there was a general unity of feeling prevailing with regard to the Scotch Bill, and if that was so they should be disposed to go forward with it. If that was not so, however, he did not think the Lord Advocate would press the matter unduly at an inconvenient hour.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Do I rightly understand the right hon. Gentleman to state that in the event of any matter of controversy arising on the English Registration Bill it will be placed as the first Order on Tuesday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is so. On Monday we will not proceed with it if our statement should not be satisfactory to the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: And it will be the first Order?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think I may say it would be the first Order on Tuesday.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that, seeing the Lord Advocate now in his place, he would ask whether it was the intention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to proceed with the Scotch Bill at any hour that night; or whether, considering the understanding given out on the occasion of the second reading, that due opportunity would be given, for discussing the points that might arise, it would be postponed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that if there was anything really contentious in the Bill, of which he was not aware, they should be glad to defer to the wishes of the House. He did not believe it would be found that there was anything contentious.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Will the Bill come on at any hour?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Yes.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the proposal in regard to the double lodger qualification was peculiar to Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): No, Sir. The proposal simply adopts the words of the English Registration Act. It was introduced in the English Act in 1878, and we merely propose to apply the same to Scotland.
  MR. HEALYasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he would insert a similar provision in the Irish Act?
  [No reply.]

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked, Whether it was to be clearly Understood that the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be taken on Thursday week?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS),in reply, said, that the second reading would be taken on Thursday week, and the Bill would be in the hands of Members in a few days.

  CENTRAL ASIA—AFGHANISTAN.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether any news has been received from Afghanistan?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I am not aware that any information has been received.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 110.]
  (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. HEALYrose to a point of Order. He wished to ask whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland was correct in stating that the Question, "That Clause 6 be added to the Bill," had not yet been disposed of?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that it would still be necessary to put that Question.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHremarked that the clause as it now

  1329
  stood was perfect nonsense; and surely, if the first part were allowed to stand in the Bill, the Government would consent to strike out the last four lines, which really meant nothing at all. After the first part had gone it would be impossible to retain the last.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that it would be necessary to leave out the remainder of the clause, seeing that in the shape in which it now stood it was not intelligible. What had already been done was to omit the first part, upon which the second depended.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would be prepared at the proper time to omit the remainder of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, that Clause 6 be amended by leaving out all the words after "Dublin," in line 21, down to the word "order," in line 26.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HEALYremarked that what had occurred on Thursday week rendered it undesirable to retain any part of the clause. He would ask the Chief Secretary if he proposed to bring up a new clause?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that on Monday he would be able to state what it was the Government proposed to do. It would certainly be necessary to bring up a new clause.
  MR. HEALYasked if it would be necessary to re-commit the Bill for that purpose?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he thought it would be necessary to re-commit the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had intended to move the omission of the clause; but after the statement of the Chief Secretary he did not propose to do so. He would suggest, however, that the most convenient course would be to strike out the clause altogether, so as to enable the House to discuss the new clause which the Government proposed to bring up in Committee.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that a point of Order had been raised by the answer of
  1330
  the Chief Secretary. Would it now be possible in Committee to put in a new clause? His own opinion was that it would not be possible in Committee, but that it should be done on Report. He should like, therefore, to be informed, as a point of Order, whether the new clause could be inserted in the Bill in Committee, either by re-committal or otherwise? He thought himself that no charge could be imposed upon the Poor Law Guardians in Committee.
  Clause struck out.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 7.—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following clause:—
  (Power to appoint additional revising barristers.)
  "The Lord Lieutenant may, if he thinks it necessary, appoint one or more barrister or barristers, of not less than six years' standing at the bar, to act with the chairman or revising barrister of any county or borough in revising the list of voters in such county or borough in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five.
  "The chairman, or revising barrister, and the person or persons so appointed, shall arrange for the distribution between them of the business of such revision.
  "Every barrister so appointed shall have the same powers and authorities in every respect in regard to such revision as a chairman has under the Registration Acts, and shall be paid as remuneration for his services, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, such sums as the Lord Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
  "In any county or borough in which more revision courts than one are appointed to sit at the same time it shall be lawful for the clerk of the peace, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, to nominate a person to attend before any of such courts other than that before which such clerk of the peace himself attends, and to discharge the duties imposed by law upon the clerk of the peace in respect of such revision.
  "The person so appointed shall be paid, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, such remuneration for his services as the Lord Chancellor with the sanction of the Treasury may determine."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  MR. HEALYsaid, that this was a very important clause: and he wished

  1331
  to remark with regard to it that, while he was perfectly content with the action of Her Majesty's Government in introducing a clause for the appointment of these additional barristers to assist when it was necessary in the work of revision; while he considered it was a very proper thing for them to do, and that they deserved consideration on that account, at the same time it was very necessary for Irish Members to know who those Revising Barristers were to be, If they were to assent to the clause without having that information, they would be, so to speak, "buying a pig in a poke." The Boundary Commissioners had been appointed without their knowing anything about them, and the Nationalist Party were now smarting under their action; and if those Revising Barristers were appointed in the same way they might be quite unable to fight any registration cases that required to be contested. There was nothing which the people in Ireland felt so keenly interested in as this question of Revising Barristers. People were sometimes kept waiting about the Court for a week; and if a man did not happen to be present when his name was called his case was passed over, although if, as was sometimes the case, the Revising Barrister was a fair man, he would allow a little law. In his own neighbourhood the Revising Barrister was a man of over 80 years of age, and quite unable to take cognizance of what was going on in Court; and he believed that 30 years ago he sentenced a man to be hanged for stealing a cow. He would like to know who those barristers were to be? He and his hon. Friends did not care very much about any of the four Provinces of Ireland in this matter except Ulster; and with regard to the matter he did not think that he should be inclined to throw any additional expense upon the Treasury. He thought it would be quite unnecessary to give additional assistance to the Revising Barristers, except in places where there would be contests; and the Government might make up their mind that in Munster, Leinster, and Con-naught, the people would be put on the Electoral Roll en bloc. But in the Ulster counties the case would be very different. In respect of the other 24 counties of Ireland, therefore, he thought the Government might save their money. In the counties of Cavan and Monaghan
  1332
  there would be no fight; but in Tyrone, Armagh, Donegal, Derry, the Western Division of, Down, and in Fermanagh there would be enough work for three or four Revising Barristers in each case; every vote would be regarded as if the Election itself depended upon it. Therefore he repeated that it was in those counties in which would arise a conflict at election time that the Government should provide additional assistance for the Revising Barrister. Take the case of Mr. Piers White. Well, he was an extremely able lawyer for whom he had the greatest respect, and certainly well qualified for the position that had been assigned to him; but it was well known how political rewards were given in Ireland; and if his appointment dated from the time when he jerrymandered the divisions of Irish counties, then he thought that the people of Ireland would have a very strong suspicion in his case. In the same way with regard to barristers to be appointed under this Act. They had no security for the confidence they were asked to place in them; they had no guarantee and therefore could not trust them; and unless they saw their names in black and white, and ascertained what kind of men were to be appointed, they would be passing this clause blindfold. He trusted they would have some statement before the Bill left the House with regard to the barristers to be appointed. It was a question which affected the barristers themselves equally with Irish Members, and it was one on which he contended that all parties interested ought to be satisfied.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was glad that the Government had presented to the Committee an elastic clause like the present, because it was obvious that, as had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), the work to be performed by the Revising Barrister would vary greatly in the different counties of Ireland. There were some counties in which the work must be very laborious, and where in consequence the work of the Revising Barristers would extend over a period of, perhaps, six weeks, or, at all events, a considerable time, and unless they gave all the assistance they could to the County Court Judge he would not be able to get through his business at all—it would be impossible for him to do the work

  1333
  well. He was glad to see that the Government proposed to take powers not to appoint one man only in each county, but two or more as they might think fit and the exigencies of the work might demand; and he would not be surprised if it were found that the provision made for some cases, in the first instance, required to be considerably supplemented. He did not ask the Government to create any army of assistance for the County Court Judge and burden the country with the cost, because it would be probably unnecessary; but there should be sufficient assistance to enable him to do his business properly. As urged by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan there would be strong contests in some places in Ireland, and it was likely that districts where the Legal Advisers of the Crown would seek, election would be keenly contested—and it was in such places that additional assistance would be largely required. It was desirable that in every place they should have a clean Register; and it would not be reasonable to expect that the County Court Judge should dispose of thousands of fresh names that would be put on the Register as the result of recent legislation without any assistance or extra remuneration. Therefore, where there was any kind of political contest, it was for the Government to see that the provision of the Act of Parliament was adequately carried out, and that as far as might be there was a pure Register, and that he said in the interest both of electoral law in Ireland, and also in the interest of the County Court Judges. The County Court Judges did not receive large salaries; they had to perform a great deal of the judicial work of the country, and it would not be fair to give them a great increase of work without giving them corresponding remuneration, or what was the equivalent to it—that was to say, taking care that their extra work should not be allowed to interfere with the remuneration they were in the habit of getting and which they had a right to expect. With regard to what had been said as to putting in the Bill the names of 12 barristers of the Irish Bar who commanded universal confidence amongst Parties in Ireland, if that were to be the settlement of the matter accepted by the Government, he would wait compliance with it almost with a feeling of intense curiosity. He was
  1334
  well acquainted with the Irish Bar and had great respect for its members, no matter of what creed or politics they wore. He thought it would hardly be possible for the Government to name a considerable number of barristers of six years' standing and upwards to discharge this duty—at any rate the list would be an exhaustive one. He thought that, in the first instance, the Government should only name as many Assistant Barristers as they considered to be absolutely necessary, but reserve power to themselves to extend the list as far as experience showed it to be desirable to do so, and that they should waive all political feeling in their selection. Therefore, if it should be necessary to move a statutory provision in the way indicated, he thought it would be well to trust in this as in many other cases to the discretion of the Executive. The Committee were all watching to see that the Government did not appoint rabid partizans on any side to exercise this function, and it was the duty of the Government to find fair men of good professional character who would be anxious honestly to carry out the provisions of this important Act of Parliament.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not consider that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had fairly represented the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). They all agreed that some such provision as that contained in the present clause would be necesary in Ireland in certain cases. The number of those cases could be ascertained with tolerable certainty. He believed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken would not say that, except in the County and City of Dublin and in Ulster, there would be any contest between the two English Parties. The general impression in Ireland was, that neither the Liberal nor the Tory Party would be interested to any extent in any election outside Ulster, except that in the county of Dublin. He did not think that in the other cases the work of the Revising Barristers would be great, or that the salaries of the County Court Judges need be increased. He believed that, except in the case of Dublin, they would be able to get through their business without extra remuneration. In Ulster

  1335
  they would require assistance—particularly in respect of those counties with, regard to which questions had been raised in that House during the passage of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill—that was to say, the counties that had been jerrymandered in order to procure a Party triumph. In those counties thousands of people would flood the Registers—objections would be taken on various grounds to many of them, and the work of revision would be protracted, and the County Court Judge would want assistance. Probably about 10 appointments would be requisite in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that the Government should not put the names in the Bill; but the Irish Members had never asked for that. They asked that before the Bill passed out of the hands of Parliament the names should be communicated to the House; or, if the actual names were not communicated to the House, at any rate that a list should be made out on the assumption that 10 appointments were to be made, and that they should have a list of, say, 20 names out of which the Government would make their selection. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get a dozen names of barristers whose appointment would not provoke general hostility; he (Mr. Sexton) believed it would not be difficult to get the names of such persons, especially amongst those barristers of more than six years' standing whose political passions, it was only reasonable to suppose, had been somewhat mellowed by time. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that those men could not be found? There were more than 400 practising barristers in Ireland, and surely there were a dozen men amongst them who had not taken up any violent position in politics, and who, although they should not command general confidence, might at least be appointed by the Government without provoking hostility. He asked whether the Government would not make the arrangement proposed, and submit a list to the House of persons to assist the County Court Judges in Ireland? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a suggestion which he (Mr. Sexton) regarded as worthless, and which he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman him-
  1336
  self suspected was not very valuable. He had spoken of the check that would be afforded by public opinion. But of what use had public opinion been to them? Irish Members had been trying throughout the passage of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill to reverse the tricks of the Boundary Commissioners in jerrymandering the counties in the North of Ireland. They had public opinion with them—they had 75 per cent of the Irish electorate with them; but public opinion was of no use to them as a check on power, and it was so, because, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew, the check of public opinion was perfectly worthless whenever a Party cry was raised on any question in Ireland. Now, Irish Members on those Benches could not accept the check of public opinion, for the reason that it did not operate in that House; and the only security they could accept as being in any way satisfactory was the security that would be afforded by a list of unexceptionable barristers under the Government guarantee.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was afraid that what the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had suggested was hardly practicable; he did not know that the course proposed by the hon. Member had been followed in any case of the kind. Where Commissioners were specially mentioned in Bills the case was altogether different; but certainly he could not find that there was any precedent for doing what was now asked for, where it was merely laid down that certain additional officials should be appointed in order to carry out general duties proscribed in a Bill. He need hardly say that the Government would not in those appointments be influenced by any of the motives suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). As occasion arose, so would additional Revising Barristers be employed in the counties in which their services might be required, although he was afraid that any assurance which he could give would be of very little value in the eyes of the hon. and learned Member so far as this subject was concerned. The only object and desire of the Government was to have competent persons to do the work impartially and thoroughly. The hon. and. learned Member asked if the Government would give a guarantee? Well,

  1337
  he was afraid they could give no guarantee except the assurance he had given, that they had no intention of doing anything unfair in this matter. If they could find impartial gentlemen qualified for those appointments—and, personally, he should be surprised if such could not be found—they would employ them. But two things were necessary—first, that they should be impartial; and, next, that everybody should think that they were impartial. He was not quite so sanguine about securing the second of those conditions as he was with regard to the first; but he could assure the hon. and learned Member that no effort on their part should be spared to find men in both respects, suitable for this difficult position. The Government were fully impressed with the necessity of having persons who were free from suspicion, especially in the cases of the counties alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, in which there was, no doubt, a strong feeling as to the state of the Register.
  MR. LEWISthought that if they could not trust the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to select, out of 400 practising barristers, those 12 or 18 persons to act for a week, or a fortnight at most, in certain counties of Ireland, the sooner they displaced him the better. He did not suggest for one moment that the interests of any Party were likely to be damaged by this very important provision. He thought it likely that some 20 barristers, perhaps, would get 50 or 60 guineas for a week or ten days' work, and that, as in his own county so with others, they would not probably be required at all; and the number of counties in which additional Revising Barristers would be needed would, in his opinion, be very limited. No doubt there were some constituencies to be found, even in Ireland, which would return Members who would vote for what was called the English Party, and who represented those who still adhered to the Union. He thought that objections might be offered to their being on the Register by the so-called Nationalist Party; but whatever the duties of the additional Revising Barristers were, they would only extend over a short space of time, and he thought it was reducing legislation to a farce to ask the Government to give before the Bill was passed the names of the persons who might be employed,
  MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had gone out of their way in anticipating that the Revising Barristers would be ill-advised enough to be guilty of any act of partizanship with regard to the registration of voters. He thought those hon. Members might feel some interest in hearing from those who had had large experience in matters connected with registration that there was no such thing as partisanship on the part of Revising Barristers in England. He spoke as one who had been a Revising Barrister for many years, and had had much experience not only as to the feeling and disposition of barristers of his own political opinions, which would be little to the point, but with respect to the feeling of those of all parties; and he believed there was no such thing known as partizanship on the part of Revising Barristers from one end of the Kingdom to the other. When a young barrister was appointed to the position his one anxiety was that his decisions should be received with respect—that they should be given according to law, and with an entire absence of partiality to any political Party whatever; his great point was that his decisions should be legally correct, and not such as to be over-ruled by the Court above, and that he should establish his name and reputation in the Courts of Law as a sound lawyer. That, at any rate, was the case in England; and now with regard to partizanship amongst the Irish barristers. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Healy) desired to have the names of the persons to be appointed to assist in the work of registration in order that their qualifications might be discussed by politicians, a course, in his opinion, that would be derogatory to their position as judicial officers, and not likely to bring about any useful result. He (Mr. H. G. Allen) ventured to repeat, that any such feeling as partizanship was unknown amongst Revising Barristers in this country; and, from what one knew of members of the Irish Bar whom they met in the English Courts of Law and at the social tables in the Inns of Court, he did not think that they differed from Saxon barristers very much in that respect. For himself, he should have thought that the Lord Chief Justice of

  1339
  Ireland would have been a better authority than the Lord Lieutenant in whom to vest those appointments; but, however that might be, he trusted and felt full confidence that all sinister predictions as to partizanship on the part of Irish Revising Barristers would be entirely falsified. He had made these remarks, because he believed that the revision of voters in Ireland had been hitherto in hands of Chairmen of Sessions and County Conrt Judges, and that the appointment of Revising Barristers, of which there was so much experience here, was, as yet, an untried mode of proceeding there.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken might be summed up in the words—that the British Constitution was the law in England, but not in Ireland. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) thought it would be all right if the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had the appointing of those barristers. But they knew very well that the Government did not care for their opinion, or for the opinion of the majority of the people of Ireland; the only question they asked themselves was, "How will the Tory Party view our conduct?" They had to please the Tories in this matter. And it would be just the same with the Revising Barristers as it had been with the appointment of the Boundary Commissioners. Some hon. Gentleman—a Member of the Tory Party—would probably go to Dublin Castle and see the Irish Solicitor General, and describe a friend of his as being an admirable person for the post of Revising Barrister; then someone would meet the Solicitor General for Ireland in the street and give the individual's name, and say "he is a member of our Club," and in that way the appointment would be made. As to telling Irish Members that the most impartial persons would be appointed, it bad no weight with them whatever. He would not go into details; but he should like to hear the Solicitor General for Ireland get up and justify at the Table of the House an appointment made last year. The Solicitor General for Ireland would not deny that he got a Bill passed in the House last year under a promise, and that subsequently that promise was broken, owing to the intervention of Earl Spencer. That was the state of
  1340
  things they had to contend with; and with regard to those appointments, Earl Spencer would take out a list of Freemasons, and barristers who were Freemasons would be appointed; he would look up the men who belonged to Orange Lodges and appoint them. There would be no such thing as deferring to public opinion in the matter. He repeated that that was how those affairs were managed in Ireland; and if the Solicitor General for Ireland would challenge him as to what happened last year in Dublin Castle, be ventured to say that the statement he should make would surprise the Committee a great deal. Under the circumstances, Irish Members felt that they ought to have some guarantee with regard to the appointments in this case. How was the Boundary Commission appointed? The Tory Party got its representative upon it, and likewise the Whig Party; but the Party who had three-fourths of the representation of the country were not allowed to have a single man to represent them on that Commission. When they came to the House next year the work of the Revising Barristers would be a thing of the past, a new Parliament would have been elected, and if Irish Members had cause to complain of the action of the Revising Barristers, and put forward their complaint in that House, the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench would simply laugh in their faces. Irish Members felt that they could not allow the seats in Ireland to be subject to a second course of jerrymandering; and therefore he again urged upon the Government to consent to give the names of the barristers to be appointed to assist in the work of revision before the Bill left the House.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that his experience of such matters was that in former days in Ireland appointments of a legal character were made by the Attorney General or Solicitor General, who exercised the patronage, although the Lord Lieutenant or any other layman might nominally hold the position of making the appointments. He was sorry, however, to see that Attorneys General and Solicitors General did not maintain their position as they bad been accustomed to in former days, when they would not have allowed a Cabinet Minister to interfere with them in the duty which they had to perform in that

  1341
  House. He believed that these appointments would be made by those who were best qualified to make them by their knowledge of the legal position and intelligence of those whom they appointed. He thought that hon. Members opposite below the Gangway were living in a fool's paradise. Ulster had always been the special seat of disorder, at least of political and religious strife in Ireland, and in many constituencies probably throughout the three Provinces hon. Gentlemen opposite would be indulged with a contest. They seemed to think that, with the exception of the county of Dublin, there would be a lullaby all over three Provinces in Ireland at the coming General Election, and that no assistance would be required from the Revising Barrister or the County Court Judge, who in Ireland was always the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, although that was not the case in England. Hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to think that only one state of political feeling would prevail in Ireland; but he had often heard the name of "progress" used, and when the new constituencies were formed there was certainly no guarantee that a good many of the Nationalist Representatives, as they called themselves, might not be replaced by the labourers themselves. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it would not be in Order to follow up the allusion of the hon. Member to the labourers' question; but he noticed that it had received a cheer from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). He presumed that the hon. Member meant to insinuate that the cause of the labourers had not received sufficient attention from those Benches.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN: Until lately.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORimagined that, in the opinion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), the Labourers Bill would already have become law if it had not been for the obstruction of two hon. Gentlemen sitting on his own Benches. No one would dispute the good intentions of the hon. and learned Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen); but, at the same time, the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman showed invincible ignorance. The Irish Revising Courts were altogether the reverse of those in England.
  1342
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Revising Barristers of England were anxious to discharge their duties with thorough impartiality, that they avoided everything which bore the semblance of partizanship, and that they were kind and courteous to everybody who appeared before them. It was very different in Ireland, and he would say that there were no tribunals even in that country which gave grosser instances of partiality and partizanship than the Revising Courts there. He was prepared to justify his statement that the only way in which the Irish Courts of Revision could be properly described was by applying to them epithets which were the complete antithesis of those which had been applied by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Revising Barristers' Courts in England. He would suggest that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) should enlarge his demand, and not only ask the Chief Secretary to name the 14 gentlemen who were to be appointed Revising Barristers in Ireland, but require that they should be all Englishmen, because in that case the Irish people would have a far better guarantee of the impartiality of the tribunal. [Mr. LEAMY dissented.] His hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. Leamy) dissented from that view. He could fully understand the feeling of his hon. and learned Friend. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the Legal Profession in Ireland; and, no doubt, if he were appointed, they might depend upon the impartiality of the tribunal. But in Ireland it would be impossible to obtain the services of such men, and he (Mr. O'Connor) was prepared to stand by his opinion that the people would have a far better chance of securing fair treatment from English Revising Barristers than from those selected by the Lord Lieutenant and the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland. There was too much cause for suspicion that barristers appointed by Earl Spencer would, in collusion with the agents of the Tory Party, manage to deprive a large number of persons of their votes. He might, perhaps, be allowed to refer to a circumstance which occurred some time ago. Under the Registration Law, every person who desired to get upon the Register was

  1343
  obliged to give personal attendance; and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) well knew from personal experience, a man who preferred a claim was sometimes required to be in attendance for three or four days, yet if he happened to go out of the Court for a few minutes and his name was called in his absence, a partizan Revising Barrister deprived him of his vote. There was another fact he would mention. Sometimes a man whose name was objected to was actually in Court, but, owing to the mumbling way in which his name was read over, he was unable to answer to it, the name was passed over, and in that case also the voter was deprived of his rights. Those were some of the scandals which occurred in Ireland every time a Revising Barristers' Court was held; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen), with his kindly feeling, came forward to tell the Committee that the Irish Members were rather too severe in their estimate of the character of the Revising Barristers appointed to act in that country. He thought that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was perfectly justified in pressing the matter upon the attention of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who by that time had acquired perfect command over his Parliamentary demeanour, had used language which no one would better appreciate than the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself; but, nevertheless, there was a public opinion in Ireland, although with perfect certainty they might lay down the rule that whoever might be appointed by Earl Spencer to act as Revising Barrister would not be amenable to it. The Chief Secretary would be able very easily, between that and the further stages of the Bill, to prepare the names of 12 or 14 gentlemen for appointment as Revising Barristers, and if he would not put them into the Bill he might state them to the House. If there were anything like fairness in the selection, the right hon. Gentleman might rest assured that no factious opposition would be raised to them by the Irish Members.
  MR. FINDLATERregretted that the experience of his hon. and learned Colleague, for the very short period since he
  1344
  had joined the ranks of the Irish Bar, had been such as to induce him to say that its members were likely to be actuated by partizan motives in discharging the duties of Revising Barristers.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had not made any assertion of the kind.
  MR. FINDLATERsaid, the Committee had generally understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say so. No doubt many generalities had been stated; but he had not heard a single case adduced by hon. Members opposite of any injustice done by members of the Irish Bar when placed in judicial or quasi- judicial positions. His knowledge of that Bar was much longer than that of his learned Colleague; and he must say that in the whole course of his experience of over 30 years, he never knew anything of the kind to occur. The best proof he could offer of his hon. and learned Colleague's having made a charge, such as he alleged, was that as an illustration of what might be expected from the barristers who would be appointed by the Government, the name of Mr. Piers White had been referred to, and he was charged with having manipulated some of the Northern constituencies when acting as a Boundary Commissioner. He had been acquainted with Mr. Piers White for years, and he was satisfied that everyone who knew that gentleman must have formed the highest opinion of his character and of his ability to do any work that might be intrusted to him. He was a splendid lawyer, with an eminently judicial mind, occupying the very highest position at the Bar, a man of profound culture, and quite incapable of such practices as were attributed to him. If anyone would look at the map of Ireland which had been published some time ago in connection with a certain newspaper in which his hon. and learned Colleague was largely interested, and which purposed to show the constituencies which would return Nationalists at their next Election, they would notice that all of it, with the exception of a small portion at the North-East corner, was coloured green, the national colour; so that, notwithstanding the charges made against Mr. Piers White, it was plain the Nationalist Party expected to carry nearly the whole of the country, and that the imputations were the merest clap-trap. ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing another Bill, and is, therefore, out of Order.
  MR. FINDLATERsaid, that his principal reason for rising to take part in the discussion was to defend the members of the Irish Bar from the attack which had been made upon them. He had had very much more experience of the Irish Bar than his hon. and learned Colleague; and he was proud to say that he had had most intimate and friendly relations with some of the most eminent men at that Bar. He believed there was no member of it who was not actuated by as high motives as the Sister Bar of this country, and who was not altogether incapable of the improper conduct which had been suggested.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that the hon. Member had, as usual, shown his ability to misunderstand a perfectly clear statement. All that was asked was that impartial men should be selected for those appointments, and there was no aspersion upon the character of the Irish Bar in making that request. His hon. Colleague had shown himself incompetent to understand the nature of the argument.
  MR. FINDLATERvery much regretted that his hon. and learned Colleague had brought in the name of Mr. Piers White as that of a gentleman who had been engaged in "jerrymandering" the constituencies. The hon. and learned Member had referred to that gentleman as an illustration of what the gentlemen appointed by the Government were likely to be. As to the flattering comments of the hon. and learned Gentleman upon his own capacity, he could only say "perhaps he was not such a fool as he looked."
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he understood the proposal to be that the names of the barristers who were to be appointed to act as Revising Barristers should be submitted to the House. He wished to know if that was the practice in appointing Revising Barristers in England? If it was not, there could be no reason for doing so in the case of Ireland; and, therefore, there was no ground for the extraordinary proposition which had led to this extremely unnecessary and unpleasant discussion.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the request made to the Government was not that the
  1346
  names of the Revising Barristers to be appointed in Ireland should be submitted for the approval of Parliament, but that they should be made known to Parliament. So far as Mr. Piers White was concerned, he had not been accused of "jerrymandering" one constituency, but of "jerrymandering" six or seven.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would press the demand he had made that the names of the Revising Barristers should be made known before the Bill became law. It was true that there were many barristers in Ireland who, if appointed, would act in a fair and impartial spirit; but it was also true that in Ireland, as in other countries, there were barristers who could not be regarded as impartial. As that was specially the case in Ireland, what the Committee had to consider was not whether gentlemen of sufficient impartiality could be obtained, but the character of the person or persons who were to appoint those legal gentlemen. It was proposed in the new clause submitted by the Chief Secretary that—
  "The Lord Lieutenant may, if he thinks it necessary, appoint one or more barrister or barristers, of not less than six years standing at the Bar, to act with the Chairman or Revising Barrister of any county or borough in revising the list of voters."
  The simple fact that by this proposal the power was to be placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant was quite sufficient to arouse the suspicion and hostility of the Irish Members. He had not the slightest hesitation in saying that the very fact of the appointments being in the hands of a man of the character and position of the present Lord Lieutenant was sufficient to induce the Irish Members to oppose the clause. It was altogether preposterous that appointments of so important a character should be left to the Lord Lieutenant. The Revising Barristers would have to perform most important public duties in connection with matters that were of the highest interest to the Irish representation; and that being the case, the people of Ireland and their Representatives ought to have some influence over the appointments made. The very least the Government could do was to place the names of the persons they proposed to appoint before the House, so that if there were

  1347
  any objections they might be duly ventilated. Certainly they were bound to oppose the proposal to leave the whole matter in the hands of a man like Earl Spencer, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy) would divide the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Informalities in Registration shall not affect validity of Register.)
  "As regards the registers of voters to be made in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, no election shall be questioned by reason of any error or informality whatsoever in relation to the forming, printing, publishing, revising, or completing the lists of voters, or the register of voters, for any county or borough, or by reason of any matter or thing not having been done within the time limited by law for that purpose. The signature of the chairman or revising barrister, or his deputy, to such register shall be conclusive evidence that such register has been in all respects duly made and revised, at the time and in the manner prescribed by and in conformity with the Parliamentary Registration Acts and this Act."
  (Collectors shall give assistance in serving notices.)
  "The collectors of poor rate in a union shall assist the clerk of the union in carrying into effect the duties imposed upon the clerk by the ninth section of 'The Representation of the People Act, 1884,' by serving the notices mentioned in that section and otherwise."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, this was an extremely useful clause, as far as it went, and it enacted the important principle that no Register should be rendered invalid on account of any informality. The effect of the clause was to guard against informalities or irregularities in the forming, printing, and completing of the Register by officials; but he thought it ought to be extended by preventing the disfranchisement of persons who through mistake or ignorance did not comply with all the required formalities. He held in his hand a copy of a form issued in Ireland, which was of a most complicated and troublesome character. It referred to—
  1348
  "Property in respect of which the person making the return is rated or liable to be rated."
  An expression very vague, and not easy to understand. Even an educated man might fill that column in in a manner that would not be perfectly formal or in accordance with the Act. The second column required the situation or description of every dwelling to be given "as defined by the Representation of the People Act;" and the third required the "surname and other name" to be given of every man who was on the 15th July in the English Act, but in this on the 20th, and—
  "Up to the date of the return, an inhabitant occupier of any dwelling house in the second column."
  He wished to know what the meaning was of inserting in the Irish Bill a different day for the qualification to take effect from that in the English and Scotch Bills? It might be a mistake, and, if so, he hoped it would be rectified; but his contention with regard to these forms was that they were too complicated, and that the uneducated Irish voter would not find it easy to fill them up according to law. His hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet) had shown him a form which he (Mr. W. J. Corbet) had filled up himself, and it was no easy matter to comprehend how such a form was to be filled up with strict accuracy. He was satisfied that a great many mistakes would be made; and he maintained that, unless there was a desire to see a great number of voters disfranchised, they must extend the scope of the forms, simply because in their present condition any man, however fairly and honestly he might desire to fill them up, would find it exceedingly difficult to do so. He complained, further, that the forms, although printed with the same object, were not uniform in substance; and he thought there ought to be a penalty subjecting any Clerk of the Union or other official who proceeded contrary to the Act to dismissal. It was of no use to say that the Clerk of the Union must do a certain thing unless they made the law effective by imposing a penalty.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)pointed out that non-compliance with the forms would not disfranchise the voter or invalidate the election. The clause simply

  1349
  declared that the signature of the Revising Barrister to the Register should be conclusive evidence that the Register had been in all respects duly made and revised, at the time and in the manner prescribed by and in conformity with the law. The validity of the former would not depend upon anything it was the duty of the Clerk of the Union to provide for, but rather upon the machinery for obtaining the necessary information. He did not think any difficulty would arise from any informality in connection with the printed forms.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  MR. HEALYexpressed a hope that the Government would issue stringent instructions to the Union officers. The letter of the Chief Secretary was very good as far as it went, but it did not go far enough. Would the Government take steps to inform the Poor Law officers in Ireland that they would be acting at their own peril if they refused to carry out the requirements of the Act?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that proper care would be taken to see that the law was carried out.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he should certainly press a clause for the dismissal of any Poor Law officer who acted contrary to the provisions of the Act.
  MR. HEALYwished to point out that unless the agents of the National Party were allowed to see the rate-books in the present month of May, they might as well give up the fight. They had applied to the Clerk of the South Dublin Union for permission to look at the ratebook, but had been refused, although the privilege was at once conceded to the agents of the Conservative Party, even in the presence of the other side. He had those facts in his pocket in a sworn information. He thought, however, it would be better to deal with the matter in a new clause; but he wished to know what undertaking the Government would give that they would have the subject properly attended to, and would support the insertion in the Bill of some provision of this kind? All he asked was that equal facilities should
  1350
  be given to the agents of both political Parties.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANremarked, that if the hon. and learned Member should communicate to the Government the facts in his possession, they would be inquired into. He remembered some days ago receiving a mysterious telegram containing a number of statements which were perfectly unintelligible to him at the time, but which he had no doubt now related to the matter referred to by the hon. and learned Member. He would promise directly he was put in possession of the facts of the case to have them thoroughly inquired into.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that was the third time a complaint had been made to the Government of practices of this kind in connection with the Dublin Unions—not in the time of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary, but of his Predecessors. It was alleged that names were left out which ought to appear on the books. Chapter and verse had been given to the President of the Local Government Board in Ireland; but it was found impossible to obtain one single atom of satisfaction, and the Clerk of the South Dublin Union was still flourishing and carrying on his malpractices. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman would support a clause to prevent those practices in future? He had no wish unduly to trouble the right hon. Gentleman, because he knew the Government were anxious to get on with the Bill; but the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps allow him to read a short extract from a letter on this subject. It was from the County of Dublin Registration Association, and it stated that on Monday week two persons called upon the Clerk of the South Dublin Union and requested to see the Rathmines rate-book. They were told they could not have it, as he was using it himself, and they asked for another book, which they were allowed to see. On the following day they again asked for the Rathmines book, and were again refused, and upon asking when they would be permitted to see it, they were told "Not for a month at least." It was scarcely necessary to remind the Committee that to be of any service at all the rate-books must be examined in the month of May. The letter went on to say that the agents of the Association

  1351
  spent the two following days at the office of the Clerk of the Union examining other books under the impression that the one for Rathmines was not to be bad, when, much to their surprise, they saw two men from the Constitutional Club march into the room in which they were writing with the Rathmines book in their possession. Those circumstances required no commentary from him. He would only add that the National Party bad long been complaining of the conduct of the Clerk of the Union.
  MR. LEWISsaid, the question now under the consideration of the Committee was whether a new clause should be added to the Bill, which provided that informalities in the registration should not affect the validity of the Register; but the hon. and learned Member had been calling attention to some alleged misconduct on the part of the Clerk of the South Dublin Union. He really did not see bow they were to make progress with the Bill if those digressions were to be allowed.
  MR. HEALYcontended that his remarks were perfectly regular, seeing that one part of the clause was to provide that the Poor Rate collectors should assist the Clerk of the Union in carrying into effect the duties imposed on the Clerk by the Representation of the People Act of last year.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in regard to an alleged infringement of the principles of this clause. I see nothing irregular in that.
  MR. HEALYsaid, be would not trouble the Committee further. His only object had been to impress upon the Chief Secretary the necessity of seeing that equal treatment was meted out to the agents of both political Parties in regard to the inspection of the rate books. If the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiry, he would find that the Constitutional Club obtained possession of the Rathmines rate-book, whereas the Clerk of the Union refused to allow the agents of the Dublin Registration Association to inspect it.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he would inquire into the matter if the hon. and learned Member would give him the particulars.
  MR. HEALYpromised to place the right hon. Gentleman in possession of the sworn information.
  MR. GIBSONremarked, that it ought to be known that the Clerk of the Union had important duties to perform, which required him to examine the rate-books himself.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the only comment he would make upon the remark of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that the necessity for examining the rate-book himself did not account for the Clerk of the Union banding it over to the agents of one Party and refusing it to those of the other. The complaint was that both Parties were not treated alike, but that the rate-books bad been dealt with to the advantage of one side and the damage of the other. He would ask, as a matter of information, whether the Government could extend the period for the inspection of the rate-books, so that disfranchisement might not result from want of time?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that it was intended to extend the time by an additional six days; but be did not think it would be necessary to make provision for any further extension of time.
  MR. P. J. POWERwished to point out that already some of the officials in the different Unions in Ireland bad taken action in the matter. A Board of Guardians with which he had some connection bad three weeks ago moved in the matter, and yet they told him that it might be impossible for them to comply with all the necessary formularies in the time fixed by the Act. And yet the Waterford Union stood in an exceptionally favourable position, seeing that they had already taken steps. Many other Unions had taken no steps whatever, and if those who bad moved already found it difficult to comply with the provisions of the law, it would be absolutely impossible for others less favourably situated to perfect the arrangements by the proper date. Under those circumstances, he hoped the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would receive the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill,
  MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 1, after Clause 1, to insert the following Clause:—
  "For the purposes of the household qualification created by 'The Representation of the People Act, 1884,' separate rating of a dwelling-house, or part of a dwelling-house, separately occupied, shall not be necessary to entitle the inhabitant occupier of same to be registered as a voter in respect thereof."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the proposal virtually amounted to an interpretation of an Act passed only a few months ago— the Representation of the People Act. He altogether protested against it, and would remind the Committee that it was not sought in the same way to interpret the Act so far as England and Scotland were concerned. He should be glad to learn what the Government intended to do in the matter?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the matter had been carefully considered in regard to Ireland. This law was only extended to that country by the Act of 1884. A doubt had been raised whether separate rating of a dwelling-house, or part of a dwelling-house, separately occupied, was necessary to entitle the inhabitant occupier to be registered, and after careful consideration the Government had come to the conclusion that such a doubt should not exist in Ireland. The question would be rendered quite clear by the insertion of this clause.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that by this clause they were dealing in a Registration Bill with a question altogether outside registration, and there was no similar clause either ill the English or the Scotch Act. He should certainly indicate his dissent from the adoption of the clause, although he would not say that he would put the Committee to the trouble of a division. It was, however, in the last degree unsatisfactory that a matter entirely outside the scope of registration should be illegitimately inserted in a Registration Bill. Whatever might be the merits of the clause, it had no right to find a place here.
  MR. MACARTNEYpointed out that it was common in Ireland to have two
  1354
  habitations under the same roof, which were really separate residences of equal value. How would the clause apply to such a case? One of the occupiers might pay his rates, and then be made liable for the other.
  MR. LEWISremarked, that the Representation of the People Act was either complete or it was not, and he could not believe that it was necessary to supplement in another and a distinct Bill the provisions of a measure passed so recently as three or four months ago. The present proposal virtually amounted to the insertion in a Registration Bill of an Interpretation Clause to the Representation of the People Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)concurred with the view which had been expressed by the Solicitor General for Ireland. The only object of the clause was to make the law perfectly clear, and to prevent future litigation.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the clause simply amounted to a declaration of the law upon a point that was now vague.
  MR. MACARTNEYremarked, that what was desired in Ireland was that the law there should be assimilated to that of England and Scotland.
  MR. LEWISsaid, the House had hitherto sheltered themselves under the ample folds of the Attorney General, who they believed to have been responsible for the drafting of the Representation of the People Bill. They now understood from the hon. and learned Gentleman that after all the labour which had been bestowed upon it by the House and the officials of the Government the provisions of that Bill were ambignous. He deeply regretted that announcement; but he thought it followed that for the sake of safety a similar provision should be inserted in the English Registration Bill. He protested against the attitude taken by the Government, and thought that it was most inconvenient to amend in a Registration Bill any defects in the Representation of the People Act of 1884.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that England and Ireland stood in a different position in regard to registration. The Act of 1878 applied to England and not to Ireland, and the object of this clause was simply to make it clear what the law was, so that no difficulty might

  1355
  arise when the Revising Barristers held their Courts.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and aided to the Bill.
  MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Correction of list by Revising Barrister.)
  "Where, on the revision of the list or lists of voters for any county, city, town, or borough in Ireland, the matter stated in a list or claim, or proved to the revising barrister in relation to any alleged right to be on any list, is, in the judgment of the revising barrister, insufficient in law to constitute a qualification of the nature or description stated or claimed, but sufficient in law to constitute a qualification of some other nature or description, the revising barrister, if the name is entered in a list for which such true qualification in law is appropriate, shall correct such entry by inserting such qualification accordingly, and, in any other case, shall insert the name with such qualification in the appropriate list, and shall expunge it from the other list, if any, in which it is entered."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, this was a clause taken from the English Act of 1878, and the only question which arose was whether it was not desirable to add to the clause as it stood on the Paper Sub-section 13 of the English clause. He would suggest that that addition should be made.
  MR. HEALYassented.
  Clause, as amended, read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had intended to move the omission of Clause 6 for the purpose of proposing the insertion of a clause to remunerate Clerks of Unions and Poor Rate collectors for the duties imposed on them by the Registration Acts; but as the Government intended to bring up a clause dealing with the question, he would not move it.
  MR. SMALL MR. SMALL moved to amend Clause 5 by adding to the end of it words requiring the Town Councils or the Town Commissioners of the Irish boroughs to divide such boroughs into polling districts in the manner most convenient for taking the votes of elec-
  1356
  tors. The smallest of the nine boroughs left in Ireland would have at least 3,000 voters, and it would be very inconvenient indeed to have 3,000 voters polling at the same place. It was therefore advisable, he thought, to give to the Town Councils power to divide the boroughs into polling districts, either alphabetically—although that might, perhaps, be inconvenient—or otherwise.
  New Clause:—
  (Town Council and Commissioners may divide boroughs into polling districts.)
  "Not later than one month after the passing of this Act, the Town Council or Town Commissioners of each of the other boroughs in Ireland shall respectively take into consideration the division of the borough into polling districts, and shall respectively divide such borough into polling districts, in such manner as may be most convenient for taking the votes of electors, and in such manner that as nearly as possible an equal number of voters may be allotted to each polling district,"—(Mr. Small,")
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the hon. Member would observe that in the Bill provision was made for the division, by the Town Councils, of the boroughs of Dublin and Belfast into wards. The reason of that was that those boroughs had already been divided, and, therefore, it was necessary to make provision for them. It was not considered necessary to make provision for the other boroughs; but as Dublin and Belfast were already divided it was necessary to provide for polling places there.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, there seemed to have been some misconception with regard to this clause, as it had been read a second time, although the Solicitor General for Ireland opposed it as unnecessary.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 29; Noes 80: Majority 51. — (Div. List, No. 146.)
  MR. SMALLsaid, he would now move the second Amendment that stood in his name—namely, the insertion of a new clause after Clause 7, for the purpose of providing that—
  "The treasurers of the counties of Down and Armagh shall repay to the Town Commissioners of Newry such sums respectively as shall bear to the entire expenses of the revision of the voters' lists for the borough of Newry the same proportion as the number of electors of the borough qualifying out of premises outside the municipal boundary of Newry, in the counties of Down and Armagh, bear to the entire number of electors of the borough, and the Town Commissioners shall not be liable to contribute any sum towards the expenses of the revision of the voters' lists for the counties of Down and Armagh."
  It appeared to him that it would be only quite fair that the Town Commissioners of Newry should pay the cost of revising the list of voters as far as those voters were resident within the limits of the borough of Newry, and that it would be very unfair to call upon that body also to pay the expenses of revision in the case of those voters who resided outside the limits of the borough and in parts of the counties of Down and Armagh, and who contributed towards the taxation of those counties. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had a similar proposition on the Paper with reference to the City of Dublin and the county adjacent, the question which arose in that case being exactly the same as that which had arisen in regard to the borough of Newry, except that Newry extended into two adjoining counties instead of one. If this clause were not accepted the town of Newry would not only have to pay the cost of the revision of the borough list of voters, but also a portion of the cost of revising the voters' lists for the two counties of Down and Armagh. That, he thought, would be an injustice to the ratepayers of Newry, and it was to remedy that injustice that he proposed the present Amendment. He had no reason to anticipate that the clause would meet with any opposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, inasmuch as it merely dealt with a state of affairs which ought never to have arisen. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would display a more generous spirit than to oppose the clause.
  New Clause:—
  "The treasurers of the counties of Down and Armagh shall repay to the Town Commissioners of Newry such sums respectively as shall bear to the entire expenses of the revision of the voters' lists for the borough of Newry the same proportion as the number of electors of the borough qualifying out of premises outside the municipal boundary of Newry, in the counties of Down and Armagh, bear to the entire number of electors of the borough, and the Town Commissioners shall not be liable to contribute any sum towards the expenses of the revision of the voters' lists for the counties of Down and Armagh,"—(Mr. Small,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the case of Newry was one that had been very curious to deal with. It was not an analogous case to that of Pembroke, for while the borough of Newry ran into two different counties it did not, in so doing, present anything like a well-defined area. It was proposed that where the borough of Newry overlapped the counties of Down and Armagh, the Grand Juries of those two counties should provide for the cost of revising the voters' list; but at the same time the hon. Member, in making that proposal, had not stated out of what fund the money should come. It would no doubt be hard upon the borough of Newry to have to pay the expense of revision in the case of those voters who resided beyond the municipal limits; but it would be still harder to throw the cost on those who inhabited parts of baronies in the two counties, where the area was part of a county barony but also part of the borough of Newry. In such a case, the question was who ought to pay the expense of revision? Was it to be the inhabitants of the borough, or was it to be the inhabitants of the barony outside, who had nothing to do with the registration affecting the borough? It seemed to him that of the two propositions the more reasonable one would be to throw the expense on the inhabitants of the borough, because the borough would certainly have the benefit to be derived from the inclusion of the additional electors. With regard to the other proposal of the hon. Gentleman, he could not see what connection it had with this subject, and he did not think there was anything to be

  1359
  found in the Bill that would warrant an arrangement of the land proposed.
  MR. SMALLsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman fully understood the local bearings of the matter, and there could be little doubt that in the present instance there had been an oversight. The right hon. Gentleman had asked out of what fund the money was to be paid? The answer was, out of the general fund of the county, of course. The borough of Newry was quite willing to continue its liability with regard to anything within the municipal limits; but they asked the county to resume their original liability with regard to anything out of the municipal boundaries. All that was asked by this clause was a simple act of justice, and it was no part of the bargain that Newry should pay the expenses of revising lists of voters for those who resided outside the municipal boundaries. With regard to the second part of the question, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could really be of opinion that it was quite fair that the borough of Newry should pay for the revision of the county lists.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, as a Grand Juror for the county of Armagh, he believed he might state that a bargain was made between the town of Newry and the county of Armagh, in which specific conditions were laid down; and it was now proposed that those conditions should be got rid of by a side wind It seemed to him that such a proposition was most unfair. With regard to the question as to the difference in the expense being borne by the borough or the county, he thought it only right to point out, as a matter for the consideration of the Committee, that while there were a great many voters for the county of Armagh who resided in Newry, there were no voters for Newry who resided in the county of Armagh.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Maccartney) had ventured on a mere assumption of his own.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I think I remember.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. Gentleman now thought he remembered.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I am sure I do.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. Member was improving as he went on,
  1360
  and presently, in all probability, he would swear he remembered; but until the Committee had something better than the statement of the hon. Gentleman before them, he (Mr. Healy) should be very sorry to act upon it. He would, however, offer a suggestion which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would be prepared to accept. The Government had proposed to adopt a remedy in the case of Dublin which was very similar to that of Newry; but, as usual, they had not put the matter in an intelligible and practical shape. He had been about to draw the attention of the Government to this question, and to ask them to state what their proposals really were. He thought the Government ought to say at once that they would bring up a new clause, under which it should be provided that no one area should have imposed upon it the preparation of the list of voters belonging to any other area. Surely one set of people ought not to be called upon to bear the expense that ought to be de-frayed by another set of people. His hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Small) was a member of the Town Council of Newry, and therefore understood the matter with which he proposed to deal; and he (Mr. Healy) felt well assured that unless there was much better evidence of a contract between the borough of Newry and the county of Armagh than the "I remember," or "I think I remember" of the hon. Member for Tyrone, that House would not be disposed to do what would really amount to the perpetration of an injustice towards the borough of Newry. The Government, ought, therefore, to say definitely that one area should not have a claim to make charges of this sort on another area, involving financial relations of a character which he could not understand.
  MR. LEWISsaid, it seemed to him that the Government ought to deal with questions of this kind, instead of leaving them to be dealt with by Amendments and proposals from all parts of the House. It was for the Government to take the responsibility in regard to those things upon themselves, and they ought to satisfy themselves before the Report as to what ought really be done. But, instead of taking those matters entirely under their own

  1361
  charge, the Government accepted all sorts of Amendments moved by individual Members. That was a most unsatisfactory way of doing business, and he should oppose the Amendment on that ground.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not propose to supplement the arguments that had been brought forward in reference to the case of Newry; but he desired to point out that with regard to the case of Dublin the grievance was undeniable and required a remedy.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, there was a proposal on the Paper dealing with the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
  MR. MACARTNEYsubmitted that instead of proposing the clause as it stood the hon. Member for Wexford ought to propose an Amendment providing that the Town Commissioners of Newry should not be liable for any revision expenses in connection with the adjoining counties.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that was what the clause proposed. He wished to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he would, on the Report, bring up an omnibus clause that would deal fairly with the whole question?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, in his opinion, the cases of Black Rock and Pembroke were quite different.
  MR. GIBSONventured to say that the question under discussion was not a matter of controversy as affecting one side of the House and the other; and they appeared all anxious to do the best they could in regard to it. He understood that some statement had been made to the effect that there might have been a contract on the subject as between the borough of Newry and the adjoining counties. He did not know how far that was so, but, at any rate, they had heard the arguments used on behalf of the borough; and, on the other hand, the other areas that would be affected had a right to be heard, and as the matter was not one of controversy, but one that might be settled between then and the Report in a peaceful way, he would suggest that the clause should be withdrawn, that the treasurers of the counties of Down and Armagh, who understood the question, should be consulted, and that, after it had been thoroughly investigated and a fuller knowledge of
  1362
  its merits arrived at, the Government should deal with it on Report.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had no objection to the adoption of the course suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). The only objection he could see was that the area outside the municipal boundary of Newry was not a very well arranged area in itself.
  MR. SMALLsaid, he was willing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) and to withdraw his Amendment with the intention of bringing it up again on the Report stage, on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would consider the matter in the meantime.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he had upon the Paper a clause intended to enable the Lord Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, to grant to the County Court Judges such remuneration and assistance for the first sitting for the registry of voters after the passing of this Bill as might be deemed just; but he found that he was unable to move it. He hoped, however, that the Government would take care that the duties of the County Court Judges should not be substantially infringed, and would modify their labours as much as possible by availing themselves of the powers already given for the appointment of a sufficient number of Revising Barristers to obviate any difficulty that might otherwise be experienced.
  MR. MACARTNEYhoped the Clerks of the Peace for the counties would not be forgotten.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he had now to move the clause which stood on the Paper in his name. The clause was one that dealt solely with frivolous objections to voters, and the point involved had already been fully debated in that House. He thought that the existing state of the Law of Registration in Ireland had been well and truly described by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, when he had said a worse system of registration it would be impossible to find, inasmuch as by its operation in that country, particularly in regard to the number of frivolous objections, thousands of men were deprived of their

  1363
  rights of citizenship. As the law at present stood, instead of affording facilities to claimants to be put upon the lists of voters, it placed every obstacle in the way of their getting on the Register. The result was that in the Irish Registration Courts claimants attended, day after day, for the purpose of sustaining their claims until they became wearied out and gave up the attempt in disgust, and either went back to their homes, or, as the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had stated, were absent from the Court at the time their names were called, and thus were struck out of the list, without any means of obtaining redress. Thus, after having waited for several days, and incurring considerable expense, they failed entirely in their object, and went home in disgust. It was pretty well known that for a man to get his name on the Register in Ireland was almost an impossibility and the next thing to a miracle, and any man who wanted to look after his business, and who did not mix himself up in politics, would not attend the Revision Courts and subject himself to all the trouble and worry thereby entailed. The consequence was that the hired and paid objector had only to invest a few shillings in postage stamps, and to send out notices of objection broadcast, and his object was secured, because the persons objected to, although their names might have been passed by the collectors and Clerks of the Peace, would not put themselves to the expense and trouble of attending the Courts for the purpose of substantiating their claims. That House had recently passed a measure designed to enfranchise the Irish people; but unless an amendment of the law as to registration were made so as to put a barrier in the way of frivolous objections, the people of Ireland would not obtain that measure of enfranchisement which it was the object of the Representation of the People Bill to confer. He contended that it was the duty of the Government to give the people it was intended to enfranchise every opportunity of being put upon the Register. The main feature in the clause he now moved was that the ground or grounds of objection should be specifically stated in the notice of objection, and it was also proposed that no person objected to should be required to give evidence in support
  1364
  of his claim otherwise than in regard to the points of objection specified in the notice; but this was not a part of the question immediately before the Committee. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to assist the Committee in the endeavour to put an end to the frivolous objections against which the clause was directed, and he hoped the clause would meet with acceptance at the hands of Her Majesty's Government.
  New Clause:—
  Prevention of frivolous Objections.
  (Notices of objection shall state grounds of objection. See 28 and 29 Vic. c. 36, s. 6.)
  "Any notice of objection given under sections twenty-six or thirty-six of 'The Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1850,' to any person on any list of claimants may be given according to the provisions of either of those sections respectively; but, with that exception, no notice of objection given under the said Act to any person upon any list of voters shall be valid unless the ground or grounds of objection be specifically stated therein; and this provision shall be deemed to be sufficiently satisfied by naming the column or columns of the register on which the objector grounds his objection, and any objection grounded upon any one of the said columns shall be deemed a separate ground of objection, and such notice may be according to the form in the Schedule to this Act annexed, or to the like effect, in substitution for the forms numbered (12) in Schedule (A) and (15) in Schedule (B) respectively to 'The Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1850,'"—(Mr. T. A. Dickson,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANexpressed his assent to the clause, and reminded the Committee that the clauses put on the Paper by the hon. Member (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had been embodied by the Government in a Bill that had left that House two years ago.
  MR. LEWISsaid, these new clauses offered another illustration of the practice by which the Government fathered Amendments without taking upon themselves the responsibility of proposing them. The assumption was that these clauses were to assimilate the law of Ireland with that of England; but the assumption could hardly be made good, because the Government had already assented to an Amendment to this Bill with regard to the receipt of medical relief that made a wide difference between the law of Ireland and that which

  1365
  was retained in England. The clause now under consideration went far beyond anything that prevailed in England. It was only with regard to county voters that there was any such requirement in the English law, and the reason was that when they were dealing with county votes all sorts of questions as to freeholds and so forth arose. With regard to borough votes, however, the case was more simple, and the questions arising were of a very different order. He thought that that was a remarkable instance of the Government allowing other persons to do what ought to be their business. That being a Government Bill, the House ought to have the benefit of the Government responsibility in regard to important proposals, which ought to be brought forward by their Law Officers instead of being left in the hands of private Members. The effect of this clause if carried would be to run far ahead of the law of England by requiring in the case of boroughs that all notices of objection should set forth the different grounds of objection. The Act of 1878, no doubt, was the Act which regulated the registration in boroughs. He had searched through the clauses in the endeavour to discover anything which required the grounds of objection to be stated, and had failed in his attempt. He thought, therefore, that this was inapplicable to boroughs, at any rate, though there was no ground for it in the counties.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he wished to endorse the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson). On a former occasion when the subject was under consideration he had mentioned a remarkable fact in connection with himself. For 10 years, owing to frivolous objections, he had never been able to get his name upon the Register of the county of Dublin. He had never been able to attend personally, and in consequence of that fact and other circumstances he had never been put on the Register.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that the clause proposed would make the law of England and Ireland identical, as would be seen on reference to Clause 26 of the Act of 1878. That clause required that in the notice to be given in the case of borough voters the objection should be stated specifically.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that on a former occasion he remembered the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) making some remark as to this system of objection. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out that this proposal left too much power in the hands of the officials, and he (Mr. Healy) was to a certain extent inclined to agree with him, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward any Amendment for the purpose of providing that Union officials who corruptly discharged their duties should be punished, he (Mr. Healy) would be glad to support him. He thought that a clause of this kind, which gave power to Union officers to put on the Register whomsoever they liked, ought to be tempered with some penal provision to the effect that, if it was found—as had been found in the case of the South Dublin Union—that people were put on the list who were never in the district at all, the officers who were guilty of such misrepresentation should be heavily punished. The Committee was familiar with what had occurred in the South Dublin Union—names had been put on the Register fraudulently, and it could not be for a moment contended that it happened from accident. He confessed that, whatever might have been the state of the case previously, he (Mr. Healy) was not so enthusiastic as to this provision as he was two or three years ago; in fact, he had been not ungrateful to the House of Lords for having rejected the Bill in 1883. He believed it would have been impossible for them to have worked the County Dublin had the House of Lords passed it. In his own case in the county of Monaghan the Register would have been against him under the £12 franchise if this clause had been carried. He certainly viewed with apprehension this power given to the Union officials in Ireland to make themselves Returning Officers in counties and boroughs unless some severe penalty were provided for fraudulent entries. As to one detail of this clause, it would prevent frivolous objections to voters, but it did nothing to prevent frivolous objections in the case of claimants. Yet the next proviso was that all "persons"—claimants as well as voters—should not be required to give evidence except in so far as such

  1367
  right was called specifically in question by the notice of objection. That appeared to him to be somewhat extraordinary, and he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland as to this point, whether this was not inconsistent?
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that having seen the Registration Act worked, he might say that when a man was put upon the voters' list, he could not be struck off unless evidence were given that he had no qualification; but when a man was on the claimants' list, he then had to prove his possession of a qualification, and that made all the difference. A man could not be struck off unless substantial proof were given in Court that he had lost his qualification.
  MR. CALLANasked, how the hon. Member would deal with the supplementary lists, which were most important?
  MR. T. A. DICKSON: They are lists of claimants.
  MR. CALLANsaid, they were not; and that showed how little the county Members understood this question. The claimants' lists and the supplementary lists were quite different. The rule in Ireland was that if a man was on the electoral list he could not be displaced unless it were proved that he had lost his qualification. A claimant could be obliged to prove his claim; but there was another important list—namely, that which was called the supplementary list—a list of those whose names were brought forward for the first time, who had not been electors in the previous year, and who were obliged, even if there were no objection lodged against them and even though they were on the list of poor-rate payers, to prove their claim. Vexatious objections might be raised to that list, and the onus of proof should be on the objector, and not upon the person who was not a claimant, but had been put upon the list by the rate collector. His (Mr. Callan's) contention was that, unless there were objections raised to those persons being put upon the list, they should be put on as a matter of course.
  MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, that the law really was this—and it had been found a very salutary one—that those who came as claimants to be placed upon the list for the first time, never having been on it before, were required, in answer to
  1368
  an objection made generally, to prove their title. After that, any objection made against them must include substantially the specific grounds of objection. When a man had once got upon the Register, it required a very strong case to strike him off. The Amendment before the Committee would assimilate the law of Ireland upon this subject to that of England, and he had much pleasure in supporting it.
  MR. FINDLATERsaid, that he could speak from experience of the necessity of making perfectly sure that, when an objection was taken to a name of a voter being placed upon the list, the person raising the objection should be subjected to the payment of costs.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he objected to the scheme and scope of this Bill being diverted from what it was stated it was to be by the Prime Minister and those who were responsible for the Registration Bills. They had been told that Registration Bills would be introduced for the three countries to apply the existing registration machinery to the electorate manufactured by the Reform Bill. It was not the intention stated by the Prime Minister and the Government, and it was not in accordance with common sense that in the Bill relating to one of the three countries the opportunity should be taken of not only in-introducing a machinery registration measure, but also a Reform Registration Bill. The clauses now under discussion were really Reform Registration Clauses, and were, therefore, outside the scope of what the Bill should be. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) and his hon. and learned Colleague who sat upon the Opposition side of the House (Mr. Healy), so far as he (Mr. Gibson) could see, the clauses of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) did provide that as to objections taken to names already on the voters' list, those objections should be specific and detailed. That was the way he (Mr. Gibson) took it; he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had considered the matter, and had put his own construction on it. The proper reading was that the notice of objection having been given, all the grounds of objection should be specifically and plainly stated. Both Members for Monaghan seemed to

  1369
  desire that, and therefore he would not take objection to it.
  MR. CALLANasked, whether in the proposed new clause any distinction had been made between the list of claimants and what was called the supplementary list? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) appeared to be ignorant on that subject.
  MR. GIBSON: Oh, no; I understand it perfectly well.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly familiar with the point, and what he (Mr. Callan) said was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be ignorant. In Ireland there were three lists published. First, that of the people whose names were on the Register for the preceding year; and if any objections to the voters whose names had appeared on that list were taken, it was necessary for the objectors to show that the voters had lost their qualification before they could be displaced. But then there was the supplementary list, which was a primâ facie list of those entitled to be on the Register. Supposing a man died and his son who inherited his name was put on, or supposing a man inherited or was entitled to be put on by marriage, his name was put on that list. The name of such person would be put on the Register without any proof whatever, and the person would become an elector unless his claim was disproved. But if he received a notice of objection three months before the month of October, the onus was put upon him to come forward and prove his claim. The result was that whenever any voter in Ireland died, or any of his connections from whom he inherited, a three-fold objection was made against him, and he was compelled to come and uphold his right. That list was very different to the list of claimants—so essentially different that he should not like to vote with the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan on the question of claimants. On all matters affecting Party in Ireland the Conservatives were able to use an elaborate and efficient organization, and to lodge a number of objections to the supplementary list. Every name that appeared on the supplementary list was objected to, in the hope that the person would not be able to prove his claim. In that
  1370
  manner the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Corry) and others of his class succeeded in striking from the Register in Belfast and other places, for their own purpose, the names of a great many artizans. The supplementary list was only a list of those who, by marriage, inheritance, and so on, came upon the list; and he (Mr. Callan) would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to place his foot down and say that those who came on the supplementary list should be placed in the same position as those who were already on the list of voters. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to express his view upon this matter. The list of the Clerks of Unions should be taken as a primâ facie proof of a man's title to the franchise.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER.)said, that anyone who had studied the Act of 1850 would know that it included those persons on the Register of the previous year and on the supplemental list.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he did not pretend to understand this matter; he thought that any voter should have a right to object to a perfectly new claimant who had not been on the list before without being obliged to serve notice of objection. He would allow anyone in Court to object. As it was, all three Parties, the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the Nationalists, objected, each being obliged to throw away a 3d. stamp. Why should they not allow anyone to object —why throw away those 3d. stamps? It only gave the Revising Barristers more work to do. Claimants were bound to be objected to in that roundabout way, because, unless objection had been previously taken, it was not possible to put a question to them in Court. If the Solicitor General for Ireland would refer to the fifth line of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), he would observe these words—
  "But, with that exception, no notice of objection given under the said Act to any person upon any list of voters shall be valid unless the ground or grounds of objection he specifically stated therein."
  But later on they intended to provide that objections against all "persons." that was claimants included, should state the grounds of objection. With regard to the first part of the provision,

  1371
  he would suggest, as he had already stated, that anyone should have the right primâ facie to object to the claim of a person to be put on the Register without it being necessary to provide these 3d. stamps. If that were not done, people would object to a claimant without knowing anything about the matter, simply to be on the safe side and to assist the Revising Barrister in doing his duty.
  MR. CALLANasked how the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) proposed to deal with voters on the supplementary list to whom objection might be taken? Would those persons whose names were in the voters' list of another Union stand in the same valid position as they did in the voters' list of the previous year?
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the supplementary list might be shortly described as a record for the use of the Clerk of the Union of persons debarred from voting for one cause or another. He wanted those persons who appeared on the supplementary list to be protected in the same way as the voters on the previous Register were protected.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)suggested that the clause should be allowed to pass, and that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) or the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) should raise their objection to it, if they had any to raise, on the Report stage.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he did not raise any objection whatever to the clause. As a matter of fact, he had always objected to the supplementary list. He objected to the supplementary list in his own county; he objected to the name of anyone who was unfavourable to him, and thereby put him on the proof. He regarded it as a most unfair thing; but, at the same time, it was a facility afforded him by the law as it now existed. He wanted to do away with that; and he remarked that however objectionable it might be when it was a question of 200 or 300 names, it would be far more so when there were 2,000 or 3,000 to deal with. There were two official lists published, and he wanted to call the attention of the Solicitor General for Ireland to this fact. One was the official list of the voters of the previous year. For instance, if an election took
  1372
  place this year there would be the official list published of persons on the Register for 1885; that was sent to the Clerks of the Unions in the month of July, and that person put objections against the names of persons on various grounds. Then there was what was called the supplementary list, which contained the names of persons entitled since the previous year to be on the Register; that was dealt with by the Clerk of the Union in the same manner as the ordinary list. In the case of objection being raised to anyone on that list, he must prove his right to vote; whereas he (Mr. Callan) contended that the onus of proof ought to be placed on the objector. He thought that common sense demanded that a change should be made in this matter.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  New Clause:—
  (Costs to be awarded not to exceed £5. 28 and 29 Vic. c. 36, s. 14. 13 and 14 Vic. c. 69, s. 62.)
  "The sum ordered to be paid by way of costs shall not upon any one vote exceed the sum of live pounds, and the sixty-second section of 'The Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1850, shall be read as if the words five pounds had been substituted therein for the words 'twenty shillings,'"— (Mr. T. A. Dickson,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  MR. HEALYsuggested that the clause should not be put in this form so far as the present Motion was concerned. It would be better that the clause should be put as far as the words "five pounds" in the second line.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  New Clause:—
  (Proceedings on objections. 13 and 14 Vic. c. 69, s. 55. 41 and 42 Vic. e. 26, s. 28.)
  "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in 'The Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1850,' where any person whose name is on any list of voters for a county, city, town, or borough (not being a list of claimants), is duly objected to by some person other than the clerk of the peace, the clerk of the union, the poor rate collector, or the town clerk, the county court judge, chairman, or revising bar-

  1373
  rister, whether the person objected to does or does not appear before him, shall, before requiring it to be proved that the person objected to is entitled to have his name inserted in the list of voters for such county, city, town, or borough, or expunging such name, require prima facie proof to be given to his satisfaction of some ground of objection against such person, and, for the purpose of determining whether such prima facie proof is satisfactory, shall examine the collectors of poor rates, clerk of the union, or any other person who may be present, touching the truth of the alleged ground of objection, and if such prima facie proof is not so given to his satisfaction, he shall retain the name of the person objected to in the list of voters,"—(Mr. T.A. Dickson,)
  —brought up, and read the first and second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  MR. LEWISsaid, that this provision was meant to apply to persons who would now come upon the list for the first time as well as to old voters. It was capable of so much misuse that he proposed to add to the clause an Amendment to the effect that the section should not apply to any objection where the person objected to was on the list of voters in respect of a qualification for which he should not have been registered on the list of voters for the present year. It was necessary that there should be a clear line of demarcation between the old list and the new with regard to the costs of objections. As to the form that had to be handed in by occupiers relating to sub-tenants, he did not believe that one Member of the House out of 50 could of his own motion fill it up properly; anything more technical or misleading to be placed in the hands of persons deficient in ordinary intelligence and experience could not be conceived. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that the question as to what constituted a dwelling-house had been raised in the Courts of Law, and that the decision had ultimately turned on whether the chief occupier or landlord resided on the premises or not. This form then assumed that the person was acquainted with an abstruse point of law, and the result must be that vast numbers of those forms would be filled up ignorantly, and a great number of them improperly. He believed that persons would be put on who might have been in occupation only a week, and many who were not in oc-
  1374
  cupation of a dwelling-house at all. His Amendment was to prevent manipulation, either by ignorance or fraud, by enacting that the stringent provision that the objectors should prove their objection primâ facie should not apply the first time a name appeared on the list. He believed that it would be obvious to the Committee that it was desirable that that addition should be made, and he could see no reasonable objection to it, because it was hostile to the interests of no Party. His contention was that the onus should not be shifted, and that it was fair that it should remain where it was at present in the case of new voters.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause, at end, add—
  "But this section shall not apply to any objection where the person objected to is on the list of voters in respect of a qualification for which he shall not have been registered on the list of voters for the present year."—(Mr. Lewis.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the Amendment would nullify what the Committee had already agreed to, and he could not, therefore, agree to it.
  Amendment uegatived.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New Clause:—
  (Power of revising barrister to summon witnesses.)
  "A revising barrister may by summons under his hand require any person to attend at the court and give evidence or produce documents for the purpose of the revision, and any person who, after the tender to him of a reasonable amount for his expenses, fails so to attend, or who fails to answer any question put to him by the revising barrister in pursuance of this section, or to produce any document which he is required in pursuance of this section to produce, shall be liable to pay a fine not exceeding five pounds and not less than twenty shillings. Such fine may be imposed by the revising barrister at his discretion, and may be recovered in the same manner as any other fine imposed by 'The Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1850, is now by law recoverable,"—(Mr. Healy,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the contingency contemplated by the hon. and learned Member was suffi-

  1375
  ciently provided for by the 56th section of the Act of 1850. He did not think, therefore, that the clause was necessary, and he suggested to the hon. and learned Member that it should not be pressed.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, as a matter of fact, when a County Court Judge summoned a witness, and he did not attend, no further steps were taken. Dozens of cases of that kind occurred; and the Judge would not compel the witnesses to attend. If notice was issued, he thought that they ought to be compelled to attend.
  MR. HEALYpointed out that, as the matter now stood, a witness who happened to be hostile had only to get up when he liked and walk out of Court.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked why, if, as the Solicitor General for Ireland had stated, this was provided for in the Act of 1850, it was necessary to provide for it again in the English Act of 1870?
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he could see no possible objection to repeating in the Irish Act what was already in the English Act.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would not press his objection to the Amendment.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  New Clause:—
  (Costs of appeal.)
  "The costs of an appellant against a decision of a revising barrister may, if the appeal is successful, be ordered by the court hearing the appeal to be paid by the clerk of the peace or town clerk named as respondent in the said appeal, whether he shall or shall not appear before the said court in support of the decision.
  "For enabling an appellant to obtain such an order he may, at or before the time of making his declaration of appeal under section fifty-eight of 'The Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1850,' require the revising barrister to name the clerk of the peace for the county, or the town clerk for the parliamentary borough or municipal borough, as the case may be, to which the appeal relates, to be respondent in the appeal.
  "The revising barrister if so required shall, and in any case may, name such clerk of the peace or town clerk, as the case may be, to be respondent in an appeal, either alone or in addition to any other person referred to in section fifty-nine of 'The Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1850.'
  1376
  "The expenses properly incurred by a clerk of the peace or town clerk as respondent, including any costs which he may be ordered to pay to the appellant in any such appeal, shall be allowed to him as part of the expenses incurred by him in respect of the revision of the list to which the appeal relates. The costs of an appeal against the decision of a revising barrister shall be in the discretion of the court hearing the appeal,"—(Mr. Healy,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New Clause:—
  (Rate-books may be amended.)
  "The board of guardians of any poor law union may from time to time amend any rate made for such union by virtue of the Acts for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland, by inserting in the rate-book the name of any person claiming and entitled to have his name therein as owner or occupier, or by inserting therein the name of any person who ought to have been rated, or by striking out the name of any person who ought not to have been rated, or by raising or reducing the sum at which any person has been rated, if it appears to the board that such person has been underrated or over-rated through clerical errors, or by making such other amendments therein as will make such rate conformable to the said Acts; and no such amendment shall be held to avoid the rate: Provided always, That every person aggrieved by any such alteration shall have the same right of appeal there from as he would have had if his name had been originally inserted in such rate, and no such alteration had been made; and as respects any such person the rates shall be considered to have been made at the time when he recived notice of such alteration, and every person whose rates are altered shall be entitled to seven days' notice of such alteration before the rate shall be payable by him,"—(Mr. Healy,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he did not think this clause was germane to the subject of registration.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he appealed to to the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this Amendment in a fair spirit. It was not a matter that had anything to do with Party considerations; he might call it an all-round matter. If a wrong existed, as was admitted, now was the time to amend it; and that was what his clause was in-

  1377
  tended to do. There was no power invested in the Board of Guardians to make the alterations in question, and as he had shown that no Party considerations were involved, he hoped he should receive the support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis).
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was utterly at a loss to know why his name should be dragged into the discussion on every Amendment relating to those matters. It was always the same; whether he spoke, or whether he was silent. It was said he agreed to this, and did not agree to that, even when he had never opened his lips on any matter. However, looking at this question, he was inclined to agree with the Solicitor General for Ireland that the Amendment was not in the slightest degree germane to a Registration Bill. It might be open to examination and discussion if it were brought forward on a Rating Bill; but he was bound to say that his hon. and learned Friend was justified in taking objection to the introduction of the Amendment on such a Bill as the present, and that objection he felt bound to support.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would not press the Amendment, but would ask why a Bating Bill was not introduced, seeing that it was admitted that his Amendment was germane to a Rating Bill?
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  New Clause:—
  (Duties and powers of court of revision.)
  "The court shall, with respect to the lists of Parliamentary voters which it is appointed to revise, perform the duties and have the powers following:
  "(1.) It shall correct any mistake which is proved to have been made in any list;
  "(2.) It may correct any mistake which is proved to have been made in any claim or notice of objection;
  "(3.) It shall expunge the name of every person, whether objected to or not, whose qualification as stated in any list is insufficient in law to entitle such person to be included therein;
  "(4.) It shall expunge the name of every person who, whether objected to or not, is proved to be dead;
  "(5.) It shall expunge the name of every person, whether objected to or not, whose name or place of abode, or the nature of whoso qualification, or the name or situation of whoso qualifying property if the qualification is in respect of property, or any other particulars
  1378
  respecting whom by law required to be stated in the list, is or are either wholly omitted or in the judgment of the revising barrister insufficiently described for the purpose of being identified, unless the matter or matters so omitted or insufficiently described be supplied to the satisfaction of the court before it shall have completed the revision of the list in which the omission or insufficient description occurs, and in case such matter or matters shall be so supplied the court shall then and there insert the same in such list;
  "(6.) It shall expunge the name of every person, whether objected to or not, where it is proved to the revising barrister that such person was, on the twentieth day of July then next preceding, incapacitated by any law or statute from voting;
  "(7.) Before expunging from a list the name of any person not objected to, the court shall cause such notice, if any, as shall appear necessary or proper under the circumstances of the proposal to expunge the name to be given to or loft at the usual or last known place of abode of such person;
  "(8.) Subject as herein and otherwise by law provided, the court shall retain the name of every person not objected to, and also of every person objected to, unless the objector appears by himself or by some person on his behalf in support of his objection;
  "(9.) If any objector other than the clerk of the peace, town clerk, or a clerk of union, or collector-general, so appears, the court of revision shall require him to prove that he gave the notice or notices of objection required by law to be given by him, and to give prima facie proof of the ground of objection, and for that purpose may examine and allow the objector to examine any clerk of union, collector-general, or other collector of rates, or any other person on oath touching the alleged ground of objection, and unless such proof is given to the satisfaction of the court, the court shall, subject as herein and otherwise by law provided, retain the name of the person objected to;
  "An objection made under this Act by a clerk of union, collector-general, town clerk, or clerk of the peace, shall be deemed to cast upon the person objected to the burden of proving his right to be on the list;
  "The primâ facie proof shall be deemed to be given by the objector if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court by evidence, repute, or otherwise that there is reasonable ground for believing that the objection is well founded, and that by reason of the person objected to not being present for examination, or for some other reason, the objector is prevented from discovering or proving the truth respecting the entry objected to;
  "(10.) If such proof is given by the objector as herein prescribed, or if the objection is by a clerk of union, collector-general, town clerk, or clerk of the peace, then unless the person objected to appears by himself or by some person on his behalf, and proves that he was entitled on the twentieth day of July then next preceding to have his name inserted in the list in respect of the qualification described in such list, the court of revision shall expunge the name of the person objected to,"—(Mr. Mealy,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, there was some redundance in the clause, which, however, might be corrected on the Report.
  MR. LEWISsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland seemed unable to understand his (Mr. Lewis's) objection. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would turn to Sub-section 9, he would there find that primâfacie proof was required. They had passed upon the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) that the objector was bound to give some primâ facie evidence of the ground of objection, otherwise the objection would not be allowed to be gone into. That was the same subject-matter which was proposed to be dealt with by Sub-section 9. He did not know whether the Government would like to have in the same Act of Parliament two clauses dealing in different language with the same subject-matter.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  MR. LEWISwould like to hear what the Solicitor General for Ireland had to say about Sub-section 9.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that there was, perhaps, some resemblance in the wording of the two sections; but it occurred to him that that might be cured on Report.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. HEALYproposed the following new clause, which was also taken from the English Act:—
  (Objections not to lapse by death of objector.)
  "Any objection by a qualified objector may after his death be revived by any other person qualified to have made the objection originally by a notice to that effect in writing signed by him and given to the clerk of the peace or town clerk at or before the time of revision of the entry to which the objection relates."
  Clause brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill,
  MR. HEALYproposed the following new clause:—
  (Dates for lodgers' qualifications.)
  "In the construction of the fourth section of 'The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868,' and the enactments amending or affecting the same, the first day of July shall be substituted for the twentieth day of July."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said, this clause dealt with a very curious matter, which must, of course, have been brought under the notice of the Solicitor General for Ireland. At the present time, lodgers in Ireland were required to declare on the 14th of July that they were in occupation of their lodgings on the 20th of July. Now, that was absurd, and ought to be remedied.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)suggested that the Motion should be withdrawn, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman should confer with him with the view of a clause being prepared by Report.
  MR. HEALYthought that the 20th of July would be a better day; but the 20th of July would not give sufficient time, in his judgment, for the preparation of the list. He would, however, ask leave to withdraw the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved the following new clause:—
  (Objections to claim lists.)
  "Every registered voter or person whose name appears on the list of voters shall be entitled, without giving any notice of objection, to oppose the claim of every person claiming to be inserted in the list of voters in the same manner, and with the same rights and liabilities, as if such registered voter or person had given due notice of objection. For the purposes of this section no list of voters shall be deemed to include any list of claimants."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he certainly moved this clause with a great deal of hesitation, because any Amendment with regard to objections coming from one side of the House appeared rather odd. If the Government liked to accept it, he would be quite prepared to press it.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  MR. LEWISsaid, that if the clause were accepted, it would be quite possible for persons to be struck off the list without their knowing anything about it. He certainly thought that a person should receive notice that his name was to be objected to.
  MR. HEALYasked leave to withdraw the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYproposed the following new clause: —
  "For the preparation of the voters lists in the City of Dublin, the Commissioners of the townships of Pembroke and Blackrock shall repay to the treasurer of the Corporation of Dublin the expense of making out the lists for such portion of these townships as are situate within the Parliamentary borough of Dublin."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said, the Government had promised to amend the law in this respect. No one knew this matter better than the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, because he was counsel for the Corporation when they fought the matter some years ago, and when the Court of Queen's Bench decided that the expenses would have to be borne by the city at large. He (Mr. Healy) presumed that if the Government were not able to accept his clause, they would state what they were prepared to do on Report.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)thought there was a good case made out for some alteration of the present system, because Pembroke and Blackrock were distinct townships. The clause, however, did not supply the means of working out what the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) desired. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the clause, by Report a clause might be framed which would effect the object in view.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYproposed the following new clause:—
  1382
  (Students in rooms not to be registered as lodgers.)
  "No student occupying rooms in any college for collegiate purposes shall be entitled to be registered to vote as a ledger."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he was induced by the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who, he regretted, was now absent, to put this Amendment on the Paper. The other night, when he moved an Amendment upon the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, the right hon. Gentleman promised him to look into the anomalous condition of things in Dublin, whereby young gentlemen, to the number of some hundreds, who had no interest whatever in the City of Dublin, and whose board and lodging as well as their education was paid for by their parents, were entitled to be placed on the list of lodgers and to vote in the election of Members for the City of Dublin. He had inquired whether anything of the kind existed at Oxford or Cambridge, and he had been told that no person in either of those Universities could vote as lodgers for the towns in which the Universities were situated. He need scarcely point out to the Committee how absurd it was that a number of young gentlemen who came up from the Provinces to Dublin University, occupying rooms there for purposes connected with their degrees, should plump themselves down to the number of 200 upon the voters' list of the city in which they paid no rent, rates, or taxes. That state of things did not exist in England or Scotland, and it had only existed in Ireland within the last few years owing to a decision sanctioning it given in the Dublin Registration Court. He was sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) would agree with him that those young gentlemen were already sufficiently represented in the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not reasonably say that the students of Trinity College did not now possess a sufficient voice in the affairs of Parliament. He might be told that those gentlemen did not vote in the University. But they would soon get on the University Roll, and have the pleasure of recording their votes for the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen who now represented that constituency. The

  1383
  few hundred persons in the University were already accorded two very admirable Representatives; and, therefore, he now proposed that those students should not be allowed to vote in the City of Dublin—in other words, that the honest burgesses of Dublin, the people who paid rent, rates, and taxes in the city, should be allowed to have some little voice in the management of their own affairs.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) had moved the Amendment with such good humour, accompanied by kindly references to himself (Mr. Gibson) and his right hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Plunket), that he felt a certain amount of difficulty in replying. But as the clause had been moved, he must encounter it by fair and legitimate argument. This was not a Disfranchisement Bill, and the whole Reform scheme of the Prime Minister and of the Government was an enfranchising and not a disfranchising scheme. This was not a Reform Bill, but a Registration Bill, and the particular section under discussion was such that if it found a place at all in any Bill it should be in a distinct Franchise Bill. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member was entirely opposed to the Reform Bill submitted to the House by the Government, and, therefore, was quite out of place. He might, however, say that it must not be taken that students were raw boys fresh from the country; they must be 21 years of age, and they must be in possession of rooms as lodgers for a year. Trinity College paid very large rates, and there was no reason whatever why those young gentlemen—he did not know the exact number of them, but he supposed there were less than 200 — [Mr. HEALY: Above 200.]—should be refused the right of contributing, not a very large share, to the voting power of the City of Dublin. It had been stated incidentally that none of the students of other Universities were registered as lodgers. That was not so. [Mr. HEALY: I said Oxford or Cambridge.] Hon. Members sometimes failed to remember all that they said. As a matter of fact,
  1384
  the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) mentioned the Scotch Universities. He (Mr. Gibson) had ascertained how Scotland stood in this matter—indeed, only the other night the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. T. Russell) pointed out that the very same provision or arrangement prevailed in the Scotch Universities; that those who resided within the walls of the Glasgow University were registered to a much larger extent as voters for the City of Glasgow than the students in Trinity College, Dublin, were registered as voters for the City of Dublin. He (Mr. Gibson) did not know that that was so until it was stated. ["It is not so."] He did not know what the fact was, but what he had said was stated in the House the other night by the hon. Member for Glasgow without question or contradiction. He (Mr. Gibson) was not aware how affairs were managed at Oxford and Cambridge. He was not aware that the matter had ever been brought before the Revising Barrister for the City of Oxford or for the town of Cambridge; but it certainly was one to be decided according to the ordinary Registration Law of the country. He met this clause by saying it was a distinct disfranchisement clause, out of place in this Bill or in any Bill, out of keeping with all the statements of the Prime Minister, and that, therefore, he imagined there would be no hesitation on the part of the Committee—if, indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) meant to press it—in rejecting it.
  MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINsaid, that when he was at Oxford some of the undergraduates endeavoured to get upon the Register, but without success. Of course, he was speaking of many years ago; but as far he remembered they were met by the objection that they had no possible right to be registered. He did not profess to have any knowledge of the state of affairs in the University of Dublin; but as Oxford and Cambridge had been mentioned he desired to state his experience.
  MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, that as far as he understood no students resided within the University buildings in Scotland. If it be the case that no student in the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge was entitled to the franchise outside the University, he did not see why

  1385
  the students of Trinity College, Dublin, should be allowed to vote.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had said he (Mr. Healy) mentioned Scotland that night. He mentioned it three or four nights ago, and he was met by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. T. Russell), who, of course, was a new Member of the House, and who did not know exactly what they were driving at, with the assertion that the Scotch Universities had votes. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think they were objecting to students who lived in the town having votes. The hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson) now stated that the Scotch students were not residential. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. T. Russell) would see the mistaken view he had taken in this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentlemen (Mr. Gibson) very deftly seized upon the mistake of the hon. Member for Glasgow. It was not desired to deprive men lodging in towns from voting; but it was desired to deprive undergraduates from voting in respect of lodgings which they held as school boys and no more.
  MR. GIBSONprotested against the method of carrying on Public Business. He had stated a series of propositions founded upon the statements of the Prime Minister; and he protested against the Government not rising to express their views upon this important subject.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not know what the case exactly was at Oxford and Cambridge. As to the Scotch Universities, he never heard of residential students having votes. There might be students who lived in the Professors' houses, and who might be registered as lodgers. He could not say exactly how the matter stood; but there were no residential students in Scotland in the sense in which there were in Dublin and in Oxford and Cambridge. Treating the case as it stood, he was disposed to reply that he was very much averse to disfranchising anybody. He thought that the more people admitted to the franchise the better, providing they were justly entitled to it. If a student in Dublin, over 21 years of age, capable of exercising the franchise, was in such a position as in any other place would
  1386
  give him the franchise, why on earth should he not have it? If a student held his room or tenement in the same way and under such circumstances as would elsewhere give him the franchise, why should he not have it? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had said these persons were school boys sent up by their parents. Well, if they were, they were school boys of 21 years of age. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) confessed he did not like the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, and he was disposed to vote against it. This was not a question of politics, and the number of persons affected by the Amendment was small. [Mr. HEALY: 200.] Even if there be 200, he maintained that if they were qualified as lodgers, or in any other way, and that their qualification would be good in Cork, or Limerick, or Belfast, it ought to be good in Dublin. If their qualification was not good they would not be put on the Register. Do not let them be disqualified because they happened to be students.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very much surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman)take the line he had done under what might justly be called the intimidation of the Front Opposition Bench. A distinct pledge was given upon this matter to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) by the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) when the Irish Members felt it their duty to insist upon an assimilation of the English and Irish Registration Laws. They had gone no further. They had asked the Government and the Committee to agree to such Amendments of theirs as would assimilate the Registration Law of Ireland to that of England and Scotland. He (Mr. Parnell) put down some new clauses; but he felt that, having the principle of assimilation in view, they came in competition with those of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), and therefore he said nothing about them, but allowed them to go by default. His clauses were of a more perfect character, and of a very much more advantageous character, than those of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. A. Dickson); but as he and his hon. Friends

  1387
  had repeatedly announced that they only desired to bring the Registration Law of Ireland up to that of England, he considered he would not be entitled to persevere with them, for they would have opened up a wider and more extended field of improvement in the system of registration. But now they were met by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, under the circumstances to which he (Mr. Parnell) had just alluded, with a distinct refusal to carry out in the Dublin University the system which prevailed to his knowledge in both Oxford and Cambridge, and which prevailed, according to the testimony of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson), in the Scotch Universities. This was not an Amendment for disfranchising men who lived in lodgings outside the University; but it was an Amendment which declared that an undergraduate in the Dublin University, possessing peculiar advantages as a result of exceptional endowments, possessing peculiar advantages with regard to his rooms within the College, holding his rooms at a much less cost than he could obtain apartments elsewhere, should be treated in the same way as students were treated under similar circumstances in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and of Scotland. This was the first time in the consideration of this Bill that the claim of the Irish Members for assimilation had been refused. Now, there were circumstances connected with this matter which rendered the facts of the case still more aggravated. It so happened that Trinity College had been placed in the jerrymandered division of the City of Dublin, so that those 200 voters might make the difference of a seat to one Party or the other. If the Government refused to give the Irish Party fair play in respect to the boundaries of the different divisions, he and his hon. Friends were entitled to call upon the Government to give them, at least, fair play in this matter by making the law in Ireland similar to the law in England. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had said that this was a matter properly appertaining to the Representation of the People Act which had been passed, rather than for a Registration Bill. But whenever they raised a question like this on the Representation
  1388
  of the People Bill, they were told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was a question to bring up on a Registration Bill; so that whether they hit high or hit low there was no pleasing the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Of course, that was what they expected from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin; but they did expect that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would Act consistently in this matter, and maintain the tenour of the Bill so far as it had gone, a tenour which the Irish Members had not endeavoured to limit.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was not prepared to say whether there was any provision in any English Franchise or Registration Bill disqualifying students in Oxford or Cambridge because they were students. Students were either qualified, or they were not. If they were qualified, it was proposed that because they were students they should be disqualified. To that he objected. He had no predilection in favour of the students of Trinity College; but he did maintain that if a student living in a College had the ordinary qualification he should have the vote just as anyone else should.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that whether there was or was not any provision in any English Act which would disqualify students of Universities because they were students, it was very probable that a large number of persons residing in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge would come in under the new service franchise. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had spoken about the division of the City of Dublin. He (Mr. Arnold) supported the hon. Gentleman against the Government when that question was formally raised in Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill; but he could not support an Amendment which proposed to disfranchise a certain number of persons. From his point of view, the more men they could get on the Register the better. If men were admitted to the Register of voters he welcomed them there, and he could not see why inquiries should be made as to what order of men or what quality of men they were, or what position in life they occupied.
  MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, that as the Committee did not seem to be aware of the English law on this subject, it was perhaps as well that he should direct their attention to the Reform Act, 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 78, which provided that—
  "Nothing in this Act shall entitle any person to vote in the election of Members to serve in Parliament for the city of Oxford or town of Cambridge in respect of the occupation of any chambers or premises in any of the Colleges or Halls of these Universities."
  This disqualification was recognized and continued by the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 43.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not inclined in the slightest degree to argue the case of Oxford and Cambridge. He was arguing a much narrower point. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. R. Biddulph Martin) had recounted his own experiences at Oxford. He (Mr. Gibson) assumed that those experiences were prior to 1877–8. Had any effort been made in Oxford or Cambridge since Martin's Act was passed, and since a great many interpretations of the lodger franchise had been given, to test whether any person resident in those Universities could get on the Register for the borough? He was not aware that there had. Oxford and Cambridge seemed to have stood still in the matter for a good many years. But that was not his point. His point was that there were—taking the figures of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) as correct—200 persons actually on the Register and entitled to vote for the City of Dublin; and that this was an Amendment, not to enlarge the franchise, but to remove the voters in question from the Register and to disqualify them. He maintained that this was a monstrous proposition in face of all the statements that had been made to the House by the Prime Minister and by the Government, and of all the arguments which had been addressed to the House even by those who were in favour of the present proposition. There was nothing whatever under the existing law, as openly administered in the Irish Registration Courts, to prevent these young men being upon the Register. They occupied separate premises, for which they paid separate rent. Only that night the Committee had accepted
  1390
  an Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) himself, declaring that it was not necessary that separate premises should be separately rated. [Mr. HEALY: It is in the English law.] Be it so; they had accepted that provision. Now, this was not a Reform Bill, but a Registration Bill; and under cover of the Bill it was sought to remove from the Register men who, under the existing law, had aright to exercise the franchise. He appealed to the sense of fair play in the Committee—was it reasonable, was it just, was it fair that those 200 men should be struck off the Register because, as the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had declared, they would vote in the one portion of the city where the hon. Member considered the chances of his Party were in jeopardy, owing to the equality in the strength of Parties? Was it fair or reasonable, when that was the avowed object of the Amendment, that those 200 men should be deprived of the franchise which, under the existing law, they were entitled to exercise?
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), referring in stentorian tones to the good service which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen) had done in reading to the Committee the clause in the English Act bearing on this question, said he did not take his stand upon the case of Oxford and Cambridge. Yes; but the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant did. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to them to show him that English students were disqualified, and then he said he would be able to deal with them. From the right hon. Gentleman's own side—from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Pembroke—came the statement that the students of Oxford and Cambridge were disqualified. He (Mr. Healy) called upon the Chief Secretary to make good his words; he pinned the right hon. Gentleman to his own words. The other night the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said that this was a matter which did not arise upon the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill; but if it were postponed he would give it his best con-

  1391
  sideration. Were they to be dodged like a shuttlecock from one Bill to another? At one time it was not a matter for the Representation of the People Bill, at another it was not a matter for the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, and at another it was a disfranchising clause. He (Mr. Healy) and his hon. Friends took their stand upon the declaration of Ministers. They were within the recollection of the Committee. The words of the Chief Secretary still echoed in the Chamber; the right hon. Gentleman said—"Point out to me in any English Act any disqualification similar to that now proposed." Of course, the inference was that if such a disqualification could be shown he was quite prepared to assimilate the Irish to the English law. All the Irish Members wanted was assimilation. They had been fighting for the English law, and they appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to stand by his own words, and give them in Ireland the benefit of the same law which was dealt out in Oxford and Cambridge.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he could not recall exactly the words he used; but he remembered that he began by saying he was against the disfranchisement of anybody. Then he asked hon. Members whether they could prove that what was alleged with regard to Oxford and Cambridge was really the fact. He asserted his own ignorance on the subject. He now found that the students in the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge were disqualified by a special clause of an Act of Parliament—there was no doubt now upon the matter. He was sorry they were disqualified, because, as far as he could form an opinion, they ought not to be. If the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) said that he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) went so far as to say he did not wish any different treatment of the students of Dublin University to that of the students of Oxford and Cambridge, he was afraid that precluded him from voting to extend a privilege to the students of the Dublin University which was denied to those of Oxford and Cambridge. He was sorry that by a hasty expression he had precluded himself from the possibility of voting upon this subject. Under the circumstances, it would perhaps be better that he should refrain from voting; but he thought his opinion on
  1392
  the subject would be gathered from what he had said. He did not think anyone ought to be prevented from voting because he happened to be a student. He regretted to find that the students of Oxford and Cambridge were excluded from the franchise, though they; might possess the necessary qualification.
  SIR P. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he had understood that no one who had a vote was to be disfranchised. Long before this small question about University students was raised, the Prime Minister told the House, and no Member of the Government could possibly depart from the assertion, that no one was to be disfranchised by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had said so over and over again. And now, when they came to this particular point, it so happened that something had been found out which was different from what was expected—that was to say, the Irish Members who wished the same law as prevailed in England to prevail in Ireland —he wished they held that opinion in other matters—had found out that the English students had not the right to vote, whereas the Irish students had. That was no reason why the Irish students should be disqualified. It might be a good reason why the English students should be enfranchised; and if such a proposition were made he should certainly be inclined to support it. When he was at the University he felt his disfranchisement very much. He could never understand why he should not have a vote, occupying chambers in Cambridge as he did. He certainly could not agree to the disfranchisement of the students in Dublin because the students of Oxford and Cambridge were disqualified from voting. He took his stand upon the declaration of the Prime Minister that no one was to be disfranchised by this Bill. Of course, it was quite plain that this disfranchisement could not be made upon a mere Registration Bill, though he should oppose the proposal just as strongly if it were made upon a Franchise Bill. The question of the franchise was settled; and now they were dealing with the registration of those persons who were, by the Representation of the People Act, to have the right to vote. Nothing had been taken away from the Irish students by the Representation of the People Act. It was now a pure

  1393
  question of registration, and not of who were entitled to vote and who were not. He certainly should most strongly support the view which had been expressed by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and impress upon the Government the necessity of adhering strictly to the last statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It was only a personal statement.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there could be no personality in the case of a Government. The Prime Minister spoke for the Government, and his view was that no person should be disfranchised. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) called upon every hon. Gentleman now sitting upon the Treasury Bench to carry out the view of the Prime Minister by going into the Lobby against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy).
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was quite mistaken. The Prime Minister never said that no one was to be disfranchised by this Bill.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes; over and over again.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), admitted, on the part of the Government, that the Prime Minister said more than once that the group of Bills now before the House—the Franchise Bill and the Registration Bills—were in no sense to be disfranchising Bills. Under those circumstances, the Government were precluded from voting with the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), whatever view they might have of the merits of the case. If he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) understood rightly there were many students in Trinity College, Dublin, who were now on the Register; and if the Committee were to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman those students would be disfranchised. The Committee would, therefore, be infringing the rule which the Prime Minister and the Government had laid down for themselves in this matter. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would not express any opinion on the merits of the case. The time had passed for considering whether
  1394
  those students should have votes or not. That question ought to have been decided on the Representation of the People Bill of last year. This was a mere Registration Bill, and upon it the Government felt themselves precluded from making any change which would result in disfranchisement.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that great weight had been attached to the statement of the Prime Minister that this was not to be a disfranchising Act, and that no class of persons would be disfranchised under it. This was a very curious case, which he believed did not come within the purview of the Prime Minister when he was making that assertion. It seemed to him to have been forgotten that the Prime Minister proclaimed another principle, and it was this—that under this Act the people of the Three Kingdoms should enjoy equal rights and privileges. He (Mr. Sullivan) maintained that that was as much a principle of the Prime Minister's speech and speeches with reference to this matter as the version which had been so frequently quoted. The right hon. Gentleman declared over and over again that there should be equalization of registration; but simply because this handful of young men happened to be Tory, and hailed from the centre or headquarters of Toryism in Ireland, the words of the Prime Minister as to disfranchisement were clung to with great affection by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sat above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House. The Prime Minister committed himself, unmistakably, to the principle that there was to be from first to last in this matter equality of treatment between the people of the three countries; and it was only because the Tory Party found they had an advantage in this particular matter that they fastened on to the words of the Prime Minister, which he (Mr. Sullivan) was sure were never meant to cover a case such as that under consideration.
  MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINsaid, it seemed of importance that they should assimilate the laws which prevailed on this subject in the different parts of the United Kingdom. He thought it really would be in conformity with the wishes of the Committee that this Amendment should be passed, and that then the question of qualification or enfranchisement of University students in the three

  1395
  countries should be made the subject of a separate Bill. Though it was perfectly true that the Prime Minister said this was not a disfranchising Bill, the opportunity might be taken of adjusting this anomalous state of things. He hoped the Committee would take this opportunity of assimilating the law between the two countries, even at the risk, he must admit, of doing some injustice in this particular case.
  MR. SMALLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had said it was not possible for him to support this Amendment, because it would have a disfranchising effect. But the Representation of the People Act of the Government was in some respects a disfranchising measure. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; all joint occupiers of houses valued, say, at £10, were disfranchised by the Act passed last autumn. It seemed to him very extraordinary that right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who swallowed the Representation of the People Act, containing as it did several disfranchising clauses, should raise objection to some 200 young gentlemen being disqualified to vote in a constituency in which they had no title whatever to exercise the franchise.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had been greatly edified by the attitude of the Treasury Bench in this matter. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who, the other night, distinctly promised to give the subject his best consideration. The right hon. Gentleman was brought into the House; but when he found what was going on, he, in the immortal words of Mr. Disraeli, "scuttled away." Then the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) came to the fore. The right hon. Gentleman was very bold in the early portion of the night. He wanted the law of Ireland to be assimilated to that of England. "Show me," said the right hon. Gentleman, "anything in an English Act which disqualifies the students of Oxford and Cambridge, and then I will deal with the students of Trinity College, Lublin." And then, when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen) produced the clause from the Reform Act which distinctly disqualified the students of Oxford and
  1396
  Cambridge from voting in the city or town, as the case might be, the right hon. Gentleman said—"I spoke hastily." The right hon. Gentleman had two voices—one voice was that of the Irish Secretary, and the other voice was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs. The right hon. Gentleman now attempted to disassociate himself from his official position in the hope of defeating the Amendment. The inference to be drawn from the right hon. Gentleman's words was that if it was proved to be that English students were disqualified, he would assent to the disqualification of Irish students. When it was proved to him that English students were disqualified he said—"I only spoke for myself." What Minister ever took up such a position? Was it to be tolerated that in one breath the right hon. Gentleman should speak as the Irish Secretary, and in another breath as Mr. Campbell-Bannerman? The right hon. Gentleman, as Irish Secretary, opposed the Amendment on the ground that the provision involved was not contained in any English Act. It was proved to him that he was mistaken; but, nevertheless, he still opposed the Amendment, but not as the Irish Secretary, but in his personal capacity. And yet Irish Members were asked, upon matters relating to Ireland, to have full confidence in the Government. The President of the Local Government Board was called in by a messenger despatched by his Colleagues; but finding that the waters were troublous he made off. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, as such, repelled the Amendment; but in his individual capacity said—"I will not be able to vote against the Amendment, but I will not vote for it." Such was the conduct of the Government in which they were asked to have confidence. Then the righthon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) came forward, and said—"Oh, but the Prime Minister has said this is not a disfranchising Bill." The Prime Minister said that in reference to a particular Bill. Let the dead bury its dead. What the right hon. Gentleman said last July under totally different circumstances did not apply now.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not refer to anything the Prime Minister said on the Representation of the People! Bill, but to a declaration the right hon.

  1397
  Gentleman made on the group of Registration Bills.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that, as far as his recollection served him, the Prime Minister made no such declaration with regard to any group of Bills. In the famous phrase of the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), on the 17th of March, "Where are the traces?" Produce the Prime Minister's words upon which this Amendment was opposed. The Government could not deny that he was led the other night to withdraw an Amendment bearing upon the subject by the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to look into the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could not deny that to-night he asked them to show him what was provided by the English Act, and then he would know whether he ought to assimilate the laws of the two countries.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; I did not say that.
  MR. HEALYremarked, that it was only a few minutes ago that the right hon. Gentleman said he did not recollect what he did say. He (Mr. Healy) appealed to English Members who had been witnesses of these proceedings whether there had been a creditable exhibition on the part of Her Majesty's Government? He appealed to English Gentlemen to refrain from supporting the Government on this occasion. He thought that when pledges were given by the Government the House ought to be in a position to rely upon them. The other night they were led astray by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Thomas Russell). It turned out that there were no residential students in the Glasgow University; that, in fact, the only places where there were residential students were Oxford and Cambridge, and that those students were distinctly disqualified. They were told by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) that he wished to get everybody on the Register they possibly could, so he (Mr. Healy) wished that everyone possessing proper qualifications should be put upon the Register; but the students in Trinity College did not, in his opinion, possess the necessary qualifications, and, therefore, they ought to be struck off. Such were the arguments
  1398
  with which he and his hon. Friends were met; and he confidently appealed to the honour of English Gentlemen to say whether the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were not words which led the Committee to believe that if these students of Oxford and Cambridge were disqualified he would be prepared to refuse to admit to the franchise in Dublin City people who did not pay any rent, rates, or taxes?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANobjected to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) attributing to him the assertion that he was prepared to assimilate the laws of the two countries in that respect. At the outset he said he was in favour of disfranchising no one; he said he did not know how the facts stood with regard to Oxford and Cambridge; and he asked hon. Members on the other side of the House whether they could produce any evidence that the students of Oxford and Cambridge were disqualified from voting. Then he went on to say that it was his opinion—and such was still his opinion—that if a student had such a qualification that, under any other circumstances, he would obtain a vote, he should not be disqualified because he was a student. What had happened since he made his speech? All that had happened was this—that the discovery had been made that there was a special clause in an Act of Parliament which excluded the students living in any of the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge from voting. He said again he was very sorry for it, and he should be very glad to see that law repealed. Now, what were they to do with reference to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy)? He thought the Government would be altogether wrong, and that the Committee would be altogether wrong, if it proceeded to disfranchise those who already possessed the franchise in Dublin, because it so happened that what appeared to him to be an injustice was done in Oxford and Cambridge. He was in the recollection of the Committee that what he had now said was the gist of what he stated originally. He was puzzled to discover any particular inconsistency in anything he had laid before the Committee.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid, a great deal had been said that night about the disfranchisement of men. He had as much regard for the natural rights of men as the right hon. Gentlemen who occupied the Front Government and Opposition Benches; but he held that the students of Trinity College, contemplated by this Amendment, were not men in the proper sense of the term, but were mere birds of passage. Speaking as a citizen who often had to come into contact with those gentlemen, he objected to have his citizen rights overborne by the votes of mere birds of passage. What other functions did those gentlemen perform? Did they serve upon juries? No. Did they join the Army? Perhaps they would in a while; but they were exempt from doing so now. Did they fulfil any conditions of citizenship? No, they were merely there as a floating balance of power to overbear the votes and the voices of such citizens as paid rates. Those men came and went, and left no traces behind them, except the expression of their peculiar opinions. For those reasons he supported the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy), and he appealed to the Government to assimilate the law of the two countries in this respect, as they had endeavoured to do in others.
  MR. THOMAS RUSSELLwas sorry if anything he said the other night led the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) to understand that there were any residential students in the Scotch Universities. He (Mr. Thomas Russell) was perfectly aware that in Scotland no students were resident within the University; but he had yet to learn that residence within College walls was to make a difference between a student living there and a student living in a street close by. If a student fulfilled the law so as to qualify as a lodger, he did not see why he should be debarred from the privilege of the franchise, and it was not so in Scotland. Every student who fulfilled the lodger qualification had a vote.
  MR. HEALY: Scotch students do not live in the College.
  MR. THOMAS RUSSELLsaid, that that was so; but he could not conceive that residence within the College made any difference in the matter. He should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the Commit-
  1400
  tee (Mr. J. O'Connor) that students were not mere birds of passage, but fulfilled all the duties of citizenship just as much as other classes of lodgers— they paid rents, and taxes were included in their rents. Other lodgers did not serve upon juries, and he did not see why a student, possessed of all the necessary qualifications to entitle him to the lodger franchise, should be treated differently to the bank clerk or the mechanic who might be a lodger. He might also point out to the Committee that at present Ireland and Scotland were in the same position as regarded students. He was very sorry indeed to hear that the students in Oxford and Cambridge had not the same privilege, and he thought it extremely desirable that they should have the same privilege conferred upon them. It was perfectly evident to everybody that a student of 21 years of age, with a considerable amount of knowledge, was as well qualified to exercise the franchise as any other lodger. Seeing that Ireland and Scotland were in this matter upon an equal footing, he thought it would be better that the law of England should be assimilated to the law in those countries.
  MR. MACARTNEYpointed out that the students in the Temple had votes for the City of London. They always had had votes, and they were not debarred from voting because they happened to reside within an establishment in which law was taught.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it was as well, before they went to a division, that the claim put forward on behalf of those young men should be thoroughly understood. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) wished the Committee to maintain an exclusive privilege on behalf of this body of young men, which was denied to young men in a similar condition in Great Britain. There was no similar case in Scotland, because in Scotland no residential students existed. What was the difference between a student who lived in his University, and a bank clerk, for instance, who occupied apartments in the city? The bank clerk, who was a man earning his own living, had, generally speaking, to pay heavily for his apartments; whereas the student was in a state of pupilage, and occupied his rooms at

  1401
  a particularly low rent, owing to public generosity—["No!"] Did the hon. Gentleman who interrupted him mean to say that a student in Trinity College paid as much for his rooms as a young man lodging in the City of Dublin paid? It was well known that Trinity College was richly endowed from the lands that some time ago were taken from the people; it was well known that the possession by Trinity College of those lands, and the rents they yielded, enabled the Governing Body of Trinity College to give rooms to young men and the students of the College at rates which were only a fraction of those paid by the gentlemen who lodged outside. That was the difference between the student in Trinity College and the bank clerk lodging in the city. That was a fundamental difference; and the claim which was now made on behalf of those students was a claim to maintain and continue an exclusive privilege, which was not only unjust to those on whose behalf it was made, but offensive to the general body of the community outside. The Committee had been told that the Government scheme of Reform was not intended to have any disfranchising effect. But there were disfranchising clauses in the Representation of the People Act, and he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) endeavour to represent this scheme of Reform to be entirely free from any disfranchising element. He (Mr. Sexton) was completely at a loss to understand what the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman) wished the Committee to understand with regard to his position in the House and in the Government, and with regard to the meaning to be attached to the declarations he made in debate. They saw the right hon. Gentleman a couple of days ago, when he yielded to the solemn voice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), left in the lurch. After he had made declarations at the Table as positive as that he had made to-night, they saw him, when the common sense of the Committee went unanimously against him, abdicating his position and abandoning his responsibility; they saw him, as the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy)had said, "scuttle out of the House." If the right hon.
  1402
  Gentleman did not intend to take up a misleading position, perhaps he would inform the Committee what his position really was. The right hon. Gentleman, only a few minutes ago, challenged hon. Members to show him any clause disqualifying students in England. When, after a lapse of time, the clause in the English Act was produced, the right hon. Gentleman coolly said—"Oh, I made no promise to assimilate the law of the two countries." What was the meaning of the challenge the right hon. Gentleman threw out?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not challenge anybody. I merely asked for the production of the clause.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that that was only another instance of the unfair treatment to which Irish Members were subjected. Really, the strong Caledonian common sense of the right hon. Gentleman had developed, since he became Chief Secretary, into strong Hibernian ingenuity. The inference to be drawn from the right hon. Gentleman's words were that, in his opinion, there was no clause in an Act of Parliament disqualifying the students of Oxford and Cambridge; when, however, an hon. and learned Gentleman behind him (Mr. H. G. Allen) produced the clause the right hon. Gentleman executed a manœuvre worthy of Jim Crow. If the disqualifying clause could not have been produced, the right hon. Gentleman would have pleaded and relied upon the absence of such a clause as a reason for opposing the present Amendment. The clause was produced, and from that moment its significance ceased. The right hon. Gentleman then became, not the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs. At the moment the right hon. Gentleman retained the salary of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, but threw off the responsibility of Office. Hitherto they had been accustomed in the House of Commons to understand that even though the Government might break promises which related to any date, to any month, or any year, they would at least have the good faith to keep a promise which related only to the present. They had been accustomed to understand that Ministers in charge of a Bill were to be relied upon to carry out the natural indication flowing from their

  1403
  language. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had, however, introduced the House to a new condition of ethics; and if he proceeded much longer in the manner in which he proceeded the other night, when, after having pledged himself to a certain course on a Bill, he failed to carry out his compact, and he shamed his own compeers by leaving the House—if he again repeated such conduct it would be well he should have two flags, and hoist one or the other according as he spoke in his official or in his personal capacity.
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, the argument would disqualify not only students, but Masters of Arts, Professors, and so forth.
  MR. SEXTON: No; students only.
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, the argument was that students occupied rooms at a cheaper rate than outsiders; and of course that argument applied equally to Masters of Arts and other members of the Universities.
  MR. SEXTON: The argument applied to those in a state of pupilage.
  MR. HEALY: Their masters might lock them up on the polling day.
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he thought a great deal of unnecessary heat had been imported into that discussion. No one could suppose for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had desired to mislead the Committee in anything that he had said. His right hon. Friend had fallen into the mistake which he had admitted—namely, of saying that not only graduates, but undergraduates in Oxford and Cambridge, were entitled to vote for the borough. This was not a disfranchising Bill, and he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would therefore suggest that this Amendment should not be pressed, but that some opportunity should be taken hereafter of correcting what hon. Members admitted to be an injustice, and which arose from the peculiar position of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge at the time the Statute was passed—namely, that the Colleges had been formerly extra-parochial, and not liable to pay rates. That was the reason the clause had been passed; but that condition of things had long ceased to
  1404
  exist. He would suggest that the present Amendment should be either withdrawn or negatived, and that some future opportunity should be taken of removing the injustice done to members of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and of putting graduates at least who were disqualified in a position to vote.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for some information as to the course which he intended personally to adopt. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to vote for the original proposal or the Amendment of his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), or whether he intended to take the third course of walking out of the House when the Question was put; because the right hon. Gentleman had on three several and distinct occasions that evening announced to the Committee that he was going to adopt each one of those courses. It was obvious that he could not adopt three courses; and he (Mr. Parnell) should be glad to know, for his own information, if the right hon. Gentleman had fixed upon the course he intended to adopt? As to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Osborne Morgan), he (Mr. Parnell) thought he would probably find that the opportunity which had been referred to would be presented to the Conservative Party a little sooner than the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his Government would like on the Registration Bill. When that opportunity came he did not see how the Government could possibly refuse to adopt an Amendment enfranchising the students of Oxford and Cambridge in the face of the attitude they had adopted in regard to the students of Trinity College.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had appealed to him to know what course he proposed to follow, and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought he had explained that already. He had endeavoured to do so several times. He had addressed the Committee on this small point repeatedly, and had given a good many reasons against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). On the first occasion he had, amongst other reasons,

  1405
  stated that he had not been aware of the facts of the cases of Oxford and Cambridge, and he had asked hon. Gentlemen who had spoken about it if they could produce evidence of the facts they alleged. That was the whole sum— front, beginning, and end—of his offence. On that occasion he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had said that he did not know what the state of things at Oxford and Cambridge was, and should be glad to know it. Now, however, they knew that the students at Oxford and Cambridge did not vote for the city and borough. But he had then stated —and he would refrain from stating again—a good many other considerations, every one of which led him to reject the proposal of the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. ILLING-WORTHsaid, the state of the law was anomalous between the different parts of the United Kingdom. In Scotland and Ireland it seemed that these undergraduates were qualified to vote at borough elections.
  MR. HEALY: Not in Scotland—not residential students. They do not exist.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that, at any rate, the undergraduate in Dublin came under the conditions of the law as to the lodger franchise. With every disposition to go as far as possible with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), he was afraid the hon. and learned Member really had not, and could not make out, a case for the refusal of the franchise to undergraduates as lodgers. The case was that there was an apparent injustice to the undergraduates in the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge; but it seemed to him that really in no Registration Bill, neither English nor Irish, were they called upon to deal with the question of this franchise. He would go further, and say that he thought that what hon. Gentlemen opposite were entitled to attack in every possible way was the representation of the University itself. It was that that was the main grievance. Upon that point he (Mr. Illingworth) had already voted with the Irish Members, and upon that point he should be glad to go with them again. But surely there could not be a case established—surely Parliament could not take cognizance as to what particular buildings persons might live in, or whether the rent of those buildings was
  1406
  higher or lower according to the peculiar circumstances of the case. If the students complied with the ordinary conditions of the law, no Revising Barrister should go beyond the ordinary inquiry, and distinguish, as hon. Gentlemen opposite had distinguished, between different classes. He could only hope that hon. Gentlemen would go a step further, and would not draw a distinction between the position of these electors and those who might be bank clerks, or who might hold other positions. He did not hold that these students were birds of passage any more than were other classes of young men who were entitled to the franchise. [Mr. HEALY: They are not producers.] He (Mr. Illingworth) really thought that hon. Members opposite were arguing a case on which justice did not stand on their side.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to say a word as to how this matter stood, so far as the English Universities were concerned. The graduates and undergraduates did not vote under the old system previous to 1832. It was thought that, under the first Reform Act, students might be qualified to vote for the city of Oxford and borough of Cambridge. It was thought right, in the Reform Act, to insert a special clause, stating that nothing in the measure should enable the students of Oxford and Cambridge to vote for the city of Oxford or the town of Cambridge. They never had done so before, and all the Act of 1832 did was to say that they should not be allowed by that Act to vote for the city or the borough; but, so far as other Universities of England were concerned, there was nothing to prevent students of the University of Durham, or the Victoria University of Manchester, from voting just like ordinary persons. The clause that was passed in 1832 did not seem to have been passed in the case of Dublin; and when they came to the English Bill, and the question again arose as to allowing students at Oxford and Cambridge to vote for the city and borough respectively, he should be ready to support a proposal to extend the privilege to them.
  MR. COMMINSwas of opinion that the two main points involved in this question had been, to a large extent, evaded. The first was—was the law in

  1407
  Ireland to be assimilated to that in England as to the position of students who were in statu pupillari, and were not sui juris? With regard to Durham, there were no resident students there, and there were no residential students in the Victoria University of Manchester, to which the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had referred. Nor were there any either in the London University or the Royal University of Ireland. The only students who were in a similar position to those at Oxford and Cambridge were the students of the University of Dublin residing within the walls of Trinity College.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The students of Durham are in the same position.
  MR. COMMINSsaid, he was not aware that there were any residential students in Durham. If there were any, they were so few that they were not worth taking any note of. He should like to know how many dozen students of the University of Durham were resident within the walls of that University, or ever were at one time? He did not believe that one dozen were ever residential within the walls at one period. The question was—were they to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England in this matter? The policy of doing that had been sufficiently pointed out in the Committee. There was a higher question than that which hon. Members had been discussing, and that was—was it advisable that students who, as he had said, were not sui juris, and were subject to academical discipline, should have the apple of discord, in the form of political partizanship, thrown amongst them? Was it wise that those students should have their thoughts diverted from those legitimate objects which had taken them to the Universities—was it advisable that they should be thrown into the confusion and turmoil of election contests, which meant the destruction of all University discipline? It was evidently the opinion of the Government in 1832 that that state of things was not advisable, and they had introduced a clause into the Reform Act, stating that the students of Oxford and Cambridge should not enjoy the franchise for the city and town. The provision did not apply to Masters of Arts, or to anyone but students, and for the exclusion of those there were ample grounds. He
  1408
  thought that, instead of taking away the disability in the case of the English students, it should be allowed to remain to protect them against political turmoil, and to secure for them the serene air of the Universities, and that the students of Trinity College, Dublin, should be placed in the same position.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he just wished to say one word before the Committee divided. He was a Member of the London University, and, as such, he wished to remind the Committee that the Reform Act of 1832 had deliberately made this exception. The reasons for the adoption of this provision 50 years ago were sound, and he did not see why the same reasons should not obtain at the present day. He did not know that they were any better reformers than their ancestors.
  MR. TOMLINSONdeprecated the adoption of this proposal as an Amendment to a Bill with which it really had no concern. Reasons had been given for the Amendment inconsistent with each other. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had based his support of this proposal on the ground that the students were birds of passage; but students were none the less birds of passage if they happened to live outside instead of inside the walls of the University. The students of the Scotch Universities or of the University of London were quite as much birds of passage as those who lived within the walls of the University of Dublin. Then the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had based his support of the proposal upon an entirely different ground. He maintained that students who lived in Universities were in a less independent position than those who occupied lodgings. But students who lived outside the walls of the Universities were partakers of the benefits of belonging to the Universities just as much as those who lived within the walls of a College. There was in the University of Oxford at the present time a system by which certain students did not belong to any College. They were members of the University, and subject to a special Governing Body. Those gentlemen were, apparently, not excluded from voting; and he maintained that this exceptional exclusion of those who had rooms in the Colleges should be brought to an end. It was said that those students

  1409
  were not sui juris; but that applied to those who lived outside the walls as well as to those who lived within. The whole thing was anomalous, and could not be consistently supported. The proposal was, moreover, as he had observed, outside this Bill, which was to amend the law for the registration of voters in Ireland, and had nothing to do with disfranchisement. If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway desired to bring forward a proposal for disfranchisement of this kind, they should have done so on the Representation of the People Bill. They had told the Committee that that Bill was to a large extent a disfranchising measure, though there was some exaggeration in the manner in which they alluded to it; but if they had a clause to move on this subject they should have brought it in as an Amendment to that Bill. The Amendment at this moment should be rejected by the Committee.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 127: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 147.)
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he now begged to move the first of the three clauses standing on the Paper in his name, entitled "Service by post of form of requisition." The clause was an attempt to deal with a very pressing matter. It said—
  "No clerk of union, or other official to whom the form of requisition for names of inhabitant occupiers is to be returned when filled up, shall be entitled to refuse to receive such form, or omit to proceed upon the information it contains, because it has been returned through the post without prepayment of postage, but shall receive such form, and act in regard to it in every respect, as if the postage had been prepaid, and, in case of failure so to do, every such clerk or other official shall be liable in respect of each such form refused or not proceeded upon to a penalty of not less than forty shillings."
  The Act gave no instructions as to whether the form sent out by the Guardians bearing the name of the inhabitant occupier should be prepaid or not, and the fact was that a number of forms had been returned with no stamp upon them, and the Guardians had been charged by the Post Office 1d. for each. There was this pressing difficulty to face— that many of the Boards of Guardians in Ireland might for political reasons refuse to act upon the Returns which
  1410
  came to them without the postage having been prepaid. In the North Dublin Union he had been informed that a large number of the forms had been returned unstamped. The clerk had asked whether he was to receive the returned forms and pay the postage, or whether he was to refuse them, and the Chairman had said that it would be hard to deprive those people of the franchise because they had not prepaid the postage on the forms which they had sent in. He (Mr. Sexton) had seen one of the forms sent out by the North Dublin Union, and he had noticed on the back of it the letters O.H.M.S., which everybody understood to mean "On Her Majesty's Service." When those letters appeared on a document the general impression was that it could go through the post free of charge. In the North Dublin Union, Mr. M'Neil, a Tory Guardian, had moved that the Returns which were sent back unstamped should be refused. That motion was not carried; but had it been made in the South Dublin Union instead of the North, no doubt it would have been adopted, and that would have had the effect of excluding those persons from the Register. He (Mr. Sexton) did not care very much how the matter as settled. If it were agreed that the Post Office should carry the letters post free, it would suit his purpose very well; or if, on the other hand, it was decided to instruct the Guardians to receive the notices, whether stamped or not, he should be satisfied. The amount would not be very great, supposing nobody paid the postage. About 700,000 notices would be sent out, being the number which would come upon the Electoral Roll under the Representation of the People Act, and, supposing that none of them paid the postage, the whole sum would only amount to about £1,000. No doubt, after those matters had been discussed and noticed in the papers, a great many people would take the precaution to pay the postage, but some might not do so, and it would be unfortunate if by a misapprehension a great many people should be deprived of the vote. He would press his Amendment very strongly, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would be able to assure him either that the Post Office would deliver the notices without charge, or that the Guardians

  1411
  would be instructed to receive them and act upon them whether they were stamped or not.
  New Clause:—
  (Service by post of form of requisition.)
  "No clerk of union, or other official to whom the form of requisition for names of inhabitant occupiers is to be returned when filled up, shall be entitled to refuse to receive such form, or omit to proceed upon the information it contains, because it has been returned through the post without prepayment of postage, but shall receive such form, and act in regard to it in every respect, as if the postage had been prepaid, and, in case of failure so to do, every such clerk or other official shall be liable in respect of each such form refused or not proceeded upon to a penalty of not less than forty shillings,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the question as to whether those notices should be carried without being stamped was one entirely for the Postmaster General. He did not think there would be any difficulty in the matter, at any rate not so much as was anticipated. He thought it would be well to leave it to the common sense of the Clerks of the Unions, and that it was not necessary to legislate in the matter.
  MR. LEAMYasked whether the Local Government Board would have any objection to send instructions to the Clerks of the Unions to receive those forms unstamped?
  MR. HEALYsaid, he hoped the Postmaster General would take a liberal view of this matter, and that in view of the fact that thousands of new voters would come on the Register, many of whom would not know that it was necessary that the notice should be returned with the postage prepaid, he would not enforce the halfpenny stamp.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the Solicitor General for Ireland had not touched the case at all. What had happened at Dublin would happen again in these cases. The clerk would refuse to receive the notices. There was a great possibility of fraud and collusion under the existing arrangement. The majority on the Boards of Guardians were Tories; and if the Tory landlords occupied themselves with politics, and objected to the
  1412
  popular candidate, all that was necessary was that the landlords should send back the paper unstamped, and the Tory Clerk of the Union or other official should decline to receive it. He contended that they should not be placed within the possibility of a large number of people being disfranchised for the want of a halfpenny stamp. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would not, for the sake of the small sum of money involved, refuse to instruct his subordinates in Ireland that, whenever these Returns came into their hands, the fact of their not being stamped should not be allowed to interfere with their delivery; he would not refuse to guarantee that the papers should get into the hands of the persons to whom they were addressed whether they were stamped or not. The whole matter was a very small one, and one that, in his opinion, ought to be decided without hesitation.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVERsaid, it was a question of exemption, and he would consider it before the Report.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland would be able to devise a practical settlement of the matter. He would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment in that expectation.
  MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, before the Amendment was withdrawn he wished to express a hope that there would be no miscarriage of justice over a technical matter of this kind; but while it would be a very serious thing that the object of the Bill should be nullified by the want of these stamps, he trusted, on the other hand, that care would be taken that no harm was done to the Inland Revenue.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he believed that no one would contest his contention that any Clerk of the Union or other official charged with any duty under the Re-presentation of the People Act, 1884, who refused to carry out that duty, and thereby endangered the vote of any person, should be dismissed from his office. The clerk or official who delayed or killed time in connection with his duties came within the scope of that contention, and he thought it was necessary clearly to indicate at the earliest pos-

  1413
  sible moment that no insubordination, delay, or action likely to prejudice the rights of voters, should be tolerated by that House; and, for that reason, he asked the Committee to say that if any official sinned against the Act in question he would not be allowed to retain his position. With that object in view he would move the Amendment in his name.
  New Clause:—
  (Duties of clerks of unions under "The Representation of the People Act, 1884.")
  "Any clerk of union, or other official charged with any duty by The Representation of the People Act, 1884,' who, after having been called upon to perform such duty, shall refuse or delay to enter upon and proceed with such performance, shall be liable to dismissal without notice,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, this was an important clause. He did not at all object to a clerk who, by delay or neglect, caused grave obstruction in a matter of this kind being punished for it. That was entirely right; but it would seem a matter to be dealt with by the official heads of the Department. He did not know whether the Government felt that this clause, as drafted, was necessary to strengthen their hands; whether, in its present form, it was calculated to do so in the most efficient way. He desired to elicit from the Government how far they considered a clause of the kind necessary, and how far they were satisfied with the clause as proposed?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he did not think it necessary to introduce into the Bill a clause of this kind, because such a breach of duty would be considered a matter justifying dismissal. He considered that to adopt a new clause under the circumstances would be to go beyond the necessities of the case.
  MR SEXTONsaid, the point was that every hour was of importance in this matter of the voting of the people. They knew that evil-doing on the part of a Clerk of the Union or official could only be discovered months afterwards. This clause was not intended to meet the case of default; it was only intended to meet the case of refusal or delay in
  1414
  proceeding. It was a matter for ascertainment by the Local Government Board. If it were reported to the Local Government Board that any clerk or official had refused to proceed, they could then send down and investigate the matter. But that should be done without notice, for obvious reasons. He thought it necessary to deal with a dereliction of duty by a penalty; and, in this case, thousands of people might be disfranchised unless the officials were told that the iniquity in question would entail loss of office.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had already pointed out that in the case of misconduct no notice was necessary.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that, last year, they had made out a list of over 100 cases where an official had acted falsely and fraudulently; but what satisfaction did they get by leaving the matter to be dealt with by the Local Government Board? Why, the fact that officials were accused by hon. Members on those Benches was in itself sufficient to cause right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to screen them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was President of the Irish Local Government Board, and how did he treat complaints made to him? His one idea was not to please the people, to give them satisfaction, or to do anything agreeable to them. He would screen the officials, and the one question he would ask himself would be—"How can I thwart the Parnellites?" His own belief was that when the Clerks of Unions and officials in Ireland grossly misconducted themselve, the right hon. Gentleman and the Irish Government would quite as grossly maintain them in their offices.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, unless the Government promised to take the matter into consideration and ceased to put them off with answers of the kind they had just received, he thought they would be compelled to occupy considerably more time in discussing the question. He understood the Solicitor General for Ireland to say that the course that would be pursued was that which he (Mr. Sexton) wished to have declared in the Bill. Both the learned Gentlemen who had spoken on the Amendment admitted that if an official did what was described in the clause—that was to say, refused to

  1415
  perform his duty, or delayed to enter upon its performance—he was liable to dismissal. What then was the cause of the abhorrence on the part of the Government to have that declared; what harm could there be in saying that under the circumstances the individual would be dismissed? There was one other course open to the Government. If they had this insuperable objection to the clause, would they accept a compromise—that was to say, if under the circumstances, as was admitted, an official was liable to dismissal, would the President of the Irish Local Government Board undertake that the Board would immediately issue to the Clerks of Unions a Circular intimating to them upon the authority of the Board that refusal or delaying to perform the duties cast upon them by the Act would entail their dismissal?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir. I do not accept the way in which the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) has put this question, or his description of the action of the officials of the Local Government Board. I can assure him, however, that we have every desire to see justice done in this matter; but I am not aware that any instance has been pointed out to me, or my hon. and learned Friend near me, of unfairness in these matters. The Local Government Board have undertaken to issue instructions, but we could not accept the clause in its present form. If it will meet the views of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) I will agree to a clause running in this way—
  "Any clerk of union, or other official…who, after having been called upon to perform such duty, shall wilfully refuse or delay, and so on."
  MR. SEXTON: I accept that.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think there would be no objection to that.
  Clause read a second time.
  Question, "That the word 'wilfully' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  New Clause:—
  (Devolution of title.)
  "For the purposes of this Act the production of letters of administration by any claimant in order to establish any devolution of title to or from any qualification shall not be deemed
  1416
  necessary, and the pendency of proceedings under or the non-compliance with any of the provisions of the third section of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' shall not be deemed to invalidate a claim to any qualification,"— (Mr. Marum,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he did not think it would be advisable to accept the clause.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he must confess that the difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) aimed at by the clause was one very certain to arise.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this was not so much a question of difficulty as a matter of actual fact. At the last revision in the Queen's County, a considerable number of men were disfranchised because they had not taken out letters of administration. He knew of cases where men had died leaving several sons, but only one son had remained in occupation of the farm for perhaps 12 or 15 years, this arrangement being completely satisfactory to all the parties. According to ordinary presumption, the man who had been in occupation, and had paid rates, was entitled to vote. But that was not enough for the gentleman who presided at the Registration Court, and he disallowed vote after vote, on the ground that though the men had been in exclusive occupation for a very great number of years, they had not qualified themselves legally by taking out letters of administration. Primâ facie claims to be registered did not avail the men at all. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) saw his constituents, one after another, disfranchised on no better ground than that he had stated. This means of disfranchisement had been adopted in the past, and he had no doubt it would be adopted in the future unless steps were taken to avoid it.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) could give the Committee an estimate of the disfranchisements under such circumstances?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that he saw five men disfranchised in a quarter of an hour.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he did not think that such disfranchisement as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. O'Connor) referred to would be possible, when regard was had to the provisions of this Bill. There was a clause providing that actual occupation should give the vote, and if evidence were given of actual occupation, one could hardly understand the vote being disallowed. As to the latter part of the clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Marum), it would not in his (the Solicitor General's) opinion have any effect at all. The words were—
  "Or the non-compliance with any of the provisions of the third section of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' shall not he deemed to invalidate a claim to any qualification."
  He did not quite understand what was meant by non-compliance with any of the provisions of the 3rd section of the Land Act, because that section provided that a man had to bequeath to one person only. If a man bequeathed to more than one person, he (the Solicitor General) did not understand what was to follow. If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Marum) was agreeable, they would confer together to see whether the difficulty suggested could be properly met. Whatever evil there was, he (the Solicitor General) did not think it would be remedied by this clause. He thought that, as a matter of fact, the clause would be a mere nullity.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he would point out that it was possible that there might be pendency of proceedings within the 12 months to determine who was the tenant of premises. It was to prevent the pendency of proceedings invalidating a claim to a qualification, that he proposed this clause. He knew many persons who did not like to sub-divide a holding. They agreed amongst themselves, and then came the difficulty who was the tenant? When they came before the Revising Barrister, that gentleman invariably asked, first of all, who the occupier was.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Marum) would confer with the Law Officers, they would be very happy to do what they could to meet his views. If, after a conference, the hon. and learned Gentleman preferred his own words, he
  1418
  could move to re-introduce his clause on the Report.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he would very gladly avail himself of the suggestion, of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  SCHEDULE.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANproposed an Amendment, in page 4, line 1, before "Schedule," to insert "Second."
  Question, "That that word be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. CAMPBELL-
  BANNERMANproposed an Amendment, in Schedule 2, page 4, lines 9 and 10, after "2," to leave out "and the Schedules," and insert "except sub-sections one and two of section two."
  Question, "That the words 'and the Schedules' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'except sub-sections one and two of section two' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANproposed an Amendment, in Second Schedule, page 4, leave out from beginning of line 27 to end of Schedule, and insert—
  "The forms and directions applicable to cases where new polling districts have been constituted, contained in the First Schedule to this Act, shall be substituted for the corresponding forms and directions contained in the Schedule to 'The Polling Districts (Ireland) Act, 1873.'"
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would ask the Government whether they were willing to agree to the holding of night Sessions in places like Kingstown, especially now that the Franchise Act had made a great change in the general character and the number of persons who would come up to prove their claims?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he would consider the subject and determine upon it by Report.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN moved the insertion of a new Schedule.
  New Schedule (Containing the Forms necessary to carry out the Act in counties and Boroughs separately, and in Counties and Boroughs conjunctively,)—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman,)—
  brought up, and read the first and second time.
  Question proposed, "That the Schedule be added to the Bill."

  PART III.—FORMS APPLICABLE TO BOTH COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS.
    FORM NO. 31.

      CLAIM OF LODGER.
      MR.
      HEALY, in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out Column 4, "Amount of Rent paid," said, the term in question was a very confusing term, because the lodgings were to be of the value of £10 unfurnished. The people who got the forms would be puzzled to know whether the phrase to which he referred meant with or without furniture. He and his hon. Friends were puzzled to know how to fill up the form, and that fact was sufficient to show that many other people would experience the same difficulty. He would, therefore, propose that the column be struck out.
      Amendment proposed, in Part 3, Form No. 31, to leave out Column 4,"Amount of Rent paid."—(Mr. Healy.)
      Question proposed, "That the Column proposed to be left out stand part of the Form."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not agree now to the striking out of the column. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would reserve the point until Report.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he had no bigotry about this Form at all. The lodger franchise had been retained, in addition to all the other franchises now created. There must be some column in the Form, the filling up of which would enable anybody to ascertain the value of the lodgings in respect of which a man claimed to be registered. If this column were struck out, how was a person to find out that the figure of £10 was reached? There certainly should be something to indicate the value of the lodgings.
      MR. HEALYthought that instead of a column, "Amount of Rent paid," it would be better to have one, "Are your rooms above the value of" so much? The present column was mere surplusage, because no man would fill up the Form, unless he considered the value of his rooms was over £10. The point was this—that in the City of Dublin people were in the habit of taking rooms and furnishing them themselves. There were also, as a matter of course, furnished lodgings, and therefore a distinction ought to be made between furnished and unfurnished rooms, and this column did not make any distinction between them. Perhaps the difficulty would be met if the word "furnished" were put in.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would point out that there was one column, "Description of Rooms occupied, and whether furnished or not."
      MR. HEALYsaid, he would agree to the postponement of the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      On the Motion of Mr. FINDLATER (for Mr. T. A. DICKSON), the following Amendment made:—At end insert the following Schedule:—
      (Schedule B.)
      NOTICE of OBJECTION to be given to PARTIES objected to by any PERSON other than the CLERK of the PEACE or CLERK of the UNION, or POOR KATE COLLECTOR.
      Polling district of
      To Mr., of
      Take notice that I object to your name [in the notice to the tenant, instead of the words "your name," insert the name of the person objected to] being retained on the list for this polling district of voters for the county of [or borough of], and I ground ray objection on the column of the register headed—
      "Christian name and surname of each person on the register;"
      Or on the column headed-—
      "Place of abode;"
      Or on the column headed—
      "Nature of qualification;"
      Or on the column headed—
      "Amount of qualification or rating;"
      Or on the column headed—
      "Townland or other denomination, street, lane, or other like place in this polling district, &c."
      Dated this day of one thousand eight hundred and
      Signed A.B., of [place of abode], being now registered [or] on the register of voters r list of voters [as the case may be] for the county of [or borough of].
      Bill reported, as amended; to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    [BILL 132.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title); and Clause 2 (Definition), severally agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Power of Her Majesty in Council to prescribe forms).
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "including," and insert "excluding," said, he proposed the Amendment for the purpose of keeping in the hands of hon. Members the alteration of an Act of Parliament which was very important to Scotland. The clause proposed to enable the form of the Valuation Roll to be altered by an Order of the Queen in Council, instead of its being brought to the House of Commons and altered after consultation with the Scotch Members. It was quite possible that English and Irish Members did not know that the Valuation Roll was the most important document the Scotch people had. It was formed 32 years ago as the basis of all rating in Scotland, and it had been of the greatest value since. In Scotland they could not get on without it; and the English and Irish people would be very well satisfied if they adopted the same system. But that, however, was another matter. The Order of the Queen in Council was a very high sounding term; but, in point of fact, it really amounted to the Lord Advocate and his clerks. This was purely a Scotch business; and he would show the way in which this very Bill had been brought before the House, as an instance of how easily alterations might be made without any consultation with the Members from Scotland. This Bill was printed and delivered to hon. Members between 8 and 9 o'clock last Wednesday, and at 1 o'clock on the same day it was read a second time. He believed that not more than one or two Members from Scotland then knew that the Bill was in existence. He asked several Scotch Mem-
    1422
    bers, and only one of them told him that he had noticed that the Bill had been delivered that morning. He believed that the rapidity with which the Bill was read a second time was unprecedented in the annals of Parliament. There was no record of a Bill being read a second time the day it was delivered to Members. He mentioned that as an instance of how easily the Valuation Roll might be altered without the Scotch Representatives knowing any thing about it. The alteration that was proposed in this case was the adoption for the counties of a form of roll now used in boroughs. He would deal with that more in detail when they reached the Schedules. The county Members in the counties in Scotland had no organization by which they could bring to the notice of the Lord Advocate either their objections to the proposed change, or their wishes with regard to it. In that respect they were in a very different position to the burghs of Scotland, which had what was called the Convention of Burghs — an. organization for the purpose of looking after the interests of the burghs—having its head-quarters and offices in Edinburgh, and for its President very often the Lord Provost of that city. They had, therefore, means of access to the Lord Advocate and other officials in Edinburgh for the furthering of their wishes. He did not say that the interests of the burghs and counties were antagonistic; but his point was that they were not identical. Their wants were very different, and what was suitable for one might not be suitable for the other. It would be very easy for the officials of the Government to make changes which might have a political bias, and which might affect the voting of either burghs or counties in a very important manner, and, therefore, he thought hon. Members of that House ought to retain what they had had for 30 years—namely, the privilege of altering the law. He, therefore, proposed just merely to strike out of Clauses 3 to 4 so much as enabled them to alter the Valuation Roll of counties without coming to that House. He hoped hon. Members would see that it was proposed purely to keep in their hands that power which they had now, and not for any purpose of obstruction or hostility to the measure of the Lord Advocate. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice,
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 12, to leave out the word "including" for the purpose of inserting the word"excluding,"—(Sir Alexander Gordon,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'including' stand part of the Clause."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as he understood him, both from his Amendment on the Paper and from his speech, did not object to the Queen in Council being vested with the power of prescribing forms for the execution of this Act generally, but merely objected to that power being extended to the Valuation Boll. [Sir ALEXANDER GORDON: Yes; that is so.] In that case, he could assure the Committee that the only object with which this provision had been introduced was for the sake of convenience. They had now had a good many years experience of the Valuation Boll. It had been very frequently altered by Act of Parliament; and he believed that the counties had by no means adhered to the particular form which had been prescribed from time to time, so that there were in the various counties considerable variations. His hon. and gallant Friend had spoken of the want of facility for communication. He could assure the hon. Member that the reason why the Bill was somewhat late in being introduced was because they had been in communication with the assessors of the leading counties with the view of ascertaining what was the prevalent opinion as to the most convenient form and method of accomplishing the object they had in view—namely, simplicity and clearness in this Boll. It was found, from time to time, that some of the entries were needless, and that others required to be introduced Instead of making it essential to come back to Parliament for authority to get this done, they had thought it would be convenient to propose a simpler method of making such alteration as might be thought necessary from time to time. He conceived that that would be in accordance with the prevalent opinion; but he need scarcely say that if there was an idea on the part of Scotch Members that this should be made the subject of legislation, he would have no objection. A mere alteration of the
    1424
    form or the style was hardly worth— he was going to say occupying the time of the House, but he would not say that. He regarded the Valuation Boll as important; but it was not quite the charter of their liberties, as the hon. and gallant Member would seem to imply. He should like to know what the prevalent opinion on the subject was?
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had spoken of the Valuation Boll having been altered several times. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought, would find himself mistaken with regard to that. It had only been altered once.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): No; several times.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he had here two Acts of Parliament— namely, the Act of 1854, and the subsequent Act of the 24 & 25 Vict.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Valuation Boll was altered with regard to burghs by the Burghs Reform Act, and in regard to counties by the County Voters Act of 1861.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that was what he was speaking of. The Act of 1861, no doubt, had altered it. It had made it optional for the period to be one or five years, as the Commissioners of Supply thought proper. It was for the purpose of assimilating the Roll; but there was no object to be gained by assimilating the Boll of the counties and the burghs. The two were wholly different, and nothing would be gained by having the two forms amalgamated. Therefore, he hoped his Amendment would be acceded to.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that he had understood the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to invite an expression of opinion as to the propriety of the proposals in the Bill. Well, he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) hardly concurred in the proposals in the Bill. He thought it would be distinctly to the advantage of those who had to deal with the working of the Act in the counties and burghs that there should be a certain elasticity given which could not be obtained by the complicated machinery of an Act of Parliament. It might seem a trivial point, and a somewhat unimportant point, which had been raised by his hon. and gallant Friend

    1425
    (Sir Alexander Gordon); but he could assure the Committee that there was a great deal of expense, unavoidable expense, involved in this question. It was the practice in the counties to adopt a most cumbersome and expensive form of printing the register of voters. He held in his hand a sheet of the register of voters for his own county, and he thought hon. Members, if they would look at it, would agree that it was a most inconvenient form. In his own constituency there were not more than 1,700 voters, and, absurd as it might seem, the register of these voters—the papers on which these 1,700 names were printed—weighed no less than 1½ lbs.; and he left it to the Committee to consider what would be the weight of records containing the names of, perhaps, 25,000 or 30,000 voters. He thought the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate deserved the thanks of the Committee for having referred this matter to the Privy Council; for, no doubt, the recommendations would reach that Body more perfectly and more readily than they would in the form of an Act of Parliament brought before this House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment negatived.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 24, after "1861," insert "and section sixteen of 'The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act;'" and in line 27. leave out "section four of the said Act," and insert "the last-mentioned section."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Assessor may call for a list of inhabitant occupiers).
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the first Amendment on the Paper in his name was as follows: — In page 2, line 4, after "every," insert "occupier or others." He did not, however propose to move it. He desired to accomplish the same thing by a slightly different method—namely, by moving to insert, in page 2, line 5, after the words "in respect of," the words "the occupation of." It had been pointed out that the clause, as it stood, did not define with sufficient clearness what the rating was to be. In Scotland, differing from the usual English practice, there
    1426
    was a rating both on the proprietor and the tenant, and under the clause, as it stood, there would be laid on the proprietor, however large his property, an obligation to send in a Return specifying all the names of the servants that even the tenants had on his property; and if the Committee accepted the proposal, he would have to specify also the time at which the servants entered his service. It would not be reasonable to ask that of the proprietor if he was not in the occupancy, because he might not have the means of knowing the facts; and accordingly the words he (the Lord Advocate) proposed to insert would make the clause run—"Every person rated, or liable to be rated, in respect of the occupation of lands." If he were the proprietor in occupation, then he would have to make the Return, and if he were the tenant in occupation he would have to do it. It was only the occupier who knew the service men on his property.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 5, after the words "in respect of," insert "occupation of."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 6, after "dwelling-house," insert "or on some agent of such person concerned in the management of such lands and heritages;" line 7, leave out "himself," and insert "such person;" line 9, after "dwelling-house," insert "and the month and year in which they began to occupy such dwelling-house;" line 10, leave out "he," and insert "any such person or agent;" and in line 12, leave out from "conviction," to end of Clause, and insert—
    "To the same penalty as is enacted in similar cases by section seven of the Act passed in the Session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Special provision as to voters in 1885), agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Dwelling-house to be entered in valuation roll).
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, to leave out "separately."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'separately' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. A. E. D. ELLIOTsaid, he wished to know the meaning of the Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it had been suggested that the use of the word "separately" was a direction which led the assessors, or some of them, in making up the lists, practically to make double entries. They might feel it their duty to enter a name a second time in connection with the houses of servants. A criticism had been made upon that by those familiar with the working of the matter.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he thought it desirable that the different houses attached to a farm should be entered separately.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, there was such a specification as would show that there was a different place inhabited by a different person. He had thought it safer to have the word "separately" in. They had been told that it would lead to double entry, and without it the section would be quite sufficient in itself.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought that each individual house should have a separate number on the Roll. Every house which carried a vote with it should have a separate number on the Roll.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it should be individualized, whether it was numbered or not.
    MR. R. P. BRUCEsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should consider the matter before Report. Take the case of a large farm; it might have four or five houses on it, the inhabitants of which would possess votes. There would be a list of four or five names in another column of the Roll, and nothing in the Roll to show where the houses were, or by whom they were occupied. That point he thought worthy of consideration. Should not the word "cottage," or whatever it might be, be put against each name?
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: I hope the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will consider that matter.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I will undertake to do so.
    MR. ORR-EWINGthought each house should be clearly specified.
    MR. BUCHANANasked whether there would be a separate entry?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that specifying a dwelling-house meant entering that dwelling-house individually. There might be a farmhouse, then so many cottages, and so on.
    Question put, and negatived; word left out accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Register in divided parishes); Clause 8 (Register in parliamentary burghs merged in counties); Clause 9 (Advertisement of new polling places in counties, 16 & 17 Vict. c. 28); and Clause 10 (Registration where counties are divided), severally agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Assessor not to be collector of poor rates or factor).
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he did not know what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate expected to gain by the clause. No doubt it was a desirable thing that the assessor of a burgh—it might be a small one—should not be allowed to be a factor or land agent within that small burgh; but there was no reason why he should be prevented from engaging as factor or land agent in farm operations in a district 10 or 12 miles away. He was sure the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate did not wish to prevent that, although that was the result of his clause. He (Mr. Williamson) proposed to remedy it in either one or two ways—either to insert, after the word "assessor," in line 11, the words "in the county or division of the county"—that was to say, to exclude the operation of the clause from an outside district. If that were not acceptable, he would suggest, as an alternative proposal, to put at the end of the clause the words "in the county district or burgh in which he may be assessor." He would move the first of the two alternative Amendments, but would leave the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to make his choice between the two.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 11, after the word "assessor," insert "in the county or division of the county."—(Mr. Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Williamson). He quite understood the reason of this clause. It might be advantageous to have the restriction in some cases; but there were instances in which burgh solicitors were to a very small extent land factors, and these gentlemen it would be un-unnecessary to exclude from the office of accessor. He believed the language of the clause was unnecessarily wide, and was of opinion that the case the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had in view, and which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had also borne in mind, would be met by making the provision apply to counties only. He thought that burgh factors should be excluded from the clause. They were in no sense factors in the sense in which he understood those referred to in the Bill to be.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he hoped that the second alternative proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson) would be accepted. To include small burghs in the operation of this Bill would be to put a stop to some flagrant cases of pluralism which existed in small burghs, and there could be no particular hardship in the proposal. He quite agreed that there was no reason why an assessor in a burgh or county should be prevented from doing what he liked in any district beyond his official jurisdiction; but that brought in the second alternative. But if this was to be inserted in the clause, and he thought it was desirable that it should, he protested against burghs being taken out.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLcould not understand the object of the provision in the Bill which they were discussing. If gentlemen acting as factors in many districts were excluded by their office from acting as assessors, they would lose the services of those who were really the most capable men in the county for discharging the duties of assessors. Of course, in large towns there was plenty of choice; but he would ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to remember that in sparsely populated districts and rural places the most capable business men, and the best men, were selected as factors and land agents, and that these would be the best qualified for dis-
    1430
    charging the duties of assessors. He must protest against the idea, which seemed to be accepted in some quarters, that because a man was employed in a certain capacity to act between a landlord and tenant, he utterly and entirely lost the capacity for acting impartially in any public office. He entirely protested against any such idea as that, and trusted the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would, if he did not abandon this Amendment, at all events show some better reason why the Committee should support it than it bore on the face of it.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he supported the view of the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell). He had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out all the words after the word "rates" to the end of the clause. He failed to understand why burgh assessors should be placed in a better position than county assessors, as his hon. Friend the Member for Wigtonshire had just stated. Some of the factors who acted as county assessors were the very best men in the county. He had in view the cases of several assessors in several towns who had been acting as factors for various properties for 25 years past. He had never heard any complaint against these gentlemen; and he thought that to prevent a choice being made from amongst the factors and land agents was to deprive the public of the services of a very valuable class of men. The result of the exclusion proposed would be that they would be apt to get an inferior class of men, because the superior class would have to chose between giving up their factorships or relinquishing the assessorships. He thought in the case of men who had acted for 25 years without a whisper of complaint against them, it was a hard thing to put before them the alternative of giving up either their factorships or their assessorships. He had not heard a single argument in favour of the plan the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate proposed; and he should like to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he had to say in favour of depriving this worthy class of men of their assessor ships or their factorships, as the case might be?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he thought he could explain in a few words the reason why this clause was introduced. It had been

    1431
    introduced in consequence of representations received from a variety of quarters to the effect that the combination of the offices of assessors and factors had resulted in a good deal of complaint. Pluralism was objected to as being disadvantageous in the holder of a public office, but it was not merely to prevent that that the clause had been introduced. Legislation had no concern with that by itself, unless it was shown that there was some possible conflict between the discharge of a public duty and a private one. What were the duties of an assessor and his powers? An assessor had to go about and collect all kinds of information regarding hereditable property. He had to go about the lands in his district, whether county or burgh. He asked all kinds of questions, and made all kinds of notes, and entered what he thought the value on the Valuation Roll, and he very often had a considerable amount of judgment to bring to bear. Take, for instance, the case of houses in the town or in the county which were not let, but in the occupancy of the owner. The assessor had. to form an opinion as to what value he would put upon them. On the other hand, observe what an assessor's duties as factor were. One of his duties as factor was, of course, to manage in the interest of his employer, and to avoid any taxation that could be avoided. He should be very sorry to make any charge against the factors; but it was quite plain that they might be tempted to take a more favourable—that is, for the purposes of taxation, a lower—view of the valuation of property they managed than they would if the same property were managed by someone else. Accordingly, it was thought there was a possibility of a conflict of public and private duty to which no one should be subjected. Certainly there were parts of the country in which the feeling existed—whether rightly or wrongly—that it was unfortunate that there should be persons in such a position. He put it as a matter of general principle which he thought the Committee would accept. If what he had said were true of the country, he should imagine it was even more true of the towns. It had been represented to the Government that there were in towns gentlemen holding the office of house factors and also of assessors, and it had been pointed out that it was unfair they
    1432
    should have the power of valuing houses they managed and the houses they did not manage. The same considerations, therefore, came into play in towns as in counties. Assessors who acted as house factors would get to know the affairs of their neighbours, and it might be of their rivals in trade. They might obtain particulars with regard to other houses that it was not desirable they should acquire. In short, this was not a position in which a man should be placed. Such was the ground on which this provision with regard to factors had been introduced. He might point out that no objection had been made to the collectors of poor rates being disqualified from acting as assessors. The reason of their disqualification was obvious. Poor rate collectors also had certain duties to perform with respect to the preparation of the Register. But it appeared to him that the case against factors acting as assessors was even stronger than that against poor rate collectors. He should, however, be quite prepared, if the Committee thought tit, to accept the second Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews Burghs (Mr. Williamson), because the possible conflict of duty would not arise except where the management was in the same area as that in which the second set of duties were to be performed. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Williamson) would for the words "for a county or division of a county" substitute the words "in the county or burgh," he (the Lord Advocate) would be prepared to accept the Amendment. But he was not disposed, for the reasons he had given, to drop the provision, unless there was a feeling in the Committee that it was not a right provision.
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he was very sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had thought it necessary to introduce this clause, because he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) thought that the clause was quite unnecessary. They had not been told the sources from which the Government had obtained the information upon which this clause was defended. It was a great pity that owing to secret communications, a clause should be inserted in an Act of Parliament which really endeavoured to cast a reflection upon a most respectable class of men. This clause would be

    1433
    found to be all the more unnecessary when it was borne in mind how the assessors were appointed. The Government assessors valued each district of Scotland, and the counties almost invariably appointed them their assessors—indeed, he was not aware of any county with which he was acquainted that did not accept the valuation of the county assessors. It must be a very small county that acted differently. It would save the counties a great deal of expense, and a clashing of valuation between the Government and county assessors, if the Government valuation were to be adopted. It would be much better for the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to withdraw this clause altogether. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would only give the matter a little thought, and throw aside the anonymous correspondence he had received, he must see the force of the arguments addressed to him.
    MR. WILLIAMSONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment, seeing that the Lord Advocate was prepared to accept the alternative proposal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 12, after "be," insert "a sheriff clerk or clerk of supply."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. R. P. BRUCEsaid, he wished to point out that if these men were prevented from engaging in the work, it might be found necessary to employ men of an inferior class.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he would remind the Committee that sheriffs' officers had other public duties to perform.
    MR. DALRYMPLEasked what sort of persons it was contemplated to employ in future as assessors? In many districts there was only a limited number of persons who could possibly be so employed; and if by this Bill they were to exclude such persons, who would have to be appointed in future? No one could make a living by being assessor only; and if an assessor was not to have any other means of obtaining a living, he (Mr. Dalrymple) failed to see who they could appoint to the office.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)thought a very convenient
    1434
    method would be to appoint the Government assessor. He believed that the Government assessor was employed in all the counties of Scotland except six.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    DR. CAMERONproposed, in page 3, line 12, after "poor," to insert "or other public." It appeared to him that the same argument applied in the case of the one officer as in the case of the other.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, after "poor," to insert "or other public."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he doubted whether it was wise to use such very general words. He did not exactly know what they covered. He thought the Committee ought to know whether any particular office was pointed at, and whether it was expected there would be any conflict of duty.
    DR. CAMERON: The municipal and police rates, for instance.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he did not know that the mere collecting of money raised a conflict, and he put it to his hon. Friend whether the words adopted did not cover every office that was necessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he was not satisfied with the explanations given by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and as he believed, with his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing),that the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman cast a slur on a deserving body of men, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 13, to leave out all after "rates" to end of Clause.—(General Alexander.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he did not propose to repeat what he had already said on this matter; but he must point out that what was proposed did not cast a slur upon anybody—he should be very sorry if it

    1435
    did. Parliament had repeatedly declared by Acts that particular offices should not be held together. That did not cast a slur upon anybody; it merely affirmed that in the estimation of Parliament it would be better that certain offices should not be held jointly. The object was to prevent any possible conflict of duties.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that an undoubted slur was cast upon the factors. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said he had received anonymous communications.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I did not say anonymous.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that so far as the Committee were concerned the communications were anonymous. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had received communications, he declined to say from whom; but he invited the Committee to be influenced by communications of this nature. He (Sir Herbert Maxwell) would be very surprised if the Committee of the House of Commons consented to pay any attention whatsoever to the communications in question. Why, they all knew that nobody could fill any public office in any rural town or large town without making enemies. It was very possible that an enemy of one of the factors had written to the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not to suppose that the Committee would on any trivial grounds consent that a class of men should be discredited in the manner proposed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as if to be tempted was tantamount to being tempted. He spoke of the motives which would actuate these gentlemen, and he mentioned certain forms of temptation to which they would be exposed by the fact of holding a number of offices of course, men were exposed to temptation; but it was not the business of the House of Commons to build a hedge round every subject of Her Majesty so that they should not be tempted. The gentlemen in question could resist temptation, and therefore he cordially supported the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander).
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, there were only six counties in Scotland which did not adopt the Government assessor. He would put it to the right hon. and learned
    1436
    Lord Advocate whether it would not be better to introduce a clause compelling these six counties to adopt the Government valuator as the county valuator? If that were done, the difficulty which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends foresaw, of having factors and Poor Law Inspectors acting as assessors, would be prevented. If this suggestion did not meet with approval, he hoped the Committee would reject the clause altogether.
    DR. CAMERONhoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would adhere to this part of his proposal. He did not see that any slur was cast upon any section of the community by what was proposed. There was a strong temptation to employ as factor a man who had power of fixing the assessment of properties. The liberal reforms which had taken place would work a very material change, especially in the Highland counties; and from the knowledge he (Dr. Cameron) possessed of the classes who were to be enfranchised, he could say that they would not regard with anything like confidence or satisfaction the holding of the office of assessor by the factors. Officials of this sort should be above suspicion; and when they were legislating on this subject, it was well that a change should be made if good reason were shown for making it. The hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had spoken of anonymous communications. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate did not mention anonymous communications, but spoke of having received communications from various quarters of the country. He (Dr. Cameron) had also received many communications on this subject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would accept the request of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing). That hon. Gentleman had proposed a compromise which would be acceptable to all Parties. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) agreed with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, that there was some advantage in having officials who were above suspicion; but he also agreed with his hon. Friend, that there was no more deserving class in all Scotland, a class more capable of doing their business than the factors. If it was true that this clause

    1437
    was likely to be interpreted as a slur on that deserving class, could not that be avoided without injury to the Public Service? Would it not be well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to engage, between this and Report, to make it obligatory on all counties in Scotland to engage the Government assessors?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. A. BALFOUR)said, he thought it was possible it might be regarded as an interference with local self-government if the Government were to say—"We appoint certain gentlemen as assessors, and you must appoint them as your assessors." Besides, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Orr-Ewing) did not cover the case of burghs, and he (the Lord Advocate) was not sure whether that was not a more important case than the other.
    MR. ORR-EWINGsuggested that it should be arranged to include the burghs in the provision.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the only counties in which this was in question at all were the Highland counties, and it was just in those counties where there would be difficulty in finding any efficient official other than the Government official. He was certainly of opinion that it would be well if some compulsion were put on the counties in this matter.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in order that a division might be taken upon the Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) moved an Amendment, in page 3, line 13, after "factor," to insert "for heritable property."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he would propose the Amendment accepted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate—namely, at the end of line 13, to add "in the county or burgh for which he may be assessor."
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 13, at end, to insert "in the county or burgh for which he may be assessor."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BUCHANANasked whether it would not be necessary to insert the words "Parliamentary burgh?"
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he did not know whether that would be necessary; but he would consider the matter on Report, and also whether they should not insert the words "county or division of county."
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    DR. CAMERONproposed to insert, in line 13, at end—
    "And every person who is the partner of a person so employed shall, for the purpose of this section, he deemed himself to be so employed."
    His object in proposing this Amendment was to prevent an evasion of the meaning of the clause.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 13, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "and every person who is the partner of a person so employed shall, for the purpose of this section, he deemed himself to be so employed."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the qualification was an individual qualification, and he did not think there was any fear of a clause being evaded in the way contemplated by the hon. Gentleman. If the clause were allowed to stand as at present, there would be no possibility of harm arising.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he considered the Amendment was necessary, and therefore trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would see his way to accept it.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, the clause might be necessary or not; but his belief was that if the clause was necessary, to make it effective they must put in words such as he proposed. Therefore, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not accept the Amendment, he should divide the Committee.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 31; Noes 76: Majority 45. — (Div. List, No. 148.)
    Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 80; Noes 27: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 149.)
    Clause 12 (Separate valuation of water, gas, and other companies to be made in police burghs having population over 5,000).
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 14, after "twenty-three," insert "twenty-five and twenty-seven;" and in line 19, leave out from "Act" to end of Clause.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in moving the insertion of a new clause, after Clause 12, providing for the printing of the Valuation Bolls, giving the Commissioners of Supply of any county, or the magistrates of any burgh, duly assembled for such purpose, the power to enter into contracts for such printing, and declaring the expense of such printing to be part of the expense of mating up the Roll, and to be assessed for and levied accordingly, explained that under the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act of 1867 the power was given to the Commissioners of Supply to contract for the printing of the Roll only for one year at a time, and it was thought that it would be much cheaper to give the power to contract for a period not exceeding 10 years. The new clause, therefore, proposed that they should have power to make such contracts for 10 years.
    New Clause:—
    (Printing of Valuation Roll. 30 and 31 Vic. c. 80.)
    "It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Supply of any county, or the magistrates of any burgh, to resolve at any meeting of their number, ordinary or special, duly called, and by a majority of those attending and voting, that the Valuation Roll of such county or burgh shall be printed for any period of years not exceeding ten, and it shall be lawful for such Commissioners or magistrates to enter into contracts for printing the same, and the expenses of such printing shall be deemed to be part of the expenses of making up such Roll, and shall be assessed for and valued accordingly: Provided always, That notice of the intention to move such resolution shall be inserted in the notice calling the meeting at which it is to be moved.
    "And section ten of 'The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1867,' is hereby repealed,"—(The Lord Advocate,)
    brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he would move that Progress should now be reported. Many hon. Members had not been able as yet to look very carefully at these Amendments, some of which had been put upon the Paper for the first time that night. Another reason for postponement was that he and several other Scotch Members had sent off the Bill and the Amendments to their friends in Scotland for their consideration, and before going into the new clauses, which occupied a couple of pages of the Paper, he would like to know what his friends in Scotland thought of them. The only result of persevering with the Bill now would be that discussion would be raised upon it on the Report stage.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman be directed to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. R. D. Elliot.')
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, there was another reason for reporting Progress. The Prime Minister had announced at Question time that evening that he should have a statement to make next week with regard to the course he proposed to take in the English Bill in reference to the question of paying for the expenses of registration. It would be observed that these new clauses dealt with the question of the cost of registration. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would tell the Committee what course the Government would take on this question in the present Bill?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that was a matter for the judgment of the House. But if the Bill passed through Committee that night, it would be reprinted before the Report, and it would be more convenient to discuss the matter then. He did not propose to go into the general question now; but whatever might be decided in regard to it in connection with the English measure, the same principle would, of course, apply to the Bill for Scotland.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he would, in that case, withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress. His only object was to prevent the Committee from going on in the dark.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then, we understand that, whatever arrangement is come to in the English Bill on this point, a similar arrangement will be made for Scotland?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Yes.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in moving the insertion of a new clause providing for the registration of lodgers in the case of the joint occupation of lodgings where the interest of each lodger, not more than two in number, amounted to an annual sum of not less than £10, explained that the object of the clause was to give the same privilege to lodgers in Scotland as was enjoyed by lodgers in England under the Registration Act of 1878.
    New Clause:—
    (Joint occupation of lodgings.)
    "Where lodgings are jointly occupied by more than one lodger, and the clear yearly value of the lodgings if let unfurnished is of an amount which when divided by the number of the lodgers gives a sum of not less than ten pounds for each lodger, then each lodger, if otherwise qualified, and subject to the conditions of 'The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868,' shall be entitled to be registered, and when registered to vote as a lodger, provided that not more than two persons, being such joint lodgers, shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such lodgings,"—(The Lord Advocate,)
    —brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. HENDERSONsaid, he wished to know whether, in any case where there were more than two lodgers in joint occupation of the premises, the Revising Barrister would be permitted to make a selection among then?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that could not be done under the English law, and it would not be possible under the present Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) moved the insertion of a new clause, providing that the declaration of a lodger annexed to his notice of claim should be prima facie evidence of his qualification.
    New Clause: —
    (Declaration of lodger to be prima facie evidence.)
    "In the case of a person claiming to vote as a lodger, the declaration annexed to his notice of claim shall for the purposes of revision be primâ facie evidence of his qualification,"— (The Lord Advocate,)
    —brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he wished to know what would be the effect of the clause?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that here again the analogy of the English Act was followed. It had been said that a man ought not to be obliged to go and prove affirmatively that he was a lodger, and the object of the clause was simply to provide that the onus of objecting to him should be thrown upon the person who objected.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following new Clauses were read a first and second time, and added to the Bill: —
    (Remuneration of collectors of poor rates.)
    "For the duties imposed upon them by sections eighteen and nineteen of 'The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868,' collectors of poor rates shall be entitled to remuneration at the rate of six shillings for every thousand names, and such remuneration shall be paid as part of the expenses of registration in counties and burghs respectively."
    (Additional officers for registration in 1885.)
    "During the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five—

    "(1.) It shall be lawful for the assessors, with the consent of the Commissioners of Supply and of the Town Council, in counties and burghs respectively, to employ such assistants as may be necessary in order to complete the registration of voters at every stage at the proper date;"

    (2.) It shall be lawful for the sheriff to appoint such number of substitutes as he thinks necessary to assist in the revision

    1443
    of the list of voters, such substitutes shall have the qualifications required by law for a salaried sheriff-substitute, and shall be paid at the rate of seven guineas per day;

    "All expenses under this section shall be paid as part of the expenses of registration in counties and burghs respectively."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) moved the insertion of a new clause dealing with the cases of the double entry of voters upon the lists.
    New Clause:—
    (Double entries of Voters.)
    "(1.) When the name of a person appears to be entered more than once as a voter on the lists of voters for the same county or burgh, the sheriff, when revising the lists, shall inquire whether such entries relate to the same person, and, on proof that such entries relate to the same person, shall retain one entry and strike out the others.
    "(2) The said person may select the entry to be retained by notice in writing delivered or Bent by post to the sheriff clerk at or before the opening of the first court at which the sheriff revises any of the lists in which any such entries appear, or by application made by such person or on his behalf at the first sitting of the court for the revision of such lists.
    "(3.) If no selection is so made the entry to be retained shall be determined as follows:—
    "(a.) In counties: —
    "(i.) If one of the entries is an entry on the list of voters as proprietor, and unobjected to, that entry shall be retained; and
    "(ii.) If none of the entries is on the list of voters as proprietor, and one of the entries is the place of residence of the voter, and unobjected to, the entry in respect of the place of residence shall be retained; and"
    (iii.) In any other case the entry which is first reached by the sheriff in revising the lists shall be retained:
    "(b.) In burghs:—
    "(i.) If one of the entries is the place of residence of the voter, the entry in respect of the place of residence shall be retained; and
    "(ii.) In any other case the entry which is first reached by the sheriff in revising the lists shall be retained:
    "And, if any such entry to be retained is objected to the sheriff shall not finally strike out any other entry until the objection to the entry to be retained has been determined by him in favour of the voter:
    "(4.) When a Parliamentary burgh is divided into divisions, and the name of a person is entered in the register of Parliamentary voters in more than one division, and one of these entries is his place of residence, he shall be entitled to vote only in that division in which he is registered as a voter in respect of his place of
    1444
    residence, and shall not vote in respect of any other entry,"—(The Lord Advocate.)
    —brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he was glad the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate proposed to reprint the Bill, because this clause was of a somewhat startling character in its arrangement and method. It not only contained four sub-sections, but one of these subsections was sub-divided into two; and of those two secondary sub-sections, one was again sub-divided into three parts, and the other into two. Altogether the clause was of a most complicated character, and it might surely be made more intelligible. He would Like to know what was meant by the word "entries," because it was difficult to ascertain whether they were men or things. In line 3 of the clause they Were clearly things; but in line 17 as clearly they were persons. He hoped this sort of criticism would not be considered hypercritical—it was very important that they should be clear in the wording of the Bill. He would also like to see the words "unobjected to" omitted. Clearly they were not English, and he did not know that they were Scotch. They formed an unfortunate expression for an Act of Parliament. As the Bill was to be reprinted, he hoped that attention would be given to these points.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he did not know whether the words "unobjected to" were Scotch; but he had no doubt whatever that they were English, because they were taken from the English Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause verbally amended as amended agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Schedule.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON SIR ALEXANDER GORDON moved, as an Amendment, the substitution of a Schedule in a different form from that contained in the Bill. Under the Act of 1854, two separate forms of Roll were established, one for counties, and the other for burghs. The one for counties had a column like the one he now proposed for the description of sub-

    1445
    ject; but the one for burghs was subdivided, and had a small space for streets. In counties the houses were not numbered, and therefore the place for numbers was of no use. For some reason unexplained, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate now proposed to introduce one form both for counties and burghs. In 1861, under the County Voters Act for Scotland, the two original forms were reduced to one form, and the double columns for towns were discontinued, and one simple form was introduced for both counties and burghs. That had been in use ever since 1861, and he was not aware that any inconvenience had arisen from it. But the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate now proposed to reverse the arrangement—to have one form for counties and burghs; but to make the counties adopt the burgh form, by which there would be a complicated column with three divisions introducing a number. There ought to be a separate roll for counties, with one plain column, in which to place the entries. He had in his hand some of the forms, and there would be no difficulty in filling them up with one column. He did not attach much importance to the point; but, as it would simplify the procedure, he would move to leave out the words "and situation."
    Amendment proposed, in column 2, to leave out the words "and situation."— (Sir Alexander Gordon.)
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he must point out that it was most essential to have a clear specification. He apprehended that the Committee would think that the column, as it stood, was a proper column.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR ALEXANDER. GORDONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose in order to carry out the 5th section of the Act of 1868, which was to the effect that any person holding property of the value of £5, after deducting feu duty, should be entitled to vote. That section, not having been repealed, it was important to have the feu duty placed on the Valuation Boll, in order that it might be deducted from the total value, and that it might be seen at once whether the person was entitled to vote. If that was not done, there would be a great inducement to assessors making
    1446
    up the Boll to take the value of property as it stood, without deducting the feu duty. It was also very important that there should be a public record of all feuars. Feuars were liable to assessment in cases where tenants were not so liable; therefore it was most desirable to have on the Valuation Boll a statement of those who were feuars, and those who were tenants. That was the custom with regard to the last Valuation Boll, and it had been found to be very useful. He therefore proposed that the right hon. Gentleman should agree to take out the first money column of the Government Schedule, because that column was of no value whatever. His proposal was that they should have the net result put in the column of the yearly rent or value.
    Amendment proposed, in column 7, to leave out the words "yearly rent or value," in order to insert the words "feu duty and ground annual,"—(sir Alexander Gordon,) —instead thereof.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERS: What is the meaning of "ground annual?"
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: Ground rent.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Schedule had been prepared after very careful consideration with assessors in the leading counties of Scotland. There seemed to have been something like a consensus that it was not necessary to insert the feu duty; but he found that there had since been a good deal of representation in another sense. He was therefore willing to accept the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend.
    Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the column headed "Observations."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
    Amendment agreed to; column left out accordingly.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.—REPORT. CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  WAYS AND MEANS — Resolutions [April 30] reported.
  Resolution 1 (Income Tax) read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Resolution be read a second time."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, this Resolution is an integral part of the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is one of the most important that any of us can remember, both as to the amount of expenditure and the amount of deficit, and as to the steps proposed to be taken for meeting the deficit of the year. The first step, of voting the Resolutions in Supply, has been taken without any substantial discussion, only certain observations of a conversational character having passed; and we know that when we are asked to take the Report stage at this hour of the morning (1.45) there can be no real discussion of principle. I do not object to the Report being taken now; but I think it ought to be clearly understood that we shall have an opportunity of discussing all the proposals of the Budget on the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. For that purpose I think it ought to be made the first Order on the day on which it is brought forward, and I say we ought to have also a fair opportunity of discussing that which lies at the root of the finance of the year —namely, the Vote of Credit for £ll,000,000, which has not been discussed, but which has been allowed to pass the Committee stage. It stands for Report, I believe, on Monday next. Now, what we desire is that we should have a proper opportunity of discussing that Report. I believe that the Government desire to put down the English Registration Bill as the first Order, and that they have also some proposal to make in order to meet the demands put for-ward in respect of questions relating to registration. That we understand will be a statement made by the Prime Minister, or by someone else on his he half, at the commencement of Business on Monday; and if that is satisfactory we understand that the Report of the Vote of Credit will be taken, but if not, that the Registration Bill will stand over until Tuesday, and Supply taken on Monday. Sir, I do not think that would be a satisfactory arrangement. Considering the magnitude of the Vote, and
  1448
  its relation to the finance of the year, considering also the dose bearing of the Vote on the policy of the Government in Egypt and elsewhere, it is only reasonable, I think, that we should have a full opportunity for discussion on that subject. Anyone of experience, who knows what it is to Lave Supply suspended at a late hour, to admit of another question of importance being taken, must be aware that, under such an arrangement, we cannot have the same satisfactory discussion as when the question is taken at an early part of the evening. I suggest, therefore, that the Government should make the arrangement for Monday such that we may have the greater part of the evening for the discussion on the Vote of Credit.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I think the right hon. Baronet has fairly stated the case. The Prime Minister not being present, it would be out of place for us to make any alterations in the arrangement with regard to the Business of the House; and, therefore, I can only say that it is the desire of the Government to place as much time as possible at the disposal of the House for the discussion on the Vote of Credit. I will undertake to communicate the statement of the right hon. Baronet to the Prime Minister.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 2 (Stamp Duties on Account of Property).
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with regard to the course he intended to take in the matter of Probate and Succession Duty. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was his intention to place all the points affecting this matter in a separate Bill, and not include them in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would follow that course, because it would be inconvenient to deal with a permanent change of law in the same measure with the alterations in the Income Tax and other similar duties. The Probate and Succession Duty was a subject of great importance and as such required and deserved considerable discussion. He believed the right hon.

  1449
  Gentleman would admit that, and also that it would not be easy to insure that discus-ion on the second reading, or even on the Committee stage of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. That being so, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take care to keep this matter apart from all other questions.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I must remind the right hon. Baronet that this question was formerly settled after great controversy, which ended in the rule that all Budget proposals relating to Customs and Inland Revenue arrangements should be embraced in one Bill. I need not go back to the controversy that ended in that settlement; but it has been adhered to; and whenever great changes have been made since—and very great changes have been made since 1861 in matters connected with the Stamp Duties, which are, at first sight, distinct from Custom and Excise Duties—the rule has been maintained. The whole of the Customs and Inland Revenue changes have been embraced in one Bill, and I cannot consent to depart from that rule. I said last night that the alteration in the Income Tax must take effect from this morning; but that the alterations embodied in the Stamp Resolutions would not take effect until after the Bill had passed through Parliament. That is a distinction made in previous years; it is a proper Constitutional distinction, and we are prepared to maintain it; but to deal with the financial proposals of the Government in two Bills would be absolutely impossible.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Remaining Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir ARTHUR OTWAY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. HIBBERT.

  METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) EXTENSION BILL— [BILL 137.]
  (Mr. H. H. Fowler, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) EXTENSION BILL— [BILL 137.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Extension of limits of Act under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 134. s. 4.).
    MR. FIRTHasked, why "six miles" was substituted for "four miles." There was no six miles area for any purposes; but the four miles area did exist for cab and other purposes.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Act which this Bill proposed to amend had three limits. There was the Metropolitan limit, the general limit of the Act, and the special limit of the Act. All that this Bill proposed to deal with was the general limit of the Act, by extending the radius from four miles to six.
    MR. FIRTHasked what was the reason of the change?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Because we think it most desirable in the public interest.
    Clause agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time on Monday next.

  WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 7.]
  (Mr. Daniel Grant, Mr. Torrens, Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Arthur Cohen, Mr. Ritchic, Mr. William Laurence, Baron Henry De Worms.)
  WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 7.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Explanation of s. 68 of Act 10 & 11 Vict. c. 17).
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that, in fulfilment of the pledge he gave to the House some time ago, he would propose, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 15, after "shall," to insert—
    "Within the Metropolitan area as defined by the Act of the eighteenth and nineteenth of Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty, section two hundred and fifty."
    The object of the Amendment was to limit the operation of the Act to that district which came under the control of the Valuation Act of 1869. That Act constituted a standard of value, and means of ascertaining value, which did not exist in other parts of the Kingdom.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 15, after "shall," insert "within the Metropolitan area as defined by the Act of the eighteenth and nineteenth of Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty, section two hundred and fifty."—(Mr. W. M. Torrens.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, that as the Committee had agreed that this should be a Bill confined to the Metropolis, the Amendment which stood in his name was merely consequential. The scope of the Bill was to assess the water rate upon the value determined by the Loral Authority from time to time. The Local Authority, acting through the Assessment Committee, had no power whatever to assess the net annual value; in fact, "net annual value" could not he found in the Act of Parliament. Under the Act the Local Authorities were called upon to fix two values, the gross value and the rateable value, and to insert in the valuation list, as set out in the Schedule, the value Tinder the two heads. Water rate should be paid on the same basis as local taxation; and that basis should be fixed by an independent authority—namely, the Assessment Committee, acting under the Valuation Authority. He fancied that was the intention of the Committee, and that that was the wish of the rate payers of the Metropolis. If they retained the words "net annual value," they would have a phrase which could not be defined even by the Water Companies themselves. With those words it was possible to have litigation upon every assessment; whereas if they adopted the words, "rateable value," they would have an amount which could not be challenged except through the Assessment Committee, and through the Court of Queen's Bench. If the words "net annual value" remained, the Bill would be inoperative, because the Local Authority would have no power; they had no power to settle the "net annual value," but only the rateable value. A paper had been circulated this morning—it bore the endorsement of the most eminent legal firms in the Metropolis, acting for the Water Companies—and in that Circular it was stated that net annual value and rateable value meant the same. If that was so, let the Committee adopt "rateable value," because that was a term generally understood.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "net annual," and insert "rateable."—(Sir Sydney Water-low.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'net annual' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, the reason why he could not agree with his hon. Friend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) on this change was simply this. Everyone knew that this controversy had arisen through the decision of the House of Lords sitting as a Court of Appeal, which decision was to the effect that Parliament, in 1847, could have meant nothing else than to establish the test of net annual value. He (Mr. Torrens) took that as the basis of this Bill; and with the assistance of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Arthur Cohen), and many other Gentlemen of great experience, he had, he hoped, obtained the consent of the House to turn into legislation that which was successful litigation. In other words, he believed that net annual value would be found to be identical with rateable value; but if the House of Commons should determine to substitute the phrase "rateable value," which did not occur in the decision of the House of Lords, for "net annual value," which did occur in that decision, he thought they all knew there were influences in the Upper House which were very likely to fasten upon that as an objection, and say that was not what the House of Lords decided in the case of Dobbs. His hon. Friend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had vast experience in London rating, and he must know what the thing would come to. If it was inevitable that "net annual value" and "rateable value" were the same thing, why quarrel about the phrase? Why give a handle to those who were opposed to this legislation if there was no essential difference in the two terms? Either the two would come to the same thing in the end, or they would not. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would certainly give rise to an objection which it was well known there were people out of the House quite ready to take. If the Committee thought fit to substitute his hon. Friend's phrase for his (Mr. Torrens's), he, of course, would submit without a murmur; but he warned the Committee that they would run a great risk if they changed the phraseology.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman in charge of

    1453
    the Bill (Mr. W. M. Torrens) in objecting to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow). But he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman in saying that "net annual value" and "rateable value" were the same thing. He would not, at that late hour (2.45), go into very many figures; but he felt bound to occupy the Committee for a short time, more especially because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was good enough last night to refer to the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Coope) and himself (Colonel Makins) in not very complimentary terms. He wished to assure the right hon. Baronet that he and his hon. Friend were not anxious to oppose themselves to the wishes either of the right hon. Baronet, or of the Metropolitan Members generally. They were there simply in the discharge of what they believed to be their duty, and in 1he support of what they believed to be a real and vital principle—namely, the maintenance of Parliamentary faith. With regard to the question of the difference between "rateable value" and "net annual value," there was a test which he thought must convince everybody. The object of the Bill, as he understood the hon. Member for Finsbury, was to bring the law into conformity with the judgment on the subject of the highest Court in the land. Now, the House of Lords, in Dobbs's case, fixed the "net annual value" as the basis upon which the water charges were to be made. Hitherto, under the language of the Act itself, it was "annual value" only. The judgment of the House of Lords had made it "net annual value;" therefore, if the Bill simply carried out that judgment, it would stop at "net annual value." But then the Bill went on to provide "as settled from time to time by the Local Authority." That was exactly what the hon. Member for Gravesend proposed.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW: I object to that, because the Local Authority cannot do it.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, the Local Authority fixed what was the rateable value, and the Local Authority was the assessment authority. Since the Dobbs judgment was given, the Water Com panies had tried, as far as he knew—he had no official connection with any Com-
    1454
    pany—to bring themselves in conformity with the law; and they had, in several cases in which there had been a dispute between them and the consumers, applied to the magistrates with regard to the rates. He had a Return of 17 cases in one Company which had been before the magistrates; and the result of those 17 cases was that the parish assessment was at least 13 per cent lower than the assessment fixed by the magistrates. He could give the figures if the Committee desired it; but he thought hon. Members might take his word for it. He, therefore, maintained that if it was the desire of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury to bring legislation in accord with the judgment of the House of Lords, he ought to stop at the words "net annual value," and not bring in the Assessment Committee. In various parts of the Metropolis the action of the Assessment Committees was very different. A Paper had been circulated to day—he had received a copy, and he supposed every hon. Member had received one—showing the difference between the real sum—that was, the actual value of the premises—and the rate in the assessment list. There were a large number of cases given in the Paper, and the differences varied from 50 to 100 per cent. Now, if they fixed the "rateable value" or "net annual value" as fixed by the Assessment Committee, they pro tanto reduced the basis on which the water charges were made to that extent, and they took from the Water Companies something Parliament had endowed them with. It might be desirable, in the interest of the consumers, to pass a measure like this; but it was not justice to the Companies, and it would be a precedent fraught with the most evil consequences with regard to all future enterprizes based upon Acts of Parliament. He was sure the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would give him credit for not desiring to do anything but to uphold the principle which governed all commercial matters. He hoped that when the Amendment he had upon the Paper was formally before the Committee he might be permitted to argue upon it. It was practically a negative to the Amendment now before them, and he desired to move it because it would settle all doubts. It would bring the actual law into conformity with the

    1455
    latest and highest judgment on the subject—namely, the judgment in the Dobbs case. If this clause passed as it now stood, it would inflict great injustice on the Companies; it would reduce the basis on which they were entitled by law to make their charges, and it would be a distinct breach of public faith. Of course, he knew that, in a case like this, he must be in a great minority; but, nevertheless, he felt it his duty to make this protest, in order that it might not be said when the question was argued, as it was sure to be. In "another place"—["Hear, hear!"]—he supposed that cheer meant that they had to look elsewhere for justice than from the present occupants of the Treasury Bench—he could not put any other construction upon it. However, he would not now detain the Committee longer. He should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow); and if that was not carried he should propose the Amendment which stood in his own name.
    THE SOLTCITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, be should like to say a word or two in this matter, because he was probably as familiar, or even more familiar, with the Dobbs case than any other Member of the House. He did not think there was any substantial difference between the words as they existed in the Bill and the words proposed by the hon. Member behind him (Sir Sydney Waterlow), as be believed the two expressions "net annual" and "rateable" would be held to mean the same thing. But the speech that his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Makins) had just delivered seemed exactly to point to the desirability of shaping the Amendment, and putting beyond question what the meaning was. The hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. W. M. Torrens), whose measure this was, had, he thought, somewhat depreciated its value when he said that its object was merely to carry into effect a decision of the House of Lords. No Bill would be necessary for that purpose.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, the object was to remove a doubt with regard to the decision of the House of Lords.
    THE SOLTCITOR GENERAL (Sir FAERER HERSCHELL)said, the Bill pro-
    1456
    posed to do something beyond that He believed that what it proposed to do was quite right; but there was no use in shutting their eyes to the fact that it would go somewhat beyond the decision of the House of Lords. That decision said that the net annual value they were to arrive at was the net annual value after making certain deductions, there being a sum required for the purposes of rating to cover estimated rental above rateable value. It was left open for cases to be tested as to what was the net annual value—that was to say, what were the annual deductions for purposes of rating to be made from a given sum The measure proposed that within the Metropolitan area all this litigation should be got rid of—inasmuch as they had an independent authority, under statutory regulations, working out this very problem, and arriving at the net annual value. After making these deductions, it should be taken, within the Metropolitan area, as a satisfactory solution of the question of what the net annual value was. That was the purpose of the Bill. Inasmuch as the Local Authority, from time to time duly constituted, when they arrived at that, by Act of Parliament called it "annual value"—which they were bound to do, as they intended to include all the rateable value—it was much better to say so, because in the Statute that regulated these rates they found the words "net annual value." Though it did not make a change in the substance, it made a very distinct declaration, and avoided the possibility of controversy as to what the meaning was, and he did not think his hon. Friend behind him would find it make any substantial difference in "another place." What they were doing was to make the decision of the Assessment Committee conclusive, instead of leaving it open to litigation in each case.
    MR. HARDYsaid, he took a very different view of the justice of this Bill, and he agreed that if they were going to make the net annual value the rateable value they had better call it so.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for his statement on this question. He (Mr. Rogers) had always thought that the decision the House of Lords arrived at in a perfectly well-known case was that

    1457
    the annual value should be taken, which they explained to mean the net annual value; but he could not help thinking that the House of Lords would be very glad if the House of Commons were to decide for them that it should be the rateable value. Net annual value was not a phrase known to the existing system, and they would stop an infinite amount of litigation which was not only open to them in consequence of such an expression as this being used, but which had been imminent in many cases over since Clarke's case. They constantly saw in the Police Courts attempts made on the part of the Water Companies to indirectly evade the consequences of the proceedings in Dobbs's case. That was very well known to most hon. Members in the House; it certainly was well known to him, having, as he had, been connected with local government for a long period, and having once taken upon himself the function for three years of working out the local assessment of the town in which he lived. He was bound to say that the proposal of the Government was intelligible and satisfactory, and one with which every person interested would agree.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that, so far as he could judge, the Companies had loyally accepted the judgment in Dobbs's case, and had invariably endeavoured to carry it out. He believed that in almost every case which had come before the magistrates the contentions of the Companies had been upheld. In not 5 per cent of the cases which had been adjudicated on by the magistrates had the Companies been proved to be wrong.
    MR.THOROLD ROGERSasked whether the hon. and gallant Member had said that the amount charged was 13 per cent above the rateable value?
    COLONEL MAKINS: No; what I said was that the decision of the magistrates gave 13 per cent above the assessment value.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'rateable' be there inserted,' put, and agreed to.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSwas proceeding to move an Amendment, when——
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKErose to Order; the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) had an Amendment down which came to the
    1458
    same point as that of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), and stood first upon the Paper. The reason why he rose to Order was, because his hon. and learned Friend's words were so drawn that those of the hon. Member for Finsbury would properly follow them; if they were to put the words in the opposite order they would have to be altered.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Member for Finsbury intended to propose another Amendment altogether.
    MR. W. M. TORRENS: No; that is not the case.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he should be willing to give way if the hon. Member (Mr. W. M. Torrens) desired it; but, if not, he would proceed to explain his own Amendment, which was, at the end of the clause, to add—
    "So, nevertheless, that where on any reassessment of the Metropolis under the provisions of 'The Metropolitan Valuation Act, 1869, the assessed net annual value of any tenement is increased by the assessing authority, no Water Company shall be entitled to charge any higher or further rate in respect of such increase, except where such increase is in respect of structural or other alteration of the premises, or in respect of other matters than unearned increment of value."
    This Amendment followed upon a Question or two he had put in the House in regard to what had been suggested by the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Coope), who was not now in his place, which was based upon a misapprehonsion. Under the Act of 1869 there had been a quinquennial valuation, the tendency of which had been in the Metropolis to increase the value of a house by what was supposed to be absolutely increased value, but which was unearned increment; and the Water Companies were entitled, as they knew, to charge upon that annual amount, and would in future be entitled to charge upon the annual rateable value. He (Mr. Firth) had stated in an interrogatory form that the increased rateable value between the quinquennial valuations upon which the Companies could levy their rates amounted to £2,000,000, representing an increased income of £100,000, which, of course, increased the vested interests of the Companies to an enormous extent. The figures he had used in this way—The Metropolitan Board of Works Report had given the valuation of the

    1459
    Metropolis for the present year. The increase during the past 12 months had been £496,000. In 1869 the valuation was £16,287,000; but in 1870 it had increased by £2,462,000. In 1876 the increase for 1875 was £2,225,000. As between 1880 and 1881 the increase was £2,904,000, since which period the average increase had been between £400,000 and £500,000, This year, if this Bill did not pass, there would again be an enormous increase in the value of the property of the Water Companies. So much with regard to finance and figures. The Water Companies did not supply any more water in respect of that increase. The supply to accommodate the necessities of life ought to be paid for according to the amount consumed. A Return had been supplied which showed that between 1872 and 1883 the number of houses or other buildings supplied with water by the Companies rose from 497,736 to 659,249, an increase of 32·4 per cent; while the water rentals in respect of such houses and buildings rose from £948,277 to £1,505,057, or 58·7 per cent. The average rental had thus increased from £1 18 s. 1d. per house in 1872 to £2 5s. 8d. in 1883, or 19·9 per cent. It had been suggested in regard to the Return to which he was alluding, and from which he was quoting, that the houses newly erected were, for the most part, of a superior class—that those rebuilt were generally much larger than those which they replaced. But, as a matter of fact, the houses were much smaller, for the reason that there had been an enormous development in every part of suburban London, an enormous increase in the number of working men's houses. Then, as to the amount of water supplied, according to the Table contained in the Return he had alluded to, the average amount of water supplied daily to each house for domestic purposes by six out of the eight Companies was less in 1883 than it was in 1872. Thus, as they advanced, the dividends of the Water Companies had enormously increased. Loan and share capital had enormously increased, and yet there had been a disadvantage to the public in the increased amount they had to pay. The increase per cent in the amount of share capital between 1872 and 1883 had been 30 percent; but the increase per cent on the esti-
    1460
    mated value of share capital between 1871 and 1883 had been 101·1. Owing to the working of the Act of 1869, Water Companies had enormously increased their vested interests, which was certainly not in the contemplation of the House when the Act was passed. The Act had had an effect on the Water Companies which was not at the time contemplated; and he very much regretted that they had not had in the Metropolis any properly qualified authority to sufficiently protect the interests of the ratepayers, and to prevent this sort of thing going on. The Amendment he was moving he brought forward in the interests of all persons, simply to remedy an oversight of the kind he referred to in the Act of 1869.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, at end of Clause, add, "so, nevertheless, that where on any re-assessment of the Metropolis under the provisions of The Metropolis Valuation Act, 1869,' the assessed net annual value of any tenement is increased by the assessing authority, no Water Company shall be entitled to charge any higher or further rate in respect of such increase, except where such increase is in respect of structural or other alteration of the premises, or in respect of other matters than unearned increment of value."—(Mr. Firth.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. HARDYsaid, he could hardly believe that the Government proposed to accept such an Amendment as this for several reasons. It was not a fact, as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Firth) had said, that the Metropolis Valuation Act, 1869, had given the Companies power to raise their charges every time there was an assessment made. They were told that the advantage of the present Bill was that there would be a fixed value upon which the Companies would have to charge their rate; but that would not alter the present condition of things in the least, as there was already a fixed value. If the Amendment were adopted, however, that would no longer be the case. He looked upon the measure as an unjust one in every respect, although, personally, he should be prepared to accept it, because he quite saw the advantages which would accrue both to the public and the Water Companies of having a basis of charge fixed by a quasi-independent authority. A Paper had been handed round to hon. Members showing

    1461
    the discrepancies which existed between the rateable and the gross annual value of houses in the Metropolis. There were nearly 100 cases given in this Paper; but he was prepared to say that, in all probability, for every one case here set down it would be quite easy to find a thousand; therefore, the document really represented a large number of cases. If this Amendment were carried, these houses, a large number of which were probably paying on the net annual value—because Companies were aware of these facts and had made their charges upon the net annual value—would have to pay on the rateable value. By the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chelsea they would have to be kept at that rateable value, which was admittedly less than half what they ought in many cases to be paying—which was less than half that which in many instances their neighbours on each side of them were paying. Was that a state of things which should exist? The real injustice of this arose from the fact that the Government had supported this Bill, allowing it to come forward as a public measure, and not requiring it to be sent like other private Bills to a Select Committee, where it would have been thoroughly inquired into and sifted by counsel on the one side and the other. He would undertake to say that there had never before been a case in which interests involving millions of money, and being dependent on Parliamentary sanction, had been attacked in Parliament without any sort of inquiry being instituted. It was impossible to know what the effect of this clause would be. He himself had been connected with the New River Company for something like 20 years, and he knew the circumstances of that undertaking very well; but he could not possibly tell the House, by reading these clauses, what the extent of their effect upon that Company was likely to be. He could not say whether they would be likely to effect it to the extent of £10,000 a-year or £100,000 a-year before the matter had been inquired into by competent authorities and the provisions had been viewed in all their bearings. Surely it was not possible for the Government to accept a clause so unfair as this, which virtually said to the Water Companies—"Heads I win, tails you lose—your rates are never to rise; but
    1462
    under certain eventualities they may go down." The House had before it a statement to the effect that in the 100 cases submitted the rateable value was not within 100 per cent of what it ought to be; and yet it was proposed to stereotype the injustice not only against the Water Companies, but against the very neighbours on each side of a ratepayer who might be called upon to pay a higher rate.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not in this matter speak on behalf of the Government so much as he spoke as a Metropolitan Member, and as one interested in the subject. He did not think that in a Bill of this kind, introduced by a private Member, it was necessary for the Government, as a Government, to take a very distinct position; but he certainly thought it right to express an opinion upon the subject as a Member of the House, and one whose constituents were interested in the question. The hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee (Mr. Hardy) declared that the Companies hitherto had acted in the way of making a valuation for themselves. It must be remembered that in the Metropolis there was no control——
    MR. HARDYdesired to explain. He had been speaking solely against the Amendment, and not against the Bill. Without this Amendment, personally, he should be prepared to support the measure.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member submitted that an enormous discrepancy between the real value of premises and the amount at which they were rated had been shown. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was bound to say that a great deal of care had been exercised in the Metropolis which was not exorcised elsewhere in the preparation of the assessments. Though there was power to appeal to the surveyor against the decision of the Assessment Committees in cases where it was believed that over-charges had been made, it was remarkable, as evidencing the accuracy of the valuations, that over a valuation of such an enormous number of millions alterations to the extent only of a few thousands had been made in the decisions of the Assessment Committees. That was a fact, and he had the figures before him at the present moment, and could submit them to the

    1463
    Committee if necessary. The surveyor of fixes had the power of appealing against the valuation; but he found the figures so correct that in hardly any cases was he obliged to alter them. In the Metropolis the property was assessed for the purpose of House Tax and Income Tax. He agreed with what had fallen from his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Firth), as to the enormous unearned increment in the water rentals within the last few years. The hon. and learned Member had mentioned some facts on that branch of the subject which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could supplement. The average supply of water to the houses of the Metropolis had diminished. The Companies said that the houses had increased in size; but, even if that were so, the average supply, house by house, had greatly diminished, and a smaller amount of water was now supplied than was supplied in 1883. The aggregate capital of the Companies had enormously risen. In 1872 the amount of share capital was just under £8,000,000; but in 1883 it amount to £10,333,000. In the same period £8,500,000 had been paid in dividends, and the amount of share and loan capital taken up by the shareholders at par had been nearly £3,000,000, which was estimated as equivalent to a bonus of £1,500,000 more, so that the dividends really amounted to more than the whole share capital of the Companies. In face of that fact he did not think it could be wisely contended that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would amount to confiscation.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he was sorry to hear the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) declare it was his intention to support the Amendment. He (Mr. Edward Clarke) was anxious that the Bill should pass; but he considered it extremely dangerous that this Amendment should be inserted in it. It was, he thought, essential to mention the intention of the Bill as it was first proposed. The measure had the intention of providing a definite method of valuing a house upon which the rate was to be levied; but if the Amendment were accepted and added to the Bill, it would set up at once the very difficulty and uncertainty which it was the object of the measure to remove. Let the Committee remember
    1464
    what the words of the Amendment were—
    "No Water Company shall be entitled to charge any higher or further rate in respect of such increase, except where such increase is in. respect of structural or other alterations of the premises, or in respect of other matters than unearned increment of value."
    Suppose a house was rated at £200 a-year, and, in a year or two, its rating was increased to £230, a controversy would take place as to whether the increase had been caused by "structural alterations" or "other alterations" which was a very large expression indeed, and one which might mean decorative alterations or "other than unearned increment of value." What "structural" or other alterations would mean in an Act of Parliament he could not pretend to say; but he was sure the adoption of this Amendment would be fatal to the hope of getting the Bill on the Statute Book, because if they were to add it to the Statute Book with this phrase in it he believed that the litigation which would result from the attempt to interpret that section would diminish, if not altogether destroy, the value of the measure. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) desired that the Bill should pass, and that the ratepayers of the Metropolis should be relieved of their doubt and uncertainty as to their position in regard to what they were to be charged for water, he would withdraw this Amendment.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment, as it seemed to him that it would be creating a mischief which, when the Committee had agreed to the words "rateable value," they had been endeavouring to get rid of. The Amendment would have the effect really of establishing two rateable values. He agreed that it seemed very hard that ratepayers should be called upon to pay a larger sum every year, notwithstanding that they might not use a larger amount of water; but the question would then arise whether the people should not be asked only to pay for the amount of water they really used—that a sum should be fixed for a certain quantity, that the consumption should be ascertained by meter, and that if the rate charged was not sufficient to recoup the Water Companies, Parlia-

    1465
    ment should be called upon to adjust the amount. That, however, important as it was, was a question that did not come under this Bill. Under the measure, they were endeavouring to get an uniform rate notwithstanding that under it, if the value went up, so would the charge for water. Supposing that from accident or want of information—some inadvertence on the part of the Assessment Committee—premises had been assessed too low, then the Assessment Committee would have power to make the necessary alteration, surely the Water Companies would be entitled to charge upon the additional valuation. He hoped the Amendment would not be assented to.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was a strong supporter of the Bill, and considered that the Water Companies were alone to blame for the necessity of any legislation on this matter at all. The Companies had been very severe in their exactions; they had pushed their claims to an intolerable extent; and, therefore, he willingly joined in bringing in this Bill, the object of which was to fix some definite and distinct basis on which the charges were to be made in future. Such being the scope of the Bill, he was unable to support the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth). He would suggest that if there was any desire to have legislation such as the hon. and learned Member proposed, it would be very much better to introduce it in a separate form in a separate Bill. They would run a very great risk of losing the benefit of the Bill altogether if such an Amendment as this were tacked on to the Bill. There was another reason why he could not support the present proposition; and it was that if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member were accepted, he did not see how the Committee could, with any justice, refuse the Amendment to that Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins). It would be a very unjust thing to say that the Water Companies were to derive no benefit whatever from any rise which might take place in the assessment, and yet be bound to accept any reduction made in the assessment. Under all the circumstances, his hon. Friend in charge of the Bill (Mr. W. M.
    1466
    Torrens) would do wisely not to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Chelsea, but to allow the Bill to remain substantially in the form in which it was brought in by himself and those associated with him in the Bill.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Firth) would not withdraw the Amendment. It was better that the Bill should be lost than that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and for this reason—that the state of things which now existed would not exist much longer, and the matter could be settled much more easily as a whole, than in the piecemeal fashion suggested. What hon. Members on the Opposition Benches had been discussing were difficulties of method. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke), and hon. Gentlemen near him, seemed to demand that the Water Companies should, in addition to having a fair price paid for the water they supplied, be also made into the rating authority—that they should be able to rate the community of London for things they did not supply. In other words, hon. Gentlemen desired that the Water Companies should not only receive money for the water they supplied, but that they should have an increased income every five years, resulting not from any increased value of the article they supplied, or from any increased quantity supplied, but simply by the method of rating adopted. This was a question whether a private Company should, for its own profit, put a tax on a community for which it rendered nothing in return. That was the principle on which this question would have to be settled. He did not think that the House of Commons would sanction the injustice of the people, not only of London, but of all large towns, being required to pay exorbitantly for so common a necessary of life as water; to pay, not on account of the increased quantity or quality of the water supplied, but simply because the Company had power which should not belong to any private Company—that of taxing the people for five years.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he had on the Paper an Amendment to this Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth); but he hoped it would not be necessary to move it,

    1467
    because the evident sense of the Committee was that the Amendment now under consideration should be withdrawn. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Firth) had dealt only with private supply. They had said that houses only received the same amount of water as formerly. They had lost sight altogether of the fact that in London the private consumption of water was not paid for by meter, as was the case in Manchester and Liverpool. In addition to the payment by meter for the water consumed, each house in Manchester and Liverpool was rated for the public supply. In London the whole service, whether public or private, was included in the rate which the consumer paid; therefore, when the rateable value went up, it meant that the rates were increased, that the quantity of water used for the extinguishing of fires and for other public purposes was increased, though the actual amount per head of the population might not Lave been increased. He should be perfectly prepared to consider a measure, if it were brought in by the Government, providing that water used for domestic purposes should be paid for by meter. Of course, to that would have to be added such a rate for water for public purposes which would make the remuneration of the Companies that which. Parliament intended it should be. The Amendment now before the Committee was one-sided. They all desired the same thing, though they might not view the matter from the same point of view.
    MR. HARDYsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins) was mistaken when he supposed that all public supplies were gratuitous. It was only the water supplied for fires that was supplied without payment.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, that some hon. Members of the House would be very glad to see the Bill passed; while others simply wished to make it an engine for future agitation. He wished to see the Bill passed; and, therefore, he should vote against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth).
    MR. FIRTHsaid, that all he had to say was that they would have to buy
    1468
    out the Water Companies sooner or later, and that if this Amendment were not passed they would this year be found to have increased their vested interest by £2,500,000. He would not, under any possible circumstances, be a party to so wicked an injustice as that; and, therefore, he intended to carry his Amendment to a division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 21; Noes 34: Majority 13. — (Div. List, No. 150.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, to add at end of the Clause—"Provided, That where the water rate is chargeable on the annual value of a part only of any hereditament entered in the valuation list, such annual value shall be a fairly apportioned part of the rateable value of the whole tenement, ascertained as aforesaid, the apportionment in case of dispute to be determined in manner provided by the said section."—(Mr. W. M. Torrens.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he would point out that the words "annual value" could not be found in the Metropolis Valuation Act, 1869.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEthought it was quite right in this instance to say "annual value."
    Question put, and agreed to; words added.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Short title) agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. W. M. TORRENS, the following Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill: —
    (Construction of Act.)
    "'The Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, and this Act shall be construed together as one Act, and the provisions of this Act shall be held to repeal and supersede such of the provisions of that Act as are inconsistent with this Act."
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the new clause ("Supply of Water by Meter") standing in the name of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Daniel Grant) appeared to him to be beyond the scope of the Bill, and, therefore, could not be put. The same observation applied to a new clause standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce).
    Preamble.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 7, after the word "not," to insert "in the Metropolis."—(Mr. W. M. Torrens.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there WHS a little ambiguity with respect to the Metropolis. He did not oppose the Amendment; but he might find it necessary to ask the hon. Gentleman to move another Amendment on Report. There were two purposes for which the Metropolis was not the same. Under the Metropolis Management Act, that which was called the Metropolis was not the same as the Metropolis to which the Valuation of Property Act applied. The area would have been better defined as unions and parishes to which the Valuation Act applied, and he would suggest that his hon. Friend (Mr. W. M. Torrens) should move an Amendment in that form on Report. The difference was that Penge was included in the Metropolis Management Act, but was not in the Valuation Act; and the hamlet of Nottingham was included in the latter, but not in the former Act.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he would bring up an Amendment on Report, as suggested by the right hon. Baronet.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    Amendment proposed to further amend the Preamble, by omitting the words "net annual" in line 7, and inserting the word"rateable."—(Mr. W. M. Torrens.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

  EAST INDIA UNCLAIMED STOCKS [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Revenues of India, of any costs and expenses which may be incurred by the Secretary of State in Council of India, arising out of the transfer of Unclaimed Stocks, and the payment of dividends thereon, under
  1470
  the provisions of any Act of the present Session relating to the transfer of Unclaimed India Stock.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

MOTION.

  GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) 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 Chelmsford Gas, Great Grimsby Gas, Clacton-on-Sea Gas and Water, and Cwm Avon Gas and Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAN.
  BILL presented, and read the first time. [Bill 149.]
  House adjourned at half after Three o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Industrial Schools (Ireland)*(95); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order*(96).
Select Committee—Burgh. Police and Health (Scotland)*(57), nominated.
Committee—Water Companies (Regulation of Powers)*(87).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Public Health Act) (No. 1)*(63).
Third Reading—Federal Council of Australasia*(69); Criminal Law Amendment (92), and passed.

NORTHFLEET DOCKS BILL,

  PETITION'S PRESENTED. RESOLUTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpresented Petitions with respect to this Bill, and moved—
  "That the Examiners' Certificate of noncompliance with the Standing Orders be referred hack to the Standing Orders Committee."
  The noble Marquess said that the Bill was in this position—that it had not been before the House upon its merits, as it had been rejected by the Standing Orders Committee. These Petitions asked for leave to re-introduce the Bill. They were from Gravesend, Northfleet, and from workmen who were members of Associations in the Metropolis. There was a Rule of the House that by a certain day in January a sum of money should be deposited by the promoters of a Private Bill. The money was usually borrowed from some Insurance Company or stockbroker, and repaid the next day. In this case it was alleged that the person whose business it was to negotiate for the deposit being made was so seriously ill in January that the deposit was not paid until the middle of March. There was nothing more than that to justify the rejection of the Bill. The promoters complained that their opponents did not give them any notice of
  1268
  their opposition, but reserved their fire until they got before the Committee, and then the Bill was rejected upon a technicality. It was a Bill in which the inhabitants of the locality took a great interest, inasmuch as in the event of its being allowed to go forward employment would be found for a large number of workmen now out of work at the East End of London, for it was a matter of notoriety that thousands of people in that district, although willing to work, had no work to do, and were prolonging their existence in a state of semi-starvation. It would be extremely advantageous to them if work could be found, and if capital were allowed to be expended upon this work; and it was the wish of the Petitioners that all the obstacles raised against the expenditure of this capital should be removed. There were capitalists who were willing to expend the money. No objection was raised to the Bill by landowners or other persons in the neighbourhood, and the only objection came from the East and West India Docks, which might be called, without any disrespect, the rival shop over the way. The people who were suffering were not so much the contractors, but the thousands of workmen to whom employment would be given. It was by a technicality of the very slightest character that this Bill was not allowed to go forward. He did not wish to cast the slightest censure or blame upon his noble Friend at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale), or upon the Members of the Committee themselves; but it had been well said that all self-imposed rules should be sufficiently elastic to avoid inflicting injury out of all proportion to the irregularity they sought to arrest. Punishment was, no doubt, a very good thing; but it should be inflicted with some reference to the magnitude of the offence, and on the right person. But in this case the punishment of stopping these great works was inflicted for a very trivial breach of a technicality, and really fell not on the capitalist, but on the unfortunate men who would be employed. That was the case he had to lay before his noble Friend, and he asked him in this case to temper justice with mercy. It had happened two or three times that these Standing Orders had prevented the investment of private capital, and that at a very critical period. He did

  1269
  not in the least appear in the position of a rebel against the despotism of his noble Friend, but he appeared rather as a suppliant to his mercy; and he exhorted him not to press the technicality in this case, when there were hundreds and thousands of starving men looking with anxiety for the decision of the House.
  Moved, "That the Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders he referred back to the Standing Orders Committee."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he was sure their Lordships would feel that it was with great regret that he rose to oppose the Motion of his noble Friend. He thought the Rules of the House ought to be supported; and if they could be got rid of simply because they happened to be an inconvenience to one party to a Bill or the other, they would practically be of no use. There was one matter with regard to this Bill which he felt he must bring before their Lordships, and that was that a Bill with this very object was brought in last Session, and was dropped. The same Bill was brought in this Session, and the pro-motors failed to perform the duty of paying up the deposit money on the day fixed by the Rules of the House, and did not do so until two months after that day. The important question in this case was, Why was not the deposit paid? It was said someone was too ill; but it was clear that those parties who were acting as promoters of the Bill were not themselves actively concerned in providing the means of carrying it on. The Standing Orders Committee before which this Bill came was a strong one, and came to a unanimous conclusion against the Bill; and he believed there was, practically speaking, no instance in which the House had set aside a Standing Order in the way proposed. He thought the decision of the Committee was right; and those who were opposed to the Bill would be put to great inconvenience and expense if they were not supported, as they believed the matter had come to an end.
  LORD BALFOURwished to point out that the Standing Orders Committee came to the decision at the end of March; and if there had been a desire to appeal against it, it should have been brought on before the 1st of May. It would be
  1270
  a great injustice to the other side to reverse the decision after such a long period had elapsed.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNagreed that it was unfortunate that at a time when a great deal of distress prevailed an Order of that House should have, even indirectly, the effect of diminishing the amount of money that might be thrown into the labour market. There was, however, no guarantee that if the Order were reversed the Bill would pass and be carried into execution. The breach of the Standing Order that was committed was a very distinct breach. A deposit which ought to have been made in January was not made until March. Two months, therefore, elapsed, during which the opponents of the Bill naturally believed, that it had been dropped. It would be a considerable hardship to the opponents of the Bill if they were now to be suddenly called upon to renew their opposition.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he hoped the House would not feel itself obliged to act in strict accordance with the techicalities of the question. The Committee were, of course, compelled to adjudicate according to the strict letter of the law; but the House might take a broader view, and consider the merits of the case as well as the technicalities, particularly when a considerable amount of work could be found for those who were in want of it.
  EARL GRANVILLEobserved that six of the Peers who had for med the Committee were present, and that not one of them had shown any intention of receding from the judicial decision to which the Committee came. It was necessary that Committees of that character should, in justice to both parties, act according to the Rules laid down; but they did not consider themselves rigidly bound by technicalities, and considered judicially whether sufficient reason existed for suspending the Standing Orders or not. The noble Marquess asked the House to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee, on the ground that the scheme advocated by the promoters of the Bill would provide employment for certain persons who were now suffering from distress. He would remind the noble Marquess that if money was prevented from going in a certain direction for the employment of labour, it was almost always

  1271
  certain of so going in some other direction, and thus the same result was reached in the end. He hoped that the House would support the Standing Orders Committee in their action in this case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Earl seemed to treat with great contempt the fact that he had appealed to their Lordships on the ground that if this Bill were proceeded with work would be supplied for those who were starving. He would leave the noble Earl in full possession of that opinion. He was aware of the necessity of supporting technicalities; but, after all, they were not the Alpha and Omega of the matter. In regard to the present case, he would say that the distress which prevailed should make the House pause before determining to adhere rigidly to technicalities. It was said that the course which he advocated would be unfair to the opponents of the scheme; but it should be remembered that its opponents were, after all, only a rival Dock Company. He feared that by a rigid adherence to their rules in this case, and by stifling an enterprize which was said by the inhabitants of the locality interested to be of great importance, they would not increase the people's estimate of the action of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYrefused to be guided in his conduct in this matter by the ex parte statements of the noble Marquess to the effect that the merits of this scheme were so very remarkable. Anything said on the merits must be an ex parte statement. If he were instructed by the opponents to say that the scheme was a very bad one, and if, therefore, he strongly urged the House to maintain its Rules, he thought that was an argument which would not be listened to by their Lordships. The fact was that the Rules had been laid down for the protection of the public; and if they were good rules, as they were ably and fairly administered by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale), they ought to be complied with.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNobserved that his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) never asked their Lordships to suspend the Standing Orders on the ground of the merits of the scheme; but simply told them that the scheme, if carried out, would give a vast amount of
  1272
  employment, and on that account alone he asked to have the certificate of noncompliance referred back to the Standing Orders Committee. He (the Earl of Milltown) trusted, under the circumstances, that the House would assent to the proposal.
  On Question? resolved in the negative.

SOUTH AFRICA—METHUEN'S IRREGULAR HORSE—MILITIA LIEUTENANTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HARRISasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration the advisability of distributing a few commissions amongst Militia lieutenants now serving with Methuen's Horse in South Africa? The noble Lord said, many of those officers volunteered under the idea that their absence in South Africa would not spoil their chance of getting commissions; and he hoped that the noble Earl would be able to return a satisfactory answer to the Question, and that those who were unable to pass the requisite standard equally with those who were would share in those commissions.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: In addition to the 75 commissions granted half-yearly to Militia candidates, Line commissions have been offered to all Militia candidates who have not been successful in the last and in previous competitive examinations in military subjects, but who have obtained at these examinations the number of marks required to qualify them for commissions, provided that they were under 22 years of age on January 1, 1884. These offers have, of course, been made to any qualified Militia officers who may be serving under Sir Charles Warren in South Africa. Six Militia officers serving with Sir Charles Warren are so qualified. Three of them have already received commissions in Line battalions at the Cape, and three more will shortly be
  LORD INCHIQUINurged that the War Office would do well to stretch the limit of age a little further.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was afraid he could hold out no hope that that would be done.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that it had always been held by medical men

  1273
  that 23 was the age at which they would be most fit.

EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—THE FRIENDLY TRIBES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, having regard to the announcement made in both Houses of Parliament on 21st April, to the effect that the Forces in the Soudan are to be henceforth considered available for service wherever they may be required, and that the Vote of Credit of £11,000,000 "does not include any provision for further offensive operations in the Soudan," they will give a distinct assurance that ample provision will be made for insuring the safety and rewarding the services of the Mudir of Dongola, and of others who have been in active alliance and armed co-operation with the British Forces in the Nile Valley, as well as of the friendly tribes who have joined the British standard at Suakin? said, that there had been a great many massacres in the Soudan, and a large number of people had perished uselessly there. Inquiries had often been made why they were there, and what they were going to do; and now, when the Nile Expedition was pronounced to be a useless failure and their troops were to be retired, when their Forces on the Red Sea were to be held disposable for future events and to go they knew not whither, the whole subject of this Soudan Expedition, in which they had been engaged so long, seemed likely to remain a matter of hopeless mystery, and he supposed they would never know either why they went there, or what object, if any, they had attained. On the 26th of February the noble Marquess behind him (the Marquess of Salisbury) moved a Resolution, one part of which was—
  "That the policy of abandoning the whole of the Soudan after the conclusion of military operations will be dangerous to Egypt and inconsistent with the interests of the Empire."
  That question was debated, and a statement was made in both Houses of Parliament which most distinctly declared that the policy of the Government was not to abandon the Soudan, but their object was to overthrow the Mahdi at Khartoum. In reply to a Question put in the other House by an independent
  1274
  Member, the Prime Minister very warmly disavowed the construction put upon his words, that he contemplated abandoning the Soudan as soon as the Mahdi was overthrown. Nothing had changed in the Soudan. They were still confronted by the power, be it more or less, of the Mahdi; they did not know what were his objects or what his resources; and if they were bound to attack him then in Khartoum, they were equally bound to attack him now. If they did not, it was simply because the hot fit had been succeeded by a cold fit, as it had so often been before in the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and that they had, in fact, got tired of their objectless slaughter of those brave men who had been pronounced on the highest authority to be persons "rightly struggling to be free." The strange point was that throughout the whole transaction they were told that they were not at war. They had been engaged since 1880 in military operations; but they never amounted to war. Mark Twain, in one of his books, described an interview he had with a French gentleman who was about to engage in a duel, and whom he said he found immersed in a profound French calm. But he added that a French calm differed in some material particulars from an English calm, and that it induced the French gentleman to tear his hair, to foam at the mouth, and to break up the furniture. At the time of the interview he was engaged in smashing his last chair. He could not help thinking that the phase in which they had been so long involved resembled the calm in which that French gentle-man indulged. The whole policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Soudan and in Egypt seemed to have been simply to take the minimum of responsibility with regard to their dealings in that country. No doubt there was a time, after the bombardment of Alexandria, when the fortunes of Egypt remained absolutely at the disposal of England. Three courses might have been pursued. They might have allowed the Egyptian Government to make itself feared, to hang Arabi, and to establish the old form of Government. He did not say that that would have been a right course to pursue. Then they might have assumed the government of Egypt themselves, and established a strong Government on

  1275
  lines which would have been acceptable to the English people; and the third course—a course which Her Majesty's Government adopted—was to rule under the cover of a Native Prince, to thwart and insult him at every point, to paralyze his influence, to reduce him to a mere cipher, to do as little as possible themselves, but to do that little from behind the mask of their puppet, the Khedive; to allow the finances of Egypt to go to absolute ruin, and the Government to anarchy; to proclaim at every moment their non-responsibility for what was taking place, and then, when the Egyptians showed some signs of independent action, Her Majesty's Government turned against them suddenly with savagery and anger. This third course Her Majesty's Government pursued, and the natural result of their policy was anarchy, ruin every day more profound, and paralysis at the very heart of Egypt. Her Majesty's Ministers, it was true, amused themselves in establishing some form of representative Government in Egypt; but the domestic policy which had been so successful in this country was utterly and absolutely inapplicable on Egyptian soil. In July, 1882, there came the revolt in the Soudan, and, true to their fatal policy, Her Majesty's Government disclaimed responsibility. The Egyptians took the matter into their own bands, and announced their determination of retaking the Soudan; but Her Majesty's Government advised them not to do so. Then followed General Hicks's Expedition to restore order in the Soudan. At first Hicks had some success; but from January to May, 1883, things assumed a different character. The General was shut up in Kordofan, and in November his whole Army of 11,000 men was defeated and massacred. Upon Her Majesty's Government must rest the responsibility for that Expedition and massacre. In the same year the Earl of Dufferin's Mission was sent to Egypt, and the noble Earl recommended that certain parts of the Soudan should be resigned, and that a certain part should be held. The wise counsel of the Earl of Dufferin was never followed, and matters were left simply to drift. A month after the massacre of General Hicks there came another massacre, that of Moncrieff at Tokar, and then the Government seemed to wake up from their attitude of positive neutrality to imme-
  1276
  diate action for the moment. They determined to evacuate the Soudan, and they declared that the Egyptian Ministers who would not consent to the dismemberment of their country should be dismissed. In February, 1884, yet another massacre took place—Sinkat fell. Public opinion in England was certainly stirred to its depths by that event, and the immediate result was the sending out of the first Expedition of General Graham on the 12th of February. The first Expedition of General Graham to Suakin was immediately after, and consequent upon, the massacre at Sinkat; and the last Expedition of that General was immediately after, and consequent upon, the massacre of General Gordon. Two battles were fought in February and March, 1884—Teb and Tamanieb—and thousands of brave Arabs were killed. It was magnificent on both sides; but it was not war. The result of those battles was the withdrawal of General Graham as fast as possible to his ships. After that five months of inaction took place, and during that time the Government were deciding what further steps they would take. The Prime Minister, in "another place," stated that during those five months the Government were considering what was the best way of getting up the Nile to Khartoum; and he was not ashamed to say that the time was not too long in which to come to a decision upon so momentous a point. On the 23rd of April, soon after Gordon was shut up in Khartoum, Berber was invested. That investment was denied in that House, and in the other. It was said Berber was not in danger, and that the Government were without information which tended to show that relief ought to be sent. On the 10th of June another massacre of 5,000 men ensued, and Berber fell. Then came the Vote of Credit for £300,000, that miserably inadequate Vote. They now knew that £15,000,000 was the sum that had been ruthlessly spilt in the sands of the Soudan. On the 11th of February news came that Gordon had died in defence of Khartoum; so that all the gallant blood of their soldiers was spent in vain, and their gallant opponents were slain in vain, and the Relief Expedition was so much wasted energy and courage. It would have been far better never to have gone there at all. In February General Graham

  1277
  went out once more to Suakin to establish a route from Suakin to Berber, and to co-operate with the Nile Expedition, and join hands with Wolseley, who was on his way to Khartoum. What had been the effect of all that? One objectless battle after another. The best blood of England was sent out to die at Suakin. And they were told now that the whole of that was at an end; that their troops were wanted elsewhere; that the whole of their blood and treasure had been spent in vain; and that this Expedition had ceased. At the beginning of that time there were 10 fortified places in the Soudan; and, besides Hicks Pasha's Army, there had been massacres at Sinkat, Tokar, Teb, Tamanieb, Berber, and Khartoum, Now, Kassala still remained; and he believed that the garrison of that and Sennaar were the only garrisons which still remained unmassacred. They were going to withdraw from the Soudan; but they had had allies and friends. Among them was the Mudir of Dongola. Were they going to repeat in the Soudan what they had done elsewhere? Would the Government give some assurance that means would be adopted to prevent their Allies and friendly Arabs from suffering because they had helped them? They might have had more help if the Arabs had not feared that they would desert them. They could not by scuttling out of the Soudan get rid of their responsibility to those who had been friendly to them, nor of their responsibility in Egypt. Egypt was their road to India, and from the beginning that had been recognized. If they left Egypt to its fate, it would be at the mercy of France, and Englishmen would not like to see the highways of India in the hands of any Foreign Power. They must, therefore, remain responsible for the affairs of Egypt. If they withdrew, they must do so with their responsibility on their heads. He, therefore, trusted the Government would be able to say that they had made arrangements to protect those who had been friendly to them. The Prime Minister once wrote—
  "The curtain has been slowly rising, and what a scene has it disclosed.…. We look hack over this tract of lethargy as over days of case purchased by dishonour; the prolonged fascination of an evil dream. They have not understood the rights and duties which inseparably attach to this country.…. They
  1278
  have been remiss when they ought to have been active. They have been active where they ought to have been circumspect and guarded. They have seemed to be moved too little by an intelligent appreciation of prior obligations and of the broad and deep interests of humanity, and too much by a disposition to keep out of sight what was disagreeable and might be inconvenient."
  These words were taken from the pamphlet on Bulgarian horrors. Worse horrors, and more directly connected with English rule, had been transacted in the countries of which he had been speaking within the last two or three years. He concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Marquess opposite the Leader of the Opposition, two or three days ago, asked me whether I was prepared to make any communication with regard to the Egyptian policy of the Government? He expressed a wish that such a statement should be made, and asked me whether I could fix a day for that statement. It was a request which the noble Marquess had every right to make, and it came with very great authority from him. It was with regret I said that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, such a statement would be premature, and I declined to make it. I said it was impossible for me, at that time, to make a statement with regard to Egyptian policy. The noble Viscount who has just sat down prefaced the Question of which he had given Notice by reading to us a very long essay—an essay which appeared to me to bear a very strong family likeness to a long speech which he made when the Vote of Censure was moved—a speech which I have no doubt greatly contributed to the adverse vote which fell from your Lordships on that occasion. But in the essay to which I have just alluded the noble Viscount has not stated a single ground for supposing that it would be proper or consistent in me, having declined to answer a Question put to me by such authority as that of the noble Marquess, two days afterwards to go into a statement as to a great portion of our Egyptian policy. I am quite sure the noble Viscount, on reflection, will not be surprised at my not answering the Question he has put to me.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Earl opposite should feel stung by the

  1279
  eloquence of the speech we have heard from the noble Viscount near me. I shall not attempt to go into the lamentable history which he has so well sketched. I fully acknowledge that the noble Earl opposite is the master of the time when he will think it right, having regard to the state of public affairs, to explain the policy of the Government. I regret that there should be so much delay in the performance of that task; and I do not believe that the task will be less easy, or the result more acceptable to the people of this country, by reason of delay. The time for balancing the books must come. We must ask ourselves how much blood has been shed; how much money we have poured out on the deserts of Africa; what we have got to show for the blood of our countrymen and others that has been shed, and the money that has been thrown away; and what we have done for the reputation of England? How can we defend ourselves for the treatment of many whom we have induced to risk everything on our behalf, and whom, when the danger came, we left in the lurch? How can we defend ourselves before our countrymen for having repeated the sad story of Candahar and the Transvaal, and allowing garrison after garrison, tribe after tribe, to be defeated? My Lords, this is a terrible account which must be rendered, and the sooner it is rendered the better. At present, if the policy of the Government in Egypt is to be what it seems to be, I am afraid the opinion passed upon it will be that our friendship has been a curse to every tribe and nation, to whom it has been offered, because it has always been followed by desertion.

SOUTH AFRICA-STELLALAND.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD HARRIS,in asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether they are in a position to give the House any information as to the course affairs are taking with regard to the settlement of difficulties in Stellaland? said, that he had no idea of raising a debate, as there was not sufficient information to enable him to do so; but he thought it right to move for Papers. He wished to know what progress had been made in discovering the murderers of Mr. Beth ell and Mr. Walker; secondly, whether
  1280
  Montsioa's location had been secured to him; and, thirdly, whether Sir Charles Warren's action was tending to secure the trade route in Central Africa; and, if it was, whether that course was to be considered as tending to any scheme of annexation? Gratitude was owing to Mr. Rhodes for the arrangements he had been able to effect, especially after the somewhat precipitous course of Mr. Mackenzie. He believed Mr. Rhodes had brought about a better feeling throughout Stellaland. A few weeks ago it was stated that Mr. Rhodes had suddenly left Stellaland shortly after the arrival of Sir Charles Warren. He hoped that did not indicate any divergence of opinion between Mr. Rhodes and Sir Charles Warren. He desired, lastly, to know whether the Imperial Exchequer was responsible for the sums advanced by Mr. Rhodes for the Government of Stellaland; and, if that were so, whether the Home Government would also be responsible for the debt incurred in Stellaland? He would conclude by moving for Papers.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Papers respecting the settlement of difficulties in Stellaland."—(The Lord Harris.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYquite agreed with the noble Lord that the information was not sufficient to justify him in raising a debate, and, indeed, even that in his own possession was not sufficient for that purpose. The unfortunate deficiency of Papers arose from causes over which he had no control. The cable had been broken, and no telegram had reached the Colonial Office of a later date than the 21st of March. The interruption still continued as regarded telegraphic communication; but a series of despatches up to the date of April 8 had reached him within the last two hours. They were very voluminous, and he had not had time to look into them. The noble Lord's inquiry for Papers was perfectly justifiable; but it would be more convenient if the noble Lord would withdraw his Motion. He should be ready to present the Papers before Whitsuntide, so that there would be ample time for a discussion upon them. With regard to what had passed, he could answer some of the noble Lord's Questions. He could, however, give no answer regarding the arrest and punishment of the men against whom

  1281
  charges of murder had been brought; but with respect to the securing of Montsioa's rights, he knew that was a primary object with Sir Hercules Robinson and Sir Charles Warren, and he had no doubt that whatever Montsioa could fairly claim he would obtain with their assistance. As to the trade route and the security of the line of communication, those were points of which the Government had never lost sight; and, in the new Convention with the Transvaal Government which was come to about 15 months ago, special care was taken to carry the boundary so as not to intercept the line of communication between the Cape and the independent districts North of the Cape. Sir Charles Warren had occupied Bechuanaland with a military force, and had entirely restored order. A Protectorate had been declared, including a large extent of territory to the North, and no armed opposition had been met with; but the question of what was to be done in the future for the country had not yet come before him. It was, in his view, desirable that it should be ultimately absorbed in the Cape Colony, rather than that it should be permanently maintained as a separate State. At the same time, he was not in a position to announce that any immediate annexation would take place. There were various parties to consider, and the Imperial Government could not force territory on the Cape Colony against its will. He need not point out to their Lordships the great inconvenience which would arise if they were required to station a considerable military force in that country. He trusted that before long an organized police would be sufficient for the requirements of the case. He quite agreed with the noble Lord that the affairs of Bechuanaland were a very proper subject for discussion in that House; but it was impossible to discuss them without further information than they now possessed.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONtrusted that the Papers which were promised would contain all that information which it was so desirable their Lordships should have upon the subject. It was a serious matter that the cable should be broken at this time; and he would be glad to know whether it would be repaired within a short period of time? His noble Friend (Lord Harris) had referred to another point which the
  1282
  noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had not alluded to—the difference of opinion that unfortunately was stated to exist between Sir Charles Warren and the High Commissioner at the Cape. He regretted extremely that there should be any difficulty whatever between two high officers of such character and position, who were discharging functions of so delicate, not to say critical, a nature. He hoped that the Papers would show what the differences were, and how all matters stood.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS) BILL.— (No. 21.)
(The Earl of Camperdown.)
WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS) BILL.— (No. 21.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—[The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the Bill had been very fully considered by the Select Committee to which it had been referred, and he had to thank the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) and the other Members of the Committee for their assistance during the seven days that the Committee sat. He might shortly sketch the effect of the Bill. In future, every Water Company would be obliged to furnish to its consumers a claim or demand note, before the delivery of which it would not be able to enforce its demands. Within 21 days after this note had been delivered it would be in the power of every consumer to object to the whole or any part of the details, and he would be bound to specify what his objections were, and to state the sum he thought he ought to be charged. The amount admitted by the consumer was deemed to be the minimum, and this the consumer was liable to pay forthwith. If he failed, the Company would be entitled to serve a 14 days' notice, after which the supply might be stopped. In regard to the disputed portion of the claim the Company would have to take the case for decision by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. These provisions would apply to the ordinary supply of water, and not to water supplied under some agreement.

  1283
  A new clause had been placed in the Bill which was of great importance, and which provided that where the owner, and not the occupier, was liable by law or by agreement to the Water Company for the payment of the water rate, it should not be competent to the Company to cut off the supply on any ground whatever. On the other hand, the rate would be made a charge upon the premises, or, as an alternative, the Company might receive it from the occupier, who would be entitled to deduct it from his rent. This would provide against what was a very serious inconvenience now suffered by many poor tenants whose landlord undertook to pay the water rate, but who failed to do so. At present the unfortunate tenants suffered in such cases, and were deprived of the first necessary of life because their landlord and the Company fell out with one another. This would no longer be the case. He believed the views of the Water Companies with regard to the Bill had been very much modified during its passage through Committee, and that they were now convinced the measure was not so unjust or revolutionary as they had supposed.
  Motion agreed, to: House in Committee.
  Amendments (proposed by the Select Committee) made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday next.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN moved—
"That this House sits on Mondays at Five o'clock in lieu of a quarter past Four o'clock."
He had, he said, sat in the House for 27 years under the old system, and had a preference for the old arrangement under which the House never sat until 5 o'clock, rather than for the three years during which, besides, he had seen the present system tried. In the debate on the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) the Leader of the House had said that if the House rose before 5 o'clock, noble Lords would be able to go into the country by the train. He (Lord Denman), before the change, had heard the Motion for the adjournment of the House more often than any other Peer not a Minister, so did not wish the House to rise early. In regard to Mondays, in particular,
1284
there were objections to meeting before that hour; but the Law Lords, who on other week-days had, in consequence of the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown), sat earlier in the morning, since the change had agreed not to sit till half-an-hour later on Mondays. His own position was this. He had two places in the Midlands, and, whichever of them he happened to be at, he had to sleep five miles from home overnight in order to get to town in time; and he did not like to arrive only to find that the House had adjourned, which often happened.
Moved, "That this House sits on Mondays at Five o'clock, in lieu of a quarter past Four o'clock."—(The Lord Denman.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he thought that before anything further was said they ought to have some further reasons laid before them for the change. He hoped there were not many of their Lordships in a similar predicament to that of the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The reasons will be found in the Railway Time Tables.
On Question? resolved in the negative.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL

  (NO. 92.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  LORD DENMAN,who had the following Notice upon the Paper:—After Clause 12, add:—
  "No person convicted under this section shall be entitled to vote at any parliamentary or municipal election, and no lodger in his or her house shall qualify under a lodger franchise so long as he keeps the house; and this disqualification shall apply to every lodger therein,"
  said, that he could hardly hope to introduce a disfranchisement clause in this Bill; but the Act of 1869 had not sufficiently guarded against the votes of such householders as were proved to exist on the inquest upon the Burton Crescent murder.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he hoped the Government would take the opinion of the other House on this Bill, which had been passed by their Lordships on three separate occasions without being sub-

  1285
  mitted to the judgment of the other House. When a Bill containing such clauses as this contained passed their Lordships' House, it would be at least respectful to their Lordships that the opinion of the other House should be taken upon it. Some of the clauses would never have passed their House except on the demand of the Government of the day. He held the opinion, which he thought was shared by many noble Lords, that to pass a Bill like this, year after year, and not take the opinion of the other House, was reducing their Lordships' House to the position of a mere debating society, and placing it altogether in a very ridiculous position. No doubt they would be told that this was on account of the press of Business in the other House; but when their Lordships had passed a Bill once or twice, he thought they should not he asked to do it again until at least the opinion of the other House had been taken upon it. He was strongly of opinion that if the earlier clauses of the Bill stood alone they would have passed without the slightest difference of opinion; and he protested against their being kept back from what he believed to be beneficent operation because of the other clauses which were totally foreign to them, and as to which there were great differences of opinion. For himself, he wished to say that if no decision of the other House of Parliament were challenged on this Bill, and if it was presented again to this House another year, he should do his best to prevent it passing until that was done, and he knew that other noble Lords shared that view with him.
  Motion agreed to; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

E. Mar and Kellie.

L. Ker.

E. Minto.

L. Ramsay.

L. Balfour of Burley.

L. Tweeddale.

L. Sundridge.

The Committee to meet on Tuesday next at Three o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.