Sitting of 19 May 1885

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Third Reading—Barrington's Hospital; North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways (Extensions, &c),٭ and passed.
Considered as amended—Metropolitan Board of Works; North British Railway; South Eastern Railway (Various Powers).٭
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 4)٭ [185]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 3)٭ [186].
First Reading—Princess Beatrice's Annuity ٭ [187].
Second Reading—Commons Inclosure (Llanybyther) Provisional Order٭ [175]: Commons Regulation (Ashdown Forest) Provisional Order٭ [174]; Commons Regulation (Drumburgh) Provisional Order٭ [173]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2)٭ [166]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)٭ [167].

BARRINGTON'S HOSPITAL BILL (by Order).

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. BIGGAR,in moving—
  "That the Bill be re-committed, in order that provision may be made that the two additional Governors of the Hospital shall be nominated from time to time by the Corporation of the City of Limerick,"
  said, that the sole object of the Bill was to amend an Act passed in the 11th year of the Reign of George IV., entitled—"An Act for the management and direction of the Hospital founded by Joseph Barrington and his Sons in the City of Limerick," by constituting for all future time the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese of Limerick and the parish priest of St. Mary's, Limerick, the two additional Governors of the Hospital which the Bill proposed to create. Of course, he would have no fault to find with this provision of the Bill under ordinary circumstances, because he presumed that the Bishop of Limerick and the parish priest of St. Mary's would be gentlemen who would take a proper interest in the due admi-

  911
  nistration of the charity; but it might so happen that from old age or ill-health those gentlemen would find themselves unable to discharge the duties of the office. The position of Bishop, like that of parish priest, was of a practically permanent character; and if either of these became infirm, or had no time to spare from the performance of their own clerical duties for the discharge of the duties attaching to the Governors of this Charity, there would be no power to replace them, and the interests of the hospital would suffer in consequence. He, therefore, proposed that the Bill should be re-committed, in order that the nomination of the two Governors should be placed in the hands of the Corporation of Limerick. In his opinion, the Corporation of Limerick were the most desirable body to entrust with the appointment, and he might add that lie proposed the re-committal of the Bill on behalf of that body. If this power were given to the Corporation they would from time to time select gentlemen in the prime of life who took a special interest in institutions of this kind, and who would undoubtedly be more active and efficient members of the Board of Governors than the Bishop of Limerick and the parish priest of St. Mary's could possibly be. He hoped it would be understood that he had not the slightest objection to the present Bishop and parish priest. On the contrary, he believed them to be two gentlemen who were perfectly competent to fulfil all the duties of the office, and to fill them to the satisfaction of everybody concerned; but there was no certainty as to who the successors of those gentlemen would be, or whether they would take the slightest interest in the administration of the affairs of the hospital. It was also probable that, in the nature of things, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick and the parish priest of St. Mary's, as time passed away, from old age or infirmity, or a pressure of their own religious duties, would become year by year less able to look after the interests of the charity; whereas if such a thing occurred in reference to the nominees of the Corporation, there would be power to replace them by younger and more active men. He, therefore, moved the re-committal of the Bill for the purpose of making provision for the nomination of the two additional Governors
  912
  by the Corporation of the City of Limerick.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "be," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed, in order that provision may be made that the two additional Governors of the Hospital shall be nominated from time to time by the Corporation of the City of Limerick,"—(Mr. Biggar,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'now read the third time' stand part of the Question."
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid, he desired to support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and in doing so he wished it to be clearly understood that he meant no disrespect whatever to the Bishop of Limerick, or the priest whom it was intended to associate with him in carrying out the important objects of this institution. He had no doubt, as his hon. Friend had stated, that the administration of the hospital would be in very good hands indeed if the Bishop of Limerick and the parish priest of St. Mary's were appointed; but he felt that the time had passed when institutions of this nature could be well administered by clerical gentlemen. He believed the time had passed when high dignitaries of the Church and clergymen would care to be so intimately associated with these institutions as they had been in the past; and the time had arrived when it was necessary that corporate bodies should guard with a jealous eye their management and administration of all institutions that had been established for the purpose of alleviating the sufferings of the people, and attending to the wants of the poor. From time to time it would become necessary for the Corporations of Ireland to institute inquiries into the management of the hospitals which existed in that country; and it had been found, owing to the onerous nature of the duties which the Roman Catholic Bishops and priests, and the clergy of other denominations, and the scanty supervision they were in consequence able to exercise, that many irregularities had crept into the management of these institutions. But if the Corporation of Ireland were allowed to supervise the administration, the judicial and business aptitude of the new members who joined these Corporations

  913
  from time to time could be utilized, and their energy and knowledge of public affairs would be brought to bear upon the fulfilment of these duties, so that they would be able to inquire into any irregularities which might be committed, and to remedy any abuses that might have crept in from time to time, owing to the inattention of the other Governors to the discharge of their duties. It was upon these grounds that he felt it his duty to back up and endorse the representations which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan; and he trusted that those representations would not only be met in the spirit in which they had been offered, but that the House would endorse and carry the Motion of his hon. Friend, and vest the appointment of the two additional Governors which the Bill proposed to create in the hands of the Corporation of the City of Limerick.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he knew nothing about the present Bill, nor of the hospital to which it related; and his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan was generally so enlightened in his views, and so accurate in the objections he took, that it was with a good deal of hesitation he (Colonel Nolan) ventured to point out a course which he thought would be much more satisfactory than the one which his hon. Friend was now taking—namely, to allow the Bill to pass in its present form, and then to bring in a new Bill giving the power of nominating two additional Governors to the Corporation of the City of Limerick. His own opinion was that it would be most useful to have the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese, in association with the parish priest, upon the Board of Governors; and it would also be useful hereafter to have upon the same Board the business experience and knowledge which would be possessed by two members of the Corporation of Limerick. He was able to speak from personal experience of the great advantage of having a Bishop connected with the management and administration of charities of this kind. He might mention a case in which the Archbishop of Tuam had rendered extremely valuable service as one of the Governors of the Asylum at Westport, in the county of Mayo. He had heard from several persons that the Archbishop had been of considerable value in the management
  914
  of the Asylum. He certainly differed from his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan in the opinion that the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland were too old or too infirm to do the work that would be required of them. He had known of very few cases indeed in Ireland whore the Archbishops or Bishops had been found, at any time, in consequence of old age or infirmity, unfit to do the work entrusted to them. One of the oldest men upon the Roman Catholic Episcopal Bench in Ireland was the late Archbishop of Tuam; but until within six months of his death—and the Archbishop lived until the age of 90—the right reverend Prelate was active and vigorous. He did not think, therefore, that the argument of his hon. Friend carried much weight with it; and, so far as the parish priest of St. Mary's was concerned, the value of having a parish priest upon the managing Board of a hospital of this kind would be self-evident. As he had stated, he knew nothing of the Bill; but, taking the sketch of it which had been given by his hon. Friend, he thought it was a most valuable measure, and he should certainly support it. At the same time, he thought it would be useful if some Representative of the Government would state whether they would feel inclined to give facilities for the introduction and passing of a new Bill. In that case, he had no doubt his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. John O'Connor), would undertake to bring in a Bill for the purpose of empowering the Corporation of the City of Limerick to nominate two members of the Governing Body. But he felt that he could not oppose the present Bill for placing on the Board the Bishop of the diocese and the parish priest of St. Mary's.
  SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he was not in a position to express an opinion upon the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), as to whether it was desirable to afford facilities for the introduction of a new Bill. It was no part of his duty to pronounce an opinion upon that point; but, in regard to the present Bill, the question for the consideration of the House seemed to him to be a very simple one. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) proposed that the

  915
  Bill which now came before the House for a third reading should be re-committed, in order that two members of the Limerick Corporation should be nominated as Governors of this Charity. Before the House consented to take the unusual course of re-committing a Bill on the third reading, in order that two other Governors of the Hospital should be substituted for those now proposed by the Bill, it was incumbent upon the hon. Member to show that the present Governors were either insufficient in number, or in some way disqualified to perform the duties of the office. In a few words, he would explain to the House exactly how the matter stood. This hospital was founded by Sir Joseph Barrington, and it was at present managed and directed under an Act passed in the 11th year of the Reign of George IV. The Governing Body, as constituted by that Act, consisted of the Bishop of the diocese of Limerick, the Rector of the parish in which the hospital was situated, the Mayor of the City of Limerick, the Representative of the City in Parliament, and the President of the Limerick Chamber of Commerce, and the Right Rev. Dr. John Ryan, D.D., who, he presumed, was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick at the time. The Governing Body also included every donor of 20 guineas in one sum, and every annual subscriber of three guineas. It, therefore, seemed to him that the Institution possessed a very large Governing Body, and one that was of a very representative character, seeing that any person who was minded to subscribe three guineas a-year or to give a donation of 20 guineas at once became a Governor. It appeared to him that the Bill was of a very proper character; it contained one simple provision adding to the Governing Body the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick and the parish priest of St. Mary's for the time being, and when the Bill came before him he had no hesitation in giving his assent to it. It simply added two well-qualified persons to the existing Governing Body—a numerous Governing Body, no doubt, with some of them well qualified, and all of them qualified in some way or other. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) objected to the addition of the Roman Catholic Bishop and parish priest, on the ground that
  916
  those gentlemen might grow old or possibly infirm. But that was not an infirmity confined to Roman Catholic clergymen; it extended to others just as well; but he presumed that when a Roman Catholic Bishop became old or infirm it was customary to appoint a coadjutor, who would be able to perform all the duties and undertake all the work of the Bishop. Under the circumstances, he could really see no reason for the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Cavan. He (Sir Arthur Otway) had shown that there was already a very numerous Board of Governors; that it contained upon it certain persons who were very well qualified to act as Governors, and if to these were added the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick and the parish priest of St. Mary's he certainly did not see any possible reason why the Bill should be re-committed in order to add two members from the Corporation of Limerick, or to substitute two members of the Corporation for the two members proposed by the Bill.
  MR. SEXTONexpressed a hope that, after the explanation which had been given by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan would not press the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Motion?
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that, after the recommendation he had received from his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS BILL (by Order).

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. BRYCE,in moving to insert the following new clause after Clause 12:—
  "The Board shall, under the powers conferred upon them by this Act, acquire the whole of the piece of land in, the parish of All Saints, Poplar, numbered 2 on the deposited plans (Greenwich Ferry, Plan No. 4), and in the book of reference, page 68, and shall lay out or cause to be laid out as a public garden or recreation ground so much of the said piece of land as shall not be required for the purposes of

  917
  the Ferry between Greenwich Pier and Bayne Street, Poplar, and the purposes mentioned in Clause 12 of this Act,"
  said, this was the first of two new clauses which he proposed to insert in the Bill. It would, however, require two small verbal corrections. "Clause 12" ought to be "Clause 14," and "Bayne Street" was a misprint for "Barque Street." The Bill proposed to confer various powers upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, and, among other things, to establish and regulate a ferry across the River Thames from Greenwich to Millwall in the parish of Poplar. This was a public work which would, no doubt, be of much utility; and for the purpose of establishing the ferry the Metropolitan Board proposed to acquire a piece of land one and a-half acres in extent on the Poplar side of the river, in what was called the Isle of Dogs, immediately opposite Greenwich Hospital. This piece of land was at present laid out as a garden—in fact, it was an old garden with some trees and a grass plot. It would be a particularly good place to use as a recreation ground, because it was very well situated on the bank of the river, commanding a view of all the ships which passed up and down, and it was immediately opposite Greenwich and to various interesting objects in the locality, such as the Hospital, the Park, and the Observatory. It might, therefore, be converted into a very pleasant spot for the people of this populous and poor district to resort to for the purpose of recreation, and for a playground for the children. As many persons would have to be constantly waiting for the arrival of the ferry boats, it would be an additional advantage to have some place where they could sit beneath the trees while waiting, rather than be tempted to while away the time in the neighbouring public-houses. He might add that there was no recreation ground in the whole of this district, crowded as it was and poor as the population was. Indeed, he did not believe that there was within two miles any piece of ground that was available for the enjoyment and recreation of the people or for the games of children. He had already presented to the House a Petition, signed by 556 residents in the neighbourhood of the ferry, urgently requesting the House to accept this proposition; and those who had first asked
  918
  him to call attention to the subject (the Metropolitan Public Garden Association) had intimated their willingness to undertake the expense of laying out the ground for the benefit of the public. Some 10 or 11 days ago, a communication had been addressed from the Association in question to the Metropolitan Board of Works, laying before the Board the desirability of devoting the land to public purposes, and requesting them to express their views upon the subject, and also upon the clauses which he now proposed to insert in the Bill. The Board were invited to say whether there was anything wrong in these clauses, in point of form; and as no answer had been returned he was emboldened to believe that, so far as the form of the clauses was concerned, they were perfectly regular. He did not know whether his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) was disposed to accept these clauses on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. He trusted that he was, because the burden which their adoption would entail upon the ratepayers of London generally was extremely slight. The land was of very small pecuniary value, and, as it had already been scheduled by the Metropolitan Board, it would not be necessary to give any additional notice, and the House would have nothing more to do than to express its wish that the surplus land not required for the purpose of the ferry and its approaches should be utilized for the enjoyment of the public. He thought it was in the power of the Board of Works, and it would certainly be an act of grace which would be fully appreciated by the people if they would assent to this proposition, and not put the House to the necessity of dividing upon it. He would remind the House and his hon. Friend, whose feelings in these matters he knew to be liberal, that it would not only be an act of grace, but also in reality an act of justice, because while the West End of London was plentifully provided with recreation grounds, and the banks of the river between Westminster Bridge and the Temple were adorned with garden grounds thrown open to the public, in the East End of London nothing of the kind could be found. Hon. Members must be fully aware how much beauty was added to this part of London and

  919
  how much enjoyment was given to the people by the strips of garden which existed between the Houses of Parliament and Charing Cross. It was not too much, therefore, to ask that something of the same kind should be done for the East End of London also, for people whose lives were carried on under conditions far less favourable than those which existed in Westminster and the West End. He trusted that, under all the circumstances, the House would assent to the first of the clauses he intended to propose, and which provided that the Metropolitan Board of Works should lay out a piece of land in All Saints, Poplar, as a recreation ground.
  New Clause (Board to lay out piece of land in All Saints, Poplar, as a recreation ground,)—(Mr. Bryce,))—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he was sorry that he could not accede to the request which had been made to him by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) to adopt these clauses. He might say that during the time he had had the honour to be Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works a great number of Bills had been introduced by the Board for the purpose of improving various parts of the Metropolis; and he had never known a single case in which the House had intervened and said that the Metropolitan Board or any other corporate body, so far as he was aware, should turn certain pieces of land which came within the limits of the line of deviation of their works into recreation ground or any other purpose for the use of the general public. In the present Bill the Metropolitan Board proposed to carry out important works for the advantage of the public; and in regard to the special improvement for which this land had been acquired, it was for the Metropolitan Board, and not for the House, to say how any surplus which might be left should be disposed of. The land in All Saints, Poplar, had been scheduled for the express purpose of the present Bill, to be applied towards recouping to some extent the ratepayers of the Metropolis for the expense they would have to incur in
  920
  carrying out these public improvements. With regard to this particular plot of land, of which his hon. Friend had spoken in such glowing terms, he wished to inform the House that the whole of it amounted to one and a-quarter acres, and out of that a considerable portion would have to be used for the approaches to the ferry. As a matter of fact, only about half an acre on either side of the ferry approach would be available for a garden or recreation ground; and if the Metropolitan Board were to study economy, in the interests of the ratepayers, it was necessary to dispose of the surplus land for building purposes, so that some portion of the cost of the ferry might be provided out of it. If the House of Commons were now to step in and were to say that the Metropolitan Board were to acquire the whole of the land within the line of deviation, what would be the result? Why, that they would have to pay a very large price indeed for this public improvement. In regard to the question of cost, he might say that about a fortnight ago he went down to Poplar, to the Isle of Dogs, for the purpose of opening the East and West Perry Roads for the benefit of the inhabitants at large; and he was glad to find that the inhabitants fully appreciated what the Metropolitan Board were doing for them. As to these pieces of land of half an acre on each side of the approaches, he might point out, as a question of justice to the ratepayers generally, that the Metropolitan Board wore proposing to establish, at a very large cost, free ferries for the inhabitants of Poplar; and there was certainly one question which he would like to put to any intelligent man who understood the matter. What would any person who lived in Poplar or the Isle of Dogs like to do? Would he wish to have this plot of ground, less than one and a-quarter acres in extent, laid out as a recreation ground, or would he prefer to get across the river to Greenwich Park, where, at no cost whatever, he would be able to enjoy the beauties and enchantment of that famous popular resort? It was altogether out of the question that this piece of land could be of real advantage to the public for purposes of recreation. It would involve, in his opinion, a useless expenditure of public money, and it would be I most unusual for the House of Com-

  921
  mons to insert such a clause in a measure proposed by a Corporation or any other body representing the ratepayers. In point of fact, the Metropolitan Board of Works had already issued their notices, and they had no power to do what they were asked to do. In compliance with the Standing Orders of the House, they had simply asked for power to acquire this land for the purpose of utilizing it in constructing the approaches to the ferry. They had never thought of providing any recreation ground whatever; and so far as the land itself was concerned, instead of being suitable for such an object, as his hon. Friend asserted, it was most unsuitable, independently of the fact that, in compelling the Metropolitan Board to devote it to purposes of public recreation and enjoyment, the House would be casting aside every principle of fair play which had hitherto guided them in regard to Bills introduced into the House of Commons by the Metropolitan Board or any other corporate body. It was preposterous to direct the Metropolitan Board, in this or any other instance, to use the land acquired, for a particular object for the purposes of a recreation ground, whether they liked it or not. He believed he might fairly claim for the Metropolitan Board that they had never been backward in doing the best they could for the interests of the people. Already they had been instrumental in securing nearly 2,000 acres of open land around the Metropolis, and throwing it open for the free use of the general public. In the very Bill which he held in his hand, they proposed to lay out 72 acres of land in Dulwich for the purposes of a public park, and there were provisions in the Bill enabling them to negotiate with the Governors of Dulwich College for that purpose. They were also endeavouring to convert High bury Fields at Islington into an open space, for the enjoyment of the public hero-after, and were proposing to establish streets which would form a direct communication between this open space and Islington. The body of which his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) was the mouthpiece were very anxious that the Metropolitan Board should now throw open a valuable piece of land which they desired to make use of in order to recoup the ratepayers, to some extent, for the
  922
  large expenditure which these public improvements would involve; and it was suggested that this land, very little larger than the Chamber in which they were assembled, should be converted into a recreation ground. Now-a-days, certain persons seemed to think that everything ought to be turned into a public recreation ground. He, for one, certainly did not entertain that opinion. Parliament had imposed upon the Metropolitan Board very onerous duties and conditions, and the result was that they were required to pay very large sums of money—very much larger than they had any right to anticipate—both in regard to compensation and other expenses. Under all the circumstances, he thought the Metropolitan Board were justified in paying some attention to the interests of the ratepayers, and in trying to keep within reasonable bounds in regard to the public improvements which they carried out from time to time. He therefore felt himself called upon to ask the House to reject the clauses which his hon. Friend had placed upon the Paper.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, that although upon most occasions he had supported his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M 'Garel-Hogg) in any matter connected with the Metropolitan Board of Works, still upon this occasion he was sorry to say that he should not be found in the same Lobby as his hon. Friend. During the last few weeks he had had many opportunities of visiting the East End of London; and the experience he had recently gained convinced him of the strong feeling there was among the working classes of the district to obtain possession of this small piece of land for a recreation ground. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), in proposing these clauses, pleaded on behalf of a particular society. Now, he (Mr. On slow) did not in the slightest degree speak on behalf of that society, although he did not deny that it might have done a certain amount of good; but, at the same time, ho believed that the members of it held somewhat fanatical views about the acquisition of land in the Metropolis for recreation grounds. Therefore, he did not appear before the House on that occasion to speak on behalf of that society; but he supported the proposal of the hon. Member opposite because he knew from the knowledge he had recently

  923
  acquired that a very large number of the working classes and others of Poplar were extremely desirous that this piece of land should be converted into a recreation ground. His hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board said the proposal would involve the waste of a large sum of money, which ought to be utilized for the benefit of the ratepayers of the Metropolis generally. His (Mr. Onslow's) opinion was that it would not involve the waste of a large sum of money. If it entailed an addition to the rates of the Metropolis to any objectionable extent, he certainly would not vote for it; but it appeared to him that these 1½ acres might be laid out very easily indeed, at a comparatively small cost. He thought if his hon. and gallant Friend went a little more into detail, he would find that he took an exaggerated view of the cost, and that the Metropolitan Board would in reality sacrifice very little in handing over this land to the public. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said that this would be a good place for children and nursery maids to resort to; and almost in the same breath the hon. Member said it was much better that they should go there rather than while away their time in the public-house. He (Mr. On slow) regretted that the public-house should be so constantly lugged in, in connection with this question of providing recreation grounds. The argument of the hon. Member was that the public, whenever they had the opportunity, would rather visit a recreation ground than the public-house. The publican was always held up by hon. Gentlemen who held the views of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets as the great sinner in the Metropolis in these respects. Perhaps it was scarcely necessary that he (Mr. On slow) should say it was not because he believed that people would while away their time in the public-house that he supported the proposal of the hon. Member. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) said the Metropolitan Board did not like to be dictated to, and that they objected to be forced to do this or that, even by the House of Commons. He was not one of those who in any way desired to dictate to the Metropolitan Board. He knew the enormous amount of good that Board had accomplished under the
  924
  presidency of his hon. Friend; and having sat on various Committees in which the work of the Board had been concerned, he knew very well that whenever they had the opportunity the Metropolitan Board were unceasing in their endeavours to do good for the working classes of the Metropolis. But the question involved in the present Bill was a very small matter indeed. He thought the plot of land to which the Motion applied was required for a recreation ground for the general public of the East End of London; and he hoped the House would come to the conclusion that it would be right to grant to the East End this small boon, which would not entail an excessive amount of expenditure, and would be greatly appreciated by the residents in the locality.
  MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, that as he had long taken an interest in the preservation of open spaces in the Metropolis, and had also been a Member of the Committee which considered the present Bill, he wished to say a word upon the question which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). The proposal to which the Motion related was contained in that part of the Bill which dealt with the establishment of free ferries across the Thames between Greenwich and Poplar. There were some divisions in the Committee upon the subject, some Members objecting, generally, to the principle of establishing free ferries. If there was to be a free ferry, why should there not be a free train, and a free omnibus? The general tenour of the evidence before the Committee was that so much had been done to open up and free the communications across the river above London Bridge that it was necessary to improve and facilitate the means of communication below London Bridge. As a matter of fact, this free ferry would really be nothing else than a large floating bridge. The money which would be required for the purpose of establishing and, keeping up this ferry would be levied upon the whole of the Metropolitan area, and it would have an immediate effect in increasing the value of the land which happened to be contiguous. There could not be the slightest doubt that the value of this plot of land would be enormously increased as soon as the ferry was established, and that the Metropolitan Board would in all

  925
  probability be able to utilize that portion of it which would be left vacant for building purposes as a commercial speculation, which would be the means of recouping themselves to a certain extent for the rates it would be necessary, in the first instance, to raise over the whole of the Metropolitan area. In the discussion of the proceedings before Private Bill Committees he had often thought that the interests of the general public in the presence of the interests of powerful individuals or associations were frequently neglected. He thought it was not only right, but fair and equitable, that Parliament and its Committees should keep in view the interests of the public generally. If it was right that the people of this locality should have a special advantage in the nature of a free ferry at the expense of other Londoners, it was also right that the Metropolitan Board should not make the opportunity one for commercial speculations, and the money now to be invested should be laid out in a manner most advantageous for the general public who might use the ferry. Under these circumstances, he strongly supported his hon. Friend's clause.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he did not propose to address the House upon the question before it. He had simply risen for the purpose of calling the attention of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) to an informality in the form of his proposal. In the last line he spoke of "Clause 14;" but if it were added to the Bill it would become a "section," and not a "clause." He trusted that the hon. Member, if the Motion were carried, would amend it in that respect.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 56: Majority 80—(Div. List, No. 197.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished again to call the attention of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to the point he had referred to before the division took place—namely, that the term used in the last line of the new clause should be "section," and not "clause."
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he had no objection to amend the clause as suggested.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. War-ton) was too late. The proper time to have moved an Amendment was when the Question was put.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move the 2nd clause?
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he did. He begged to move a further clause to provide that—
  "All powers and authorities vested in the Board by sections two to eleven, inclusive, of The Metropolitan Board of Works Act, 1877, shall, upon the passing of this Act, apply to the said piece of land in the parish of All Saints, Poplar, and to every part there of when the same has been so laid out as a public garden, as aforesaid, as if the same had been included in the Schedule of Parks' to the said Metropolitan Board of Works Act, 1877."
  New Clause—(Powers of Metropolitan Board of Works Act, 1877, to apply to recreation ground at Poplar,)—[Mr. Bryce,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  Bill to be read the third time.

NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL (by Order.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the following Amendment in the Preamble of the Bill, page 5, line 19, to leave out the words:—
  "And that power should be conferred upon the Company to remodel and improve their hotel adjoining the Waverley Station at Edinburgh (known as the 'North British Station Hotel')."
  If this Amendment were agreed to, he proposed to move the omission from Clause 33, page 27, line 6, of the following words:—
  "The Company may alter, enlarge, remodel, and improve their hotel and other property fronting Princes Street, in the city of Edinburgh, and raise the back portion thereof to the same height as the front portion, so as to form an uniform block."
  The Bill had passed through its preliminary stages, and had been considered and reported by a Committee upstairs. Under those circumstances he should not, as a general rule, feel disposed to interfere with the decision of a Committee, and he should not do so in the present instance if he were not of opinion that a great principle was involved. The question which he desired to bring

  927
  before the House was a most important one, the principle involved in it being whether a Railway Company ought to be allowed to interfere with the legitimate business of the hotel-keepers by starting an hotel of their own. This might appear to be a somewhat startling proposition, because it was well known that a considerable number of Railway Companies did, at the present moment, possess hotels in connection with their principal stations. He knew that fact perfectly well; but there had never been an occasion before in which the question of the right of a Railway Company to keep an hotel had been objected to, and he believed that statement was fully borne out by the evidence not only of the opponents, but by those who gave evidence in support of the Bill. Not only had opposition to this part of the Bill of the North British Railway been offered before the Committee, but it had been determined to continue it in the House itself. The principal witness on behalf of the Bill before the Committee was Mr. John "Walker, the general manager of the Company, who was compelled, on cross examination, to admit that he did not know of any hotel power having previously been opposed before a Parliamentary Committee. Therefore, he (Mr. Warton) thought that a new question had been raised which he was fairly entitled to bring before the House. He did not pretend to say that it was at all a new fact that Railway Companies had occasionally established hotels in connection with their stations; but it was a new question whether the principle, now that it had been opposed, was or was not to receive the solemn sanction of the House of Commons. The reason why, in this case, the North British Railway Company ought not to be allowed to build an hotel in Edinburgh was because, in the first place, it had been abundantly proved, by evidence, that the City of Edinburgh was very well supplied with hotels already. To prove that assertion he would take it out of the mouth of the Company's own witness—Mr. Walker, the general manager, who was obliged to make the following admission to the Committee:—
  "I do not dispute the fact that the City of Edinburgh has for many years been exceptionally well supplied with hotel accommodation."
  928
  And what was the history of this hotel which the Railway Company proposed to alter, enlarge, remodel, and improve? The land upon which the existing hotel stood was purchased many years ago by the Company nominally for the purposes of the railway. Under Standing Order No. 156 of the House of Commons no Railway Company was to be allowed to carry on any other business except that of a Railway Company without the sanction of Parliament through a Select Committee. In this case how had that assent been given? It was stated in the Report of a Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) that the Company purchased the ground on which the hotel stood many years ago, and that until lately it had been let by the Company for the purposes of an hotel. It was now untenanted owing to the want of certain improvements. Why was it that the hotel was untenanted? It was for this reason—that two separate tenants had successively occupied the hotel under the Railway Company, and both had failed to make it profitable. Now, if other hotel-keepers in other parts of the City of Edinburgh tried to establish a business and failed the result was a loss to themselves; but the grievance in this case was that the Railway Company would be able to carry on the business of hotel-keepers at a loss, as far as the mere hotel itself was concerned, and therefore it was instituting an unfair competition to require traders who had to find their own capital to compete with a great Railway Company with an immense capital, subscribed by the general public, behind them. It was self-evident that a Railway Company would be able, out of the general profits of the railway, to carry on the business of an hotel at a loss. There were other ways in which they were able to compete, with exceptional advantages, with an ordinary trader who had to carry on a business by his own industry, and out of his own capital. A Railway Company could employ its own officers in touting for custom; it offered to the travelling public the privilege of forwarding telegrams along the railway free of expense, and there were other advantages which the ordinary hotel-keeper was unable to provide. No other hotel-keeper, for instance, could send telegrams free of expense; they could

  929
  not have Hansom cabs constantly upon their premises, with the names of their hotel painted on them; and they were prevented from touting for custom at the railway stations, although that was a process which was carried on constantly by the railway servants in connection with the railway hotels. The Chairman of the Committee, in the Report presented to the House with regard to the Bill, further stated that for the purposes of the railway this hotel was very conveniently situated for the public accommodation. Of course, hon. Members knew all that very well. An hotel at a railway station was, no doubt, very convenient for those passengers who arrived at the station by night, and wished to stay at an hotel. That, however, was not the point; the point was, that a Railway Company carrying on the business of an hotel-keeper were able to conduct an unfair trade against those with whom they were brought into competition. He desired to call the attention of the House to the unfair manner in which the opposition to his proposal, as far as the present Bill was concerned, had been got up. [Cries of"Divide!"] He trusted that the House was in a judicial mood. He simply wished to call the attention of the House to the way in which the opposition to this point on the part of the Railway Company had been got up. He held in his hand a paper which had been circulated by this unscrupulous Railway Company. The first sentence contained in it was as follows:—"Mr. Warton has given Notice on behalf of an opponent." He would assure the House that that was not the case—and he thought he knew better than anybody else for what reason he had given Notice of opposition; and he simply stated that he had not given Notice on behalf of any opponent of the Bill, but on behalf of a general principle, and on behalf of all the hotel-keepers of the City of Edinburgh. No doubt, this statement was subsequently qualified, because the circular said—"The gentleman on whose behalf it is understood to be moved." After the bold statement that he appeared there on behalf of an opponent of the Bill, the Company qualified it by the statement that—The gentleman on whose behalf he was understood to appear" had done so and so. No doubt, the gentleman referred to did all he could to serve his own in-
  930
  terests and to protect his own trade; and he (Mr. Warton) asked the House calmly to consider whether it was disposed, in contravention of the 156th Standing Order, to sanction the principle that a Railway Company, which Railway Company was a monopolist, should carry on another business in addition to that for which it had been secured a monopoly; and whether it was just or fair that a man who had nothing but his own resources to rely upon should be handicapped by having a prosperous Railway Company which could afford to carry on an hotel business at a positive loss even for years as a competitor? Such competition must inevitably, in the end, drive the legitimate trader out of the field. In this case, the land which it was proposed to enlarge, remodel, and improve was acquired by the North British Railway Company years ago, under the pretext that it was wanted for station purposes. He said, with all respect to the hon. Baronet who had acted as Chairman of the Committee, that he had never heard a weaker representation from a Committee than the honest admission which was contained in the present Report, that some years ago the existing hotel was let, but that it was now unoccupied because two successive tenants had failed to make a living out of it. It was altogether a new proposition that when a legitimate trader failed to carry on the business of an hotel-keeper a Railway Company should step in and conduct it on their own account, with all the unfair advantages they would be able to avail themselves of—such as the power of using its own servants as hotel agents, sending telegrams free, and employing cabs at the railway stations for the purpose of pushing the trade. He hoped that he would receive the support of the House in favour of the appeal which he now made, and which was an appeal based not only upon strict equity, but absolute justice. He heartily wished that the Prime Minister were present, because he believed that the word "justice" would have fetched the right hon. Gentleman. He also hoped to obtain the support of all the so-called temperance part)'. Indeed, he thought they were bound to support him on this occasion, seeing that the fewer number of hotels there were, the less amount of intoxication was likely to take place.

  931
  He therefore trusted that all the supporters of the temperance movement would vote for his proposal on the ground that it would prevent one more establishment of this kind from being brought into existence. He had also every reason to hope that he would be supported by those who wished for Fair Trade, even although it happened to be in the business of hotel proprietors, and that they would be prepared to stand up against the grasping monopoly of a Railway Company, who generally displayed the extreme vices of monopolists wherever the Legislature allowed them the opportunity.
  Amendment proposed,
  In the Preamble, page 5, line 19, by leaving out the following words "And that power should be conferred upon the Company to remodel and improve their hotel adjoining the Waverley Station at Edinburgh (known as the 'North British Station Hotel').—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he thought that it was inconvenient and, to some extent, a waste of the time of the House to bring forward for discussion a question which was fully considered only a fortnight or three weeks ago, when the present Bill came on for second reading. The conversation which then occurred was quite sufficient to elicit all the facts of the case; and it afforded him an opportunity of making some observations upon a point then raised—namely, that an objection might be raised to the locus standi of the hotel proprietors of Edinburgh, and that, consequently, their case would not be heard. That was not the case now. The Bill since that discussion was raised had been before a Select Committee upstairs—a Committee presided over by an hon. Member who had had very much experience indeed of matters of this kind. The whole question was fully investigated before the Committee; and what was the Report which the Committee had presented? The hon. and learned Gentleman had not read it fully, but had merely selected a few passages from it; and as he (Sir Arthur Otway") was anxious to save the time of the House, he would not refer to it further than to say that it effectually disposed of all the objections which the hon. and learned
  932
  Gentleman had now raised. The Bill had been fully examined and considered; and it appeared to him that this provision was one which was dictated by common sense, and that the establishment of an improved hotel at the "Waverley Station in Edinburgh would not only be convenient to the public, but of advantage to all parties concerned. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Motion he had made, or, if he pressed it to a division, the House would reject it by a large majority without wasting further time in discussing it.
  MR. M'COANsaid, that he had been a Member of the Committee to whom the Bill had been referred; and, in the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for "West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who was Chairman of the Committee, he wished to say one or two words in support of the decision to which they had arrived. He had listened with attention to the statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) had made, and he could assure the House that every one of the objections which had been raised by him had been fully laid before the Committee. The evidence of the hotel-keepers of Edinburgh who appeared in their own interest against the Bill had been carefully considered; and, after statements on both sides had been submitted to the Committee, they came unanimously to the conclusion that the general convenience of the public would be promoted by granting the power asked for by the Company in the Bill.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Member who had just addressed the House told them that the Bill would promote the convenience of the public. No doubt, it contained a comfortable arrangement to promote the interests of the Company themselves; but, notwithstanding the Report which the Committee had presented to the House, he was of opinion that the House had a right to form its own opinion upon the merits of the case. He would like to ask what would be the practical result of Railway Companies making a regular practice of building hotels at all the important railway stations? In his opinion, the effect would be that the existing hotel proprietors would be ruined; and, as soon as they had ruined the legitimate trade, the Railway Companies would charge any-

  933
  thing they liked to their customers. It might take some time—even a considerable time—before this result was brought about; but it was sure to come, sooner or later; and he thought the amount of monopoly the Railway Company had already—namely, the right of conveying passengers to particular localities—ought to be quite enough for them without Parliament conferring on them the right of competing with traders, and licensed traders into the bargain. It was well known that the hotel-keepers of Edinburgh and other large towns had invested large sums of money in the building and furnishing of their establishments; and if the existing hotels were deprived of the prospect of realizing a profit, the Railway Companies would hereafter be able to impose any tariff they pleased. He thought it was for the interest of the general public that Parliament should restrict rather than enlarge the monopolies enjoyed by the Railway Companies; and on that ground he hoped the House would support the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Brid port (Mr. Warton).
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORalso supported the Amendment. Ho had no objection whatever to competition, provided it were not carried on under unfair conditions. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means had scarcely put the case in a proper light. It was scarcely fair for the hon. Baronet to get up and say that as a Committee had inquired into the provisions of the Bill, and had presented their Report, the House of Commons had nothing further to do with the matter except to obey the mandate of the Committee. He thought it ought to be clearly understood whether an investigation by a Committee took away all the responsibility and control of the House over Private Bill legislation. Some time ago he had had the opportunity of bringing before the House the scandalous manner in which its Public Business was done. In regard to the present discussion, and the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he wished to put before the House a few observations. The object of the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was to prevent a Railway Company from building a hotel and becoming hotel proprietors, and the ground upon which it was supported was that
  934
  the hotel was sought to be built in a city which was already overrun with hotels. There were very few Members of the House who would not have paid a visit, some time or other, to the City of Edinburgh? lie would therefore appeal to the experience of hon. Members whether, in the whole world, with the exception perhaps of one or two places in America, there were more commodious or splendid hotels to be found than in Edinburgh. It was proposed by the present Bill to add another to a city which possessed too many hotels already, because it was a notorious fact that the people of Edinburgh and of most parts of Scotland had only a short tourist season of two or three months, and a considerable number of the hotel-keepers found it very hard work to keep their heads above water. He was informed that there were no less than 82 hotels within a few minutes walk of the place where the North British Railway Company proposed to build a new one, and he thought that fact virtually disposed of any plea for the Bill on the ground of necessity. Of course, it was to the interest of the Railway Company to continue their monopolies. It would really appear that they were desirous of seizing and devouring everything. He objected to the proposed hotel, because it was not wanted; but he objected to it still more, because it would enable the Railway Company to enter into an unfair competition with, existing traders, and assist them in devoting a portion of their capital in making a bad speculation pay. That was really what the Bill proposed to do. He did not know whether hon. Members generally had received copies of a Petition from the hotel proprietors of Edinburgh; but he would invite the attention of the House to some points which had been brought forward by the witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee. The chief witness was Mr. John Walker, the General Manager of the Company. He would not go into Mr. Walker's evidence; but he might sum it up by saying that Mr. Walker did not state with any certainty or confidence that the hotel would pay, but at the same time the witness clearly indicated that the Railway Company proposed to spend a portion of its capital in entering into an unfair competition with other hotel proprietors. For instance, telegrams would be sent free for the

  935
  occupants of the hotel. Two previous tenants had been compelled to give up the hotel, as it now existed, because they found it impossible to make it pay; but the Railway Company, with the vast capital at its disposal, would be able, even at a loss, to give facilities to customers which no other hotel proprietor could give. In this way they would be in a position to carry on a most unfair competition. He thought it was time the House of Commons took a stand against monopolies being extended to the Railway Companies in connection with every form of enterprize; and for these reasons he trusted the Motion of the hon. and learned Member would receive the support of the House.
  MR. ORR-EWINGwished to correct a statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). This was not a Bill to empower the Company to build a new hotel, but to give them power to alter and improve a hotel which already existed at their Waverley Station, in Edinburgh. At the present moment the accommodation provided by the hotel was inferior and insufficient, and it was most desirable to improve it for the convenience of travellers passing through Edinburgh who desired to break the journey and stay there overnight. It was not intended that the hotel should be for the convenience of the general public, but simply for the accommodation of travellers by the railway.
  MR. BUCHANANhoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. He wished to correct the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr-Ewing) that this was not a new hotel, but one that had been in existance for a number of years. Although a small hotel did exist on the premises, practically what was in view was the construction of an entirely new hotel, and one of a different character. The whole question had been raised when the Bill was before the Committee, and was fully argued out. He deprecated a renewal of the discussion; but, undoubtedly, if the Motion were pressed to a division, it would be a favourable opportunity for deciding in the Lobby whether, in addition to the monopoly already enjoyed by Railway Companies, and by means of the resources so obtained, they should be allowed to enter
  936
  into the trade of hotel proprietors. He was himself of opinion that if it was desirable to raise that question in an intelligible shape, it could not be done in a better case than the present. Therefore, if the hon. and learned Member went to a division, he should certainly vote with him.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 56: Majority 105.—(Div. List, No. 198.)
  Amendments made. Bill to be read the third time.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to put a question to the Chair in reference to the recent division. He wanted to know what was the procedure of the House in regard to the appointment of Tellers in a division. Was it in Order for the Assistant Clerk to find Tellers, or was it not left to the hon. Member who submitted the Motion upon which a division was called? As a matter of fact, before the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was nominated by the Clerk to tell with him (Mr. Warton), he had provided himself with a Teller, having selected a Scotch Member in the person of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster), this being a Scotch question. He wished to have a clear understanding whether it was in the province of the Assistant Clerk to select a Teller for an hon. Member who had already arranged for one?
  MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. and learned Member, it will be in the recollection of the House that I distinctly asked the hon. Member who would tell with him, and, as I received no reply, I named the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), because he had supported the Motion moved by the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. WARTONapologized to the right hon. Gentleman. He had not been aware that the Tellers had been named by him. He had understood that it was by the Assistant Clerk, or he would not have mentioned the matter.

QUESTIONS.

  LIGHTHOUSES—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE MAINLAND.
  MR. VIVIANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can lay

  937
  upon the Table of the House any Papers showing the results of the recent experiments for connecting outlying lighthouses with the mainland by electric telegraph?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, there were no Papers which, could at present be laid on the Table. The experiments were to extend over 12 months, beginning in December last; and as soon as that experimental period was passed, he expected to have a Report which he should be happy to lay on the Table.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT—AMENDMENT.
  MR. CHARLES ROUNDELLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the case of James Larbey and T. Sullivan, two workmen who, in May 1884, were seriously and permanently injured by the fall of a dangerous wall which they were ordered to remove after the fire at Mr. White ley's premises in Westbourne Grove, and to the following facts, viz. that soon afterwards Larbey and Sullivan commenced an action for compensation against their employers in the South wark County Court; that, at the instance of the defendants, this action, along with other similar actions by other workmen injured at the same time, has been removed to the Superior Court; that there is little probability of the case coming on to be heard before October next, a period of eighteen months from the time of the accident; and, whether, considering the hardship thus entailed upon poor men through an expensive and dilatory legal process, he will consider the propriety of an amendment of the Employer's Liability Act which will secure summary trial of cases there under where the individual claim amounts to less than (say) £50?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, that actions of this nature under the Employers' Liability Act must be brought, in the first instance, in the County Courts, and they were not removed to a Superior Court unless special cause was shown. The Courts were very jealous of granting leave to remove them; but there might be test cases involving' great liability in which it might be possible that an order for removal might be very justly made. In the circumstances, he
  938
  did not see any necessity for an alteration of the law.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—LAWRENCE HANNEN—COSTS OF DEFENCE.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Under Secretary to the Treasury, If he intends paying Mr. Bowler, Solicitor, the balance of costs claimed by him for his special attendance at the Spring Assizes in the present year at Carrick on Shannon, as the Solicitor duly assigned for Lawrence Hannen, who was charged with complicity in the Bally foran murder?
  MR. HIBBERT: Last February the Treasury sanctioned payment to Mr. Bowler of the sum recommended by the Irish Government for his services in defending Hannen at the Summer and Winter Assizes of 1884. The trial was adjourned to last Spring Assizes, but we have heard nothing more about costs.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CASE OF MARY MAGEE, GWEEDORE, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the process of eviction on Tuesday last at Gweedore, county Donegal, in the case of Mary Magee, a widow with eleven children, whose husband had suddenly died the day before, leaving her without means to satisfy the claim of the landlord, Whether it is true, as reported in the press—
  "The police constables (present to enforce the eviction) would willingly have subscribed, but the officers refused to permit them, as their doing; so would be a direct breach of the constabulary code of discipline;"
  what article of the code prohibits such a contribution; and, whether within the last few years constables present on duty at evictions in Ireland have on several occasions subscribed to save families from being turned out of their homes?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It appears that when the police were assembled to carry out this eviction, the Rev. Mr. M'Fadden asked permission of the County Inspector to go round the ranks and make a collection for this woman, and that the County Inspector declined to give it. He added, however, that if, after all was over, any of them chose to give anything in charity,

  939
  there would be no objection. The County Inspector acted in accordance with the Regulation which directs that no general subscription for any purpose is to be made in the Force without the previous consent of the Inspector General, who informs me that he only knows of one instance in which money was so raised for evicted persons.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—IMPRISONMENT OF TWO WOMEN.
  MR. O'BRIEN (for Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether he will state the circumstances in connection with the imprisonment of two women of the name of Kinssella, of Parnell' Cross, county Wexford; and, whether it is a fact that one of these women was taken by the police from the sick bed, where she had been lying for thirteen weeks?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: These two women have been sent to prison, one for four days, and the other for a month and a day, in default of paying fines inflicted on them in January and February last for several acts of trespass and malicious injury. One of them was in bed when the police arrived; but she was not ill, nor had she been continuously in bed for 13 weeks. It appears she was in the habit of getting into bed whenever the police were seen approaching the house, and was at last caught in the act.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how often the police have succeeded in getting these poor girls into gaol with reference to this eviction?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I know nothing about it.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)—LORD WOLSELEY'S INSTRUCTIONS.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary of State for War, If he has received any telegram from Lord Wolseley, during the time that he was at Suakin, protesting against the instructions sent to him from the War Office for his general guidance as to Military operations, and as to the disposal and withdrawal of the troops under his command at Suakin and on the Nile, as being impracticable in a Military point of view?
  SIR. WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Lord Wolseley's most important Despatches and telegrams with regard to the evacuation of the Soudan?
  SIR ARTHUR HATTER(who replied) said: No telegram has been received from Lord Wolseley protesting against his instructions as impracticable from a military point of view. But, in reply to this Question, and to that of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), I may say that the most important despatches and telegrams received from Lord Wolseley will be included in the Papers which are about to be presented.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE SUAKIN-BERBER RAILWAY.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it was the original intention of the Government that the Suakin-Berber line should be constructed by officers of the Engineers and Coolies from India; whether, after that the work had been entrusted to Messrs. Lucas and Aird, a corps of 900 Coolies were specially raised by Engineer officers to assist in the work; whether the chief part of the work was done by these Coolies and the Army generally; whether the work would have been done much more cheaply had the original intention of the Government been carried out, and the work been entrusted to Engineer officers and Coolies; whether, in view of the immense importance of a line of Railway being rapidly constructed to get up supplies in time of war, Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of at once establishing in the British Army a Military Railway Corps, consisting of men thoroughly skilled in the art of rapidly laying a line; and, whether they will arrange that a good stock of light rails, specially adapted for Military purposes, should be kept in stock?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER(who replied) said: It was not originally intended to construct the railway from Suakin by Engineer officers and coolies from India. The relative advantages of that course and of employing an English firm of position and experience were fully discussed.

  941
  The decision was in favour of the latter alternative. It was part of the original arrangement with Messrs. Lucas and Aird that a large proportion of the unskilled labour should be drawn from India, England only supplying the necessary skilled labour to control and direct the unskilled Native workmen. The number from India at first was 400, not 900, the balance being Commissariat labourers. The chief part of the unskilled work was performed by Indian coolies and by Egyptian and Soudanese labourers, assisted, after active operations ceased, by military working parties. All Native labour from India was provided by the Indian Government, and organized under military officers, with the usual Native head-men. The Commissariat and railway labour was under officers of Engineers. Even if it had been desirable to construct the railway by means of Engineer officers and coolies, that course was not at the time practicable, the Indian resources in skilled railway labour being fully employed in India. There was no reason to think that the employment of Engineer officers and coolies, even if it had been practicable, would have resulted in any great saving of expense. The nucleus of a Military Railway Corps has been formed by the conversion to such duties of the 8th and 10th Companies of Royal Engineers, and the Secretary of State for War is also considering whether arrangements are possible for forming a reserve force of railway artificers. Fifty miles of light railway for military purposes are now in store, and will be retained with a view of contingencies.
  MR. RAIKES: Is it the intention of the Government to lay on the Table the contract with Messrs. Lucas and Aird?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: I believe it is already laid.

  GAMBLING ACT—RAID ON A BETTING CLUB.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether ho has made any inquiry into the proceedings of the Metropolitan police, who at an early hour in the morning of Sunday week, in order to arrest some alleged gamblers belonging to a club called "The European Club" in Tottenham Court Road, and acting apparently on mere suspicion, forcibly
  942
  broke into the neighbouring premises of "The Social Democratic Club;" whether the following passage from The Times newspaper correctly represents what occurred:—
  "The officers tried the door, and finding it locked burst it open and entered. The mob meanwhile smashed the windows, and, while the officers were pursuing their search in the uppermost rooms, helped themselves to all the contents of the bar beneath. Cigars, liquor, coats, and other property were carried off in the confusion. The police found a crowd of men upstairs all highly indignant at their club being stormed in this fashion. It is needless to say their search was not facilitated. The Social Democrats protested and obstructed. The police, with their staves in their hands, made short work of all who stood in their way, and the end of a formidable disturbance was that about fifty or sixty men, mostly foreign internationalists, were marched off to the police station, some of them battered and bleeding in a very shocking manner. The officers had also been roughly handled, and were venting their maledictions on the 'Nihilists,' as they termed those of their prisoners who had been most intractable. About breakfast time all but six or seven of the prisoners had been let off, after the surgeon had seen to the wounds of the most injured;"
  whether "The Social Democratic Club" is a lawful association; if the above report is substantially correct, whether the police had any legal warrant or justification for entering that club, or arresting and beating its members; and, if he proposes to take any action in regard to the case?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, according to the reports he had received, the paragraphs cited did not give an accurate account of what occurred. The case had been adjourned in order that cross-summonses might be taken out against the police; and, therefore, both sides would be fully heard.

  COAL MINES—DENABY MAIN COLLIERY.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the report of a case which appears in The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent of the 12th instant, to the following effect:—
  "Priscilla Smith was brought before Mr. G. W. Chambers, chairman, and other magistrates at Rotherham, charged with assaulting Richard Oakley, a deputy employed by the Dena by Main Colliery Company. In the course of the trial the chairman called for Michael Smith, the husband of the defendant, and ordered him to stand beside his wife. After lecturing the

  943
  husband, the chairman bound him and his wife over to keep the peace;"
  if he will inquire whether the report is substantially correct; and, whether, if Michael Smith had not been summoned before the magistrates, had not broken the peace, nor shown any intention of doing so, the magistrates did not exceed their legal powers?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, it was not desirable that the Colliery Inspectors should be mixed up in quarrels with reference to wages. The Inspectors were unwilling to intervene more than they could in these matters, though, of course, they would get at facts as well as they could. The statement he had made might be taken to be that of the managers; and he had nothing to add to what he had said. The Company had discontinued giving a bonus of coal to the occupiers of their houses, although that did not come under the Truck Act. He could not express any opinion as to the stoppage of arrears of rent out of wages. As to the action of the magistrates, the facts of the case were rather curious. The magistrates acted upon their view of the identity of the husband and wife, and so, although the husband was not charged, bound both over to keep the peace. As they were only bound over in then-own recognizances no great harm was done. The proceeding could not be said to be regular and legal.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—VACANCIES IN USK AND NAAS DIVISIONS, NAAS UNION.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. LEAHY)asked I the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Division of Usk, in the Naas Union, is un represented at the Board of Guardians since the first of April, in consequence of the resignation of Mr. Hulan, he being elected for Naas Division, for which he chose to sit; whether there is also a vacancy in the Naas Electoral Division, owing to the resignation of Mr. Eaglinton, now over five weeks since his resignation was accepted; and, why the Local Government Board have not yet directed a new election to fill those vacancies, notwithstanding the Guardians having called their attention thereto?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This case is included in the General
  944
  Order for Supplemental Elections, which was signed on the 16th instant.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE WINE DUTIES.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in consequence of the failure of the commercial negotiations with Spain, Her Majesty's Government propose to abandon the arrangement with respect to the Wine Duties announced in the Financial Statement?
  MR. HIBBERT(who replied), said, on or before the second reading of the that Budget Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain to the House what course he proposed to take with reference to the 3rd section of that Bill in consequence of the termination of the commercial negotiations with Spain.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I beg to give Notice that I shall ask the Question on Thursday. I think it will be extremely inconvenient to the House not to have any statement upon the subject until the day of the second reading of the Bill.

  EGYPT—THE FORTIFICATIONS OF ALEXANDRIA.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any steps have been taken to restore the fortifications at Alexandria; and, if not, whether it is intended to take any steps to put that most important town in a proper state of defence?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER(who replied) said: A project for the repair of the defences of Alexandria has been submitted by the General Officer commanding in Egypt, and is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Will the work be done at the expense of England or of Egypt?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: I am afraid I cannot say.

  POLICE BILL.
  GENERAL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can fix any day after Whitsuntide for the Second Reading of the Police Bill?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; I cannot.

  SPAIN—THE BARQUE "MARY MARK."
  MR. HENDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Papers relating to the claim of the owners of the barque Mary Mark against the Spanish Government in 1883, including the representations made by Her Majesty's Government, to which no answer has been returned?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I think it will be advisable before taking any further steps in the matter to await the reply of the Spanish Government to a strong representation which Sir Robert Morier was instructed to make on the 7th instant.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE—OUTBREAK IN YORKSHIRE.
  MR. ACKERSasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he is now able to say for certain whether the statement that foot and mouth disease had broken out in a herd of cattle in Yorkshire was incorrect; whether the Returns of the Department are correct; and, whether any undoubted cases of foot and mouth disease now exist in the United Kingdom; and, if so, the number of such cases, and the places where they exist?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is a difference of opinion between the Veterinary Inspector of the Local Authority and the Inspector of the Privy Council sent to investigate the alleged outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Kelleythorpe, near Driffield, Yorkshire, as to the number of animals attacked. Under the circumstances, it is impossible to say for certain whether the disease was really foot-and-mouth disease or some other affection of the mouth; but, on consideration of the whole of the evidence, the Veterinary Officers of the Agricultural Department are inclined to the opinion that the disease was not foot-and-mouth disease. The Departmental Returns are compiled from the Returns received from the Officers of Local Authorities, and every care is taken that the compilation is accurate. No case of foot-and-mouth disease is reported or known to exist in any part of the United Kingdom.

  SPAIN—THE DERELICT SHIP "THESSALOS."
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made in respect of the arrest of the judgment reported to have been given by the Spanish Courts in the matter of the Greek ship Thessalos derelict, towed by an English steamer into Vive no, on which subject the Foreign Office made representations through Sir Robert Morier?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I regret to say that no result has yet attended the representations made by Sir Robert Morier with regard to this case. He was instructed on the 11th instant to call the attention of the Spanish Government again to the matter; and as soon as their answer is received I will communicate its purport to the right hon. Member.

  THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have yielded to the proposed establishment of an International Control over the Suez Canal; and, whether he can inform the House as to the progress of negotiations?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Pending the negotiations, I am unable to make any statement with regard to the proceedings of the Conference; but I hope that my refusal to give information will not be taken as implying assent to any inferences which might be drawn from the terms in which the Question of the hon. Member is expressed.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Am I to understand that the Government have no intention of yielding the control of the road to India to Foreign Powers?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is an argumentative inference drawn from the hon. Member's own Question.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES—TRANSFER OF SMALL HOUSES.
  MR. BUCHANANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will take steps to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission for the Housing of the Working Classes (Second Report, page 8) to reduce the

  947
  expenses of transfer of small houses by an abatement of the Stamp Duties, and (in Scotland) of the fees connected with registration?
  MR. HIBBERT(who replied) said: The recommendations of the Royal Commission and the evidence on which they are founded will, in due course, be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend and by the Treasury.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSO-PERSIAN FRONTIER.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can now lay upon the Table the Correspondence with the Government of Russia relating to the delimitation of the Persian Frontier?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There are no further communications with the Russian Government than those which will be found in the Papers laid before Parliament last year (Central Asia, No. 1, 1884).

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—MILITARY EXPEDITION—THE COLDSTREAM GUARDS.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, If the Cold-stream Guards have sailed from Suakin; if so, whether they are on board the Deccan or the Jumna?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER(who replied) said: The Cold stream Guards left Suakin on the 17th instant in the Deccan.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask the Postmaster General a Question with reference to the Telegraph Acts Amendment Bill, which stood for second reading on Friday next. He had given Notice of an Amendment to the second reading, and his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) had also placed an Amendment on the Paper to the same Motion. It was desirable that the matter should be fully discussed, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would consent to postpone the second reading until some day after Whitsuntide, when the House would have a fair opportunity of discussing and settling this important question?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, that the Bill would stand first on
  948
  the Orders on Friday, and even if it were found necessary to introduce the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill, he did not apprehend that it would occupy much time. Therefore, there would be an ample opportunity for the discussion of the Telegraphs Bill on that day. At the same time, he was not disposed to adopt a course which would be inconvenient to the noble Lord and to the House. He did not understand that the noble Lord was opposed to the second reading of the Bill, but that he objected to some of its details. If the measure was to come into operation in August next it was necessary that the second reading should be taken before Whitsuntide, otherwise it would be impossible to make the required arrangements for the 6d. telegrams. He would therefore suggest to the noble Lord that he should allow the second reading to be taken on Friday, and that the discussion on his Motion should be postponed until the Committee stage. He would undertake to give as early a day as possible for the discussion after Whitsuntide.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Is the Postmaster General not aware that while the Telegraph Bill may be the first Order on Friday the first item of Business for that day will be the Motion for the adjournment of the House?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Motion for the adjournment of the House on Friday would, be made on Thursday. Therefore, the Telegraph Bill would stand first on Friday, barring the possibility of the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill being taken on that day.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had no alternative but to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General. He begged, therefore, to give Notice that he should postpone his Motion until the House went into Committee on the Bill.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked, with regard to the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill, if it was intended to move for leave to introduce the Bill pro forma on Thursday, so that it might be placed on the Paper as an Order, otherwise it would not have precedence on Friday?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government proposed to put down on Thursday as the first Order the second reading of the East India Loan

  949
  Bill. That would be followed by the introduction of the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill, and then at an early hour they would make the Motion for the adjournment of the House on Friday over the Recess. The Attorney General would make a statement with reference to the Registration Bills.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had received communications to the effect that the Amendments to the Registration Bills in the Lords were likely to be few and brief, and that their Lordships would sit to-morrow at 11 o'clock to complete the final stages. Under those circumstances, the Bills should be in the House of Commons by 12 o'clock, when it assembled, and the Amendments would be printed and distributed to Members at the Vote Office. No one could overrate the importance of disposing of these Bills before Whitsuntide; and bearing in mind that unless these Amendments were considered to-morrow, they would have to be put off until after the Holidays, as the Lords would rise on Thursday, he hoped the House would allow the Government to proceed with them to-morrow.

  LAW AND POLICE—ROBBERY AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. RAIKES: I wish to ask the noble Lord the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the report that a considerable sum of money has been abstracted from an official despatch box in one of the rooms of this House; whether it is the custom of the Members of the Government to bring down to the House considerable sums in cash; and, if so, for what purpose?
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR: I am not aware why the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put that Question to me, for I think it more properly belongs to the Financial Secretary. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not aware of any Member of the Government having a large sum of money in his pocket, and I am certainly not responsible for the amounts they carry about with them, nor am I responsible for any robbery that may take place in this House.
  MR. SEXTON: Am I correctly informed that the money stolen was for the payment of some of the officials of
  950
  the House of Commons? If so, how is it to be made good?
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR: I really know nothing about it.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—WEDNESDAY SITTINGS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. WARTONrose to call attention to the subject of Wednesday Sittings; and to move—
  "That on a Wednesday, if a House be not made by a quarter to One of the clock, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Motion made or Question put; that the said Resolution be a Standing Order of this House."
  Notice taken, that 40 Members wore not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 4)٭ (123).
Second Reading—Arbitration (85); Local Authorities (Expenses of Conferences)٭ (118).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Earldom of Mar institution (107).
Committee—Lunacy Acts Amendment (60) Registration (Occupation Voters) (111–120) Registration of Voters (Scotland) (112–121) Registration of Voters (Ireland) (116–122).
Committee—Report—ConsolidatedFund(No. 3)٭
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 3)٭ (84); Barristers Admission (Ireland)٭ (100); Metropolitan Streets Act (1867) Extension٭ (101), and passed.

LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)

(NO. 60.) COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he proposed to ask their Lordships now to go into Committee pro formá on this Bill, for the purpose of inserting 13 pages of Amendments, of which he had given Notice, after which the Bill would be reprinted. After the Whitsuntide Recess they might take the next stage of the Bill, when the Amendments proposed by various noble Lords could be properly considered and discussed. That, he thought, would be the most convenient course of proceeding, and one which would also save their Lordships a considerable amount of time.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he cordially acceded to the course now proposed by the noble and learned Earl; indeed, he had wished to see the Bill
880
referred to a Select Committee, in order that the whole question involved in it might be dealt with in a more thorough manner than it could be by a Committee of the Whole House. He thought provision should be made for a better system of visitation in respect to those houses in which lunatics were confined; and if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee the matter could be thoroughly considered. But as he knew that the noble and learned Earl had a sincere hope that the measure would become law this Session, and knowing the great anxiety that existed on the part of the public on the subject, he would not press for the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL: I am quite willing to agree to the course proposed by the noble and learned Earl. I merely rise to ask him if it is his intention to move the re-committal of the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLORreplied in the negative.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee; Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday the 8th of June next.

ARBITRATION BILL.—(No. 85.)
(The Lord Bramwell.)
ARBITRATION BILL.—(No. 85.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BRAMWELL,in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said, that it was not a Bill to alter the existing law, but to codify it after the manner in which the laws relating to bills of exchange had been codified. The Bill had been prepared under the auspices of the London Chamber of Commerce.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a.

EARLDOM OF MAR RESTITUTION BILL.—(No. 107.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
EARLDOM OF MAR RESTITUTION BILL.—(No. 107.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY,in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said, ho would offer but a very few obser-

  881
  vations, because the subject was one wrapped up in legal forms and technicalities respecting genealogical matters, of which he could not, in any degree, profess to be a master, and therefore would not enter upon minutely. Moreover, it was not necessary to go into those matters then, for the Preamble of the Bill, which would hereafter require to be proved before a Select Committee of the House, or the Committee of Privileges, gave a very clear and succinct narrative as to its object, and he was thus saved the trouble. But he desired, however, to explain the exact position of this Bill relatively to the Government. It was not, in the strict sense of the word, a Government Bill. When it was presented, following the invariable custom on those occasions, it was presented under the signature and on the authority of Her Majesty; and therefore it was deemed only proper that such a Bill should be presented to the consideration of the House by one of Her Majesty's servants. It might also be taken for granted that Her Majesty, in sanctioning the Bill and affixing her signature to it, acted under the advice of Her Ministers and Law Officers. As he had said, he did not feel himself competent to deal minutely with the details of the Bill; but if he were to sum up its object in a single sentence, which would make that object clear to all, he would say it was practically a Bill for clearing up misunderstandings of more than three centuries' standing with regard to the Mar Peerage. Up till 1875, the date at which the decision was given by Her Majesty's Legal Advisers, the general idea was that the ancient title of Mar was almost universally believed to be prehistoric in its nature. But in 1875 a decision was given by the Committee on Privileges altogether opposed to that idea. It established that in 1565 Queen Mary of Scotland had created a new title of Mar, and that that title of Mar was the only one known to be in existence; and it gave the title to the then Earl of Kellie, now the Earl of Mar and Kellie; and, so far as that decision was concerned, this Bill did not affect that decision, nor the position of that noble Earl. But there had been, he thought, and still was, a primá facie case for believing that while the decision of the House of Lords on that occasion was undoubtedly correct, and
  882
  that the earlier Earldom of Mar was extinct, that did not affect the possibility that the ancient Earldom of Mar might still be in existence also. That there was such an ancient Earldom in existence there did appear to be considerable probability, and there was also considerable probability that it descended to the heirs female as well as to heirs general; and as regarded that latter fact, which was thought to be of great importance, and which would have to be proved by the Select Committee if the second reading was passed by their Lordships, he might cite the circumstances in regard to the conferring of the second title. He would only cite two Scottish Noblemen, the Earl of Douglas and Alexander Stuart, who both assumed the title of Earl of Mar on marrying heirs of the Mar family. He, for one, failed to understand how, except through the heiresses, they had the power or right to assume the title of Earl of Mar. As regarded that point, there was primá facie evidence in support of the Bill; but, at the same time, it would not be considered proved until it had been proved before the Select Committee of this House. The next point to which ho had to call their attention was that a Charter was cited in the first part of the Preamble, which was that, in 1404, Isabella, Countess of Mar, executed a Charter conferring the title on her husband and their joint heirs, and this Charter, being confirmed by King Robert III., might be considered as the Charter of the Mar Earldom. There was a previous Charter executed in the same year, and he proposed not to give any opinion as to the greater validity of the one over the other; but there did exist this important difference between them—that whereas this Charter of December was confirmed by a Royal Charter of Robert III., no such confirmation of the earlier Charter of August appeared to have taken place. It was quite true that, some years subsequently, the surviving husband, Alexander Stuart, Earl of Mar, executed a renunciation of the title to the then Sovereign of Scotland, and received a new apparent grant to himself and to his legitimate heirs. Without imputing any incorrect motive to the Monarchs of his native country at that time, it might be said that the object prompting that surrender was obvious, and showed

  883
  laxity of principle on the part of the Crown. The next point they came to was that from the death of Isabella, Countess of Mar, in 1407, until the creation of the new Peerage of Mar in 1565, the title of Mar appeared to have become dormant. It was quite true that Robert, Lord Erskine, was third heir in the middle of the l5th century to this Isabella, Countess of Mar, and it was also true that he occasionally assumed the title of Earl of Mar; but he did not assume it as a right. The Crown afterwards, more than once, granted the title to members of the House of Stuart; but when they came to 1565, they found that in a Charter which was supposed to convey only the territory of Mar to the then John, Lord Erskine, it was then acknowledged as a fact that John, Lord Erskine, was descended from Isabella, Countess of Mar, was her representative, and had been wrongfully deprived of his hereditary rights. Well, it might fairly be asked, if there was so ample an acknowledgment of the wrongful ousting of the Earl of Mar from this ancient Earldom, why was the ancient title of Earl of Mar not conferred on him? He (the Earl of Rosebery) confessed that, at first sight, this seemed a considerable obstacle to the prosecution of the present claim; but when they considered the course taken up to that time, nothing appeared to him more reasonable. What would have happened had Queen Mary conferred on John, Lord Erskine, the immemorial title of Earl of Mar? She would have confessed that all her Predecessors had been guilty of the grossest possible act of spoliation and injustice. She, no doubt, considered that in giving the territory of the Earl of Mar with a very high precedence, she was doing as much as she could to benefit the claimant to the title, without impugning in the most direct manner her Predecessors. But it was more than that; it was a personal matter. Queen Mary had, three or four years before, given the title to her half-brother, the Regent Moray; and if, after four years, she had conferred this title on John, Lord Erskine, she would be impugning her own honour, dignify, and fair dealing. He would say, then, on these three points, which seemed to him the main points of the Preamble, there was a primá facie case for the measure he had now the
  884
  honour to lay before their Lordships. But, in dealing with the matter, not of evidence or proof, but of the desirability of settling a question which had assumed a range much larger than ordinary Peerage questions, they must have some regard to what had formerly been done in the matter. He would not lay one iota of stress on popular feeling as constituting evidence; but it did make it most desirable that they should have a final and definite settlement of this question. Only in the course of last year no less than 106 Peers in their Lordships' House sent a Petition to the Queen, asking Her Majesty to restore, if he remembered right, this ancient Peerage of Mar. When so very large a section of their Lordships' House determined that there was an act of justice to be done and a title to be restored, surely it was a matter for inquiry by their Lordships. But he would cite a much graver proof than that of the possibility of doing something in this matter, and even of passing the second reading of the Bill. Their Lordships had recently lost from among their midst a great man, whose reputation was not confined to either side of the House, but was the common property of the House—he meant the late Earl Cairns—who had been a Member of that Committee of Privileges which adjudicated on this point. The Government had been so fortunate as to have been able to submit this Bill to Earl Cairns not long before his death; and they received assurances, which he (the Earl of Rosebery) was at liberty to make use of, of the willing and learned support which he would have given to this Bill. That would, no doubt, outweigh any considerations which he could himself advance, and with the countenance and support of that great authority he would ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a;."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  LORD DENMAN,in expressing his approval of the Bill, said, he was amused by the consideration that the plural of Mar made one Heathen God—Mars—whose attributes were popular with some and distasteful to others; and he thought a good deal of confusion would be avoided if the two Peers having the same name were to have double

  885
  designations to distinguish them, as in the case of Lord Napier of Ettrick and Lord Napier of Magdala, whom he had been pleased to see sitting next to each other on the Cross Benches a short time ago.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he had pleasure in congratulating the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) on the knowledge ho had displayed in dealing with the minutiae of this case. The noble Earl had made a clear and lucid statement as to the reasons for bringing forward this Bill. He thought he might say, on behalf of the Peers of Scotland, who were most interested in this case, that it was not their intention to oppose the second reading. The noble Earl said that the Bill had been introduced in accordance with the practice in such cases. 60 years ago there was a case, which, however, was not quite parallel, because its object was to reverse the attainders of three titles. In his opinion the Bill, as now introduced, was quite unprecedented. On a former occasion ho had opposed a Motion upon this question; but, although he had done so, he would have been glad to see the historical title of the Earldom of Mar restored, if it was done in a proper and definite manner, and he was of that opinion still. In any action which he had taken on this question, whether in the House or elsewhere, he had had but one object—namely, the maintenance of order at the elections of Representative Peers at Holyrood, the maintenance of the Prerogatives of their Lordships, and also of what he considered to be indirectly the Prerogative of the Crown. Ho thought that some of the procedure adopted by those who were anxious to see this ancient title restored had, to some extent, affected all three of those conditions; but he would make no objection whatever to the second reading of the Bill, with one reservation—namely, that the Bill be referred to a full and impartial Committee for proof of the Preamble. The Bill was chiefly Preamble, and in the interests of the nobility of Scotland—the old nobility of Scotland—all he asked, and all he thought any Peer of Scotland could ask, was that that Preamble should be proved in all its details. A Committee capable of going into all those details—technical, genealogical, and historical—should be appointed: and if those details, as con-
  886
  tained in the Bill, were proved to the satisfaction of such a Committee, he was sure the House would approve of the Bill. He would hail, with much gratification, any measure of this kind which would put a stop to an agitation which had not been conducted without raising strong feeling on both sides.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he and those who had acted with him in this matter had never doubted the decision of the Committee. What they had objected to was the attempt to put a new Peerage in the place of an old Peerage. He quite agreed with the observations of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian), except as to his remark that the Committee ought to see the Preamble of this Bill proved. It would not be possible to exactly prove every historical point in this case. In many instances Scottish Peers had no Charters to show. They must, therefore, deal to a great extent with contemporaneous documents, and with the historical literature of the past. What they wished was, that a Committee should take evidence on the subject and report to their Lordships. He hoped, however, to see the Bill passed, as he believed it would settle a long-standing grievance, and the differences which had existed on what was really, in his opinion, a legal point. It would restore to a Scottish Peer an honour which was his due; and he was convinced that Her Majesty would have no more loyal subject than he who should receive back the title of the unfortunate Nobleman who raised the standard of rebellion on the braes of Mar.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was glad to perceive the unanimity which appeared to prevail among their Lordships as to this measure. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that since the decision of the Committee of Privileges in the case of the Earldom of Mar and Kellie he had uniformly supported the decision of that Committee. He had deemed it his duty, without any reference to any individual opinion ho might have entertained on the legal questions which were before that Committee, to support to the best of his power the authority of their Lordships' House and the decision arrived at by a competent and impartial legal tribunal. Ho feared that the course he had thought it his duty to take on some occasions with reference to this

  887
  matter might have been misinterpreted, as if he were unfriendly to the noble person—for so he might now call him—who was the claimant. He could assure their Lordships that at no time had he been actuated by any feeling but that of strong personal sympathy for that gentleman in the position in which he was placed; but he thought it was his duty, and their Lordships' duty, to uphold the decision arrived at by a Committee composed of men than whom none were more competent—men of unquestioned uprightness, against whom there could not be the slightest suspicion of partiality. When he mentioned that the late Lord Chelmsford, Earl Cairns, and his noble Friend at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale) concurred in that decision, he had said all that was necessary—if, indeed, it was necessary to say anything—to show that it was a Committee whose decision was entitled to the utmost respect. This Bill proceeded on the assumption of the validity of that Committee's decision, and reserved the rights of the Earl of Mar and Kellie; and therefore it was that he was able to approve it, and to advise that it was a Bill that could properly be presented to that House on the authority of Her Majesty's Government. He thought those who had studied the question would agree with him that the reason why this restitution had not long since been made in due course of law was probably this—that the effect of what was done in 1565 had been but imperfectly understood, and it was believed that, in point of fact, the old Earldom still continued to be in existence. Great authorities had continually placed on record their belief that it was not extinct; and Sir Robert Peel, in 1824, when he moved in the House of Commons the second reading of the Bill for its restitution, expressly spoke of the Earldom he was then restoring as by common consent one of the most ancient in Scotland. All the circumstances carried on the belief that the Earldom existed until the death of the Earl, on whose death the controversy arose. Then there arose the question as to whether the male or the female line should be preferred, and that was the only point on which Earl Cairns appeared to have any doubt. But he waived that doubt on considering an opinion expressed by the lawyers of the last century—that the presump-
  888
  tion as to Scotch Peerages was in favour of the male line. He considered that the circumstances of this case were peculiar, and that the restitution proposed by the Bill was fully justified; and he therefore supported the Bill.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he would venture to address a few remarks to the House on this Bill, because he did not consider it to be a question which was entirely free from very grave doubt. He did not believe there ever had been a proposition before to restore a title by Act of Parliament when a question arose as to the existence of that title, except in the case of a reversion of attainder. He believed that restitution hitherto had always been effected on an unquestioned title; whereas the Bill before the House actually stated that a certain amount of doubt existed. He thought there was considerable danger in establishing a precedent and bringing in an Act of Parliament to determine and settle a title; and, so far as he was aware, it had never been done before, as it was contrary to the whole principle of the Peerage.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he thought that, considering the fact that he had frequently brought this matter before the House, his thanks were due to the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, for having advised Her Majesty to give her special direction that this Bill should be brought to their Lordships' notice and favourable consideration. His noble Friend the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) and he (the Earl of Galloway) had had a very long correspondence some years ago on this subject, and he was afraid that neither of them had changed his opinion. His noble Friend would make this one very great mistake. He would confuse two Charters; and the difference between these two Charters was simply this—that the Charter dated August was utterly invalid, because it did not receive the confirmation of the Sovereign of Scotland at the time; whereas the Charter of the following December did receive that confirmation, and was consequently valid. He thought the proposal to refer the question to a Select Committee was a, remarkably wise and prudent one, and ho was sure their Lordships would have great satisfaction in performing this act of justice.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he was glad to be able to give expression to the feeling of satisfaction he experienced when he heard that a Bill dealing with this matter had been brought in. It appeared to him that an unintentional injustice had been done to a Peer of Scotland, and to the Peerage of Scotland, and he was glad to see that the matter was about to be set right. He hoped that it would be read a second time, that it would pass successfully through Committee, and that a third reading would be taken.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a; accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

REGISTRATION (OCCUPATION VOTERS) BILL.—(No. 111.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clauses 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
On Clause 13 (As to constitution of polling districts).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 13, to leave out from the word "districts" to end of Sub-section 2, said, that, by the part of the clause in question, it was proposed to deprive magistrates in Quarter Sessions of the power of fixing the polling districts for the whole of a county. They enjoyed this power by the present law, and he wished them to continue in the enjoyment of the power, as he did not approve the provision in the clause that the magistrates in Quarter Sessions should appoint for each division of a county a special committee of justices resident in the division to fix the polling districts in it. This proposal was not in the original draft of the Bill, but was introduced in Committee in the other House without much discussion; and it was a change in the law which, in his opinion, might tend to great inconvenience. Further than that, it was totally uncalled for, and must lead to considerable delay. Polling districts were now, in many counties, fixed by committees, to whom the magistrates, as a body, delegated the duty. Many such committees were already at work, and their labours would be rendered fruitless if the clause were not amended. To reject his proposal
890
would be tantamount to suspending the power of fixing polling districts until the end of June. Such a postponement was very undesirable, seeing that everybody was most anxious that the machinery of registration should be got into order as soon as possible. A better course would be to revert to the existing law by which the polling districts were fixed by magistrates in Quarter Sessions. Moreover, supposing, after the committee had been named, one of the members changed his residence, and left the division, he apprehended there would be considerable doubt whether all the proceedings of the committee would not be vitiated by that fact.
Amendment moved, in page 9, line 13, to leave out from ("districts") to end of Sub-section (2).—[The Marquess of Salisbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought that the loss of time to which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had referred would not be so serious as he imagined, and that in a great degree it would be obviated by the other provisions of the Bill. For instance, the clause would not deprive the justices in Quarter Sessions of the jurisdiction which they now possessed with reference to polling districts; for the printed reports of the committee would have to go before the magistrates for consideration; and now that counties were to be divided, it was surely desirable that the duty of fixing the polling districts in each division should be imposed, in the first instance, upon persons intimately acquainted with the locality. If the Committee left out that portion of the subsection, as it stood, he thought it would be necessary to introduce an Amendment which had been moved by Mr. Stanhope in the other House with regard to county divisions extending over more than one area.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought that suggestion reasonable. But with regard to the other matter, as he understood it, the Court of Quarter Sessions was to appoint a committee, and it could only do so when it met at the end of June. Then the committee had to report, and it could only report

891
when the Court of Quarter Sessions met again in October. There was no Court of Quarter Sessions in the country which did not act on the principle of appointing to perform a duty those magistrates who were most conversant with the subject. He was not sure that in Lancashire there were magistrates resident in all the Parliamentary divisions; and, further than that, there might be only one magistrate in the division, who would thus be the committee under the clause.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that the Court of Quarter Sessions was to take this matter into consideration not later than one month after the passing of the Act, and it was expected that the Bill would be passed in a day or two; therefore, there would not be the delay which the noble Marquess opposite anticipated. It must be desired by noble Lords on both sides that the polling places should be as convenient as possible; and, therefore, it would be necessary to have local inquiries as to the most convenient places.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the justices might do those things at any time, at a special Sessions held for the purpose; and need not act in Quarter Sessions, properly so called.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that already the county divisions had ample opportunities of making their wants known, for there were officers who were acquainted with every district; and to have travelling committees, going about making inquiries in different districts, would not be required. It was much better to leave the law as it was, and to throw the responsibility on the Court of Quarter Sessions.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that the magistrates assembled in General or Quarter Sessions were fully cognizant of local requirements, and quite competent to determine what the polling places for the county should be. They possessed all the knowledge required for the purpose of arranging the districts to suit the geographical convenience of the county. In his own county of Kent the polling places had been already arranged, and were to be finally adopted at Sessions on June 25. If such an Amendment as proposed were carried, it would lead to great loss of valuable time, and the work would not be done as well. At present only the convenience of the new
892
voters was considered, with the concurrence of both political Parties, in determining the necessary polling places.
On Question? Resolved in the negative.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, Amendment made by inserting at end of clause—
"Provided that in divisions of counties which extend over more than one area, the authority having power to fix polling stations shall he at liberty to combine with justices of the other area for that purpose."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 (As to expenses in case of divided county jurisdiction), agreed to.
Clause 15 (Repeal of s. 78 of 2 Will. c. 4).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that in the Reform Act of 1832, by an anomaly of a strange character which it was not easy to understand, the University buildings of Oxford and Cambridge had been excluded from the right of furnishing an occupation qualification in the borough in which they were situated. That anomaly had remained undisturbed to this day, and it had only been called into prominence now because there had been an attempt made to produce an equality in this respect between the two Kingdoms, and to extend the same disqualification to Dublin. The extreme absurdity of the matter had then been brought to light, and the view was adopted that not only Dublin University, but Oxford and Cambridge also, should have an occupation franchise for University buildings like any other buildings. The obvious common-sense arrangement was adopted that no matter what station a man occupied he should be entitled to the occupation franchise; but at a later stage, by a small majority, that decision had been reversed, and the curious disqualification had been put into the Bill that persons of 21, who were occupiers of buildings in the boroughs of Oxford or Cambridge, should be disfranchised if it happened to be the case that they had not taken a certain degree in the University of Oxford or Cambridge. At a time when they were admitting almost to manhood suffrage many uneducated labourers in all parts of the country, and when they had made the suffrage so wide that it

893
was difficult to see how it could be made wider, at this time they were laying down this exception—that the only people who wore not capable citizens were persons at Oxford and Cambridge who had not passed a certain educational examination.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: It is a fancy franchise.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his noble Friend beside him (Viscount Cranbrook) suggested that it was a "fancy franchise"—in his own opinion it was worse than a fancy franchise, it was a fancy disfranchisement. It was difficult to conceive what could have induced the other House to accept it. He knew that certain dignitaries at the Universities had objected to the extension of the franchise to undergraduates, on the ground that it would interfere with the discipline of the University; but that was a matter for those excellent dignitaries themselves to take care of. A more extraordinary argument had never been submitted to them before than that Parliament should be asked to refuse a right, and to disfranchise people who were as capable citizens as any, because it would interfere with the dignified persons who managed the discipline of the two Universities. Nor was this opinion universal on the part of the rulers of the Universities. He had received a memorial from Queen's College, most earnestly deprecating the setting aside of the franchise upon grounds of this description. He had very little doubt that the House would remove this unmerited stigma from the undergraduates. The Amendment which he would propose would remove not only the action of the Reform Act, but also that of certain local Acts, which, travelling on the lines of that Act, had renewed the disqualification. He would, therefore, move a provision that no person should be excluded by the operation of any Act of Parliament from the Register of voters in respect of the Colleges and Halls of Oxford or Cambridge. This provision would affect not only undergraduates, but all others.
Amendment moved,
In page 11, line 5, to leave out ("entitled to "be,") and insert ("prevented by any other Act from being.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had maintained that it was impossible that any argument could be brought against the arrangement which he had proposed, and that the anomaly of the existing system was utterly absurd. It seemed to him (the Lord Chancellor), however, that there were reasons which might induce their Lordships to think that it was not so entirely anomalous and absurd as the noble Marquess would load their Lordships to believe. The noble Marquess had spoken of a fancy disfranchisement. If he (the Lord Chancellor) had himself thought that these undergraduates were disfranchised because they were supposed to be less capable citizens than any others, he would not have had one word to say for the clause; but it appeared to him to be practically consistent with the full recognition of their capacity. They must bear in mind the University franchise, which enabled the Universities to return two Members each to the House of Commons. These young men were there, not because they were inhabitants of, or in any natural or permanent way connected with the town, but because they belonged to the University. For his own part, he rejoiced that the separate representation of the Universities had been maintained; but he thought that, when it was retained, their Lordships ought to be very careful how they mixed up these young men in statu pupillari with the town or borough franchise. It might be a serious grievance to the electors of the town or borough of Oxford or Cambridge if they wore swamped by these young men coming upon the Register. Again, it was of the greatest importance that there should be no ill-blood or ill-feeling between the town and the University. The elder members of the University might be trusted to behave themselves in such a manner as to avoid any chance of exciting such feelings; but he felt certain that the interference of 3,000 persons in statu pupillari, comprising an addition of a really and substantially extraneous body to the town constituency, was a thing that would be resented as an injury, and would interrupt the harmony which it was so important to preserve between the University and all its members on the one hand and the town on the other.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he would point out that graduates as lodgers in the boroughs would be entitled to vote. Not only that; but he thought that it was an extraordinary thing that the Government, after assenting to the students of Trinity College, Dublin, having votes, should object to students under similar circumstances at Oxford or Cambridge being enfranchised. The noble and learned. Earl had brought forward as an argument against it the fear that the undergraduates would conduct themselves badly. In the first place, it would not be the case that all these 3,000 students would have votes; in fact, very few would have votes. Then, again, those that would have them were educated young men, and Ministers of the Crown did not scruple to stimulate them to be enthusiastic in political affairs. What else, he would like to know, could be the meaning of the Prime Minister and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) going down to the Palmerston Club at Oxford and enforcing upon its members the high, importance of their giving vent to their political opinions? Now, however, the very first opportunity they had of giving those gentlemen the franchise, the Government turned round upon their young protégés, and said that these highly educated Liberals were not to be entitled to vote. He trusted that their Lordships would not be led away by the arguments which had been brought forward. It was proposed practically to impose a fancy franchise, by only allowing those to have a vote who had taken a degree—a course which had been so strongly condemned by the present Government. The fact was that when they had gone that length it was quite absurd to shut out those young men. It would be a most unseemly exclusion, and he hoped that their Lordships would scout it.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, this was not a Party question, and, on the whole, although he saw some objection to undergraduates being allowed to vote, yet he thought the arguments against disfranchisement prevailed, and he would vote for the Amendment.
LORD BALFOURsaid, he wished to put the case that, under the Amendment, a Peer, who was an undergraduate, might be entitled to vote.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI thought the chance of that occurring was small.
LORD DENMANsaid, that the right of a Peer to vote at elections for Members of Parliament had often been claimed by the late Duke of Buccleuch; and his (Lord Denman's) noble Predecessor had always maintained that Peers had the right to vote, being only illegally prevented by a Resolution of the House of Commons, and it was quite clear the right of a Peer to vote was intact. He trusted they would not allow themselves to be bullied by one-sided Resolutions from either House of Parliament. With regard to students at all Universities, if of age, they should be allowed to vote. At the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow even minors, who attended classes, voted for the Lord Rector, as they had happily done in the candidature of Sir Stafford North.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that after the discussion which had taken place, seeing they were divided amongst themselves, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, further Amendment made:—In page 11, line 8, by leaving out from ("Cambridge") to end of clause.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 (Repeal of enactments).
LORD BALFOUR,in rising to move the omission of the clause, said, it would make the first inroad upon what he thought was a most important principle. That principle was that the acceptance of Poor Law relief should entail such a dependence as to disqualify a man for the exercise of the franchise; and he hoped that Parliament would be very careful before it broke down that principle. At least, the onus of proving that it was desirable rested upon those who wished to make that very great change. It had been attempted to argue that the acceptance of medical relief from the rates was quite different in its essence from the acceptance of other parochial relief. He could not admit that to be so; and, moreover, he knew that the acceptance of medical relief was I very often the commencement of the acceptance of poor relief upon a much

897
larger scale. It was therefore most important, as far as they could, to keep up the idea that the acceptance of that relief did degrade a man, and made him dependent on others in a way which unfitted him for the franchise. If that clause were allowed to stand in the Bill, there would grow up in the country a feeling that the acceptance of parochial medical relief did not imply the same degradation as the acceptance of other forms of parish relief, and Boards of Guardians would be led into giving that kind of relief where it ought not to be given. It was said that it was very hard if a man, on account of the illness of his child, or of his wife, or through meeting with an accident, took medical relief, and found himself disfranchised in consequence. But, on the other hand, it was very undesirable that Parliament should give any colour to the idea that men were not to make provision for such emergencies, whether by means of friendly societies, clubs, or provident institutions; and he was assured that, if that clause were allowed to remain in the Bill, great damage would be done to that kind of society in many parts of the country. In some of the lower class of benefit clubs, there was a rule that no assistance should be given until a man had done all he could to get something out of the rates; and if that clause were passed there would be an additional premium offered to societies to adopt rules of that kind. As to the alleged hardship of disqualifying a man who had accepted medical relief, it should be remembered that the man might afterwards recover his independence, and that the disqualification would only attach to him for one year, and he would be in no worse position than if he had changed his place of residence from one part of the country to another. That clause was not in the Bill when the measure was first introduced by the Government. It was proposed in Committee in the other House on May 6, and after considerable debate, in a full House, it was rejected by 170 to 102 votes. Only sis days later, at a subsequent stage, the proposal was renewed in a much smaller House, and almost by surprise during the dinner hour, with the result that the clause was inserted by 87 against 50. The division comparatively was a very small one, and, he considered, afforded no test of the real feeling of the House of Commons;
898
and he claimed the support of the Government to his Amendment on the ground that in both the divisions in the other House the only Cabinet Minister present, Sir Charles Dilke, voted against the clause, as also did the Attorney General and various subordinate Members of the Government. He would also point out that no such proposal as this was made for Scotland; and, judging from what ho knew of the nature of the Poor Law in that country, ho did not think it was possible for such a proposal to be made. He knew that he would be told that it was dangerous for their Lordships to take away with the one hand what was given with the other; but he ventured to say, from what he knew of the working classes chiefly affected by the Bill, especially in Scotland, that they were the last people who would desire to see persons enfranchised who accepted aid out of the rates. He maintained that a provision of that kind constituted a great breach of the principle which had always been adhered to by Parliament up to that time, and he believed no material hardship would be inflicted if his proposal was agreed to. The history of the clause gave it no title whatever to any great consideration at the hands of their Lordships, and he hoped they would agree to the omission of the clause.
Moved, "To leave out Clause 16."—(The Lord Balfour.)
Question proposed, "That Clause 16 stand part of the Bill?"
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that inasmuch as the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill contained a similar clause, and he was sure it would lead to great abuse in Ireland, and inasmuch as the retention of that clause would be governed by the decision of the House with regard to the English Bill, he should support the Motion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in opposing the Amendment, said, that the Government were influenced in the course they had taken in the other House by a desire to keep out of the Bill contentious matter, especially where it related to questions not germane to the principle of the measure. Though he would not say that the Government would not take a division on the clause, they preferred to leave the question to be determined on its merits, and he

899
thought they were acting quite consistently in not making themselves parties to its omission. The clause had not been maintained in the Bill exclusively by votes of adherents of the Government; the assistance of Conservatives as well as others had been given in favour of the provision. He had no disposition, however, to conceal from their Lordships the fact that there were arguments to be brought forward on both sides of the question. The general argument urged by the noble Lord who moved the omission of the clause (Lord Balfour) was entitled to considerable weight—that was, the sound and general principle that persons who came on the poor rates should not exercise the franchise. But the question really was whether that was, in principle, a material departure from that sound and general principle; and whether there were not reasons which tended to show that that was a case in which an exception might be made. An important consideration in favour of the clause was that, by the Franchise Act, they placed the householders of the county in the same position as the poorer householders in the borough. In boroughs and cities it happened, certainly not universally, but, at all events, so frequently as almost to be the general rule, that there were hospitals or dispensaries, easily accessible to persons in need of medical relief, where they could, and did, obtain that medical aid with reasonable and proper facilities, and who were not disfranchised for obtaining relief of that kind. In counties similar institutions were not so easily accessible; and if they struck out the clause they would place the poorer householders of the rural districts at a disadvantage in comparison with the poorer householders of the boroughs, who would be enabled to go to the dispensaries or the hospitals, and there obtain what in rural districts could only be obtained by means of the Poor Law medical officers.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsupported the omission of the clause. He could not altogether agree with the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack that the poor electors in towns would be placed in a better position than the poor householders in the rural districts, inasmuch as in the towns there were dispensaries and other
900
modes of obtaining medical relief which were not accessible in the same way to the poor inhabitants of the rural districts. He objected to the clause, because it gave a wrong impression as to what would be its effect. It provided that.—
"Medical or surgical assistance, or the giving of medicine, shall not be deemed to constitute parochial relief within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts."
He wished to know, however, whether the noble and learned Earl was aware of the fact that in almost every ease in which a poor person, either for himself, or wife, or child, received medical relief it was almost invariably connected with the receipt of wine and meat on behalf of the person who was unwell? They could not lose sight of the fast that in most cases the doctor prescribed not medicine alone, but wine and mutton chops and other medical comforts. The result would be that, in rural districts, whereas one labourer receiving medical assistance only would retain his right to vote, another, living next door, if ordered in addition meat and wine, would, under the clause, be disfranchised. In trying to evade it there could be little doubt great abuses would arise.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was quite ready to admit that persons receiving what the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) termed "medical comforts" would not come within the benefit of this clause, and that they would consequently be disfranchised; but it would be very hard if, because a man broke his leg and obtained surgical assistance, he should be disfranchised.
LORD DENMANsaid, that the noble Duke the late Lord President of the Council (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), on a former occasion, had stated that Poor Law relief, being contrary to the principle of the Poor Law, must be a disqualification; but he (Lord Denman) thought that in a measure of enfranchisement it ought not to deprive householders of their votes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that both the clause under notice and the statement of the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack fully illustrated the extreme inconvenience of the course taken by the Government. If a

901
change in the law was to be made on an important point like that, it ought to be made by the Government themselves, carefully drafting a clause. Instead of that, the Government, after resisting, apparently ineffectively, a clause proposed by a private Member in the House of Commons, when it came to their Lordships' House, at once turned round and insisted that that House should also adopt it. Even if their Lordships passed the clause, the difficulty complained of by his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) would not be removed, as "medical comforts" would still disqualify a man; and, as a matter of fact, there seldom was a case in which a person who mot with an accident and received surgical assistance did not receive medical comforts in the form of wine and other things, as well as medicine. And since, as the noble and learned Earl opposite said, the receipt of such things would disqualify a voter, that clause was a mere mockery, for it would seem to enfranchise where it really would not, for that which was only a portion of the treatment of a case would disqualify a man. If they meant that medical relief should not disqualify from the franchise, they should, at least, go so far as to say that all that was necessary to the cure should be included in the enfranchising clause. This was a half-measure, which would merely disappoint people; and, though calling in question an important principle, would practically enfranchise no human being. It seemed to him to be a very unwise proposition to put into an Act of Parliament.
LORD FITZGERALDstrongly opposed the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONdesired to point out again that the effect of the clause would be this—that one man who received medical assistance and medicine would get a vote; while his neighbour, because his illness had been more severe, and he had received wine and other medical comforts, would be disfranchised.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the arguments of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) only went to show that the clause would not enfranchise so many persons as was at first sight supposed. He agreed that the clause would not cover medical comforts.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 47; Not-Contents 72: Majority 25.

CONTENTS.

Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Hammond, L.

Herries, L.

Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

Bedford, D.

Inchiquin, L.

Marlborough, D.

Kenmare,L. (E. Kenmare.)

Westminster, D.

Kenry,L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Normanby, M.

Northampton, M.

Lawrence, L.

Ripon, M.

Leigh, L.

Lovat, L.

Derby, E.

Lyttelton, L.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Jersey, E.

Methuen, L.

Kimberley, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Milltown, E.

Morley, E.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Northbrook, E.

Sydney, E.

Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Powerscourt, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Aberdare, L.

Acton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

Wenlock, L.

Carlingford, L.

Windsor, L.

Crewe, L.

Wolverton, L.

Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

Wrottesley, L.

FitzGerald, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Hawarden, V.

Grafton, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Northumberland, D.

Richmond, D.

Melville, V.

Sidmouth, V.

Abereorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Strathallan, V.

Bristol, M.

Amherst, L.(V. Holmesdale.)

Salisbury, M.

Balfour of Burley, L. [Teller.]

Annesley, E.

Bathurst, E.

Borthwick, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

Belmore, E. [Teller.]

Camperdown, E.

Bramwell, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Braybrooke, L.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Feversham, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Haddington, E.

Harewood, E.

Clinton, E.

Harrowby, E.

Colchester, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Northesk, E.

de Ros, L.

Orkney, E.

Dinevor, L.

Powis, E.

Forester, L.

Ravensworth, E.

Gerard, L.

Redesdale, E.

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetown.)

Romney, E.

Stanhope, E.

Howard de Walden, L.

Hylton, L.

Exmouth, V.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Hardinge, V.

903

Leconfield, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Lyveden, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

North, L.

Norton, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Raglan, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Tollemache, L.

Rowton, L.

Ventry, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Watson, L.

Wimborne, L.

Saltoun, L.

Winmarleigh L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative; clause left out of the of the Bill.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with: Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 120.)

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 112.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 112.)

  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 Lord Privy Seal.)
  LORD WATSONsaid, he wished to point out to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Rosebery) that, in the case of England, there was a series of rules and instructions in the Schedules for the guidance of overseers and assessors; but that was not the case with regard to Scotland, the Scotch assessors being left to discover, from a variety of Statutes, what were the proper rules for their own guidance. He, therefore, thought it would be both a desirable and a useful thing if a similar set of rules were prepared in the case of Scotland. To obviate the necessity of moving any Amendment, if the noble Earl would give an assurance that he would cause instructions to be prepared and sent to the assessors to guide them in these matters, that would meet the object he had in view; and he thought it could easily be done through the instrumentality of the Lord Advocate.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he could not give any promise on the sub-
  904
  ject without communicating with the Lord Advocate. While he thanked the noble and learned Lord for his suggestion, he would see the right hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as possible on the matter.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Special valuation to be made by assessor of railways and canals in police burghs).
  LORD WATSON,in moving to omit the clause, said, in justification of the Motion, that it was unnecessary to say more than that the clause had no relation whatever to the subject-matter of the Bill. This was a rating clause, dealing with the valuation of railways in burghs. He quite conceived that this might be a matter in regard to which legislation was required; but it was a matter involving a great many interests, and requiring careful consideration, and it ought not, therefore, to be dealt with in a Registration Bill. There was no necessity for such a clause. It would be a very unusual and inexpedient mode of legislation to introduce a rating clause into the body of a Bill for the purpose of registration. He, therefore, moved the rejection of the clause.
  Moved, "To leave out Clause 12."—(The Lord Watson.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he quite admitted that the clause, as the noble and learned Lord had said, had no great relation to the Bill. At the same time, he should say that it had been introduced into the Bill in order to remedy a very great inconvenience, which he thought the noble and learned Lord would acknowledge did exist in Scotland. As the Valuation Act of 1854 was included in the scope of the Registration Bill, there was nothing very wrong in including a clause on the point in the Bill; and no objection was raised to the clause in the other House, either on the second reading or in Committee.
  Motion agreed to; Clause left out accordingly.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received To-morrow; and Standing Order

  905
  No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with: Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 122.)

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 116.)
(The Lord President.)
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 116.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Dispensary relief not to disqualify).
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he had intended to move the omission of the clause, which provided that the receipt of medical relief should not be a disqualification for the franchise; but as he understood, with regret, that he should not be supported in that course by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) he would not persist in that course, and would not, therefore, trouble their Lordships to go to a division. It appeared to him, however, that the division just taken on the English Bill affirmed a very important principle; and he only regretted that their Lordships would not apply it uniformly to the Three Kingdoms.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he had been about to point out to their Lordships that the Bill contained a clause similar to that which had just been struck out of the English Bill, in regard to not disqualifying on account of the receipt of medical relief; and he was glad to see that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Belmore) had now withdrawn his opposition to it. He (Lord Carlingford) greatly regretted the decision to which the House had come on the English Bill; but even if he had voted against the exemption in the case of England he should still wish to see this clause retained in the Irish Bill. The noble Earl had spoken of a uniformity of practice; but the fact was that there was no uniformity in the practice of the two countries. The clause had been inserted in the Irish Bill as a matter of precaution, and to remove all doubts; but the fact was that medical relief had never been treated in Ireland as a disqualification, and it was given so widely that if it were now, for the first time, made a cause of disquali-
  906
  fication, the change would affect a large number of the existing electors. It should be borne in mind that medical relief in Ireland was given upon quite a different system from that which prevailed in England, and not by the Guardians, but by Dispensary Committees. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would not adopt the course they had taken on the English Bill, seeing that the two countries were differently situated in regard to this matter, and would accept the clause providing that dispensary relief should not be held to constitute such Poor Law relief as would disqualify for the franchise.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had taken much trouble to ascertain the views of different Irish Peers on this matter, and he was bound to say that the most authoritative among them entirely concurred with the view of the Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford)—namely, that the system of medical relief in the two countries was in no degree analogous, and that it could not be said that they would be admitting the principle of enfranchising those who had received Poor Law relief by passing this clause. In the English Bill they had been trying to set up a system that had never been acted upon before, and which would have been difficult to work; but in Ireland the system had existed for a long time, and it seemed that by striking out the clause in this Bill they would be inflicting a great hardship on a vast number of people, and setting up a principle which had never existed before in the administration of Ireland.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he entirely concurred with the noble Marquess as to the feeling in Ireland, and admitted that it would be a hard thing to omit the clause. He was, therefore, very glad that a proposal was not to be made to exclude recipients of medical relief in Ireland from the franchise.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Appeal where Chairman or Revising Barrister refuses to state a case).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,in moving the omission of the provision requiring County Court Judges in Ireland, at the instance of a Superior Court, to pay

  907
  costs in cases where they had made mistakes in the revision of the list of voters, said, he maintained that this would be very hard upon the County Court Judges who were not in the same position as the Revising Barristers in England. In the case of the latter officials, they would accept the work imposed upon them with their eyes open; but in the case of the Irish Judges the new work would be thrown upon them against their will.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 14, after ("with,") insert ("costs against the party obtaining such rule.")—(The Marl of Milltown.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the object with which the clause had been inserted had been to make the law of Ireland the same as that of England. If, however, the position of the Revising Barristers, were, as described, different to that of the County Court Judges in Ireland, the provision might be omitted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Earl of MILLTOWN, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 15, leave out ("payment of.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 9 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Publication of register, &c.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,in moving, as an Amendment, to omit the provision requiring registration notices to be affixed to the doors of churches in Ireland, said, he would call their Lordships' attention to the fact that the Protestant Church had been disestablished in Ireland, and that the churches were now private property, upon which it would be an unwarrantable liberty to affix these notices against the will of the clergy. Numerous representations had been made to him by Protestant clergymen in Ireland strongly complaining of the provision in the clause, and intimating that, even if the clause were passed, they would not submit to it. He understood also that the Roman Catholic clergy were opposed to the proposal.
  Amendment moved, in page 7, line 13, leave out from ("position") to ("out-
  908
  side") in line 15.—(The Earl of town.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he would accept the Amendment, especially seeing that it had never been habitual in Ireland to affix these notices on the church doors, as it had been in England.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Schedules agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with: 'Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 122.)

EGYPT—RETURN OF EXPENDITURE.

  ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYmoved for a
  "Return of the total sums spent by the Imperial and Indian Governments on naval and military operations in or connected with Egypt, on its civil administration, and on any other matters relating to that country since 1st January 1882 up to the present time; Also, for a Return of the officers and men who have lost their lives and of the number invalided home in consequence of our operations in Egypt between the above-mentioned dates."
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he would consent to the Return, with the addition of the words "so far as may be."
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNhoped that the number of Arabs who had lost their lives would be stated.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, the Return to be complete should also include the number of Egyptian troops killed, including those garrisons which had been massacred; and the number of Egyptians and Arabs who had been sold into slavery during our military operations in the country.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that in answer to a recent inquiry the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War (the Earl of Morley) assured the House that the troops in Egypt were amply supplied; and he had since shown him (the Earl of Longford) a Return giving the exact quantity of Commissariat stores at the different stations. Nevertheless, they heard through the Press and from various private reports

  909
  that the troops at many different stations were on short allowance, and many of them almost in rags. He did not mean, or wish in the least, to make a charge against the War Office. He knew that abundant supplies had been sent out; but the question was whether they had reached the troops, and on that point he could not help thinking that the troops were the best judges. The noble Earl had received Commissariat Reports. He would suggest that he should ask for more specific Reports from the Military Authorities.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the information given to the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) was entirely wrong. That Return he had shown the noble Earl was not a Commissariat Return at all. He should be glad to receive any information which the noble Earl might give, and to investigate the matter; but the noble Earl had not specified a single point. If he would make a specific complaint inquiries should be made; but he (the Earl of Morley) could not undertake to telegraph inquiries as to all rumours which were circulated. He did not say that in the course of transport up and down the river cases of inconvenience might not have occurred; but this he did say—that the Reports of Military Authorities on the Nile showed that there was no deficiency in the supplies which had been forwarded.
  Motion amended, by the addition of the words ("so far it can be given,") and agreed to.
  Address for—
  "Return, so far as it can be given, of the total sums spent by the Imperial and Indian Governments on naval and military operations in or connected with Egypt, on its civil administration, and on any other matters relating to that country since 1st January 1882 up to the present time: Also, Return of the officers and men who have lost their lives and of the number invalided home in consequence of our operations in Egypt between the above-mentioned dates."—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Eleven o'clock.