Sitting of 28 April 1887

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Honble. Alfred Percy Allsopp, for the Borough of Taunton.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Considered as amended —Great Eastern Railway.
Lords Amendments considered — Belfast Main Drainage, debate further adjourned.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading — Fishing in Rivers* [244]; Juvenile Offenders * [245].
Committee—Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) [217] [Third Night] —R.P.; Truck [109]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Bankruptcy Offices (Sites) (re-comm.) * [243].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BELFAST MAIN DRAINAGE BILL (by Order).

    LORDS' AMENDMENTS, [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th April], "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. SEXTON: I have to move that the Motion to take into consideration the Lords' Amendments to this Bill be postponed. I may remind the House that the object of the Bill is to legalize a scheme for the construction of main drainage works, the execution of which will cost the people of the town of Belfast £500,000 sterling, and render them liable to an annual taxation of £25,000 for 35 years to come. The public debt of the town of Belfast already amounts to £750,000, and involves an annual taxation of £45,000 for the repayment of principal and interest. The local taxation of the town has become so heavy that it is the subject of great and bitter complaint among the working classes, who say that the system of taxation pursued by the Town Council for some years has been of such a nature as to impose a grievous burden upon them, and to require careful consideration. When this Bill was before the House last year, I was not then one of the Members for Belfast; but, as an Irish Member, I took an interest in this community, and I felt it my duty to point out that the municipal government of Belfast is of so anomalous a nature as to render it undesirable that this scheme should be proceeded with until the people of Belfast obtain more control over the expenditure of their own money. The population of the town is upwards of 220,000, and there are more than 30,000 Parliamentary voters, but the municipal voters only number some 5,000; so that 25,000 householders in the borough are shut out from any share in its municipal
    186
    government who, if the borough were situated in England or Scotland, would have a share in the government of the town. I have here a statement made by Dr. Graham, one of the aldermen of the borough, who calls attention to these facts, and points out that, as a necessary consequence, the people are powerless. He says that a great majority of the inhabitants are opposed to the present ill-conceived main drainage scheme. There are five wards in the town, and at the last election for the Cromac Ward it was decided to make the drainage scheme a test question. Dr. Graham reluctantly consented to stand as an alderman, and he was returned by a majority of 3 to 1. The resolution under the scheme has been unanimously passed at a public meeting, and no public meeting has been held or could be held in its favour. The Town Council have preferred to send up a deputation to coach up Members in regard to the Bill; they dare not submit their proposal to a public meeting. I may say that I have received a telegram from the Lagan Pollution Committee, expressing a hope that I may succeed in overthrowing the Bill to-night, and intimating that a Petition, signed by more than 1,000 persons, will be presented this evening against the measure.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners; —
    The House went;—and being returned;—
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.

    BELFAST MAIN DRAINAGE BILL (by Order).
    Question again proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered.
    MR. SEXTONresumed his speech. The hon. Member said: When the interruption of our proceedings took place I was engaged in summing up the case of the Corporation of Belfast, and I have fortified myself with documents which show that a great body of the ratepayers of Belfast are at present excluded from any voice in the municipal government of the town. When the Bill was before the House last year I pressed the case strongly upon hon. Members, and the House was sensible of the justice of the case I urged—namely, that this large

    187
    expenditure, amounting to £500,000, should be left in the hands of the people of Belfast themselves, and that the Bill should not be legalized until the householders are admitted to the same franchise as that which prevails in every borough in England and Scotland. The House agreed, at my instance, to insert a clause in the Bill for the purpose of extending the municipal franchise. That clause was Clause 80. When the Bill went up to the House of Lords the Examiners of the Committee of Standing Orders reported that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. The ground upon which they so reported was that there had been no advertisement intimating to the people of Belfast that such a provision would be contained in the measure. The Town Council had not given notice of any intention to insert a provision extending the municipal franchise to the whole of the now excluded householders. How could they have given such notice, seeing that they had no such intention when they introduced the Bill? The Corporation is elected by a very small fraction of the ratepayers, and it is hardly likely that they would consent to any reform which would mean danger to their own power. They do not approve of this clause; they opposed its insertion to the utmost of their power, and the clause, in the end, was inserted altogether against their will. At the time the Examiners reported that the Standing Orders had not been complied with the Committee of Standing Orders took a very extraordinary course. They might have moved that the Standing Orders should be suspended and have allowed the Bill to proceed, or they might have refused to suspend the Standing Orders, and the Bill would have been rejected. The course they took, however, was to insist on the observance of the Standing Orders, and, nevertheless, to declare that the Bill might proceed provided the obnoxious clause was struck out. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Moans (Mr. Courtney) in his place, and I want to know from him whether these Standing Orders are not intended to protect the communities from improper action on the part of the promoters of Private Bills. In this instance the Standing Orders have been applied in order to deny and defeat
    188
    the right of this House to introduce a special provision into a Private Bill. I maintain, with all humility, but with firmness, that the House of Lords have no Constitutional right to use any Standing Order of theirs to prevent the House of Commons from exercising its undoubted function of making any alteration it may like in a Private Bill. The Standing Orders are directed against the promoters of Private Bills, and were never intended to he exercised against the Privileges of this House. Indeed, the House of Lords, in this very case, have broken their own Standing Orders, because they have inserted a provision in reference to the rating of a Public Company which was not inserted in the Bill originally. In so doing they have violated the Standing Orders of their own House. Now, the clause which has been struck out by the House of Lords was, in my opinion, indispensable to the Bill, and I cannot, as an Irish Representative, and still less as one of the Members for Belfast, assent to the passing of the measure unless the clause is reinstated. The people of Belfast are already taxed most heavily for local purposes. This Bill authorizes the expenditure of £500,000, and it will impose a burden upon the ratepayers of 1s. 6d. in the pound for 35 years to come. I maintain that it is not only unsatisfactory, but intolerable, to throw these burdens upon them until they are admitted to their full share of the municipal franchise which they would enjoy if Belfast were a borough in England or Scotland. I, therefore, ask the House to agree to postpone the consideration of the Lords' Amendments, and especially of that which relates to the striking out of this clause, until the House has had an opportunity of considering the question of the extension of the municipal franchise. There are already three Bills before the House which have that object in view. One of them stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew), another is in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry), and there is a third in the name of the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart). Each of these proposes to effect the purpose I have in view, although the last of the three is for the extension of the municipal franchise in Belfast alone. Now, I claim that I am only making a reason-

    189
    able demand when I ask that this Bill should be put back until Parliament has decided whether it will pass any of these three Bills. I have never heard before in this country that the House of Lords has used its Standing Orders in order to limit the rights and Privileges of this House. I challenge any hon. Member to cite a case, and I should be surprised to hear it seriously maintained that the House of Lords possesses this power. Moreover, I would point out that all Parties in this House are now vieing with each other to promote a rational system of local self-government. If this clause is to be rejected, what becomes of all the protestations we have heard? The House has now before it the demand of two of the Members for Belfast; for I believe I am correct in saying that I am supported by the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain). There have been Petitions presented from public meetings and the inhabitants, and a great majority of the Irish Representatives, without distinction of Party, are in favour of the principle of this clause. What becomes of the protestations which have been made by hon. Members on all sides of the House as to their desire to extend a system of local self-government, if they insist on saddling the expenditure of £500,000 upon the ratepayers of Belfast, and refuse them any share in the control of their own affairs? There is another ground also why the consideration of the Lords' Amendments should be postponed. Since the Bill came before the House a Royal Commission has sat and considered the social condition of Belfast. That Commission has made several recommendations which, I believe, have been adopted in their main principles by the Government. One of them is that the Law of Compensation for Malicious Injury in the town of Belfast shall be amended. By a cunning contrivance of the Town Council, in a former year, a person maliciously injured can claim no compensation. The Royal Commissioners recommended that Belfast should be placed, in this respect, on the same footing as the rest of Ireland, and that a person maliciously injured should have the right of claiming compensation out of what is called the General Purposes Rate. That, however, is the very rate which will have to provide the money for executing the drainage works autho-
    190
    rized by this Bill. The General Purposes Rate will be saddled with the payment of £25,000 a-year; and I warn the Government that if they allow this Bill to pass in its present shape, they will find that the General Purposes Rate will be mortgaged beyond the power to provide for any other object, and no funds will be left out of which compensation can be paid for malicious injury to persons or property. I, therefore, think that before the Bill is allowed to pass the Government should formulate their proposals in this respect. There is also another point. The Royal Commissioners have recommended a large increase of the local police force of Belfast. I assume from what I have heard that the increase will be something like 200 or 300 constables. The local contribution for that purpose will have to be paid out of the General Purposes Rate; but if the General Purposes Rate be mortgaged for the purposes of this Bill, there will be nothing left for the support of au additional police force. Every hon. Member knows that the maintenance of a proper police force in Belfast—a town where the peace has been so often disturbed—is a matter of much wider importance than the passing of this Bill. Therefore, I contend that we ought not to consent to pass the Bill, or to consider the Amendments introduced into it in the House of Lords, until we have before us the proposals of the Government for an increase of the police force of Belfast, and until we see in what manner and from what funds the cost of that additional force is to be defrayed. To-day the only proposal I make is that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments shall be postponed until the people of Belfast have been consulted, and, in the meantime, I hope and expect that we may have before us the recommendations of the Government in regard to the Law of Malicious Injury and the increase of the police force. I trust that the Government will agree that this measure shall not be pressed forward until we are in complete possession of that information. I am supported, as I have said, by the public opinion of the town of Belfast. No Petition has been presented in favour of the Bill; no public meeting has been held in favour of it. On the contrary, the Bill has been pushed through by contrivance and stealth; and I am here to say that if the

    191
    House of Commons, in the face of its protestations that it desires the people of Ireland to have a full and rational local self-government, decides upon pressing this Bill forward, much difficulty may be experienced in collecting the rates levied under it. For my own part, I should advise my constituents not to pay the increased rates until they have been admitted to a share in the municipal government of the town, so as to prevent in the future the jobbery which has been committed in the past. I beg to move that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments be postponed until the 28th of July.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second that Motion?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It very rarely happens that I am able to agree with the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) in public affairs; but feeling, as I do, that the general case, not against this Bill, but for the adjournment, is exceedingly strong, I very cordially second the Amendment he has moved Now, I do not presume the merits or the demerits of the Belfast Main Drainage Bill. It may be a very good Bill; it may be one that is entirely necessary for the welfare of the town. I do not presume to settle that question; but I say most emphatically that, at this time of day, it is absolutely absurd for a town of 250,000 inhabitants to be governed by 5,000 or 6,000 ratepayers. That is the case I make against going further with this Bill at present. I shall be told, no doubt, that there is a Bill before the House for the purpose of extending the municipal franchise in Belfast. Well, there are a good many Bills before the House for one purpose or another, which I am afraid will not get much further than this House, and I have some idea that the Municipal Franchise Bill is not being pressed forward with so much and our as to insure its being passed this Session. If this Bill is allowed to pass, I am not sure that the prospect of carrying a Municipal Franchise Bill will not be very much impeded. Holding, as I do, that this House ought not to commit the town of Belfast to the expenditure of £500,000 without the inhabitants of that town being consulted, I think we shall do wisely if we refuse to go further with this Bill at present and adopt the Motion of the hon. Mem-
    192
    ber for West Belfast. Fortunately, we have had some indication of what the feeling of that town is. The hon. Member for West Belfast read out from a Circular "which most hon. Members received to-day the result of a municipal election in the town, which was fought upon this single issue—the result being that a highly popular Member of the Town Council was ousted from the Corporation and from the Aldermanship which he filled by a gentleman who stood on this issue alone. That shows, I think, how strong the public feeling is. As the hon. Member for West Belfast has pointed out, there has been no public meeting in favour of this Bill. There have, however, been several against it; and I hold in my hand a Petition, signed by more than 1,000 of the most respected inhabitants of Belfast, for presentation at the proper time to-day. In view of these facts, and having regard to the enormous expenditure which is contemplated under this Bill, I think the House will act wisely in giving the people of Belfast a chance of settling these important questions for themselves.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. EWART: I hope that the House will reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and will allow the measure, which is one of the utmost importance to the health and prosperity of the inhabitants of Belfast, to proceed. I cannot help thinking that the course which is taken in regard to this Bill is one which is almost unprecedented. I think I am not overstating the case when I say that this Bill has been discussed, as mentioned, during the last and present Parliament no less than ten times, and on every occasion the hon. Member for West Belfast has opposed it, both in season and out of season, with the result of keeping back most useful and beneficial improvements connected with Belfast. Not only has he done so, but he has repeated that course on the present occasion. The reasons which the hon. Member has given for objecting to the Bill are not accurate. He has told the House

    193
    that if the Bill is passed it will involve the expenditure of £500,000. In that statement the hon. Member is inaccurate.
    MR. SEXTON: Not at all.
    MR. EWART: The cost will be £300,000 and not £500,000, as has been stated, and the charge for interest and the Sinking Fund will not exceed £12,000 a-year. Perhaps I may be allowed to supplement the statement of the hon. Member by giving the history of this Bill. The Bill was introduced in the last Parliament, and upon the second reading the hon. Member proposed an instruction to the Committee, directing them to assimilate the Irish franchise to that which exists in England. The Motion of the hon. Member was rejected by the House, and the Bill was referred to a Special Committee on police and sanitary Bills, of which the hon. Member himself and an hon. Member sitting near him were Members. The Bill passed through that Committee, and came down again to this House. Upon the Report the hon. Member again proposed that the House should deal with the question of the franchise, and on the 21st of June last the Motion was brought before the the House, when most hon. Members had not returned from the holidays, and a clause was carried which had the effect of staying the further progress of the Bill. Ultimately the Bill was carried over until this Session, and it was passed with the clause proposed by the hon. Member. It then went to the House of Lords, and in a Committee of that House the Bill was opposed by certain ratepayers of Belfast. Their opposition was fully heard there; but, nevertheless, the Bill comes down here without the clause originally inserted in it at the instance of the hon. Member for West Belfast. The hon. Member has referred to the small number of municipal voters in Belfast as compared with those upon the Parliamentary register. I do not dispute the fact; but one would suppose, from the speech of the hon. Member, that the blame for that condition of things is attributable to the Town Council of Belfast. Now, they are in no way whatever to blame- for it; they have their existence under the Irish Municipal Corporations Act, and the franchise is the same in the borough of Belfast as it is in all other boroughs in Ireland.
    MR. SEXTON: No; it is not the same in Dublin.
    MR. EWART: I say the same as in all other boroughs in Ireland. Dublin, the metropolis, is no doubt an exception. I also admit that the franchise is higher than it is in England, although I am unable to say why the distinction was drawn by Parliament. It is beyond my recollection; but the Corporation of Belfast are in no way responsible for the franchise as it is. The hon. Member is very impatient to have the franchise altered; but I would remind the House that, although the hon. Member has been for a good many years a Member of this House, he has not on any single occasion, that I can remember, proposed to make an alteration in the existing franchise.
    MR. SEXTON: Yes; every year.
    MR. EWART: Personally, I am in favour of the assimilation of the municipal franchise in Ireland to the municipal franchise in England, and there are two Bills before the House, at this moment, which deal with that subject. I should be very happy to give my support to any measure which proposes to extend the municipal franchise in the sense I have spoken of. With regard to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry), I must say that the Friends of the hon. Member for West Belfast have not dealt very fairly with that measure, because I find that it is blocked by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). I think that fact throws some light on the proceedings which I need not further enter into. The hon. Member for West Belfast has referred to the fact that the Municipal Corporation of Belfast is one sided. I do not know why the hon. Member should find fault with the Town Council of Belfast for that. It is, I believe, the case that in every borough and city in England the majority try to get their own members returned. The very same thing has happened in the City of Dublin and the City of Cork, and the municipal elections which take place at the close of the year in England are looked upon as being quite as much a political index as a General Election. I regret very much that that should be so, because I should like to see the Town Council representing the opinion of the inhabitants free and unfettered of both

    195
    Parties in the Irish boroughs and in the Irish cities. The hon. Member has, on more than one occasion, referred to the misdeeds of the Corporation of Belfast. Well, I have been for 35 years more or less intimately acquainted with the working of the Belfast Corporation, and for 24 or 25 years I was a member of it. I can bear my testimony that a more exemplary, a more economical, a more earnest, and a more painstaking Corporation does not exist in the United Kingdom; and their management of the municipal affairs of Belfast has been a credit to the town. And now, Sir, with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member. He proposes that the consideration of the Bill shall be further postponed. The works which it contemplates are most important to the health and prosperity of Belfast. The course pursued by the hon. Member has already had the effect of delaying the execution of these works for one year, and if the Motion he now makes is carried, it will still further delay those works for another year. It is necessary to commence the first operations by making an outfall into the harbour, and that can only be done during the summer. Therefore, if this Motion is carried, the execution of the works will be practically delayed for another year. I think the constituents of the hon. Gentleman will be in no way obliged to him for the efforts he has made to obstruct the execution of works so very much desired. The hon. Member complains of the burden of taxation in Belfast. Let me tell the House that as regards the small class of houses—the workmen's houses —the rating comes to 5s. 4d. in the pound, and upon the larger description of houses to 6s. 6d., while in regard to the model Corporation, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member—the Corporation of Dublin—the taxation is no less than 9s. 7d. in the pound.
    MR. BIGGAR: I rise for the purpose of supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart), who has just sat down, says that he is extremely anxious to see the municipal franchise extended in the town of Belfast. It is somewhat strange, I think, that he should be so very anxious to have the franchise for municipal purposes extended in that borough,
    196
    and yet that he should always have voted against the Motions which have been made by my hon. Friend for the extension of the municipal franchise. The real fact is that that Motion has invariably been opposed by hon. Members opposite when it has been brought forward in this House, and the hon. Gentlemen who have opposed my hon. Friend have continually protested against the extension of the municipal franchise. The hon. Member for North Belfast does not seem to remember that year after year the Irish Party have brought forward Bills in this House in favour of the extension of the municipal franchise in the Irish boroughs, and that he himself and others who act with him have uniformly voted against them. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can reconcile his conduct with the statement he has just made to the House; but, even on the merits of the Bill, I very much doubt whether it would be of advantage to the people of Belfast to pass it in its present shape. That, however, is not the question now before the House; but the question is that the consideration of the Lord's Amendments be postponed until the 28th of July in order to give full time for the passing of a Bill for the extension of the municipal franchise. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman and his Friends to give facilities for the progress of that Bill, and if that is done I will promise them, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that this Bill will get through its remaining stages without the slightest trouble or difficulty, and those in charge of the Bill will have ample opportunity of getting the costs they have incurred charged upon the ratepayers. The hon. Member has made reference to the fact that the municipal franchise in Belfast is an exceedingly narrow one; but he overlooked the fact that no public meeting has been held in the borough of Belfast in favour of this Bill. Nor did he allude to the fact that Dr. Graham, who belongs to the Tory Party, recently fought one of the wards of Belfast on the single issue whether this Bill should pass, and carried his election by a majority of three to one. Under these circumstances, I think it comes with a very bad grace from one of the Representatives of Belfast that he should get up in his place in this House to oppose a Motion, especially when the

    197
    Motion is not directed against the Bill, but simply asks that its consideration shall be postponed until an opportunity has been afforded for carrying out such reforms as these Gentlemen themselves profess to have at heart.
    SIR JAMES CORRY: The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) has taken very good care, in the remarks he has made, not to support the suggestion which the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has thrown out, the reason being that he fully understands the question, and that he is more intimately acquainted with it than the hon. Member for West Belfast. The hon. Member for West Belfast has stated that if the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners are carried out the expense will have to be defrayed out of the General Purposes Rate. That is not so; because if it is necessary to levy a rate in order to carry out the recommendation of the Commissioners for the extension of the police force, the expense will fall upon the Police Rate, and not upon the General Purposes Rate. The hon. Member for West Belfast has been informed by a Member of the Corporation that he was elected upon this question; but, as far as I am aware, the election took place upon a totally different question. As a matter of fact, it was a personal question between the Gentleman who was elected and another gentleman, and the provisions of this Bill had nothing to do with the contest. The hon. Member says that, as regards the ratepayers, they have not had a sufficient opportunity for expressing their opinion on this question. My hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) has referred to the taxation of Belfast, and contrasted it with that of Dublin. I look upon that as a question of considerable importance. The small householders I may say, who include the artizans, pay a less rate than those who occupy a larger house property, and the result is that, so far as the taxation of the artizans of Belfast is concerned, they only pay 5s. 4d. in the pound, while those of Dublin pay 9s. 7d. in the pound. I think that shows that the Corporation of Belfast have been much more economical in the public works they have carried out than the Corporation of Dublin. Indeed, I am happy to say, that the works they have
    198
    executed will compare most favourable with any which have been carried out in Dublin. The House has been reminded that there is down upon the Paper a Bill, with which my name is associated for the extension of the municipal franchise. I have the fullest intention of carrying out the proposals contained in that Bill, and if the measure itself had not been blocked by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), I might have obtained the second reading of it before now. If the right hon. Member for Mid Cork will remove the block I will avail myself of every opportunity of pressing the Bill forward. It is impossible, however, under the half-past 12 o'clock Rule to bring forward the Bill so long as the block remains. With regard to the present measure, hope the House will proceed at once to consider the Lords' Amendments, because the Bill is of a most pressing nature, and it is felt that it will be impossible to continue much longer the existing sanitary arrangements.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I have risen thus early in the debate in order to make a suggestion, The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has, however, touched upon one point which it is necessary I should refer to. He has stated that the House of Lords, acting under their Standing Orders, refused to permit the insertion of a clause which had been included by this House in the Bill. He has, consequently, condemned the action of the House of Lords, as an interference with the liberty of the House of Commons. May I remind the hon. Member, that I urged at the time that clause was introduced here, that it was totally irregular, and contrary to the spirit, even if not the letter, of our own Standing Orders. For my part, I cannot see that that there is any ground for the accusation which has been made by the hon. Member against the House of Lords, who have simply defended the interests of outside persons who had received no notice of the intention of the promoters of the Bill to make such a provision. But I think we may altogether put aside the hon. Member's ground for complaint, because I find that the hon. Gentleman himself does not attach very much weight to it. As I understand, he admits that if the Municipal

    199
    Franchise Bill should become law, so that the ratepayers of Belfast would be included in it, he would then have no objection to the Bill going forward which contemplates the execution of these works. The way in which the matter stands is this—the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) has introduced a Bill which he declares his desire to push forward with due celerity, and the hon. Member for West Belfast has expressed his intention to support the Bill. It is now blocked by what I am afraid I must call the indiscriminate action of the hon. Member for Mid Cork.
    MR. SEXTON: That has simply been done in order to insure the discussion of the Bill at a reasonable hour.
    MR. COURTNEY: Yes; but it is impossible to insure the discussion at a reasonable hour, and really no discussion is necessary. I am sure the hon. Member for West Belfast will agree with me in that remark, seeing that the question is one which has been discussed in this House over and over again, and which is now accepted in principle by both sides of the House. I would, therefore, suggest that, instead of deferring the consideration of this Bill for three months, the hon. Member should allow the present Motion to be withdrawn, and move that the further consideration of the Bill be deferred until the 24th of May. In the meantime, the block which now stands against the Municipal Franchise Bill might be withdrawn, and that Bill could be passed through this House with the full hope that it may receive the assent of the other House, and there would then remain no obstacle to the progress of this Bill, In that ease, these drainage works would be able to go forward, and the summer would not be lost. Therefore, I trust that the Motion will be withdrawn, and the Bill be postponed until the 24th of May, the hon. Member for West Belfast using his influence, in the meantime, to secure the withdrawal of the block against the Municipal Franchise Bill. If that course is pursued, the whole question with regard to both Bills might be satisfactorily disposed of.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: The suggestion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) renders it unnecessary for me to refer at all to
    200
    the particular merits or demerits of the Bill now before the House. I think I may state that, acting on the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) will be prepared to modify his Motion in the direction indicated, and will take measures, so far as the Members of our Party are concerned, to secure that no further opposition shall be offered to the passage through the House of the Bill for the extension of the Municipal Franchise in Ireland. I may say, however, as an extenuation of this proceeding, that at the end of last year we had a Bill for the extension of the Municipal Franchise of Ireland before the House; but it was blocked all through the Session by the hon. Member who now sits for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) and some other hon. Members on that side of the House. The result was that it was virtually defeated. We are prepared, in compliance with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, to take a very different course as far as we are concerned, and we will promise to give every assistance in our power to the passage through this House of the Municipal Franchise Bill. At the same time we are in this position that we have no guarantee that there may not be an adverse decision in "another place." If we allow the proposed Main Drainage Bill to go through without this clause, the Municipal Franchise Bill may be defeated in the House of Lords, and the defeat itself may be procured by the negotiations of hon. Members here. If that should be the case, we should then be placed in a worse position than that which we now occupy. All we are anxious for is that when the Main Drainage Bill comes into operation in Belfast the whole of the ratepayers of the Town of Belfast should have a voice in the control of the works. That is our only object, and this clause was inserted in the Bill in order to secure that the people of Belfast should have the right of exercising the municipal franchise. Under the circumstances, I think it was a reasonable and fair clause to insert in the Bill now under discussion; and I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means whether a clause may not be put in this Bill to delay its operation.

    201
    until such time as the ratepayers of Belfast may obtain the right of exercising municipal votes.
    SIR CHARLES LEWIS: I have only risen for the purpose of distinctly stating to the House, after the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney), that if nobody else moves the rejection of the Municipal Franchise Bill, I shall do so.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I may say that the promoters of this Bill, having carefully considered the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney), find themselves unable to accept it. A very great delay has already taken place in carrying out these very necessary improvements in Belfast, and the unsanitary condition of the River Lagan at the present time is such that even The Northern Whig, in a recent issue, calls upon the promoters of the Bill to ask the House to pass the measure through all its remaining stages without further delay. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has referred to the municipal franchise as it already exists in Ireland. If the friends of the hon. Gentleman had not already blocked the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry), that measure would probably have passed through this House, and would only have awaited the sanction of "another place." I think I ought to mention that the Bill for the extension of the municipal franchise in Ireland, which stands in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh was brought in at the suggestion of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland — the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). It was impossible, as the right hon. Gentleman told the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, that the Government, in addition to all their other public engagements, could take charge of a Bill for the extension of the municipal franchise. But the right hon. Gentleman added that he was prepared to give it the support of the Government, in order that the inequality which at present exists between England and Ireland in regard to the municipal franchise, so far as the Parliamentary boroughs are concerned, should be remedied and done away with. Perhaps
    202
    I may be pardoned if I state to the House that I myself have always been an earnest advocate for the extension of the municipal franchise in Ireland. At all the various elections I have had the honour of contesting and of always winning in Belfast, I have ever advocated that measure. Belfast, I think, will compare favourably in regard to the character of its government, the nature of its improvements, and its present financial and mercantile position, with the Metropolis of Ireland, which has a very peculiar Corporation ruling its affairs at the present moment. I venture to ask the House to resist any further delay in the progress of the Main Drain-ago Bill, and not to allow the summer to pass without the commencement of these most necessary works, which have been proved to be so much needed in the great and important town of which I have the honour to be one of the Members.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I will not trespass long upon the time of the House; but it becomes my duty—as the Representative of a Division of the Metropolis of Ireland to which the hon. Member has referred— to defend it from the aspersions he has endeavoured to cast upon it. If the rates of the City of Dublin are higher than the rates of the City of Belfast, the blame must not be attributed to the Nationalist Corporation of Dublin, but to those who, for years, had the government of Dublin in their hands, and who for various purposes voted away the money of the ratepayers. We have at present this anomalous condition of things in regard to that city, that the most valuable property in it has been given away as grants to Tory gentlemen in the past, and that that property is constantly increasing in value without the ratepayers of the city deriving the least benefit from it. If the hon. Gentleman will make an inquiry as to the manner in which the Pembroke Estate was voted away by a Tory Corporation, for the annual present of a goose at Christmas, I think he will get some information as to the manner in which the municipal powers were administered during the time his Party had the administration of the Corporate affairs of Dublin in their hands. As to the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney), I must say

    203
    that those who are promoting this Bill have absolutely left themselves without any argument whatever in asking the House to consider the Lords' Amendment. They profess to be anxious for the extension of the municipal franchise in Belfast. There are as many as three Bills before the House for that purpose at this moment; but it is notorious that they have themselves been doing all they can to prevent those Bills from coming forward for discussion. They are now, to-day, endeavouring to rely on a mere accidental block which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), in a moment of mistaken zeal, placed against the Bill of the hon. Baronet opposite. They have had full opportunity, time after time, of voting for the extension of the municipal franchise, but, time after time, they have refused to do so. Now, Sir, if the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means were adopted, and the promoters of the Bill are really anxious that the general body of ratepayers should have some control over the extraordinary expenditure upon which the Corporation of Belfast is about to enter, and those hon. Gentlemen will accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, we, on our part, are prepared to assent readily to the adoption of the Lords' Amendments. I cannot say that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means has been at all treated in the most gracious manner by hon. Members opposite, seeing that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) has given Notice that whatever course may be taken in reference to the block which now stands against the Municipal Franchise Bill, he intends to move the rejection of the measure. I repeat, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, that he and his Friends who sit on this side of the House are perfectly prepared to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and if the proposal they are anxious to pass be rejected the citizens of Belfast will then know to whom it is that they are indebted for the delay in proceeding with the Main Drainage Bill.
    MR. SEXTON: I wish to say that, with the leave of the House, I am
    204
    quite willing to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means. Of course, any suggestion coming from the hon. Gentleman occupying the position he does carries with it more than ordinary authority.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment in favour of the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means?
    MR. SEXTON: Yes.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    MR. COURTNEY: I beg now to move that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments be postponed until the 24th of May. [An hon. MEMBER: The 24th of May would be a very inconvenient day.]
    MR. COURTNEY: Then I will substitute the 20th of May.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be adjourned till the 20th of May."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I hope the House will be careful as to the course it takes. I am under the impression that, although a compromise was suggested by the Chairman of Ways and Means, that compromise was not actually accepted. The compromise itself consists of two parts— first, that the block shall be withdrawn from the Bill dealing with the municipal franchise; and next, that the Gentlemen in charge of the Main Drainage Bill should consent to its postponement. Both parts of the compromise will require the assent of hon. Members in this House. The first part requires the assent of those who have blocked the Franchise Bill, and the other requires the consent of hon. Members who are in charge of the present Bill. If I understand correctly what fell from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis), he does intend to oppose the Municipal Franchise Bill, whether the block is withdrawn or not. I gather from the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. Kenny), that he asks the Government to give facilities for taking the Municipal Franchise Bill, in the event of the block being removed. I am afraid I cannot give any pledge of that kind which might involve the delay of Public Business. All I rose

    205
    for was to remind the House that, while certain hon. Members on that side of the House appear to think that an arrangement has been arrived at, I do not understand that arrangement to have been accepted by the hon. Baronet below the Gangway.
    MR. FLYNN: I wish to invite the attention of hon. Members to one important consideration, and that is that my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain), who both of them represent working men constituencies, are opposed to the provisions of this Bill. I am informed that a large meeting of the ratepayers of Belfast was held on Monday evening, to condemn the Bill, and that a resolution submitted to that meeting was passed with only three dissentients. I am further informed that the hon. Member for East Belfast, who is deeply interested in the Bill in his representative capacity, and who knows a good deal more of it than most hon. Members in this House, is very anxious to be present in the House when the measure is under discussion. I believe that a second Petition against the Bill has been placed in the hands of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell); and, under these circumstances, especially considering the fact that two out of the four hon. Members who represent Belfast are decide by opposed to the passing of the Bill in its present form, I ask the House to say whether the compromise suggested by the Chairman of Ways and Means is not a reasonable one, and one which hon. Members opposite ought to accede to without the slightest hesitation? In the event of that compromise not being adhered to, I would urge my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast to oppose the Bill in its present stage as far as he possibly can. The action of the Government and of hon. Members opposite is most unreasonable, and it affords a convincing proof, to my mind, that their anxiety for the passing of any Bill for the municipal franchise in Ireland is of a very lukewarm character indeed.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 177: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 96.)
    MR. SPEAKER: To what day?
    MR. SEXTON: The 20th of May.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 20th May.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
    MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I rise for the purpose of moving the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper with regard to this Bill—namely—
    "That with respect to all the Clauses relating to Coldham Common, Cambridge, the Bill he re-committed to the former Committee on the Bill."
    My reason for moving the Amendment is entirely connected with the clauses which relate to Coldham Common at Cambridge. The Great Eastern Railway Company propose to take the new part of their line through this Common, which is quite close to a very populous part of the borough of Cambridge—a Common much used for the purposes of recreation by the inhabitants, both poor and rich. At the present moment this Common is very largely used, but taking in view the increase of population and other circumstances, it is likely to be still more largely used than it is at present, and, therefore, it is desired that the clauses to which I object should be referred back to the Committee for further consideration. The Bill itself is an Omnibus Bill, and it is no part of my wish to destroy the useful parts of the measure which are unconnected with this Common. All I desire is to reserve to the inhabitants of the borough the right to enjoy this open space which is so near to them. The Common is also largely used by the Volunteers, who form one of the first and most efficient battalions of Volunteers in the Kingdom. The rifle butts are upon this Common, and I believe, from what I know of the locality, that if the existing butts are removed there will be no possibility of finding any other position which will be suitable. The line which the Great Eastern Railway Company propose to make goes straight through the middle of the range. An attempt

    207
    has been made to come to an arrangement with the Railway Company; but that arrangement, I am sorry to say, has fallen through, and it now only rests with me, on the part of the poorer portion of the inhabitants of the borough of Cambridge, to move that the consideration of these clauses be referred back to the Committee. I am quite aware it will be said that the War Office do not see any reason to oppose this Bill. Now, at the commencement of this contention we received a letter from the War Office which induced us to believe that they intended to oppose the Bill; but it now appears that the War Office have made up their minds not to oppose the measure. I presume that since that time the War Office have seen good reason to change their minds. One of my reasons for objecting to the proposed removal of the butts is that in all probability we shall be unable to get the Government Inspector to pass the new range. There will, therefore, be no range at all, and if there is no range, this must lead to the disbandment of this regiment of Volunteers. I know it will be urged that the owners of the land behind these butts are identical with the owners of the land which it is proposed to substitute; but my answer to that contention is, that as we do not know where the proposed new butts would be placed it is impossible to say who the owners of the land behind them may be. There have been numerous Petitions presented against these clauses. The Mayor and Corporation of Cambridge do not believe that if the House refer the Bill back to the Committee, any material damage will be done to the Great Eastern Bill. The Railway Company have only to extend the proposed line to the right or the left of the present site, and by paying for the land they can obtain all the siding which they say are necessary for the purposes of the Bill. We object to their taking this Common, which is the property of the town of Cambridge, and which is held on trust by the Corporation. The evil of allowing Common rights to be interfered with by Railway Companies has been shown in many instances—such as Barnes, Tooting, and Wandsworth Commons. In those cases we can see for ourselves the effect of allowing a railway to pass through the middle of a recreation ground. Under these circumstances, I propose
    208
    that the clause of the Bill, as regards Coldham Common, should be referred back to the former Committee on the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out the words "now considered," in order to add the words "re-committed to the former Committee with respect to all the Clauses relating to Coldham Common, Cambridge."—(Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'now considered' stand part of the Question."
    MR. HANBURY: As I was the Chairman of the Committee who considered this Bill I desire at once to put before the House what were the views of the Committee in regard to this portion of the Great Eastern Railway Bill. In the first place, it was a thoroughly representative Committee, and the Members of it were the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucestershire (Sir John Dorington), the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. T. Blake), the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. P. M'Donald), and myself. Upon this question we were all unanimous, and I did expect that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Pen-rose Fitzgerald) would have been able to bring before the House some better arguments than he has done to justify the throwing out of this portion of the Bill. It is not to be supposed that we passed these clauses giving power to the Railway Company to interfere with Coldham Common on light grounds. We went into the question thoroughly, and we were convinced of the absolute necessity of the Railway going over the Common, or of not making the proposed station at all. The Great Eastern Station at Cambridge, at the present moment, is one of the most inconvenient in the Kingdom. All the trains run in on one side, and as there is a considerable amount of traffic there is great danger in carrying on the ordinary work of the line. The Company are going to spend £100,000 on the improvement of the station, and that fact may be put in the scale as an advantage conferred on the population of Cambridge against the small disadvantage which they would suffer from the railway being allowed to go across the Common. Cambridge is a great place for changing trains, and there is a heavy traffic over no less than

    209
    three different lines, and it is absolutely necessary if this traffic is to be carried on properly, that there should be a siding constructed about 1,200 yards in length. The Committee thought at first that that was a very unusual length; but we found on inquiry that there are already sidings 2,300, and even 2,700 yards long. As I have said, we went into the matter thoroughly. We tried to avoid the necessity of crossing this Common, but we found that if the people of Cambridge were to derive any advantage whatever from this station, it was absolutely essential that this portion of the Bill should be carried out. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman, and especially with those hon. Gentlemen who belong to the Commons Preservation Society, that the Common land of this country ought to be protected in every possible way, more particularly when it is contiguous to our great towns where there is hardly sufficient breathing space already; but if there is one place in the world where the outcry for the preservation of Commons ceases to have any material or practical force, it is Cambridge, where the Corporation themselves possess no loss than 300 acres of common ground, and where there are already a considerable number of open spaces belonging to the Colleges and other Institutions. So far as open spaces are concerned, very little damage will be done by this Bill to the people of Cambridge. After all, what the Railway Company propose to do is simply to take away three acres from a Common of 100 acres in extent, and in place of those three acres the Committee have insisted upon the Railway Company providing another three acres immediately adjoining this Common. I am therefore of opinion that the rights of the public have been protected in every way. Ample provision has been made for preservation and footpaths, and for enabling the cattle to pass under the railway when the line is constructed. We are told that the construction of the line will interfere with the amusements of the people of Cambridge. Now, one of the Members of the Committee went over to Cambridge in order to obtain information for himself upon that point; and, on visiting the spot, instead of finding the Common full of people, there was hardly anybody there at all. This was only about a fortnight ago. I
    210
    maintain that, in the first place, Cold-ham Common is not going to be diminished by a single inch. The people of Cambridge will have exactly the same amount of space provided for them which they now enjoy. I have shown that it is not a place which is used for the recreation of the townspeople. Will the fact that it is intersected by a railway interfere with the right of pasturage? In order to guard against any interference of that kind we have made provision by which there will be no difficulty whatever either for passengers or cattle to pass from one side of the line to the other. One part of the line will be upon the level, and the other part will be in a cutting; but ample provision is made both for the accommodation of passengers and cattle. Provision is also made for a cricket ground; but one of the Town Councillors of Cambridge told us that there is absolutely no cricket played there at all. So far as the recreation of the people is concerned, the only persons who are really interested in this Common, in connection with playing games upon it, are some 60 members of the University, who have the use of the Common from the Corporation for nothing, and play golf upon it. They are the only persons who can possibly suffer by the severance of the Common, and surely if they want a golf ground they are able to provide one at their own expense. In. the first place, the ground is very bad for the purpose, and the result is, as I have said, that there are only about 60 members of the University who belong to the Golf Club. I deny, however, that the interests of 60 members of the University of Cambridge should interfere with a great public improvement like this. We have been told by the hon. Member for Cambridge that the construction of this line will interfere with the rifle range. If that is so, how is it that the War Office, which at first opposed the Bill, now find that there is no necessity for opposing it? The fact is, that the rifle range can easily be removed to another place some 20 yards to the left. The Railway Company have proposed to remove the butts, and to incur every expense in acquiring new ones. There will be no difficulty in so doing, because the land is the property of the same owners whose land is now fired over. Further than that, I am

    211
    told that the Volunteers have no right to shoot over those persons ground at all. Therefore, they cannot possibly be in any worse position, if they have to move their butts for some 20 yards to the left of the position which they now occupy, and no damage whatever can be done to the rifle corps by anything we have sanctioned with regard to this Common. I have shown that the Common will not be damaged to any extent whatever; and I trust that, on account of the accommodation to the town of Cambridge, the Bill will be passed. The people of Cambridge themselves do not oppose the Bill, and the only opponents, as a matter of fact, are the 60 members of the University, who now enjoy it as a golf ground. I trust that the House will not be led away by any false sentiment, but will support the unanimous decision of the Committee.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: As chairman of the Commons Preservation Society, to which the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) has alluded, I wish to say why I am prepared to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald). Until a few years ago Parliament was very careless as to railways going through Commons, and several of the best Commons we had in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis—such as Wands-worth, Barnes, and Tooting—have been seriously injured by being intersected by railways in the manner now proposed. During the last 20 years the Society to which I belong have, by their action, been able to prevent any case of this kind from occurring within easy reach of London, or in any populous part of the country. Anyone going down to Barnes or Tooting Common will see for himself the effect of intersecting those Commons by railways. It is impossible to prevent the destruction both of the beauty and unity of a piece of common land if you allow a railway to intersect it on the level, as is seen in the cases I have mentioned. The hon. Member for Preston thinks that no damage will be done because the Railway Company propose to give up to the town another three acres of land, which is the amount of land actually proposed to be taken; but that is not the point. The evil is done by intersecting the Common and cutting it in half. I have not risen to oppose this
    212
    Bill without having satisfied myself that a very serious injury is certain to be done in this case. I have been down to Coldham Common, and, having carefully inspected it, I came to the conclusion that a great public evil would result from the adoption of this proposal. Coldham Common is close to the town of Cambridge— indeed, it is within 100 yards. That part of the town is growing rapidly. Cambridge itself has a population of more than 35,000, and although there are other Commons, this is one which is much resorted to for purposes of recreation. I do not put the question on the ground of the rifle range; but I put it on the general ground of the evil of allowing the common to be destroyed by being intersected in this manner. I dare say that arguments will be brought forward on behalf of the Railway Company to show that the land is necessary for their proposed sidings. We always hear arguments of that kind in such cases; but I must confess that I never listen to them. I invariably refuse to listen to them, because I know that, as a rule, if a proposal of this sort is rejected by Parliament the Railway Company invariably find some other mode of carrying out their object. I should have opposed this Bill on the second reading if it had not been for the fact that it was an Omnibus Bill, and I thought it was scarcely fair to oppose the second reading on a ground of this kind, which applies only to a portion of it. The Bill has now been before a Select Committee, and I am sorry that the Committee should not have had more regard to the interests of the public. So far, however, as questions of this kind are concerned, I think they are better fought out in a full House than in a Committee. I feel confident that if the House adopt the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge, and send the Bill back to the Committee, the Railway Company will be able to obtain what they want in some other way, without inflicting serious injury upon the public. There are two ways of avoiding this Common— one is by making a divergence before the Common is reached, and the other by going beyond it. There is no necessity whatever for destroying this Common; and I will as the House to remember that an injury of this kind once inflicted can never be undone. It is upon this ground that I have opposed

    213
    other oases; and I venture to hope that the House will adopt the same course in this instance, and will refer the Bill back to the Committee.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: As one of the Members in charge of the Bill, I should like to say one or two words in reply to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). The right hon. Gentleman has not pointed out to the House the present condition of the station at Cambridge. It is on one side of a siding, extending over a quarter of a-mile, into which the trains of four separate Railway Companies, who have running powers, are taken. The Great Eastern Railway Company have long contemplated, in consequence of the danger to the passengers and the inconvenience to the travelling public generally, the necessity of remodelling the station. Hitherto, for financial and other reasons, they have been unable to do so; but now the financial position of the Company has greatly improved, and they believe that they are able to make these improvements on a proper and adequate scale. They have presented this Bill with that object. They instructed their engineer to prepare plans, and, in doing so, they requested him, if possible, to avoid passing over Coldham Common; but, after giving the matter every consideration, the engineer found that it was impossible to do this. It was necessary for the accommodation of the through traffic, as well as for the local wants of Cambridge, to take in this bit of Coldham Common to which reference has been made. The right hon. Gentleman says— "Why not stop short of Coldham Common?" The reason is that if the line were to turn off short of Coldham Common, it would pass on a level crossing through the proposed new goods siding of the Great Eastern Railway, and would, consequently, be attended with great danger, not only to the lives of the railway employées, but of the travelling public. I do not believe for a moment that the Board of Trade would ever sanction such a railway scheme. It would certainly be quite contrary to anything they have heretofore sanctioned. The Company believe that it is absolutely essential to go through Coldham Common in order to make the great
    214
    improvements proposed at Cambridge Station. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the injury done to the Commons at Tooting, Wandsworth, and Barnes, by allowing them to be intersected by railways; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this question— how many people do you find upon Tooting, Wandsworth, and Barnes Commons when you go there? It is a place of resort for hundreds of human beings every hour of the day; but if you go to Coldham Common you will find nothing there but skylarks and a few head of cattle. Coldham Common is not used by the people of Cambridge for the purpose of recreation. There are other Commons in the neighbourhood of Cambridge closer to the town, and are much used; but Coldham Common, from its peculiar position, is not used for the purpose of recreation at all, and there are very few people to be found upon it for any purpose whatever. As a matter of fact, it is only used for the grazing of cattle and for playing the game of golf and for rifle practice, for which ample accommodation will be afforded under the proposed changes. The most important part of the matter, however, is the evidence which has been given before the Committee by the Engineer of the Railway Company, to the effect that it is quite impossible to make the proposed improvements in connection with Cam-bridge Station without taking these three acres of ground, in substitution for which the Company give three acres elsewhere. Under these circumstances, I trust the House will reject the Amendment.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): It is not without reluctance that I rise to take part in this discussion, or to depart from the usual practice of refraining from entering into questions which have already been considered by a Select Committee upstairs. I listened with great interest and attention to the statement of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), who was Chairman of the Committee upon this Bill, which satisfied me that, at all events, the matter received very attentive consideration. I must also say that I do not go the whole length of my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) in his general opposition to all schemes for

    215
    dealing with commons. I think that every one of these cases is worth being heard on its own merits, and that it is a mistaken policy to meet with unscrupulous opposition every scheme which may be submitted to Parliament for utilizing common land, whether for a railway, or any other purpose But this case, I am bound to say, is a very flagrant case on the part of a Railway Company to wrest a portion of a common from the public. There is a large and growing population in that part of the borough of Cambridge contiguous to the Common now proposed to be dealt with. We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston that there are other commons in Cambridge. That is quite true; but, has as been pointed out already in the course of this debate, such commons are not convenient for the poorer inhabitants for the purpose of pasturage, and as to there being other open land within the boundaries of the borough of Cambridge, it might just as well be said that it would be reasonable to run a railway through Hyde Park because there is an open space in Berkeley Square. This Common is one which the Mayor and Corporation of Cambridge, who represent a population of between 40,000 and 50,000, have expressed an earnest desire to retain in its present state. It has been pointed out that this Common, so far from being confined to skylarks and the grazing of cattle, at present is used as a rifle ground for the Volunteers; and it has further been pointed out that it is used by a golf club, consisting of members of the University. I have no wish to ask for the members of the University any other advantages or facilities for recreation than would be accorded to the general body of the public; but I do not see that because they happen to be members of the University that should be any reason why they should not be listened to. On the whole, I cannot help thinking that the Great Eastern Railway Company will be able to find some other way of approaching their railway station at Cambridge, and if this part of their scheme is rejected by the Committee, I have no doubt that their engineer will find some other way of improving the station without trespassing upon Coldham Common. I have no doubt that when the Company come back to Parliament in a future Session
    216
    they will have found some method of getting over the difficulty. I speak with all due deference, because I certainly do not share the pronounced views of the Commons Preservation Society; but I never remember a stronger case than the present for resisting the attempt of a great Railway Company to deprive the public of an important part of one of their recreation grounds, which, at the present moment, is employed for valuable public purposes.
    MR. T. BLAKE: As a Member of the Select Committee to whom this Bill was referred, I can corroborate everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), who was Chairman of the Committee, in reference to this Common. I may say, for myself and the other Members of the Committee, that we endeavoured most strongly to ascertain whether the proposed alterations and improvements at Cambridge Station could be carried out without touching this Common. The evidence of the engineer was that he had tried in every possible way to avoid touching Coldham Common, but had found it utterly impossible to do so in view of the improvement of the station accommodation, and at present no train can come in from the Newmarket line without danger. At present an experienced official, distinguished by a badge worn on his arm, called a "pilot," has to be sent out to meet every train and to bring it into the station. The Great Eastern Company now propose to construct a double section, with docks for the various trains, and to lay down a number of other lines. The Board of Trade will not sanction trains running across these lines, and the only way to avoid danger to the traffic is to take this portion of Coldham Common. The station is now a quarter of a mile long, and any person coming in from Norwich is required to walk that distance; whereas, if the scheme now before the House is passed, the Company propose to run all trains properly into the station. On Tuesday week I went down to Cambridge specially to inspect this Common. It was a very fine day, and I went down to the Common, which is about a mile and a quarter from the central Post Office in the town. I found that the only persons on the common were two lads, whereas all the other

    217
    commons and open spaces were, at the same time, being used by a considerable number of persons of all ages. I was told that the Common is chiefly used for grazing cattle, and that it is not unusual to find 200 or 300 head of cattle upon it. The Company propose, if they are permitted to make use of the Common, to give an equal number of acres close adjacent to the Common, and with reference to the rifle range, I cannot see that there would be any difficulty, or that the Volunteers would be in any degree injured, if it were slewed round as suggested, or otherwise altered, as the Bill proposes. The Bill in no way seriously interferes with the rifle range. In the interests of the public, generally, and of the inhabitants of the district in particular, the Committee came to the unanimous conclusion that it would be of great convenience to the town of Cambridge if these works were carried out, and that there would be very little injury to the Common, seeing the purposes for which it is used. I do not think it is necessary that I should go further into the reasons which induced the Committee to pass the Bill. Our inquiry extended over a period of three weeks, and we took more than 500 pages of evidence. We were most patient in hearing all the evidence that could be submitted to us; we heard counsel on both sides, and I am satisfied that we came to a right and proper conclusion.
    MR. P. M'DONALD: I feel it my duty to call the attention of the House to what the real facts of the case are in connection with this Bill. I had the honour to be one of the four Members to whom this Bill was referred; and, in the first place, I will express my full and entire concurrence in all that has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), who was Chairman of the Committee. He has stated— and his statement has been confirmed by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, that we gave to this Bill the fullest consideration. We sat for three whole weeks, for five days in each week, considering all the bearings of the case. We took into our careful consideration every point relating to the Bill that was submitted to us either by the promoters or the opponents; and I am pleased to be able to inform the House that we were unanimous in the conclusion to
    218
    which we arrived. The question that has been raised as regards Coldham Common is one that has not, I believe, been fairly put before the House. It is not a question of robbing the public, or depriving them of their right to an open space. If it were so, I should have been one of the last to support any scheme of the kind. On the contrary, I should have entered my strongest and most strenuous protest in opposition to it. But the matter was one of an entirely different kind, and related solely to the accommodation and convenience of the public. The present railway requirements at Cambridge are such that the existing station accommodation is altogether insufficient. I went fully into the consideration of the case. I had no interest in the Bill either one way or the other. Being an Irish Member, I was able to look upon the question from a purely conscientious or public point of view, and I am obliged to say that I entirely concurred with the conclusion at which the Chairman and other Members of the Committee arrived. The railway accommodation at Cambridge is totally inadequate to the requirements of that town. There is only one siding, and consequently it is not only exceedingly inconvenient, but very often dangerous, to the general public to carry on the traffic. It is most desirable that an extension of the station arrangements should be made. The engineer of the Great Eastern Company gave evidence to the effect that he had tried every possible means of finding a suitable extension, but was unable to find any without going through this Common. As regards the Common itself, I have already said that I should be opposed to any encroachment upon the rights of the people; but in this case there is no encroachment, inasmuch as there is an equivalent provided. An equal extent of land adjoining the Common is to be added to the Common in substitution for that which is taken away by the railway, consequently, there is no deprivation; and, under the circumstances, I do not consider that the public have any reason to complain. In my opinion, the opposition which has been raised to this part of the Bill is merely drawing a red herring across the track. To talk of the public interest involved in the preservation of the Common, as compared with the necessity for making adequate

    219
    provision for the requirements of the travelling public, is absurd. I believe the only object with which such remarks have been made has been to put my hon. Friends who sit on these Benches in a position which may induce them to arrive at an erroneous conclusion. If there was any intention to deprive the public of their rights, I should be the first to object; but being thoroughly acquainted with the provisions of the Bill, I shall support it and vote against the Amendment.
    MR. BRYCE: I only rise for the purpose of saying one word on this subject as an eye witness. Two years ago this Common was threatened by another Railway Company, and being shortly afterwards in Cambridge, I visited and examined Coldham Common. I found that, so far from being a mile and a quarter from the town of Cambridge, it is within a few hundred yards of the houses and town. I have a map in my hand which shows how the town has extended towards the Common. This is one of the poorest and most growing parts of the town, and the the Common will soon be bordered by houses. Under these circumstances, I hope the House will consent to refer the Bill back to the Committee. Everyone who has taken part in discussions of this kind knows that whenever an engineer wants to obtain possession of a particular piece of ground, whether it is common land or otherwise, he always protests that there is no other way of carrying out the work; but when that ground is refused his ideas undergo a change, and he discovers some other expedient.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 237: Majority 136.—(Div. List, No. 97.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 're-committed to the former Committee with respect to all the Clauses relating to Coldham Common' be there added."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I ask the permission of the House to be allowed to interpose only for a few moments. I think my intervention may have the effect of saving the time of the House. There are some Amendments on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Major
    220
    Rasch), the hon. Member for South-West Ham (Major Banes), and the hon. Member for North-West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton), in reference to the market rights proposed to be conferred by the Bill upon the Great Eastern Rail-way Company. I imagine that if the Motion now before the House is carried, those hon. Members will be unable to move their Amendments; and, therefore, what I propose to do is to ask the House to assent to an Amendment to the Motion, which, I think, will, in all probability, secure the object these hon. Gentlemen have in view. I do not agree with the Amendments the hon. Gentlemen have put down; but I do agree in the object which, as I take it, they desire to secure. This Bill confers upon the Railway Company certain market rights— the power of levying certain market rates and tolls in connection with the markets both at Stratford and Bishopsgate. I should be very sorry indeed if the House were to put any impediment in the way of conferring these powers on the Railway Company, or that anything should be done which would have the effect of closing the market at Stratford. It has been open now for some years, and it is greatly valued by the inhabitants of that district. When the question came before the House the other day in reference to the market rights and tolls, we discussed the propriety or otherwise of the market rights being in the hands of the public authority rather than in the hands of any private person. I stated then, what I state now, that while the market rights are held exclusively, they should be held, not by private persons, but by the public authority. As far as I understand the market rights proposed to be conferred by this Bill, they form part of the question which the House, a short time ago, referred to a Royal Commission. The Bill proposes to confer them upon the Railway Company, to the exclusion of the Corporation of West Ham, or of any other public body whatever, and in order to prevent any claim for vested rights from being set up hereafter in favour of the Company under the provisions of this Bill, I propose to ask the House to consent to a further reference to the Select Committee, so that they may be instructed to insert in the Bill provisions which will lay down distinctly that in the event of a market

    221
    authority being set up, either in the one place or the other, and being desirous of purchasing either of these markets, the Railway Company shall have no power whatever to ask for compensation for the rights conferred by this Bill. What, therefore, I propose is to add to the Amendment which is now before the House these words—
    "And in order to consider Clauses to provide that in the event of a public authority being appointed a market authority for the district in which the proposed markets are situated, and being empowered to acquire existing markets, no compensation for the market tolls, rates, and charges granted in this Bill shall be payable to the Railway Company."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment—
    To add at the end thereof the words, "And in order to consider Clauses to provide that, in the event of a public authority being appointed the market authority for the district in which the proposed markets are situated, and being empowered to acquire existing markets, no compensation for the market tolls, rates, and charges granted under the Bill shall be payable to the Railway Company."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not wish to occupy the time of the House unduly in a matter of Private Business, and I am very much indebted to the Government for taking the action they have, which is certainly an affirmation, as I understand it, of the principle adopted by the House the other evening —if not in words, certainly in spirit. But there were one or two words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman which seem to me to go a little further than the Amendment he suggests. I maintain that market rights, if given to anybody at all, with power to make regulations and levy tolls, ought not to be given to a Railway Company who have a monopoly of the carriage to the place where the market is held. By giving them these powers, there is a possibility of making it an altogether exclusive market, and this difficulty is hardly met by the Amendment, which is very fair as far as it goes. The Amendment meets one phase of what the House has affirmed; but the doctrine was also affirmed by the general consent of the House that encouragement should be given to the sending of produce from any place to where the market is held. As I understand the Market Clauses
    222
    of this Bill they will have an opposite effect. The interest of a Railway Company is to have as large a tonnage rate as possible for long distances, and not to develop the interest of the neighbourhood. It, therefore, requires some other words in the Amendment to provide for the development of that which, at the present moment, it is possible for the Railway Company to destroy. As a matter of fact, Railway Companies do destroy districts close at hand by charging through rates at a very low price. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I mention an instance of this to show how the interests of different constituencies may be affected. Some time ago I happened to be in Cornwall, and I was told that a Redruth gentleman, who had a great admiration for the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), desired to supply the constituents of that hon. Gentleman with a drinking mug ornamented with the likeness of the hon. Member. [A laugh.] If I am wrong, perhaps the hon. Member will correct me; but I think I am right in my facts. The gentleman I refer to had the likeness admirably executed in Staffordshire, but the work itself was done in Germany, because the Railway Companies brought the stuff—I am not speaking of the likeness — cheaper from Germany to Camborne at such a low rate that it was cheaper than it would have been if it had been brought from Staffordshire, and the consequence was that the people of Staffordshire were robbed of the employment they would otherwise have had but for the unfair handicapping of the Railway Companies. I would, therefore, ask the Government to affirm both of the principles which I understood the House to adopt. I desire to thank the Chairman of the Committee, who examined the clauses of the Bill, for the valuable overhauling which they gave to the charter rights as they stood. I only suggest that the Government should go further and prevent the Railway Companies from giving undue preference to produce brought from long distances, to the destruction of the trade in the neighbourhood in which the markets are situated.
    MR. FORREST FULTON: Sir, I think I have some reason to complain of the action of the right hon. Gentleman the President of

    223
    the Local Government Board. Without the slightest Notice to me, representing, as I do, a borough which is most interested in this matter, and without, as far as I know, the smallest intimation to my hon. Friend who represents the other Division of the borough of West Ham (Major Banes), in this House, at the eleventh hour, at a quarter past 6 this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board presents an entirely new matter to the consideration of the House, and protects himself by the observation that, forsooth, it was through indifference that we have not proceeded with the Motions which stand in our name on the Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman had applied his mind to the other Motions on the Paper, he would have seen that we have not proceeded with those Motions advisedly and properly, because it had been intimated to us through a high authority of this House that as this is an Omnibus Bill it was undesirable and even would be unfair to move that the Bill should be considered on this day six months. Therefore, in pursuance of that intimation, we placed further Notices on the Paper, confining our opposition exclusively to that part of the Bill to which alone we desire to offer opposition— namely, the Market Clauses. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Notices of Motion, he will find a Notice set down as No. 5, in my name; but, of course, I could not bring it on until the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge had been disposed of. I desire to say that I have not the smallest hesitation as to the course I propose to take in regard to the Notice which stands in my name. I have not the smallest intention of withdrawing the Notice from the Paper. It seems to me that it involves a question of the greatest possible importance. If this House is going to pass the Bill, in the form in which it now stands, it will absolutely stultify the decision at which it arrived the other day on the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), when the Government consented to grant a Royal Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the whole question of market rights and tolls. By the Bill which is now under consideration, it is proposed to confer upon the Great Eastern Railway Company statutory market rights and tolls in the borough
    224
    of West Ham, which, above all others, a Railway Company is least likely to carry out satisfactorily. I know that the House is naturally very reluctant to interfere with the proceedings of a Private Bill Committee who have thoroughly considered the matter; but when the Bill was before the Committee they were not aware that this House was going to consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject. I think, that, at any rate, we ought to have the opinion of the borough of West Ham, and I certainly have some knowledge of what that opinion is. The right hon. Gentleman says that the inhabitants of that borough are in favour of this market. Now, I do not believe for one moment that if these clauses are struck out, this market will cease to exist. It is a mere "bogey" on the part of the Great Eastern Railway Company. They have no intention of discontinuing this market. The only reason for inserting these provisions in the Bill is that the Company have been involved in litigation with an individual who claims to have certain market rights, and who threatens them with an action unless some sort of protection is given him. He further threatens to shut up this market, as he has already succeeded in shutting up Bishopsgate Market.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the whole subject-matter of this Bill is not before the House. The specific point is the question of the re-committal of the Bill in respect of certain proposed clauses, and if the Bill is re-committed, it will necessarily have to come down to the House again, and the hon. Member will then be in a position to move, when the Bill re-appears in the House, the Motion which is now standing in his name on the Paper.
    MR. FORREST FULTON: Of course, if that is so, I do not desire to trouble the House any further. I am quite satisfied with the understanding that I shall have an opportunity of bringing this matter forward at a later stage.
    MR. HANBURY: As a Member of the Committee, I should be glad, and I think my Colleagues on that Committee will be glad, to accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. We have already made provision in the Bill that no rights which

    225
    are conferred upon the Company should prevent other markets from being made. The rights we have given to the Railway Company in connection with this market are totally different from those which have been given by the charter granted to Mr. Horner. We have conferred no rights of that kind whatever. As to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), I think there is something in what he says; but it is a matter which is also carefully guarded in the Bill. But then there arises a further point which is rather in favour of the people who live in contiguity to those markets— namely, that they should have facilities afforded to them against the introduction of produce from a distance. I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend, for this reason—one of the main points which induced us to give these powers to the Railway Company for establishing a market was the fact that London, at the present moment, is entirely dependent for its perishables upon a supply which is drawn from a very small area indeed; and, as the population increases, it is becoming more and more difficult to get an adequate supply from this small district, and, consequently, the prices go up. Mr. Clare Sewell Read, a gentleman whose name is well known in this House, gave evidence before us, and he represented that it was of the utmost importance that a supply should be obtained from longer distances. On the one hand, we have farmers at a distance, who are longing to bring up their produce to the Metropolis, but who find it necessary to wait until they can get proper market accommodation; and, on the other hand, we have the people of this part of London looking anxiously for an increased supply. We consider it desirable to bring the two into more immediate communication; and if there is any Railway Company which ought to be given this power, it is undoubtedly the Great Eastern Company, which draws its supplies from a purely agricultural district, which has its terminus in the midst of the poorest part of London, and which is in a position to supply them with everything they can require. Subject to these observations, I entirely support the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I desire to say a word or two
    226
    upon this question, because one of the markets it is proposed to establish is situated in the midst of the constituency I represent. I only desire to say that I am opposed as strongly to the establishment of the Bishopsgate Market as the hon. and learned Member for West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton) is to the establishment of the market at Stratford, and that, so far as the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is concerned, it does not disarm the opposition which I intend to offer to the Bill.
    MAJOR RASCH: With the greatest deference, I cannot agree to the proposition which has been submitted to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I oppose these clauses in the interest of my constituents, the farmers and market gardeners of South-East Essex. If these provisions should pass, my belief is that the position of my constituents will be much worse than it is now.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member will have an opportunity of renewing his opposition to the Bill, and of raising that question, when the Bill comes back from the Committee.
    MAJOR BANES: I wish to endorse what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for North West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton), that up to this moment we had no idea this proposition was about to be made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I had hoped that an understanding would be come to; and, on behalf of the Corporation of West Ham, I may say that they have done all they possibly could to bring about an understanding with the Railway Company on the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman, that Local Authorities are the proper persons to exercise these rights on behalf of the public; and, having reference to the fact that the House had sanctioned that principle by its decision on the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) on Market Rights, I had hoped that some arrangement of this kind might have been come to without any necessity for troubling Parliament. On behalf of the Corporation of West Ham, I must say that we have great reason for opposing this market on many grounds. In justice to the Cor-

    227
    poration, I can show that they are quite unanimous in the feeling they entertain that the grant of these market rights as they at present stand in the Bill will not only be detrimental to the producer, but to the general public, who are 1he consumers. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible to move that an Instruction be given to the Committee to leave out these clauses altogether?
    MR. SPEAKER: It would be incompetent for the hon. and gallant Member to do that now. The Instruction would require Notice.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I wish, Sir, to ask for your instruction upon a similar point. We, who are opposing this Bill, oppose it because we believe that market rights should not be granted to a Railway Company, and we know that the granting of these rights to the Great Eastern Railway will destroy the other markets and give the Company a monopoly of market rights in the East End. I wish to ask you whether, by recommitting the Bill to the former Committee, with a reference to the clause which has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and without any reference to the clauses conferring market rights on the Great Eastern Railway Company, we are not in some sense confirming the judgment of this House in favour of those market rights? [Cries of "No!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): It seems to me that there is some little uncertainty as to what has happened, and what is going to happen. The House has decided to re-commit the Bill in respect of particular clauses. The Bill must, therefore, come back again from the Committee, when the whole question of the Market Clauses can be considered by the House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board proposes—
    "In the event of a public authority being appointed a market authority for the district in which the proposed markets are situated, and being empowered to acquire existing markets, no compensation for the market tolls, rates, and charges granted in this Bill shall be repayable to the Railway Company."
    That is a matter to be considered by the Committee, and to be determined on its merits. When the Bill comes back the whole question of the Market
    228
    Clauses can be brought under the consideration of the House.
    COLONEL MAKINS: I understand, Sir, from your ruling, that it is not competent to enter into the question of market rights generally?
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is, in substance, that if a public authority be appointed the authority in connection with these markets, such authority shall not be entitled to obtain compensation for the market tolls, rates, and charges granted in the Bill—that the acquirement of market property shall not give any kind of right to compensation in the event of such market tolls or rates being affected by subsequent legislation.
    COLONEL MAKINS: This is how I understand the case to stand, and it is the way in which we believe it to be provided for in the Bill. In order to make it more abundantly certain we have acquiesced in this reference to the Committee. I shall not, therefore, take up the time of the House in defending the action of the Company, by giving any details with regard to the market, seeing that the question will have to be gone into again. At the same time, I would ask the House not to allow judgment to go by default, because we are not able now to state our case in reply to the observations which have fallen from the hon. Members for West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton) and Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). I shall be quite prepared, at the proper time, to justify the course which has been taken by the Railway Company.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Ordered, That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee with respect to all the Clauses relating to Coldham Common, Cambridge, and in order to consider Clauses to provide that, in the event of a public authority being appointed the market authority for the districts in which the proposed markets are situated, and being empowered to acquire existing markets, no compensation for the market tolls, rates, and charges granted under the Bill shall be payable to the Railway Company.

  SUTTON DISTRICT WATER BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration read.
    MR. CUBITT: As some of the clauses it is intended to propose in this Bill appear on the Paper to-day

    229
    for the first time, I presume that the usual course will be followed which is taken in reference to opposed Bills, and that the consideration will be postponed until to-morrow.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  ADMIRALTY—EXAMINATIONS IN SEAMANSHIP OF MIDSHIPMEN FOR RANK OF LIEUTENANTS.
  MR. CRAIG-SELLARasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Where, and by whom, the examinations in seamanship of Midshipmen for the rank of Lieutenants are conducted; what is the system pursued by the examiners; and what steps are taken to secure uniformity in the granting of certificates; and, whether, looking to the fact that the "class" awarded has a serious effect upon the future careers of the officers, the recommendation of the Committee on the Education of Naval Executive Officers (1885), that the seamanship examination should be for a "pass" certificate only, and not for a "class," as at present, is to be carried out in future?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The seamanship examinations are conducted by three Captains, who are nominatad by the Commander in-Chief on each Station, whenever an officer's time for examination has arrived. There is a form supplied to the examining officers detailing the various points for examination, and showing the full number of marks to be awarded for each subject. This form is universal throughout the Service, and the examinations are everywhere conducted on the same principles. It is impossible to obtain absolute uniformity in any series of examinations; but it is believed that the system in force insures, as far as is possible, even results. It is true that the Committee on the education of Naval Executive Officers recommended a "pass" examination in seamanship; but they did not propose to abolish the "class" examination in that subject, but merely to defer it till a later period. An experiment was tried for some years of establishing at Portsmouth one set of
  230
  examining officers for the whole Service; but it was found to be unsatisfactory, and was abandoned, and the previous system was reverted to, and is now in operation. The manner in which the Committee proposed to give effect to their recommendation concerning the seamanship examination was found to be so impracticable that it has not been adopted; but the Admiralty have called upon the Admirals in command of the Mediterranean and Channel Squadrons to report in what way, in their opinion, the present examination may be improved upon, and their Reports, when received, will be carefully considered.

  BANKRUPTCY—COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the exceedingly large costs and charges often incurred in the administration of bankrupts' estates; and, whether the Government can take any action in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The cost of administration of bankrupts' estates, as shown by the Board of Trade Reports presented to Parliament, has largely decreased, as compared with those incurred under the Act of 1869 more especially in the case of estates administered by Official Receivers; but it cannot be denied that excessive costs are still incurred recklessly, and without any corresponding benefit to creditors, in some cases where the administration had been conducted by non-official Trustees and Committees of Inspection appointed by the creditors. The control exercised by the Board of Trade over the costs incurred by such Trustees is chiefly limited to seeing that they have been legally incurred, and securing that the creditors are furnished with proper information on the subject. The Official Receiver is precluded by the Bankruptcy Act from acting as Trustee under adjudications where the assets exceed £300; but the desirability of taking steps for the modification of this provision is under consideration. The Government are not, however, prepared to take any action which would interfere with the power of creditors to appoint a non-official Trustee where they deem it advisable to do so.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) "OFFICIAL PAID" LETTERS — REDIRECTION.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Postmaster General, Whether letters stamped "official paid" are exempted from all charge for re-direction; whether letters stamped "paid" are subjected to the ordinary charge for re-direction; whether many letters and packets, sent out by and for the Imperial Institute, have been re-directed and delivered without charge for such re-direction; and, whether he can now state the date at which the quarterly account was opened for the Imperial Institute with the Post Office; how much appears to the debit of the account; and how much has been actually paid?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The answer to the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The paying account for the Imperial Institute was only opened on the 31st of January last, so that the fir3t quarter has not yet expired; but the account will be rendered as soon as the month expires, and payment will be demanded. There have been cases of re-direction of letters within the same delivery which, as in the case of ordinary correspondence, require no extra fee, and no cases have yet come to notice of re-directions to addresses beyond the free delivery. A careful check on the postage will be kept, and a special and distinct stamp will be used in lieu of the present one, which will greatly facilitate the object in view.

  ADMIRALTY—THE "PRIMROSE BALL" AT VENTNOR—THE COASTGUARD.
  MR. BRADLAUGH(for Mr. LABOUCHERE)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the fact (as stated in a local newspaper) that, at a ball at Ventnor last Thursday, called the Primrose Ball,
  "Thanks to the help of the Coastguard, who are always ready to help in these festive arrangements, the display of hunting was pretty in the extreme; "
  and, whether Coastguards are permitted to take an active part in hanging halls with flags (some of which probably are public property) on the occasion of Primrose festivities?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Any help in hanging flags that was rendered by the Coastguard men on the occasion of the Primrose Ball at Ventnor was unconnected with their public duties, and done in the time at the men's disposal. The Coastguard not infrequently assist in the decorations for local festivities, and I am glad that they should do so. None of the flags used were public property.

  WAR OFFICE—PROMOTIONS IN THE ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH(for Mr. LABOUCHERE) (Northampton) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that, by a Royal Warrant of 22nd January, 1887, a Corporal of the Royal Engineers has been promoted to Company Sergeant Major, over the heads of Sergeants of many years standing, and also that junior Sergeants have been promoted to Company Sergeant Major over senior Sergeants; and, whether it is intended to reinstate in their former position of seniority those Sergeants who have been superseded?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): My answer to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member is "Yes;" and to the second, that it is not intended to reinstate these Sergeants. The Warrant to which he refers has simply extended to the Royal Engineers provisions which have been in force for the other arms since 1882. It applies only to Volunteer Instructors.

  PARLIAMENT—"OFFICES OF PROFIT UNDER THE CROWN"—DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE 6TH ANNE.
  MR. HENRY H. EOWLERasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Secretaries to the Treasury and the Admiralty, the Under Secretaries of State, and the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Board of Trade and of the Local Government Board, have not been qualified to sit in Parliament by special legislation declaring them "capable of being elected and sitting and voting in the House of Commons;" and, whether there is any instance, since the Statute of 6 Anne, of the creation of an Office tenable by a

  233
  Member of Parliament, except under the authority of an Act of Parliament passed on the creation of such Office?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): To answer the Question fully would require a treatise. The Offices mentioned in the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question are all Offices of profit, and the Statutes referred to were passed to enable the holders to sit in Parliament, notwithstanding that they held Offices of profit. The Secretaries to the Treasury and the Admiralty and two of the Under Secretaries of State did not receive their qualification to sit in Parliament by special legislation; but were by express proviso excluded from the general words of the Statute 15 Geo. II., c. 22, which might otherwise have disqualified them; while the Secretaries of the Board of Trade and of the Local Government Board, being holders of new Offices of profit, were by the Statutes creating those Offices enabled to sit in Parliament. The right of the Crown to create now Ministerial Offices—not being Offices of profit—is undoubted, and is stated in books of the highest authority, to which I shall be pleased to refer the right hon. Gentleman; and the only limitation on such right is that such new Offices shall be without fee or reward, and not inconsistent with the Constitution or prejudicial to the subject. The instances of the creation of an Office tenable by Members of Parliament without Statute are not common; because, as a rule, profit is attached to Offices. But there are cases recorded, and I may call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the case of Lard Middleton, in the year 1717.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: What was the Office held by Lord Middleton?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It was that of Lord Justice in Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman have any objection to making a public reference to one or two of the works of authority which he mentioned?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Chitty's Prerogatives of the Crown, which is a book of the highest authority, 40 or 50 years old; and Comyn's Digest, which the House will recognize as being of high authority. Indeed, I may say that this opinion is in accordance with all the recognized traditions of the last 100 years,
  234
  and is also in accordance with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown for a very long time.
  MR. CHILDERSasked, was the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the additional Under Secretaries appointed during the past 20 years were appointed under a special Statute?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he was quite aware of it, and he thought he had so stated.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: the question being one of great interest, will the hon. and learned Gentleman, in a supplemental answer, give us now, or at a convenient time, a Return of the instances in which this power has been exorcised since the case of Lord Middleton—Lord Middle-ton of the House of Commons?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he was sorry he could not oblige the right hon. Gentleman at the present moment. He was willing to give all the information possible; but he could not answer that offhand. [Mr. GLADSTONE: At a future day?] Yes. There certainly was an instance either of a Queen's Counsel or a Queen's Serjeant who, being appointed to that Office, which was newly created for him, did not vacate his seat, on the ground that he had in his patent the fact that he should have neither fee nor reward. he wished to make himself quite clear. There was no distinction between an Office of profit and a place of profit. It had been throughout recognized that in order to create disqualification it must be an Office of profit or a place of profit; and the view that there was no distinction between a place of profit and an Office of profit had been, as far as he knew, invariably recognized by the Law Officers of successive Governments.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CONSTABLE KENNEDY, CO. MONAGHAN.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a Constabulary Court of Inquiry was held on 12th May, 1886, at Glassloagh, County Monaghan, to inquire into a charge made against Constable Kennedy by two brothers, M'Gonnell, for using party expressions; whether six respectable witnesses, one of thorn a policeman, swore that Kennedy never used the alleged expressions

  235
  whether, of the three witnesses for the prosecution, one has had to leave the country for an assault, while another was dismissed from Sir John Leslie's employment for using disloyal expressions; what has been the result of the Court of Inquiry; and, will the evidence taken at the investigation be laid before the House?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The statements in the first paragraph are substantially correct. Three witnesses, considered reliable, proved the offence against the policeman. One of those witnesses has left the country; but not for the reason stated. The constable was found guilty, and removed to another county.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE CARRIAGE TAX —APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLIS
  MR. WEBSTERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, In what, way will the Metropolitan ratepayer be relieved by the proposed grant in aid of local taxation from the receipts of the Carriage Tax, as there is no Imperial grant in aid of the maintenance of public roads within the area comprised in the Metropolis Management Act, 1855?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)in reply, said, that the grant made was simply in respect of the roads that came under the Act of 1870, and the roads repaired by the Justices as main roads. There were very few roads of this kind within the Metropolitan area, although there were some that would be affected.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, as the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Regulation Bill was taken after a quarter before Six o'clock on Wednesday, 13th April, he will undertake that the Motion to go into Committee shall be made at such a time as will afford an opportunity for debate upon the Bill?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART - WORTLEY) (who replied) said: Yes. Sir; the Secretary of State will undertake that the facilities for discussion asked for by the hon. Member shall be given.
  In reply to Mr. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck),
  MR. W. H. SMITHstated that, although the Bill was put down for Monday next, it would not be taken on that day.

  INDIA—THE HINDOO LAW OF MARRIAGE—INFANT MARRIAGES.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to a recent case in India, referred to in a letter signed "F. M. M." in The Times of the 21st April; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take such measures as will prevent for the future the enforcement of infant contracts of marriage by English law, framed for entirely different conditions of society?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): I must refer to an answer which I gave to a Question on this subject on March 18. I then stated that as the case might be the subject of appeal, the consideration of the expediency of legislation would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be premature. The case is now, I believe, under appeal; and while the legal proceedings are still pending, the Secretary of State adheres to the opinion already expressed.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND)— THE CAPPOQUIN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, WATERFORD.
  MR. PYNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Cappoquin Industrial School is the only one for boys in the County or City of Waterford; if the school is certified for 50 boys only, although it has accommodation for 70; if it is a fact that the County and City of Waterford have over 200 children in industrial schools, some at long distances from Waterford from want of accommodation; and, if, under those circumstances, he will reconsider his decision, and give a grant for the 70 children to the Cappoquin School?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Cappoquin School is certified only for the accommodation of boys under 10 years of age, and an enlargement of the certificate would not enable the managers to receive children of other classes. I am unable to say with certainty how many Waterford children may be inmates of schools in other parts of Ireland; but the sum presented for by the Grand Juries of the City and County, if the allowance is 2s. per head, would make the number 174. That number, of course, includes boys over 10, and girls who could not in any case be accommodated in the Cappoquin School. I regret I cannot hold out any hope of an enlargement of the certificate in this case. It was specially considered a few months ago by the late Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who was mainly influenced in his decision by the consideration that difficulty has been found in procuring vacancies in senior schools for boys who have to be removed from junior schools like that at Cappoquin on reaching the age of 10, and that difficulty would be increased by compliance with the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.
  MR. WEBSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the negotiations entered into for the renewal of the Cobden Treaty with France, which lapsed in 1882, failed owing to the opposition of France; and, whether the Government now propose to again enter into negotiations with the French Government for the renewal of a Commercial Treaty with that country for a fixed term?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The negotiations for the conclusion of a new Treaty to take the place of the Cobden Treaty of 1860 failed owing to the divergence of the views of the two Governments. In the main, Her Majesty's Government represented the desire of British manufacturers that the existing duties should be lowered, while the French Customs authorities desired the substitution of specific for ad valorem duties. The pro-
  238
  ceedings are fully stated in the Correspondence laid before Parliament in 1882 (Commercial No. 9). There is no reason now to believe that any good result would be obtained by a proposal on our part to renew the negotiations. The public sentiment in France and in the French Legislature is more than ever in favour of fostering native industry and protecting home trade. England and France reciprocally grant to the trade of each other under their domestic legislation the benefit of treatment as of the most favoured nation.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE DUTY ON TOBACCO.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can now inform the House whether the reduction of the duty on tobacco will take immediate effect, so as to prevent the great loss to the workpeople engaged in the cigar-making trade which will ensue if the reduction does not take effect till the 21st May; and, if not, whether he will give rebate on all tobacco leaf taken out of bond between now and the 21st May?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Goschen): I see the hon. Member's Question refers to great loss to the workpeople in the cigar-making trade which will result if the reduction of duty does not take place till the 21st May. I cannot understand why this should be the case. There is no reason, in the change of duty, why any cigar manufacturer having tobacco in stock should not continue to carry on his manufacture as usual. But I am informed that a number of these manufacturers either have discharged, or are going to discharge, their workpeople, rather than take fresh tobacco out of bond while the higher duty is still in force. I should be sorry to think that many manufacturers would adopt so harsh a course, especially in view of the great been about to be bestowed upon them, as to discharge their workpeople rather than continue to pay the present rate of duty on the comparatively small amount of raw material necessary to keep them employed till the 21st. The hon. Member will easily understand that it is impossible for me, in so serious a matter, and one affecting so many interests, to

  239
  change the clay originally fixed for the reduction of duty. But I am considering whether some steps may not be taken to put a stop to the mischief which the hon. Member's Question directly contemplates, and I am not without hope that means may be found to prevent the threatened discharge of workpeople.

  THE UNITED STATES—THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will endeavour to obtain, through the Government of the United States, or the separate State Governments, Reports showing the various methods of regulating the liquor traffic adopted in the different States of the Union, and their effect, particularly with reference to the amount of revenue derived from what is termed the "high licence" system, and to the comparative efficacy of that system and the system of total prohibition?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Inquiries will be made of Her Majesty's Minister at Washington whether the Returns desired by the hon. Member can be readily procured. I cannot undertake to promise them, until it is ascertained whether they would entail much expense and special labour.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND) — THE GARNETHILL AND HUTCHESON SCHOOLS IN GLASGOW.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Lord Advocate, Whether Garnethill Public School, under the Glasgow School Board, situate in the North-Western District of Glasgow, has both a primary and a separately manned and equipped secondary department; whether Garnethill Public School, in addition to possessing the advantages of contributions from the local rates, is placed on the list of State-aided schools and is in receipt of Government grant for both its departments; whether Hutcheson Schools, in the Southern District of Glasgow, have been erected at the sole expense of charity funds bequeathed for the poor, and are managed and maintained under a scheme of the Educational Endowment Commis-
  240
  sioners, approved of by the Scotch Education Department and by Parliament, at a cost to the charity funds of several thousand pounds annually, over and above what is received for school fees; whether Hutcheson Schools have both a primary and a secondary department; and, whether the Scotch Education Department will place Hutcheson Schools on the list of State-aided schools in Scotland, entitling them to participate in the Government grant?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): While a higher class public school is defined by the Education Act, the distinction between a primary and a secondary department is not defined either by that Act or by the Scotch Code; and my Lords are unable, therefore, to say whether the organization of the Garnethill School corresponds to the hon. Member's description. The instruction in respect of which the school has been inspected and grants paid is such as is embraced by the Scotch Code. The organization of the Hutcheson's Schools, and any claims which these schools may be able to make to participate in the Parliamentary grant, can only be judged by their Lordships when the managers of these schools decide to prosecute such a claim, and when the necessary particulars called for by the Department in connection therewith are furnished.

  SCOTLAND—HOLIDAYS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION.
  MR. THORBURNasked the Lord Advocate, Whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to secure certain holidays for the agricultural population in Scotland, at all events equivalent in number to those lost to them by the abolition rapidly taking place of fast days and fair days, hitherto hold as non-working days or holidays?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Her Majesty's Government cannot pledge itself to take steps to secure holidays for the agricultural population of Scotland. Such matters must be regulated by local requirements and circumstances, and would be more properly dealt with by Local Boards, which it is hoped may soon be established.

  EGYPT—THE MIXED TRIBUNALS AT ALEXANDRIA—REMOVAL OF A MEMBER.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether one of the Foreign Members of the Mixed Tribunals at Alexandria has been lately removed from his post; and, if so, what was the reason for his removal, and who was responsible for his appointment?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): One of the Foreign Members of the Mixed Tribunals at Alexandria has lately resigned, but is reported to have withdrawn his resignation. The Foreign Judges in Egypt are appointed by the Egyptian Government on the recommendation of the countries to which they belong.

  POST OFFICE—TRUSTEE SAVINGS' BANKS.
  MR. BARTLEYasked the Postmaster General, Whether no depositor in the Trustee Savings' Banks can insure his or her life, or buy a deferred annuity in the Post Office, unless he or she either first closes his or her Trustee Savings' Bank account, or forfeits his or her savings?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The facts, as stated by the hon. Member, are correct. The Savings' Bank Act, 1882, requires a person who wishes to insure or purchase an annuity through the Post Office to open an account in the Post Office Savings' Bank, and a previous Act prohibits one person from having a direct interest in more than one Savings' Bank account. The same Act of 1882 applies, however, to the Trustee Savings' Banks; and therefore a depositor in the Trustee Bank can apply for a contract to the bank in which he is a depositor.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—CASE OF—FERRIE, AT HAMILTON.
  MR. MASONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether a man named Ferrie was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment at Hamilton, on 9th April last, for breach of the peace; whether he had been in prison for 60 days' previous to trial; whether it is the law that he
  242
  could only have been sentenced to 60 days' imprisonment if he had been sent to summary trial at once; and, whether, considering that, seeing the sentence would appear to have been a heavy one, he will advise his release now?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The offence was a serious one. The man Ferrie behaved with great violence and obstinacy. After a poker which he was brandishing in the street had been with difficulty taken from him, and when he was allowed to go, he re-appeared with a pair of tongs, and again acted with such violence that it was only after a severe struggle that he could be arrested and locked up. It was, in all probability, because of the long detention before trial that Crown Counsel finally ordered him to be tried summarily, it being thought that a sentence not exceeding 60 days, in addition to the 60 days already suffered, would be sufficient. I am not of opinion that three months in prison is at all an excessive punishment in the circumstances, and could not advise any remission.

  EGYPT—THE SUAKIN-BERBER RAILWAY.
  MR. SHEILasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, in reference to the cost and distribution of the plant of the Suakin-Berber Railway, Whether the "storing" of a largo portion of this plant at Woolwich consists in leaving rails, engines, carriages, and trucks to rot and decay in the open air in a lonely spot on the Plumstead Marshes?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): Of this railway plant the rails are properly stacked in the open, as is usual. The engines are under cover, and, having been thoroughly overhauled and repaired, are in better condition than when they left Suakin. The carriages and trucks are standing on rails in the open; they are kept in good order ready for use.
  MR. CONYBEARE: What is to become of them?
  MR. NORTHCOTE: As I stated the other day, some of the rails are to be used in the construction of military railways; but a large proportion of the stock is to be sold.

  BURMAH—THE POLICE.
  MR. SHEILasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that police officers in Burmah, some of whom have seen active service and have acquired the Burmese language, have been superseded by men from India of shorter service and lower grade; whether the Inspector General of Police, Lower Burmah, has represented to the Government the injustice that has been done to his junior officers; and, whether the Government of India will take into consideration the grievances complained of?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State has no information whatever on the subject referred to. As a matter of course, any grievances complained of will be duly considered by the proper authorities in India.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— PUBLICATION OF THE ICELANDIC SAGAS.
  MR. LYELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Rolls edition of the Icelandic Sagas will be published; whether the whole work has long since been finished, and the greater part of it been in type for several years; whether its publication is now awaiting an introduction by the editor, Sir George Dasent; and, whether he will take steps to secure the speedy issue of a work that has already been so long delayed?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): There appears to have been an unreasonable delay in the publication of these volumes. I understand, however, that the first two volumes will be published in June. I will see if I can do anything to secure the speedy issue of the remainder. The delay appears to be due to the fact that the manuscript of a translation and an introduction to be furnished by Sir George Dasent have not yet been supplied.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—RETURNS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Will the Government grant the Return as to Preliminary Inquiries under the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882, on the Paper for Friday?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: All the information that can be given has already been furnished to the hon. Member in my reply to his Question of a few days since. The Government cannot give the Return asked for, as they have no official records which will enable them to do so. Some of the magistrates who held the inquiries are dead, or have left the Service.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE SKINNERS ESTATE, NEAR DRAPERSTOWN, CO. DERRY.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the recent evictions on the Skinners Estate, near Draperstown, County Derry, Whether he will state the amount of expenses incurred in sending the 250 policemen, County Inspector, District Inspectors, Divisional Magistrate, and Resident Magistrates from their different stations to and from the scene of the evictions; the expenses incurred by them during their stay in the neighbourhood; and, the amount paid for cars and other vehicles employed by them in connection with these evictions?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I am unable, at present, to state the expenses incurred in affording the Sheriff such protection as would insure him freedom from molestation in the discharge of his duty; but I may observe that the labour of collecting such information is considerable, and no public advantage is gained by furnishing the particulars requested.
  MR. M'CARTANasked, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be able to give this information to the House, as it was of some importance?
  COLONEL KING-HARM ANsaid, the importance of such information was a matter of opinion; but he had already mentioned that he did not see that any great advantage was to be gained by it.

  PORTUGAL AND ZANZIBAR —THE INTERNATIONAL DELIMITATION COMMISSION.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the Under Secretary of State

  245
  for Foreign Affairs, Whether the negotiations between Portugal and Zanzibar have resulted in an amicable settlement; whether Portugal accepts the decision of the International Delimitation Commission, and of the London Conference, relative to the boundaries of the territory constituting the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar; and, what is the amount of the losses sustained by British subjects in consequence of the recent hostilities?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Portugal and Zanzibar have appointed Special Commissioners to discuss the question of boundary. The Portuguese Commissioner, Senhor Capello, the well known African traveller, is understood to have sailed from Lisbon on the 18th instant. The captured vessel Kilwa will be restored to the Sultan. Portugal has not accepted the conclusions of the International Delimitation Commission, so far as they affect her claims to the territory in dispute. The amount of losses of British subjects in consequence of the recent hostilities has not yet been reported.

  ADMIRALTY—COLONIAL DEFENCES— TORPEDO BOATS FOR SINGAPORE.
  MR. DE LISLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When the three first-class torpedo boats, which have been detailed for the protection of the Singapore Harbour and Coaling Station, will be sent to their destination?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): No first-class torpedo boats have been detailed for the protection of Singapore Harbour and Coaling Station. There are two of these boats at Hong Kong, and it is intended to send out four more f Mr. DE LISLE: And none at all to Hong Kong?] No. The armoured ship Orion is at the present time stationed at Singapore.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881, AND THE PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—ALLEGED "COOKING" OF THE REPORT.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether
  246
  his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Pall Mall Gazette of the 2Gth instant, headed Cooking the Cowper Commission's Report, which purports to give a letter from Mr. W. Sinclair, of Strabane, to The Dublin Express, complaining that portions of his evidence had been omitted from the Blue Book, and that the proofs of his evidence had never been sent to him for correction; whether the above statements are correct; why Mr. Sinclair was not enabled to correct the proofs of his evidence, and why portions of his evidence were omitted; whether any, and which, of the other witnesses were treated in a similar manner; and, whether the Government intend to publish an Appendix to the Blue Book containing all the passages so omitted from the evidence of different witnesses?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HABMAN)(who replied) said: The Irish Government has nothing whatever to say to the matters referred to by the hon. Member. Reports of Royal Commissions do not pass through their hands.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—VENTILATION OF THE PRIVATE BILL COMMITTEE ROOMS.
  MR. HOWORTHasked the First Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been called to the bad state of the ventilation of the Private Bill Committee Rooms; whether he is aware that in the present Session the Town Clerk of Sheffield caught cold in one of the Committee Rooms and died soon afterwards; whether he is aware that Members have often to protect themselves from draughts by wearing their hats and covering their legs with their overcoats; whether it has come to his knowledge that Members, counsel, witnesses, and others continually complain of the discomfort to which they are exposed; and, whether he will take steps to improve the ventilation of the Committee Rooms upstairs?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I had not received any complaints as to the bad state of ventilation in the Private Bill Committee Rooms until I saw my hon. Friend's Question on the Paper, nor had I heard of the painful circumstances alleged in the second paragraph. Of course, I shall inquire further into

  247
  the subject; but I am assured that there is an attendant of the Ventilation Department, whose duty it is to be always in the neighbourhood of the Committee Rooms, and to report any such complaints if made to him.

  ARMY—THE CAMERON HIGHLANDERS.
  MR. FINLAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any foundation for the rumour that it is in contemplation to abolish the distinctive name of the "Cameron Highlanders," or to convert the regiment into a battalion of Foot Guards; and, whether, in view of the universal dissatisfaction which would be caused in Inverness-shire and Scotland generally, any such change will be persisted in?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): There is no intention at present to change in any way the name or the status of the Cameron Highlanders.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RETURN OF RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Return with respect to Resident Magistrates in Ireland, ordered on the 31st March, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: This Return was presented on the 18th instant.

  BORNEO—THE SULTAN OF BRUNEI.
  ADMIRAL COMMERELL(for Admiral MAYNE) (Pembroke and Haverfordwest) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received a. telegram from the Sultan of Brunei begging that Her Majesty's Government will pay no attention to any representations they may receive from the Rajah of Sarawak, or other people, regarding the affairs of Brunei. Limbang, and Putong, but await the arrival of his (the Sultan's) letter; and, whether this telegram came through the regular official channel, the Consul General, or direct from the Sultan; and, if direct, whether Her Majesty's Go-
  248
  vernment are aware of any reason for its being so sent?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): A telegram was received through the Colonial Office on the 1st of March from a merchant in London, to whom it had been sent from Singapore, stating that the Sultan of Brunei had requested him to represent to the Secretary of State to suspend action in regard to complaints from the Government of Sarawak or others against him, and that the Sultan had explained matters by mail. The probable reason why this message did not come through the regular official channel is that the Sultan believed that the Consul General had made complaints of him. That, however, was not the case. The letter indicated in the telegram has now arrived, and is being translated.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL—LEGISLATION.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Local Government Bill, promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be introduced in the House of Commons or in "another place;" and, whether questions relating to allotments and to the management of local charities will come within the scope of that Bill, or form the subjects of separate measures?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Local Government Bill will be introduced in this House as soon as the state of Public Business will permit. The question as to allotments will be dealt with in a separate Bill. The management of local charities will not come within the scope of the Local Government Bill, except in those cases where the charities are administered by the Local Authorities.

  THE REVISED STATUTES—ISSUE OF A NEW AND CHEAPER EDITION.
  MR. HOWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have considered the propriety of issuing a new and cheaper edition of the Revised Statutes, corrected up to date, as promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Second Session of

  249
  1886, and by the First Lord of the Treasury early in the present Session; whether the Government have arrived at any decision on the subject; and, if so, whether they are in a position to communicate such decision to the House; and, whether he can state to the House the probable price at which a complete set will be obtainable in the event of such publication?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The question of a cheap edition of the Statutes has been under the consideration of the Statute Law Revision Committee, and they have submitted to the Treasury the following proposals:—That a revised edition of the Statutes be undertaken, of convenient size, to be published volume by volume as revision is completed; that the work be commenced at once, in which case the first volume can probably be brought out this year. The Committee believe that such an edition could be supplied at a price not exceeding eight guineas for the complete set. We have had these recommendations under consideration at the Treasury, and are about to give our sanction to the proposals of the Committee.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked, whether the claims of the Government as to copyright would come under consideration?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that was under the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown at the present moment. It was necessary to see that the copyright belonging to the nation should be preserved; but all matters of importance were published by the newspapers.
  MR. MUNDELLAwished to know if the copyright of the Revised Code, published by teachers for their own use, was retained by the Government?
  MR. W. H. SMITHObviously, a publication of that kind is never interfered with by the Government.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS-THE OATHS BILL.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, at Liverpool City Sessions on Saturday last, the Recorder refused the oath and affirmation of W. A. Newcomb as a juror, Mr. Newcomb having applied to affirm on the ground that he was a
  250
  person without religious belief; whether on Monday, at an inquest at Wood Green, Mr. Wynne Baxter, the Coroner, accepted the affirmation of Mr. Oates as a juror, although Mr. Oates had stated that he was without religious belief; whether he is aware that similar instances of conflict, as to acceptance and rejection of affirmation by jurors without religious belief, are constantly occurring in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, and before Coroners; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Government can afford any facilities for taking the opinion of the House on the Second Reading of the Oaths Bill, which, during the whole of the present Session, has been persistently blocked?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have no personal knowledge of the cases quoted, nor am I aware that similar cases of conflict are of constant occurrence. In the present state of Public Business, it is not possible for me to give facilities for any measure that is not a Government Bill.
  MR. BRADLAUGHCan the right hon. Gentleman influence Gentlemen who sit behind him to withdraw their block to the Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITHI have no power to do that.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will kindly state what day the Irish Land Law Bill will be set down for second reading?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am not aware of the precise day; but will inquire and tell the hon. Member tomorrow.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. SEXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of the debate on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. Reid) closing that night and the Speaker leaving the Chair, the Government would immediately put down Progress for Monday next, so as to allow hon. Members a day or two for the purpose of considering the numerous Amendments on the Paper?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I may say that it will not be possible for the Government to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. There has been great delay—I do not say unnecessary delay, because I wish to refrain from using any language which would create an unpleasant feeling on the other side of the House— but the House must feel, and everyone must feel, that the time already occupied in the discussion of this measure has been unprecedented. The Government are ready to proceed without any delay whatever, and the measure will be taken to-morrow.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked whether it was a fact that the First Lord of the Treasury had arranged that there should be only four speeches that night?
  MR. W. H. SMITHHon. Gentlemen must be aware that it is not in the power of the Leader of the House to make any such arrangement. It is a question within the discretion of the House itself.

ORDERS OF THE BAY.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 217.]
  (Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

  COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  [THIRD NIGHT.]
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [26th April], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," for Committee on the Bill.
  And which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House declines to proceed further with a measure for strengthening the Criminal Law against combinations of tenants until it has before it the full measure for their relief against excessive rents in the shape in which it may pass the other House of Parliament,"—(Mr. Robert Reid,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. E. BECKETTsaid, he was aware that to interpose in a debate already protracted beyond the limits of fair discussion could not be justified without some special reason. He thought that the House would admit that special reason was provided in the information bearing on certain passages of great importance which had lately occurred in the House, and to which he proposed to refer. He might say that the Amendment before the House might have been dictated by the Chicago Convention. He would ask hon. Members opposite whether they would make the maintenance of law dependent on remedial measures in all cases? Supposing that bread riots broke out in the streets of London, that the streets were torn up and barricades erected, where they to wait until their grievances were inquired into before the rioters were suppressed? When the Socialist riots broke out in London, and they were not immediately suppressed, the then Home Secretary received a considerable amount of blame for not having foreseen and prevented them, and he took precautions to prevent their recurrence. It was obvious that these riots must be suppressed without delay, and the grievances which were then complained of had not been redressed until this day, although they were, he maintained, quite as serious in their character as the Irish grievances which were complained of. The Amendment, if carried, would be a piece of class legislation, and it aimed at protecting one class, the tenants of Ireland; but the other classes subject to the tyrannies of the National League would be absolutely at the mercy of that organization. An hon. Member opposite had said: Supposing the positions were reversed, how would the inhabitants of this country like to live under the Crimes Act? That argument could be made to act both ways. The National League viewed the system of intimidation in Ireland with complacency, because they wore the authors and not the victims of it; but if the positions were reversed, and if hon. Members in the House were subjected to the outrages perpetrated in Ireland, they would be the first to cry out against the National League and demand its immediate suppression. No one could deny that intimidation existed in Ireland, and that Boycotting was

  253
  prevalent. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley), had asserted that Boycotting could not be put down. If they had followed the course of politics in America, they would know that Boycotting had been imported into America from Ireland among other things from that country which the Americans did not like. It had been taken cognizance of by the American tribunals, and a judgment was recently given in the highest Court in America which denounced Boycotting very plainly. Judge Brown, of the United States Circuit Court, asserted—
  "That all combinations and associations designed to coerce men to become members, or to interfere with, obstruct, vex, or annoy them because they are not members, and all associations designed to interfere with the perfect freedom of employers in the proper management of their business, or to dictate the terms upon which their business shall be conducted by threats of injury or loss by interference with their property or traffic, &c., are illegal combinations, and all acts done in furtherance of such intentions and accompanied by damage are actionable."
  That seemed to be broad and full, but the most significant part of the decision was probably the sentence which stated that—
  "The acts mentioned are not only illegal, rendering the defendants liable in damages, but also misdemeanours at Common Law as well as by Section 168 of the Penal Code "
  of New York State. That was to say, the power to enforce the right which every individual possessed to lab our where and when he would, and to conduct his business without let or hindrance, and to enjoy his property free from loss or interference from others, was a part of the great unwritten law which was the heritage of all civilized people. What was Boycotting but interference with the rights of others; and how were they to deal with that interference? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley) said, with reference to such interference—
  "Where ways of living interfere with the lawful rights of others it is necessary to force the dissidents, however strong may be their conscientious sentiments."
  That was what the Government proposed to do. America had acted on the principle thus laid down, and had very swiftly, sharply, and sternly repressed Boycotting; and, as a consequence, it had almost ceased there. What the
  254
  Americans had done, we in Ireland could do; and that, in his opinion, was a sufficient answer to those who maintained that Boycotting could not be put down by law. Boycotting was inflicted in most cases for the payment of rent. The action of the National League had stripped rent of its moral sanction. The National League never punished a man for not paying his rent; it visited all its pains and penalties on those who paid their rents. The pages of the Report of the Cowper Commission teemed with evidence to that effect. Mr. Kavanagh said—
  "To prevent the payment of rent is the first and most important principle in the policy of the League, because it is the shortest and most direct course to bring landlords and tenants into collision."
  It was objected that this Bill was permanent. But it need not be permanent unless Ireland chose. At any moment she could shake herself free from its shackles, and stand from under its incubus. Having done its work, the Bill would be removed into the background, and it was hoped that the sense of its perpetual presence would have a good effect. It differed from all previous Coercion Bills in that it had the forms and nature of law. Not many people had seen the handcuffs, the felon's cell, or the gallows; but the knowledge that they existed went a long way to deter people from doing wrong. In the same way, it was hoped that that Bill would prevent people committing outrages which the Bill was destined to punish. Even if the Bill was permanent, it was directed against an organization which sought to be permanent, and which sought to establish its rule by resting it upon the pillars of disorder and disaffection. No attempt to improve Ireland would be effectual until the League was put down. He was supported in that contention by the authority of The Irish World, which said, on January 20, 1886 —
  "Just now 'law and order' in Ireland—that is, landlordism and police rule—are having a pretty rough time of it. 'Legal obligations,' in other words rent paying, cannot be said to be very much attended to. A cable despatch tells us that three-fourths of the Irish farmers are refusing to pay even judicial rents, hence the danger to 'law and order,' and the absolute need, from a British point of view, of stamping out the League."
  It was said that the League had better

  255
  be left alone, because it was using its influence to restrain outrages. But that was just where the danger lay. If the Land League could restrain outrages if could also create them. If it could put down crime it could also keep up crime. If crime expanded and contracted at the orders of the League, it showed the League had power to go outside the Constitution—a power which could not co-exist with the authority of that House, and which ought to be taken from them. The House was aware that charges of a very serious nature had been made against hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those charges had been stigmatized by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as false and most criminal in character. He was not going to question the denial which had been given by the hon. Member for Cork—
  "For Brutus is an honourable man;
  So are they all—all honourable men."
  But the evidence on which the charges rested had not been disproved; and, therefore, we were compelled to have some faith in them, and there was a growing conviction of their truth. So far, the serious charges made by The Times had only been met by a denial from the hon. Member for Cork. Therefore, it was important to inquire what that denial was worth. Against charges supported by evidence there was only the word of the hon. Member for Cork, and therefore the value of his word became of the most enormous importance. His credibility affected not only the fate of that Bill, but the whole fate of the movement. He proposed to refer to some things which had occurred in the career of the hon. Member for Cork in 1883, in America, in order to test his credibility.
  MR. DILLON: I do not know whether it is worth while to call the hon. Member to Order; but I wish to ask whether he is in Order in entering upon an argument to prove that a denial made by another hon. Member is not worthy of credence?
  MR. SPEAKERIt would not be competent for the hon. Member to call in question the denial of the hon. Member for Cork; but, as I understood the hon. Member, he accented that denial.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No, no!
  MR. E. BECKETTsaid, he had expressly accepted the denial of the hon.
  256
  Member for Cork. In 1880 the hon. Member for Cork went to America to organize the movement which had resulted in the Chicago Convention, and he and his Colleagues were severely criticized by the American papers, and notably by The New York Herald, for attempting to stop relief flowing to the Irish people through any channel that was not consulted by them. That paper denounced their conduct, and then correspondence fastened on the hon. Members the charge of refusing relief, out of funds subscribed in America, to persons in Ireland merely because they had paid their rent. On February 1, 1880, The New York Herald published a letter from its Dublin correspondent, stating that—
  "At a meeting of the Balla Tenants' Defence Association, held on Sunday, January 18, 1880, for the purposes of considering some cases of destitution in the neighbourhood and granting relief among the applicants, were some tenant farmers, occupiers of holdings of from five to ten acres, who wore in a state of great misery. The president of the association, Mr. J. A. Walsh, having learned that some of these men had paid rent, proposed that no relief should be given to any man who had paid rent, and this was carried by a majority."
  The Balla Association was formed under the direct auspices of the hon. Member for Cork in November, 1879, and affiliated with the Land League of Mr. Davitt. The hon. Member for Cork, who was in Washington when the letter from Dublin was published in The New York Herald of February 1, wrote to that journal on February 3, 1880, in these terms—
  "I have received no information as to the occurrence alleged by your correspondent at Balla, and am not disposed to believe that any such resolution has been passed by the local committee. Balla, however, has recently been the scene of a very cruel eviction, and it is just possible that the local committee, in a fit of exasperation, may have taken some steps calculated to give colour to the accusation made against them. I have cabled for information, and will let you have it as soon as possible."
  On February 4 the hon. Member for Cork sent from Washington to The New York Herald a communication received by him from the executive committee in Dublin declaring that—
  "No such resolution had been passed at Balla or elsewhere, and denying that relief had been refused to rent-paying tenants."
  The New York Herald published this on February 7, with the following editorial comments—

  257
  "We have found Mr. Parnell not over-careful as to the accuracy of all he says against those he may regard as adversaries. Considerations of the un trust worthiness of the information received by Mr. Parnell prevent our accepting as final the denial he has received from Ireland of the account of the proceedings of the Balla Committee, as hitherto reported by our correspondent. Our correspondent's statement was impartial and without prejudice."
  On February 8, 1880, The New York Herald published a despatch, dated Dublin, February 7, from its correspondent, to this effect—
  "The report of the meeting of the Balla Tenants' Defence Association is entirely correct. Messrs. Egan and O'Sullivan and Biggar were not present. The Herald's informant, who is the correspondent of the Dublin Times and Freeman's Journal, was present, and took part in the meeting. Both The Times and The Freeman's Journal of January 20 say that about 100 almost starving heads of families attended the meeting and made application for relief, as it was understood that some money had been received by the League. Mr. J. A. Walsh, the president, being-informed that rent had been paid by many of the applicants, proposed that no relief should be granted them. This was carried by a majority."
  The report was published in newspapers throughout the kingdom from January 20, and has remained uncontradicted to the present moment. That showed that The Times was not the only paper which found it necessary and easy to maintain important assertions in face of the denial of the hon. Member for Cork. There was another passage he would like to quote to the House. In an interview published in The New York Herald on January 2, 1880, the day after his arrival in America, the hon. Member for Cork used this language—
  "In 1847 the Queen of England was the only Sovereign in Europe who gave nothing out of her private purse to the starving Irish. The Czar of Russia gave, and so did the Sultan of Turkey, but the Queen gave nothing."
  This extraordinary slander upon the Queen reached England, and was publicly contradicted by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who stated that Her Majesty had contributed £2,000 in 1847 to the relief of the starving Irish. This communication was cabled to America and published in The New York Herald, where it elicited from the hon. Member for Cork, not a frank avowal of the gross injustice he had done to Her Majesty, but a letter so remarkable that he would quote it verbally, and leave it
  258
  to the judgment of the House and country. On Monday, February 20, 1880, the hon. Member for Cork published this letter—
  "In reference to Lord Randolph Churchill's contradiction of my statement, that the Queen gave nothing to relieve the sufferers from the famine in 1847, I find that I might have gone still further, and have said with perfect accuracy not only that she gave nothing, but that she actually intercepted £6,000 of the donation which the Sultan desired to contribute to the Famine Fund. In 1S47 the Sultan had offered a donation of £10,000, but the English Ambassador at Constantinople was directed by Her Majesty to inform him that her contribution was to be limited to £2,000, and that the Sultan should not, in good taste, give more than Her Majesty. Hence the net result to the Famine Fund by the Queen's action was a loss of £6,000."
  In that letter the hon. Member for Cork betrayed his knowledge of the fact that the Queen had given £2,000. Instead of confessing his error he aggravated the original falsehood of which he had been guilty, and imparted to it a most malignant character by piling on the top of it the monstrous concoction just read to the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALYrose to Order. He wished to ask if the hon. Gentleman was justified in saying "he had aggravated the falsehood of which he had been guilty," referring to the hon. Member for Cork?
  MR. DILLONwished to ask, further, whether the hon. Member opposite was in Order in attributing to the hon. Member for Cork that he had been guilty of a monstrous falsehood? The hon. Member opposite had been arguing for the last 20 minutes, in the teeth of the Speaker's ruling, that the hon. Member for Cork was capable of, and had frequently been convicted of, falsehood, with the object of showing that his statement in the House last week was false.
  MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Member that to attribute falsehood to another hon. Member of this House is unparliamentary. The hon. Member is entitled to enter into an argument founded upon facts and to draw inferences from those facts; but he must not directly accuse an hon. Member of falsehood.
  MR. SHIRLEY: Sir, I wish to take your opinion on another point. May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman, in discussing details of the proceedings of the hon.

  259
  Member for Cork in America, is speaking relevantly to the particular question before the House?
  MR. SPEAKERI have not thought proper to interfere, up to this point, with the hon. Member; but if he accuses any hon. Member of falsehood I have no doubt that he will withdraw the expression, and he ought to withdraw it.
  MR. E. BECKETTsaid, that he had not directly accused the hon. Member for Cork of falsehood. He had merely left the House to draw their own inferences from certain facts. [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALYThe word, distinctly, was "falsehood."
  MR. SPEAKERI must ask the hon. Member to withdraw the expression that he used of another hon. Member—that he wa3 guilty of falsehood. I have already said that the hon. Member is entitled to use arguments and to draw such inferences from facts as he chooses; but his observations must be couched in Parliamentary form and expressed in Parliamentary language [Cries of "Withdraw!"
  MR. E. BECKETTsaid, he understood that he used the word ''concoction." [Cries of "No, no!" and "Falsehood."] If he had used the word falsehood with regard to the hon. Member for Cork he asked leave to withdraw it; he meant concoction. What was the essence of the charge which had been made against the hon. Member for Cork by The Times? The charge was that the Parnell movement was a foreign conspiracy, invented by felons and traitors, fed by foreign funds, and carried on by a systematic combination of agitation, terrorism, and murder, and that the Irish Party had, through certain of its accredited Members, been in constant touch and sympathy with the Queen's enemies. That charge, taken as a whole and in detail, could not be refuted by hon. Members opposite; certainly it had not been refuted. The Irish World of January 30 stated plainly that Ireland's mission was not to promote the union of the two countries, but to destroy the Pirate Empire—referring to the British Empire, and to strive to accomplish that end in and out of that House—to play a double game, which should be more or less Constitutional in that House and illegal out of it. This double character was plainly revealed in The Times letter.
  260
  This had been confessed by the hon. Member for Cork in words which were published the day after his arrival in New York, and which had never been repudiated or disavowed by him. The hon. Member for Cork had been accompanied on Board the Scythia by the hon. Member for East Mayo and the authorized correspondent of The New York Herald. On the day after their arrival at New York, in January, 1880, The New York Herald contained an account setting forth the hon. Member's views of the situation in Ireland and his own proposed action. The hon. Member for Cork said—
  "A true revolutionary movement in Ireland should, in my opinion, partake of both a Constitutional and an illegal character. It should be both an open and a secret organization, using the Constitution for its own purposes, but also taking advantage of its secret combinations."
  Accepting the hon. Member's denial of the authorship of the letter which had appeared in The Times, he left it to the House to judge whether precisely such a letter might not have been written in precisely such circumstances by a man adopting the views and methods which had been avowed by the hon. Member for Cork. When asked if Mr. Davitt, who had accompanied him from Dublin to Queens-town, was not a leader of the Fenians, the hon. Member for Cork replied that he did not believe him to be a leader or to have control of the organization. By that statement the hon. Member for Cork betrayed a knowledge of Fenianism rather extraordinary in the face of his declaration the other night, when the hon. Member said—
  "I said it was absolutely untrue to say that the Irish National League or the Parliamentary Party had ever had any communication whatever, direct or indirect, with the Fenian organization in America or this country. I further said I did not know who the leaders of the Fenian organization of this country or America were."
  It would be strange if the hon. Member for Cork, who was the first President of the Land League, had not some knowledge of the Fenian organization and the Fenian leaders, considering that the Land League was started by a Fenian, and that it had been mainly supported by Fenian funds. The Fenians at first looked coldly upon the movement. It was accepted by a certain section of that body with the reservation that the tem-

  261
  porary support rendered by them to a Constitutional movement should not in any way be considered a surrender of the ultimate appeal to physical force. But the Fenians would not give their sup-port for nothing1, and if the Constitutional movement failed, the Nationalists were pledged beforehand to Fenian methods, and Fenian methods were criminal methods. In the same conversation, the hon. Member for Cork, when asked if he was a Fenian, said—'' No; I could not belong to an illegal society." Certainly he could not. He understood this so well that he excused the Fenians for their distrust of previous Parliamentary Leaders. The hon. Member for Cork, in reference to this subject, said—
  "The leaders of the Fenian movement do not believe in Constitutional action, because it has always been used in the past for the selfish purposes of its leaders. There was a strong objection by the Fenians to our Parliamentary action for the same reason. And, indeed, if we look at the action of the Irish Parliamentary Party since the Union, there is ample justification for the views of the physical force party."
  The Irish Party admitted that Sheridan acted as their agent, their tried and trusted agent, one of the leading spirits of the Land League, and yet they contended that they know nothing against him. The hon. Member for East Mayo, referring to a speech Sheridan made on the 1st of August, 1880, had said—
  "Mr. Sheridan was known to the people, and had long association with the physical force party."
  MR. DILLONsaid, he was glad of the opportunity for making a correction. What he had said was that Sheridan was known to have been associated at one time with the physical force party, but that at the meeting referred to Sheridan said—
  "I have now joined a Constitutional movement, and if that Constitutional movement fails I shall return to my own ways."
  The Irish Nationalist Party, however, hoped that Mr. Sheridan would have no occasion to return to his old ways.
  MR. E. BECKETTsaid, that, according to the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo, Mr. Sheridan had never abjured the physical force party.
  MR. DILLONHe did.
  MR. E. BECKETTsaid, that Mr. Sheridan had stated that he was always ready to return to the physical force party. [Cries of "No!"] At all events, the National League did not appear to
  262
  regard his former connection with the physical force party as a disqualification. [Irish MEMBERS: Certainly not.] Perhaps it was rather a recommendation in their eyes. How curiously that sentiment coincided with the sentiment in The Times letter. What was the physical force party? They were men who believed in the use of all the destructive machinery of modern science, and in illegal as being better—that was, being more effectual—than legal methods for accomplishing their objects. The hon. Member for East Mayo, referring to the man who sent S5 for bread and $20 for lead, said—"These were men who belonged to the physical force party in America, as most of our people there did." It was people of this way of thinking who supplied the funds of the National League. The truth was that the people of England must recognize the fact that they were face to face, not with the Irish people, but with the Irish in America, who were the real masters and paymasters of those Irish Representatives who came into that House to shout and to interrupt the Business of the country, but who were mere puppets in the hands of foreigners. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member describes hon. Members as coming here for purposes of interruption. This is not a Parliamentary expression, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
  MR. E. BECKETTsaid, he would withdraw the expression. The real strength and power of this movement existed across the Atlantic. As Lord Beaconsfield some time ago said—"The movement is not in London or in Dublin, but it is in New York." Remedial measures were useless until we had convinced the Irish Party in America that their throats were idle, their efforts useless, their money thrown away, and that England refused to bow to their yoke. The whole character of the movement was reflected in its leaders. The hon. Member for Cork was not an Irishman, but an Irish-American. He had marked himself out from all previous Parliamentary Leaders, and his movement was marked out from all previous Parliamentary movements, and we must recognize the true character of this movement if we were to be prepared to overcome the National League and its criminal organization in Ireland. He would only add, in conclusion, that he had endea-

  263
  voured to show two aspects of the character of the hon. Member for Cork— first, that his word could not be relied on; and, secondly, that he had given countenance and support to illegal methods and to the physical force party; and he now left the matter to the judgment of the House.
  MR. J. NOLANsaid, he thought the attack which the hon. Member for the Whitby Division of York had just made on the hon. Member for Cork might be passed over with the contempt it deserved. The hon. Member for Cork had, in his place in that House, denied in unmistakable terms the calumnies which had been uttered against him, and that ought to be sufficient for hon. Members. He thought the hon. Member had made a great mistake in directing attention to the conduct of the landlords of Ireland, who were not ashamed during the famine years to take from the starving tenants the money which was sent for their relief from across the Atlantic. That money, subscribed at that time by the generous-hearted people of England and by other parts of the world, was diverted by the dominant class in Ireland from the objects for which it was given; and while the unfortunate tenants were perishing of hunger by the wayside, the members of that class were growing fat and rich on that money. As to the hon. Member's reference to the physical force party of some years ago, and his effort to trace a connection between the utterance of that party and the action of the Nationalist Party at the present time, he thought the House would agree that they were altogether out of date. The action taken by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had effected a considerable change in the opinions and sentiments of the great majority of the people who had a few years ago looked forward to physical force as the only remedy for the evils of Ireland. Very strong and just grounds had been shown for rejecting the Bill. The Government had utterly failed to show any case for urgency; it had been proved that crime was not abnormal in Ireland, and serious doubts had been thrown on the accuracy of even the few statistics which the Government had laid before the House. Apart from the justice of the case, the Bill ought to be rejected on the ground of experience alone, for it
  264
  was an indisputable and important fact that coercion in Ireland had always failed in the past. He asserted that the Government had not only ignored the recommendations of the Royal Commission which they had appointed to consider the social condition of Ireland, but this Bill was in direct opposition to those recommendations. The feeling in Ireland, not confined to any particular Party, was very strong against the passing of this Bill. The majority of the Irish Members in that House had often been attacked; but he would say of the minority that they were simply the Representatives of the landlord class, who from first to last had been at the bottom of all the difficulties between the people of Ireland and of England. The Irish landlords had been spoken of in that discussion on the other side as the very props of the British Government in Ireland.; but if, in America, there were at the present moment a very large body of Irishmen bitterly opposed to the British Government, it was only because they had been driven there by the bad landlords of their native country. The same landocracy had in former times driven large numbers of Irishmen to seek service in the Armies of Spain, Austria, and France, in whose ranks they had been brought to fight against the armed forces of Great Britain. He could quote authorities to show that the way in which the landlords had treated the people in Ireland within living memory was nothing new. In 1718, an English Churchman, the Bishop of Derry, after a journey through the country, gave a deplorable picture of the extreme wretchedness of the people under their rack-renting landlords. Lord Clare, who was certainly not a Nationalist, said that in his time the lower orders in Munster were in a state of oppression not to be equalled in any other part of the world. Since the Union, other impartial witnesses had testified to the extortionate character of the Irish landlords and the misery which their rapacity inflicted on the people. He would appeal to the Government to pause before proceeding with this drastic Bill, which the people of Ireland believed to be aimed at their Constitutional liberties. The measure, if passed into law, would only increase the difficulties of the Government; and it would be met, not by armed resistance, but by

  265
  passive resistance, which the Government would find as difficult to overcome.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, he believed that to the vacillating policy which was followed in Ireland during the years 1880–5 we owed the exceptional circumstances of the present day. The only remedy which the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian had ever conceived was an alteration of the laws affecting landlords and tenants; but the sequel had shown that both the Acts of 1870 and 1881 had been gigantic failures. He would remind the House that even before the Union it was found necessary by the Parliament on College Green to pass repressive measures to control the Irish people. The policy of the present Government, if they were but allowed to restore law and order in Ireland, would be the same as that of Lord Beaconsfield after the suppression of the Fenian insurrection by the Duke of Abercorn—namely, a policy directed to the development of the resources of the country. That the Bill before the House was imperatively needed he had no doubt. Crimes had increased in Ireland, juries refused to return verdicts, and the Judges, most of whom had been appointed by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian himself, had almost unanimously described the prevalent lawlessness as unprecedented. They had heard a great deal in that House about Irish landlords. He would like to tell Irish Nationalist Members that, in consequence of their action in Ireland he, sitting on a London Board of Guardians, had had to relieve the wives of Irish landlords, in the district of St. George's Hanover Square, from absolute starvation. He thanked God he was not an Irish landlord. If people in London did not pay their rents they had to suffer eviction; and he saw no reason why, if they would not pay rent in Ireland, they should not be evicted. Speaking as the result of long experience of the Metropolis, he could assure the House that there was no sympathy amongst any class with the operations of the League; but that, on the contrary, there was a very prevalent desire that the laws of the Queen should be rehabilitated in Ireland. He believed also that the people of England hoped that the Government would do everything in their power to support law and order in
  266
  Ireland. Personally, he would not object to the provisions of the Bill being applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, because they would not affect law-abiding subjects. The Bill, if it became law, would, in his opinion, put a stop to the fearful condition of things which now existed, and would leave room for measures of useful legislation which would promote industry and benefit all classes of people alike in Ireland; and, order being restored, the country would become prosperous and happy.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry that the inhabitants of London had had the burden thrown upon them of relieving Irish landlords; but he was not sorry that the people in the Hanover Square district had had to pay out of their pockets something towards the relief of aristocratic paupers. There were two classes of paupers in England. Some of these were the friends of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, belonging to the landlord class; but there were several thousand paupers belonging to the Irish tenant class, who had been driven out of Ireland owing to the land laws, which the Party on the Ministerial side of the House had supported, and who had been a burden to the English taxpayers. Pauperism in England was the strongest proof of the folly of the policy of the Conservative Party. With regard to the Amendment, he wished to say that he thought the complaints as to the debate being prolonged were rather unjust. He proposed to lay before the House several reasons why it appeared to him that they had not debated this Bill at one hour's length more than they were justified in doing by the circumstances of the case. In the first place, he must say that it was a new doctrine, even on the part of the Tory Party, that debates on repressive legislation should be confined within narrow limits. Sir Robert Peel, the greatest Leader the Tory Party over had, laid down more than once in speeches proposing repressive legislation, that it was a thing that should be resorted to only in the last extremity, after long delay, and that a full, and ample, and prolonged amount of discussion was justified upon such questions. Furthermore, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought the Government themselves had supplied them with

  267
  the strongest and most unanswerable argument in favour of their debating the present Bill at considerable length, and he would go farther—he thought the debate on even the present stage had been largely justified, in fact had been made absolutely necessary, by the conduct and by the words of the Government themselves. He was going to make allusion to a speech which had always been referred to by more than one speaker in this House—the words were used in "another place," and he would tell the House when he had read them the orator by whom they were used. In the speech to which he referred it was declared that in Ireland there was not only combined resistance to rent; but there was, also, combined eviction on a wholesale scale. It was said that one of the results of this combined and wholesale eviction was to drive the tenants of Ireland to the verge of madness, and it was further declared that, in consequence of the wholesale eviction on the one hand and wholesale resistance to rent on the other, there was a state of war in Ireland to which the Government had determined to put an end. Well, that was as dark and portentous a picture of the state of Ireland as could be drawn by any Member on these Benches. They have the statement that there was wholesale eviction, and that there was an approach almost to civil war, and that the tenantry of Ireland was driven to the verge of madness. What did that statement imply? If that were a correct picture of the state of Ireland— and nobody could doubt the correctness of the picture—it was clear that some great and even gigantic remedy was required to put an end to such a state of things. The state of things was extreme. The remedy for that state of things must be extreme also. This speech spoke of two Bills—the Bill now before the House and a Bill which had been introduced in "another place," and the speaker used these remarkable words with regard to these Bills—
  "We consider these two Bills as sister Bills. They are the complement of each other."
  Here these two Bills were put in direct association, in extreme and close interdependence, and that was the position they take up. He said that this Bill and another Bill to which he would only refer very casually were inter-dependent, and that he had a right to keep these Bills so
  268
  to speak neck and neck, so that one might not leave the House until the other was ready to accompany it or to almost immediately follow it. The Amendment declared that the House declined to proceed further with the measure for strengthening the Criminal Law against combinations of tenants until it had before it the full measure for their relief against excessive rents in the shape in which it might pass the other House of Parliament. He submitted that the speech from which he had quoted was the strongest argument in favour of the contention expressed in this Amendment, because it imposed upon the House in the face of a terrible state of things the solemn duty of saying whether the Government had provided a sufficient remedy. The Bill ought not to be allowed to leave the House until the remedial measure had been made to assume a form in which it would be effectual. They had the coercive measure in all its full details; but the remedial measure was not in a happy state, as in a certain portion of it the Government had announced their willingness to accept Amendments. The Bill was, in fact a blank sheet of paper on which the friends and foes of the Bill were invited to write their record. Most of its provisions were protested against on all sides, or have yet to be filled in by the Opposition and the Ministers of the Crown. The Coercion Bill was a hostage to this House for the remedial Bill. They were asked to part with the hostage before they had received the consideration, and the Government must think them rather more ingenuous and confiding people than they were if they supposed that without protest they would give them the powers they asked for before they had the least conception what the remedial measure was going to be. They were justified also in prolonging that debate on account of the circumstances which had attended the introduction and further stages of the Bill. The House had absolutely no information before it when the discussion began, and information was throughout doled out with a grudging and procrastinating hand. The Leader of the Opposition was promised statistics, but neither on the first nor on the second reading were they vouchsafed, and there were some details which had been asked for but were still not forthcoming. The Home

  269
  Secretary had brought forward a striking argument and made a great impression by referring to statistics which he had written before him, and which he stated discovered an enormous increase in crime. But the House was not in possession of those statistics until yesterday morning, some time after the second reading had been carried. This conduct of the Government was in striking contrast to the procedure of Mr. Forster in 1881, who at the outset gave the House the fullest details, even to the minutest and most potty particulars. They would therefore be justified in continuing the present discussion till they had extracted every single fact and circumstance on which the Government rested their case. With the exception of the Chief Secretary's speeches the debate had been practically all on one side. He had that day read through every one of the Chief Secretary's speeches. The right hon. Gentleman had an elegant literary style, so that a perusal of his speeches was not altogether an unmitigated evil. The right hon. Gentleman had produced only four cases on behalf of his contention that trial by jury had broken down, and none of these cases supported the case of the Government. One was an assault in Roscommon, the case of Clark the maltster. Although it was stated that there was a miscarriage of justice in that case, the statement rested only on the authority of the Crown Solicitor, the notorious Bolton, and was contradicted by the evidence of a barrister present at the trial, who said that the evidence was extremely confused. Then there was the case of Fitzgerald and Donovan, which had nothing to do with political or agrarian questions, and was only such a mishap as might happen in England. Then there was the alleged assault upon a woman who was proved to be a disreputable person. And the only accusation brought against the National League was that of illegal action on the part of a branch in Sligo, which was immediately dissolved. The cases brought forward in support of the Bill were bogus cases which had all beer, shattered, and not one of which had stood the test of examination. Then as to the charges of the Judges, upon which the Chief Secretary relied for the first and second reading of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted
  270
  the charge of Mr. Justice Lawson as to the state of the County of Mayo to the effect that it approached as nearly to rebellion as anything short of civil war could do. But what were the statistics of crime in Mayo, a county with 230,000 inhabitants? During the last quarter the outrages were 12 in all, of which seven were threatening letters, and not one of the remaining five was of a serious character. Of murder, manslaughter, firing at the person, conspiracy to murder, assault on the police, assault on bailiff's and process-servers there were none, and that was in a county where the condition of things was stated to be little short of civil war. He thought that English officials would be delighted if they could point to such a state of things among a similar population in England. He did not blame the Chief Secretary for his inaccuracies. The right hon. Gentleman was a Scotchman, perhaps he was never in Ireland till he went over to take the oaths of Office, and when talking of Irish affairs he was as much astray as he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would probably be in the intricacies of the theology of the right hon. Gentleman's native land. But the difference between them was this—the Chief Secretary had the arrogance of his ignorance, whereas he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had the modesty of his. The right hon. Gentleman grow worse every day, and in time his primordial ignorance would be transformed into invincible ignorance. The right hon. Gentleman also founded the argument for his Bill upon previous Coercion Acts which had been passed by the Liberal Party; but the position of the Liberal Party now was not approval of past Coercion Acts or satisfaction at their results. In fact, their experience of the evil consequences of coercion in the past was the strongest argument against a policy of coercion for the future. The Chief Secretary had spoken of the Coercion Bill of 1886, and said that there was but a small amount of agrarian crime at that time. But was not the right hon. Gentleman aware that at that time a large proportion of the people of Ireland were in a state of almost open rebellion, many of them had arms in their hands, and there were risings in various parts of the country? Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Coercion Bill of 1870. But the whole case of the Go-

  271
  vernment then was that there was a great increase, a recrudescence, of crime as compared with former years. The other night the right hon. Gentleman attacked the remedial legislation of the Liberal Party; but if it had not been for that legislation Ireland would now be in open rebellion, as it was in 1866. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said that after 1860 Ireland was free from crime. That circumstance was due, however, partly to the terrible emigration, and partly to the fact that between 1860 and 1865 there was a large amount of political crime, because the Fenian organization was at work. Such was the glorious state of things which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of as the blessed harvest that came of the legislation of 1860. He never entered upon the subject of Irish crime without a feeling of humiliation and also of exasperation, because he thought Ireland was treated in a manner in which no other country in the world was treated. Supposing that he had a ubiquitous police, most of whose time was spent in docketing and ticketing and summing up every single offence committed in this country, what a terrible and grim total might he not present of the crime of the people of England! Many of the crimes enumerated in Mr. Forster's Blue Book were of a trivial character. One of the so-called crimes consisted of a small wooden gate, the property of a nobleman, being taken off its hinges and broken. In another case several panes of glass were maliciously broken in the windows of an unoccupied house, and in a third a barrel of coal-tar was maliciously spilt. If he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) went among the docks in the Scotland. Division of Liverpool, where his own constituents lived, and enumerated crime in that way, Liverpool could be represented as a little hell upon earth. But this was the way in which the totals of crime were made out in Ireland, in order to blacken the character of his country. The statistics recently produced were the strongest evidence against the case of the Government. When the Home Secretary last addressed the House in support of this Bill he made the first successful speech he had delivered in the House. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would make many other successful speeches, for he knew of no man who was better qualified than the
  272
  right hon. Gentleman to talk on every side of a political question. The Home Secretary produced an effect on the House by quoting the statistics of crime in the first quarter of the present year. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the number of agrarian crimes was 241 in that quarter, whereas in the last quarter of 1866 the number was 166. But the right hon. Gentleman made a false and unfair comparison, as he ought to have compared the figures for the first quarter of this year with those for the corresponding quarter of last year. The number of crimes in Ireland during the first quarter of the present year was 241, and in the corresponding quarter of last year 256, showing a decrease in the more recent period. In the second quarter of last year the number was 297, and in the third quarter 306. Only in the last three months of 1886 were there fewer crimes than in the quarter just passed, the number being 166, and that was because the late Chief Secretary and the Plan of Campaign were both compelling the suspension of evictions. It was said that there was no connection between evictions and crime; but the truth was that evictions were dogged by crime. During the September quarter of last year there were 306 crimes, and the number of persons evicted was 5,685. There were only 166 crimes in the December quarter, and it was because the persons evicted had decreased to 3,669. In the first three months of the current year the increase of the number of evicted persons to 5,190 was accompanied by an increase of crimes to 241. He was not going to read the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) a lecture upon good taste, although from his adoption of anonymous slanders lately he might stand in need of such a lecture, but at all events he ought to consult with his brother Leaders of the Tory Party for the purpose of maintaining something like harmony between his and their views with regard to the object of this Bill. Sometimes it was said that the object of the measure was to put down crime, but did the Chief Secretary in using that expression mean by crime murder or the wilful upsetting of a pot of coal-tar? Again, it was said that the Bill was intended to put a stop to certain combinations—that was to say, it was to prevent tenants from

  273
  defending themselves against their landlords. The Leader of that House had declared that the object of the Bill was to put an end to the sufferings of the Irish tenantry, who were being ground down and coerced by the National League. But the National League was a voluntary association. [Cries of "No."] If it was not a voluntary association why did the Government propose to put it down by force? The National League was the creation of and the emanation from the Irish people, and, according to the evidence of the Governments own witnesses, was looked upon by the Irish tenantry as their salvation. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale had declared that the Bill was not levelled against political combinations, but the fact was that it was aimed at putting down the Irish Party in that House. The noble Lord himself had said that until that Party was put down it would be impossible for the Conservative Party, or the Liberal Unionist Party, or any other Party, to work out a solution of the Irish difficulty by providing for self-government in Ireland. It was clearly the object of the Tory Party to obtain the power of inflicting six months' imprisonment upon their political opponents. The noble Lord had admitted that from 1880 to 1885 he had been in conflict with the Irish Nationalist Party in that House, with the result that the Irish Party had increased from 45 in number to 86. When he heard the noble Lord promulgating his exploded nostrums and his defeated and discredited policy it reminded him of the observation, "With how little wisdom is the world governed!" One effect of the Bill was to confound persuasion with intimidation. He desired to call attention to the emigration which had taken place within the last four weeks, which showed that the policy of the Government was already having its disastrous results. During that period 9,236 persons had left Ireland, and the number was increasing. The reason was that the Government, between threatened eviction and threatened coercion, were making Ireland intolerable to the Irish people. He would show the House the genesis of the dynamite party. In 1863 The Times wrote—
  "Eighty thousand persona—chiefly young men and women—have left Ireland, mostly for
  274
  ever. They have gone with money in their pockets, with strong limbs and stout hearts, and they have left behind the aged and the weak."
  They left with tears in their eyes and curses for the Government in their hearts. The Saturday Review, commenting on that emigration, said of a letter addressed to the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) by Archbishop John of Tuam—" He sighs for the departing items of assassination and murder;" and again, "'Ireland,' he said, 'is relapsing into a desert tenanted by lowing herds instead of howling assassins." Here those people were all grouped together as howling assassins. That was the language used by leading English journals, and it was little wonder that those men when they reached America listened willingly to the malignant counsels of the dynamite party. The same policy was being pursued now. Instead of seeing any progress they saw reaction; instead of advance they saw a going back to the very worst features of the perfectly infernal period of suffering. The roads in Ireland were thick with crowds of Irishmen and Irishwomen leaving the shores of Ireland for ever. If these men and women thought that the present Government and the present policy represented the English people and represented English opinion, he should tremble for the future of those Irishmen and Irishwomen when they landed in America; but he called upon the Liberal Party, he called upon the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, and upon the masses of the English people, to stand between the Government and the Irish people, to continue protesting against the policy that already was producing such disastrous results, and tell these people that if they left Ireland in tears, and by the policy of the Government, they left in spite of the efforts of the Liberal Party, and in spite of the efforts of the English people. He asked the Liberal Party and the English people to extend to the Irish people their sympathy and assistance, and in that way he hoped that, even out of the suffering and terrors of the present time, there might not come the old harvest of hate, but a new and better epoch of sympathy and attachment between the people of England and the people of Ireland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JOHN MAN- NERS): The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has at some length passed in review the recent debates upon this Bill, and he has been good enough to criticize all that has passed. When he concluded his eloquent speech, and appealed to the Liberal Party to adopt a course of policy which would put an end to the great emigration which is going on in Ireland, which emigration he described as having originated with the Land Act of 1860, I could not help remembering that the Land Act of 1860, to which he attributed so much of the recent, and even the present, miseries of Ireland, was an act of the Liberal Party. And when he called to mind that in the present year thousands of people are emigrating from Ireland, I could not help calling to mind that the Land Act under which they are emigrating was also an Act of the Liberal Party. It strikes me as not a little remarkable that the two great instances which the hon. Gentleman brought forward as the real causes of emigration from Ireland must both be attributed to the action not of hon. Gentleman on this side of the House, but of the great Liberal Party to whom he addressed his impassioned appeal. But I will do justice to the hon. Gentleman, he made an attempt to do what many hon. Gentlemen who have preceded him in debate have not attempted to do—namely, to do-fend the Amendment which we are now discussing. It is most remarkable that until the hon. Gentleman's speech no attempt—no serious attempt—has been made to vindicate this Amendment, which I do not hesitate to say is one of the most extraordinary, one of the most exceptional, and one of the most unjustifiable Amendments with which a Government measure was ever encountered. It is open to more objections than any Amendment I can remember. It is—
  "That this House declines to proceed further with a measure for strengthening the Criminal Law against combinations of tenants until it has before it the full measure for their relief against excessive rents in the shape in which it may pass the other House of Parliament."
  Well, Sir, one would imagine from this Amendment that the Bill against which it is directed is a Bill for strengthening the Criminal Law against combinations
  276
  of tenants. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: "Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby ironically cheers that. What does the title say? That it is—
  "A Bill to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of crime in Ireland, and for other purposes relating thereto."
  The Amendment entirely overlooks the main portion of the objects of the Bill, and gives a totally different construction to its very title. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. E. T. Reid), in vindicating his extraordinary Amendment, stated that it has been alleged in "another place" that this measure and the measure now before the other House of Parliament are a complement one of the other— that they are, in fact, sister Bills—and he contended, therefore, that it is as impossible, as it would be unwise, for this House to part with this Bill until it has the other Bill from the House of Lords. Suppose the House of Lords accepted the view of the hon. Gentleman that one Bill is dependent upon the other. Suppose the House of Lords were to say these Bills are complements one of the other, and we will pass a Resolution that we will not send the Bill now in the House of Lords to the House of Commons until we have received the Bill now in the House of Commons What would be the position of Parliament?—a complete deadlock. Yet that is a. natural conclusion to be drawn from the Amendment itself, and from the support it has received from the hon. Gentleman opposite; and I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the House of Lords, if they were to pass such a Resolution, would have a great deal more to say for themselves than the House of Commons would have if it accepted this extraordinary Amendment. And for this reason, pass what measures you may for improving the condition of land tenure in Ireland, pass any remedial measures you please, until you have restored peace, tranquillity, order, and legality in Ireland, every one of your remedial measures must fail. Well, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has distinctly declared that until the Bill to which reference has been made has come down from the House of Lords he would take

  277
  care that this Bill did not leave this House, so that if that is really the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries and those who agree with him have in view, their object is attained. "Why, therefore, should this long debate have taken place, why should impassioned appeals be made to the great Liberal Party, and why should the retrospect of all previous failures of Irish remedial legislation have occupied our time to-night? Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool complained very much, about statistics. The statistics which have been given are statistics exactly in the same form as those given by our Predecessors in Office. We have followed precisely the course adopted by them, with, perhaps, one exception. In 1882, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby proposed the most drastic and the most Draconian measure upon the question of crime ever introduced into this House, he produced no statistics at all. We have followed previous precedents, and we have produced statistics, as soon as they were furnished to us, to the House, and that is my answer to the complaint of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. Again, the hon. Gentleman made a very elaborate attack upon the noble Marquess the Member for Rosendale (the Marquess of Hartington). I believe there is no Member of this House who can defend himself better than the noble Marquess, and therefore I have no intention of attempting that work of supererogation. But I notice that the hon. Gentleman complains that the noble Marquess has said this is a Bill to put down crime, and not to interfere with the combinations of tenants. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that this is a Bill to prevent crime in the first instance, if it be possible, to detect crime in the second instance, if the first object is not attained, and to punish crime in the third place. These are the main objects of the Bill. If there be criminal conspiracies, why then criminal conspiracies will come under the purview of the measure. What struck me as very extraordinary was that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool seemed to assume all through his speech that because the Bill is directed against criminal conspiracies, it is there-
  278
  fore directed against the political organization to which he belongs. Well, Sir, there is an old saying very well known, "If the cap fits it is not our fault." It is the hon. Gentleman who has fitted the cap on his own head.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I should like to say that what I said was that the Bill was directed against combinations and especially against the National League. I said so on the authority of a letter written by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith).
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Any letter which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has written will, I am sure, contain nothing but good sense. But to return to the phraseology of the Bill, I find "criminal" always inserted as the adjective before the substantive "conspiracy," and that constitutes the whole difference between us. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that combinations of tenants to do lawful things in. a lawful manner are to be crushed under this Bill, he labours under a very great mistake. If combinations are formed to carry out illegal objects in a criminal manner, no doubt this Bill will, as we hope, tend very materially to cheek and to put down illegal and criminal combinations of that kind. These are the two portions of the Bill. The Amendment takes one of them, twisting it in a most extraordinary manner, and entirely omits all reference to the other, which is the putting down of crime and outrage. Now, Sir, in a former debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), whom I have the pleasure to see before me, stated that in order to justify the introduction of a measure of this kind it was necessary to show that there was an exceptional state of crime and outrage in the country, and he did me the honour to quote some observations of mine delivered in the month of June last. I do not blame him for doing so; but the right hon. Gentleman extracted one very short sentence, and without regard to the context fixed his own construction upon it. What I really said was this:—
  "We are told, if you do not accept these schemes, you must fall back upon a permanent system of what is called coercion, and I think that among the many wise sayings of old Samuel

  279
  Johnson there was no saying wiser than that in which he advised his friends to clear their minds of cant. Let us on this subject of coercion clear our minds of cant, and lot us see what it means. What does coercion in this sense mean? It moans the repression by exceptional measures of exceptional crime and exceptional outrage, and therefore if there be no exceptional crime and no exceptional outrage, there will be no exceptional repressive legislation."
  That was my statement; and now we say that there in exceptional crime, exceptional outrage, exceptional disorganization of the whole social machine in Ireland, and, therefore, we produce this exceptional legislation. But if that is not justification enough, I will most respectfully refer the right hon. Gentleman to a speech he delivered just three months before these observations of mine were made. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to make out a case for the great political revolution which he was endeavouring, but endeavouring in vain, to make this House accept, and amongst the other reasons he assigned, I find this. Speaking on the 8th of April of last year, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "In the first place, with certain exceptions for the case of winter juries, it is impossible to depend in Ireland upon the finding of a jury in a case of agrarian crime according to the facts as they are viewed by the Government, by the Judges, and by the public, I think, at large. That is a most serious mischief, passing down deep into the very groundwork of civil society. …. Finally, Sir, it is not to be denied that there is great interference in Ireland with individual liberty in the shape of intimidation."—(3 Hansard [304], 1040.)
  Then he referred to the lapse of the Crimes Act, and added—
  "The return to the ordinary law, I am afraid, cannot be said to have succeeded. Almost immediately after the lapse of the Crimes Act Boycotting increased fourfold. Since that time it has been about stationary; but in October it had increased fourfold, compared with what it was in the month of May."—(Ibid 1043.)
  Then we have the right hon. Gentleman, just 12 months ago, announcing that the groundwork of Irish society was undermined, that there were exceptional outrages; and so despondent was he as to the social condition of Ireland, that he appealed to the House of Commons to virtually repeal the Union in order to get to the bottom of the terrible state of things which existed, according to him, in Ireland in April of last year. Well, but what do our ridiculed statistics show? They show that in the year 1886 there were at least 100 more cases
  280
  of agrarian crime than there were in 1885, the period of crime to which the right hon. Gentleman must have been referring when he gave that melancholy description of the state of Ireland in April last. Therefore, Sir, I say that, according to the facts, figures, and statements which have been placed before the House by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), our case is proved by the admissions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian; and if I were a counsel addressing a learned Judge and jury, I would probably resume my seat with the quotation I have made from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and say, "My Lord and gentlemen, our case is before you." Now, I notice that Lord Cowper's Commission has been constantly cited during these debates, and great importance is attached by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to any recommendation of the Commissioners which they think will sustain them in their opposition to this just and necessary measure. I observe, however, that Lord Cowper's Commission, after they have recommended a variety of measures which they think would tend to the amelioration of the condition of Ireland, conclude with this remarkable paragraph:
  "But while recommending certain changes in the law which circumstances have rendered necessary for the present relief of the tenants, it is right that we should also press, in the interest of all classes, the maintenance of law and order, which has in several parts of the country been grievously outraged. In the absence of that security which ought to be enjoyed in every civilized community, capital is discouraged, enterprise and industry are checked, and it is impossible that any country can thrive or any healing measures be devised which will add much to its prosperity."
  Those are the concluding parts of that portion of the Report of Lord Cowper's Commission which deals with the remedial proposals for Ireland, and I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who has dilated with such unction on the emigration which is now setting in from the shores of that unhappy country, ascribing the whole of it to the action of the ruined landlords of Ireland, might ask himself this question. Do none of these poor people leave their native homes in consequence of the paralysis of industry, the flying away of capital, the loss of employment occa-

  281
  sioned by the ruin of landlords, the entire absence of all industrial enterprize, the shutting up of many sources of employment, which heretofore were open to them? Can he or any man deny that many of these sources of mischief are owing to the action of that very body to which it is his pride to belong? No, Sir; unless capital can be induced again to visit Ireland, until industry can reap its just reward, until employment of various kinds can again be found for the great masses of the Irish people, until new sources of industry can be opened to Ireland's sons, until those latent industrial resources which Ireland undoubtedly possesses, but which, as it seems to me, since the days of Lord George Bentinck have attracted very little attention in this House, are cultivated and developed, I hear that whatever laws relating to land in Ireland are passed, emigration will continue, but it will not be the fault of the pauperized and ruined landlords of Ireland. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) favoured us on Tuesday night with a very solemn warning upon the condition of Ireland. He warned us that there was a great movement in the United States of America, that even respectable people had joined it, and I think he went so far as to say he himself was personally acquainted with an Episcopal clergyman who did not at all approve of this measure. I must say, I think this Episcopal clergyman of the United States would probably be devoting his energies and his intellect to more useful purposes, if he were to attend to the affairs of the United States, than in informing the right hon. Gentleman what his views are of a measure which he probably has never seen, and which, if he had seen, most unquestionably he would not understand. I do not at all like, I confess, to hear right hon. Gentlemen who have held high Office, referring in this House in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman did to what he is pleased to call the opinion of the respectable people of the United States. I think the respectable people of every country had much better attend to the affairs of their own country and let us, poor benighted Englishmen, manage the concerns of that great Empire which we have inherited from a long line of an-
  282
  cestors, and which we hope to hand down unimpaired to a remote posterity. Well, now, I will ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite to think for a moment what views the respectable people of the United States would have taken, if when they were in the midst some years back of their severe secession struggle, if the Mayors, Councilmen, and even Episcopal clergymen of England had come together and passed resolutions denouncing the conduct of one or other of the great parties in the United States. [An hon. MEMBER: We did.] Yes; but the only one of any weight who expressed an opinion on the subject, was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord is imputing to me that of which he has never informed himself. He is probably not aware that my statement on that subject has been published in America itself, and I received from the American Government itself a most satisfactory letter in regard to it.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Precisely so; that shows that what I stated was strictly correct. The right hon. Gentleman expressed an opinion, it was published in America, and he received a letter in regard to it. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: What opinion?] An opinion with reference to the formation, not only of an Army and Navy, but of a Nation, by Jefferson Davis. Well, now, Sir, we are told very often that the tale of crime in Ireland is not sufficient to justify the Bill we have introduced. It is said there have only been 12 or 13 murders in the last 15 months. If there had been a few more murders and a few more violent outrages, why, then something might be said— according to the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite—for a Bill of this nature. That is not the view Her Majesty's Government take on this great and important question. They think that it is much better to interfere while crime—though very serious and though advancing—has not reached the height it did in 1880, before the right hon. Gentleman opposite introduced his repression Bill. We think it infinitely better to bring forward a measure now when, critical as is the condition of many counties in Ireland, deep, according to the right hon. Gentleman, as is

  283
  the disorganization which is prevalent in Ireland, there is still time to hope we may, by a combination of remedial measures of this sort, and remedial measures of another sort, clear away the organized terrorism, intimidation, Boycotting, and crime which have made the lives of peaceable, honest, loyal, and law-abiding citizens almost intolerable. That is my answer to the plea for further delay. I say that the Government did try—when they came into Office last year—to rule Ireland and administer her affairs without any exceptional legislation. I admit, with the right hon. Gentleman, that the attempt has failed; and admitting the failure of that attempt, what was the plain and bounden duty of the Government? Surely it was, as soon as they had satisfied themselves that that attempt had failed, to come forward and produce to the House of Commons that measure which they thought essential for the restoration of peace, tranquillity, order, and happiness to Ireland. We recognize the enormous difficulties which we have to face in the attempt we are making. We see opposite to us the late trusted Ministers of the Crown arrayed in opposition to a measure to restore peace and tranquillity to Ireland. We are aware of the immense weight which attaches to their opinion. We know the enormous obstacles which stand in our way; but, Sir, we know this—we know that we are discharging a plain and simple duty. We know that we have the support of this House of Commons, which, as the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to point out in one of his numerous letters, is the product of universal household suffrage; we know by the large Majorities which have sent this Bill forward from one stage to another that we enjoy the confidence of the House in respect to this measure, and we are firmly convinced that behind this House of Commons—so recently in touch with the householders of this country—we have the support of the vast majority of the people of England. Having put our hands to the plough, we do not intend to draw them back until this House shall have finally decided upon, as we hope in the affirmative, this measure for the restoration of law and order, peace and happiness in Ireland, and we confidently appeal to the hon. Members of this
  284
  Imperial Parliament to sustain and encourage us in our determination and resolve.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Mr. Speaker, the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) who has just sat down has reproached us on this side of the House with having regard to the opinions that are held in foreign countries as to the policy which the Government are now pursuing. I can remember very well that, in the last Parliament, the noble Lord and his Friends were constantly taxing Her Majesty's then Government with their disregard of the opinion of foreign countries, and showing how they were sacrificing the name and reputation of Parliament and the country in the eyes of civilized Europe. And then, Sir, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he considers the opinion of Canada the opinion of a foreign country. It cannot have escaped the noble Lord's attention that the Legislature of Canada has, within the last few hours, voted something like four to one in condemnation of the policy which Her Majesty's present Government are pursuing towards Ireland. But the noble Lord has pronounced this Amendment to be one of the most extraordinary that he has ever, during his prolonged Parliamentary experience, come into contact with. He read the Amendment, and the point with which he found fault was that the Amendment describes the measure now before the House as a measure for strengthening the Criminal Law against combinations of tenants. But, Sir, we have a very good authority for that description of the measure in a passage from a speech quoted only a few minutes ago by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). It was the Prime Minister himself who, not very long since, said—" We have offered to the other House "—that is, the House of Commons—"a measure in order to put a stop to certain combinations," which is the very allegation made in this Amendment. I fail, therefore, to see why the noble Lord should, on that ground, find the Amendment so extraordinary. Well, then the noble Lord went on to ask why, if we have a right to insist upon seeing what is called the sister measure to this Coercion Bill, the other House of Parliament might not, with equal reason, insist upon see-

  285
  ing our Coercion Bill, before they part with their so-called remedial measure? Why, the answer to that is a very obvious one. We are very doubtful, in this House, in what shape, with what efficacy, your so-called remedial measure will come down from "another place;" they have no doubt in what shape you will send up your Coercion Bill. We have no security that we shall get a Land Bill after our heart; but they have very good reason to expect that they will get a Coercion Bill after their heart. This is my answer to that point raised by the noble Lord. The noble Lord dwelt at great length upon the flying away of capital from Ireland, and one among the other objects which he ascribed to the present measure was, he said, the keeping of capital in Ireland. I do not believe there is any subject upon which grosser fallacies are current than upon this matter of capital; we have very good evidence, and the Irish landlords know that they have had only too much English capital. I think we shall find that this is so, if we consider what the amounts of the Irish mortgages during the last fifty or more years have been. Experts say it is almost impossible to measure the sum; but Mr. Giffen has done all he could to find out the amount, and he puts it at £50,000,000, or about one-third of the value of Irish rents. Well, take that for one fact, and take the other fact which I ventured to bring before the notice of the House when I spoke on the Motion of Urgency made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith)—namely, that, according to the evidence of Mr. Hussey, the Irish landlords have not control of more than one-fifth of their revenue, the other four-fifths going away in no small proportion to the mortgagees. Has capital done them so much good that they need seek more? What you need in Ireland is not to prevent capital flying away—you do not want more capital on these terms; what you want is not to prevent capital flying away, but to prevent labour flying away. This is a Bill which will end—my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool has shown that it is already operating—in the direction of driving away the thus and sinews of Ireland, which would do much more for that country than English capital. The noble
  286
  Lord taxed us, as I think the right hon. and learned Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) did at an earlier stage of the Bill, with great inconsistency, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), when he introduced the Home Rule Bill last year, described the condition of Ireland as profoundly unsatisfactory, indeed, as leaving almost everything to be desired. We are now asked how it is that, having, a year ago, taken what the noble Lord has spoken of as so melancholy a view of the state of social order in Ireland, we now resist their measure for dealing with social disorder. We do not deny for a moment now, any more than we did a year ago, that the state of social order in Ireland is profoundly unsatisfactory; but we say it is; not unsatisfactory in the way and under the conditions which can be measured by criminal statistics. What we said was, and what we still say, is, that you must go deeper than a mere attempt to suppress the symptoms; you must get to the root of the malady. Our measure may, or may not, have been the right way of getting at the root of the malady; but what we say of your present measure is, that it is not an attempt to go to the root of this deplorable state of affairs. By way of illustrating the social disorder in the county, you assert that jurors will not convict because they are intimidated by the National League. [Hear, hear!"] You say "hear, hear," and you argue that, if Parliament will allow you to suppress the National League, intimidation will cease, and jurors will give verdicts. There was a Committee of the House of Lords, referred to by the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) the other night, and I am surprised that it has not been referred to more often in the course of these debates—Lord Lansdowne's Committee on Irish Jury Laws, in 1881. I will only read one very short passage. It is from the evidence of a certain Mr. Kelly, Queen's County, who was chairman of County Clare, and he, in answer to a question put to him by Lord Lansdowne, or Lord Cairns—I forget now which—says—
  "The class from which jurors are taken in Ireland are perfectly convinced that the way to put a stop to offences connected with the land is not by punishment; they are perfectly convinced that the proper mode of putting an end to such offences is that the landlord should not

  287
  take proceedings calculated to provoke them. The verdict of 'not guilty' does not mean that the man is not guilty of the act, but that he should not be punished for it. They do not appreciate their real duty as jurors; they think their duty is to decide, not whether the accused did the act, but whether he ought to be punished for it."
  Of course, I am not going, for a moment —hon. Gentlemen opposite will not suspect me of it—to sympathize with that view, or defend it; but unimpeachable) evidence of this kind, of which I think I can give the House dozens of other instances, 'does show that the malady, which we all admit, does not arise from intimidation, but from a wide-spread popular sympathy with the offenders. Now, Sir, I turn from the noble Lord's (Lord John Manner's) speech to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), in answer to the hon. and learned Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Reid). The right hon. Gentleman complained that the debate had been too long already, and he deprecated this discussion. Sir, I have not taken part in the debates on the Bill since the Bill was introduced; and, therefore, I hope I shall escape the lash of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) and his Secretary. I maintain that the Government have themselves to thank for the prolongation of this debate. What I mean by that is that, in the first instance, they presented their case—I say this with all respect to the Chief Secretary— in so slovenly, so loose, and so un business like a manner that we had, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has said, to extort information from them step by step and day by day. Why, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary gave us scarcely any figures at all when he introduced the Bill. I think none whatever. Then it was felt that was rather strong, and the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), two or three nights afterwards, got up and gave us figures, but they were figures from a Return which was not before the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) also based a very plausible argument, as to the condition of Kerry, upon Returns which were not before the House. It was impossible for us satisfactorily to discuss the proposals of the Government, supported by
  288
  these arguments, until we were able for ourselves to gauge and to test the statements on which these proposals were founded. The case of statistics has, as is admitted now by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, broken down.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never admitted that it had broken down.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Of course, I never meant to say that the right hon. Gentleman was so ingenuous as to say that the case had broken down; but what was his attitude a few nights ago? First of all, he said—"We do not base our case upon the statistical Returns of crime." Then the Homo Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland said— "Oh! by the way, there are some statistics of crime which are of great importance." Then, two nights ago, the Chief Secretary, when the statistics were proved, in the minds of all men of impartial judgment and of experience of Irish statistics to be not in the least degree alarming, said—
  "The Returns of agrarian offences, I must inform the House, are not complete Returns, and the Constabulary do not include in them all those offences which are connected with the disturbed state of Ireland."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I made that statement when I introduced the Bill.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am bound to say that I speak with reserve when I say that I doubt whether that is a correct account of the Constabulary Returns. I doubt very much—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland can easily put me right if I am wrong—whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland is strictly right in this matter. For example, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) said that the Curtin murder was not returned as an agrarian crime; I venture to doubt it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said the Return of outrages did include the attack made upon the two girls for speaking to policemen. I said I was not certain whether the Curtin case was returned. I have since inquired, and I find it was not returned as an agrarian crime.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I spoke from memory. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.] But, in any case, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman have diminished the effect of the particular statistics that have been given, because

  289
  he said that the agrarian Returns were not complete. Well, now, just as the figures have shifted, so has the account of the objects of the Bill shifted. We are not clear, and we are less clear than ever, after the speech of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), what is the object of this Bill. We were, first of all, told that the Bill was a Bill against crime, and we were told the other night again by the Chief Secretary, in words that have already been quoted this evening, that it is not combination that the Government desire to crush, but it is crime. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] The Chief Secretary adheres to that; but when it was found that no great case was being made out upon the state of crime, that ground was given up, and it was attempted to justify the proposals of the Bill on the ground of the general disturbance of the country. We were told, in so many words, that the Bill was one aimed against combinations, and now we are told that it is not aimed against combinations. [''No, no!"] Yes; we are assured first that it is, and then that it is not. I say that the House is left in a state of complete eon-fusion even now as to what the real object of the Bill is. We shall endeavour, in Amendments, to test the object of the Bill; we shall endeavour to find out, by the response which the Government give to Amendments put down to the Bill, whether they really mean to confine the operation of the Bill to the suppression of crime, or whether they mean to extend it to combinations. Sir, if the Government mean to confine the operation of the Bill to the suppression of crime, why do they incorporate the Whiteboy Acts? And, Sir, I think we have some reason to complain of the Government for not answering, in any way, the urgent request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian that the clauses of the Whiteboy Acts, which they intend to incorporate in the 2nd section of the Bill, should be set out in the Bill. My right hon. Friend pressed that, and I think that if any hon. Gentleman, even on that side of the House, will take the trouble to read in the Paper laid before the House some of the provisions which it is proposed to include, he will be of opinion that the Whiteboy Clauses ought to be set out in all their naked ugliness in the body of the Bill itself. I am not going, at
  290
  this hour of the night (12 o'clock), to weary the House by going through these Whiteboy Clauses; but there are one or two of them I should like to call the attention of the House to, because they show better than any vague words of Ministers used in the course of the debate what the effect and the operation of the Bill will be. Now, one of the Whiteboy Clauses is that—
  "If anybody appears with any badge, dress, or uniform not usually worn by him or her, or assumes any political name or denomination not usually assumed by His Majesty's subjects upon lawful occasions."
  I do not know whether that description will or will not cover Orangemen; the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) does not always wear a dress or uniform, and does not always assume a particular name and denomination not usually assumed by Her Majesty's subjects. If anyone answering to that description—
  "Shall appear by day or night to the terror of His Majesty's subjects—[Ministerial cheers] —he shall be liable, under the Bill, to be brought before two Resident Magistrates, and to suffer six months' imprisonment."
  You cheer ironically the words "to the terror of His Majesty's subjects," and you argue that if people assemble to the terror of Her Majesty's subjects they ought to be amenable to punishment. I do not much differ with you upon that point; but I say of that, as I do of the argument of the noble Lord about criminal conspiracies, it is not what is to the terror of Her Majesty's subjects, it is not what is a criminal conspiracy, but it is what two Resident Magistrates shall think to be to the terror of Her Majesty's subjects or a criminal conspiracy. That is the secret of the whole Bill. It will be remembered that in the so-called Peterloo massacre the firing of the soldiers upon the multitude then assembled for a purely political object, and, as all of us in every part of the House now think, an object perfectly harmless, was held to be justifiable by the Judges, on the ground that the meeting was one calculated to conduce to the terror of His Majesty's subjects. And now there is one other clause from the many others which I should like to particularly mention—
  "If any person shall print, or knowingly circulate, or deliver any notice, letter, or message tending to excite to a tumultuous meeting

  291
  or unlawful combination, he shall he liable to be punished."
  That, again, is a combination plainly unlawful — a combination indubitably unlawful; and I have no doubt the offenders might very well be brought before the magistrates and punished. But here, again, the same criticism applies. It is what two Resident Magistrates shall believe and define to be an unlawful combination; and I do hope that, if these clauses are to be put into the Bill, even this House of Commons will have enough of the old spirit of English liberty and English justice left in it to strike them out. A great deal has been said about the power conferred upon Resident Magistrates by these clauses. They are to have absolute discretion in putting down meetings, and absolute discretion as to the imprisonment of editors and proprietors of disagreeable newspapers. I think the best lawyers in the House will agree that that is the effect of these clauses. Now, I wish to read one passage of a letter which, has not been noticed in this debate, but which will give Parliament an idea of the position of Resident Magistrates during the operation of a Coercion Bill. Mr. Clifford Lloyd is not a gentleman whose testimony will be suspected of being unduly hostile to the Government; but what did he write to the newspapers a little time ago? I will read a short passage from a letter of his. He said—
  "It is this primary duty of Government— I mean the duty of keeping law and order— that the Lord Lieutenant has never been able to perform, and for this reason—that every tendency of the Castle system is to concentrate authority within its walls, and to remove from judicial officials every sense of responsibility. When the strain comes, such a system invariably breaks down. The state of confusion to be witnessed at Dublin Castle during the Land League disturbances can hardly be imagined. Telegrams came pouring in from all parts of the country announcing murders, attacks by armed parties, risings, riots, and acts of treason; and there were demands from magistrates for police and troops, and requests for instructions in reference to events which had generally passed before the instructions arrived. I have before me nine telegrams received by a Resident Magistrate during the course of one day concerning his movements on the following day with police and troops, and each of the nine telegrams contained orders in opposition to those previously issued."
  And Mr. Clifford Lloyd then goes on to say what Lord Cowper and Mr. Forster
  292
  did to try and alter that state of things. They issued instructions to the Resident Magistrates for preserving life, securing property, and for maintaining law and administering the law. Well, you have there, therefore, evidence of two things —first of all, that the Resident Magistrates are not likely, supposing there should come troublous times in Ireland again, to have their minds in the condition for deciding nice judicial questions; and, secondly, they are not at all unlikely, in spite of the announcement —I am sure the sincere announcement —of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, to apply to Dublin Castle for instructions in reference to administering the law; and I think that, at least from the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman), they are very likely to receive them. Sir, I should like to make one or two very brief remarks upon the Chief Secretary's observations regarding the remedial measure in "another place." The right hon. Gentleman said—" Our Bill in the House of Lords shows that we wish to stay evictions." My noble Friend the Member for Hampshire (Viscount Wolmer) said, the other night, that the Liberal Unionists would not vote for this measure unless they felt sure that the Government were going to bring in a measure to stop what he called "barbarous evictions." Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in answering the arguments advanced in support of the Amendment by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries, said—
  "It is quite true that in the last resort, if the landlord reduces the tenant to the status of a caretaker, the popular excitement connected with evictions will come off in exactly the same way at the expiry of the six months' notice as it comes off now."
  That is, no doubt, true; the caretaker will have to be turned out, precisely as the tenant will have to be turned out, the only difference being that the caretaker will be turned out by the landlord's bailiff and the tenant by the Sheriff. But think how the 4th clause will operate. That clause enables the landlord to substitute service of a notice for that process which is connected with so much odium, violence, and uproar at evictions. Does anyone seriously doubt that landlords finding this restraint upon evictions removed—this restraint of

  293
  public danger and odium—finding that they can gain their ends without all these drawbacks, a number of eviction processes will be taken out by way of notice which would never have been undertaken if the public proceedings had had to go on as under the present system? Of course, I am quite aware that the effect may be to give you six months of peace—to give you peace during the six months while the notices are running; and this six months' peace will be convenient to you. But it will be a hollow and treacherous peace, because, at the end of the six months, you will find your last state worse than the first. The landlords will have issued a multitude of notices, and the tenants will have been lulled into a sense of comparative security, and will not have made the efforts they otherwise would have made for reasonable settlement. Therefore, I say the Government Bill shows, not, as the right hon. Gentleman thinks, that they wish to stay evictions—though I have no doubt they do wish to do that— but shows that they wish to stay evictions for six months. At the end of the six months I venture to predict you will have a greater crop than ever you have had of those violent expulsions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred rather cynically the other night. Another point the right hon. Gentleman made has been repeated several times in the course of these debates. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Why do not tenants, if they are placed in circumstances of such distress, go into the Courts, as they can, and get relief under the Land Act? "
  Why, has the right hon. Gentleman never heard of arrears—that the tenants have arrears hanging round their necks in enormous numbers, and that those arrears prevent them from going into Court and getting the relief Parliament intended them to have? If the right hon. Gentleman has read the Blue Book containing the account of the proceedings of Lord Cowper's Commission, he will have seen that a Mr. John Cunningham, of Donegal, was asked by Lord Milltown—
  "Are they afraid to go into Court, for fear the landlord will deprive them of the right of turbary?''
  And his answer was—
  "Yes; and a good many people are afraid to go into Court, lest they should be deprived of the right of grazing."
  294
  Lord Milltown again said—
  "I have heard before now that it prevents a great number."
  Whereupon Mr. Cunningham said—
  "A great number; I have seen them leave the Court in large numbers, rather than go on with their cases."
  I think that when the right hon. Gentleman knows more of Ireland, he will admit that is one of the poorest arguments that could possibly have been used in answer to the case put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries. Another point which the right hon. Gentleman made was one which has been referred to tonight by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and by the noble Lord the Member for East Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), and I wish to refer to it from a point of view which has not occurred after all to either of those Gentlemen. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Land Act of 1860. The noble Lord missed the point of our comment on the references of the Chief Secretary to the Land Act of 1860, and he said, in that spirit of recrimination which has so much marked these debates, and with so little effect—"Oh! but that Act came from the Liberal Party." I do not care whom it came from. The point is, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary expressed his approval and admiration of the Act of 1860. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I never did.] Why, you said the Land Act of I860 contained principles which were accepted by all the countries in the civilized world. Surely that is an expression of approbation? I know the right hon. Gentleman does not just now think a great deal of the civilized world.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to explain. I said that the Land Act of 1860 applied in Ireland the principles of land legislation which are habitually professed in all civilized countries. You have adopted a Land Act which does not follow those principles. I expressed no opinion.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: If that is not an expression of approbation, I should like to know what it is! And I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is not a difference between the condition of landed property in other parts of the civilized world, and the way in which it has been worked in Ireland? Is there any

  295
  other part of the civilized world where the main value of land has been created out of the tenants' own industry? I would approve the principle of the Act of 18G0, if it were applied in countries such as our own, where tenants have not made improvements. The point is important; because the right hon. Gentleman is the Representative of the Irish Government, and he will have something to say upon remedial legislation, on the strength of which the Liberal Unionists are going to support the Government. What is the principle of the Act of 1860? It is that the relations between landlord and tenant should be pure relations of contract, and in no sense relations of tenure. The principle of the Act is that the hiring of land is just as much a transaction founded on trade principles as the chartering of a ship, or the hiring of a street cab. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Those Gentlemen who cheer that statement, at all events, approve the principle. Are they going, in their remedial legislation, to act upon that principle? The Act of 1860 was the climax—the high-water mark—of what I call English legislation for Ireland—I mean legislation enacted in a midnight ignorance of Irish usage, of the history of Irish land, and of the whole body of the economic and agricultural conditions of Ireland. That measure came after the Encumbered Estates Act, and the two together are proof positive of the unfitness of this Parliament to deal with the Irish Land Question, whether upon the footing of contract or on the footing of tenure. As to the years between 1860 and 1870, which the right hon. Gentleman thought were remarkably free from crime, I do not know whether they were free from crime; but whether or not, I make this remark —that they were years of incessant discontent, of growing agitation, and of increasing alarm and terror in the minds of the tenants. Therefore, if the legislation of 1860 and its principle is going to be accepted in any degree whatever by the Government, all I can say is that they will find themselves, as I think, in the most lamentable case. I should like to allude to a remark which has been made constantly in the course of these debates by all conversant with the facts, that you must settle the Land Question first, and when you settle that the political question will disappear. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the
  296
  Treasury has told us that the Government have a Purchase Bill in an advanced state of preparation. Well, Sir, I am for a Purchase Bill also, and I believe that you will have no settlement in Ireland until there has been a great increase in the number of peasant owners. But you will not get a large increase in the number of peasant owners in a hurry. It will be—I do not care what your Purchase Bill may be—a very slow process indeed, and you will not be able to deal with the real root of the evil by a Purchase Bill at all. I venture to predict, having had opportunities for talking with Irish land experts of the best and largest experience on this subject, who all agree in this—that a Purchase Bill, and the principle of purchase alone, will be absolutely ineffectual in dealing with the great problem of the congested districts. It is absolutely certain, too, that purchase and the transformation of small tenants into owners of land will not get rid of the political difficulty. Again, no Purchase Bill, unless it is a Bill of such enormous magnitude as my imagination, refuses to conceive, can do away with the necessity of lowering rents. Your purchase scheme will, undoubtedly, force down rents. Suppose two farms situated side by side, of equal value, and each rented at £100 a-year, and suppose that the landlord of one of them sells under your Bill—the tenant's rent will fall from £100 to £78 or £75. Is it in human nature that if this occurs to one man, his neighbour will be content to pay the same rent as before? It cannot be but that, if you reduce the rent of one tenant by 22 or 25 per cent, the other will not rest until he has got a similar advantage. This question of the reduction of rents is, therefore, entirely independent of the fall in prices, and depends wholly on the fact that the credit of the Imperial Exchequer has been introduced into the question, and the consequent low rate at which money can be borrowed. I honestly regret that the Government have taken the course which they have seen it their duty to take in bringing in this Bill, instead of introducing the Bills which the First Lord of the Treasury has foreshadowed, one of which he said was before the House of Lords and the other in an advanced state. If I were to judge this policy from the point of view of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I should find it as condemnable as

  297
  I should if it came from ourselves. I should go about the question in an entirely different way. You agree that the Irish tenants have grievances, and that the land system in Ireland needs to be dealt with. You have got your remedies. Why did you not bring them in two months ago, or one of them at least? Why did you not bring them in on the 21st of March, instead of introducing this disastrous and ill-omened measure? Sir, I have often been taxed with thinking more highly of the power of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) than it deserves; but I venture to say that, if the two Bills which you have for relieving the immediate needs of the Irish tenants, if they were good Bills, had been first introduced, I do not believe the hon. Member for Cork would have been able, and I do not believe he would have been inclined, to keep back such a been from the great mass of those in Ireland who returned him and 85 other Members to this House. We do not believe that Land Bills will settle the Irish Question; but you do. We do not believe that the Irish tenants are burning to throw off the yoke of the hon. Member for Cork and the National League; but you do. If I held those opinions, the very thing I should have done would have been to press on agrarian remedies, and to abstain from coercion. Coercion will have the inevitable effect—and I believe you know it in your hearts as well as we know it — by reason of the traditions and the strongest passions in Ireland, of throwing the whole sentiment of the country against your remedial legislation, and giving new strength to what you are pleased to consider a lawless organization. I think there are many of your Irish friends who will tell you, if you ask them their real opinion, though not in debate, that the effect of this Bill must be to throw new strength of popular opinion on the side of the hon. Member for Cork and the National League. You think you can put down the National League. What did Lord Spencer say? [Cries of "Oh!" and laughter.] Yes; but Lord Spencer knows a great deal more of this matter than any of us, and I would rather take Lord Spencer's knowledge of Ireland, and of the Executive Government in Ireland, than that of the hon. Gentleman who laughs. Lord Spencer said that—
  298
  "The suppression of the National League might seem to be a very easy tiling to do; but it would be one of the most gigantic tasks that any statesman could undertake. The National League in three of the four Provinces was bound up with the people of the country. It had supporters in every village and every town in the country; and even in Ulster the National League existed, and returned a majority of Members for that Province. To put down the League was a herculean task for any Government. We all knew the difficulties there were when Lord Cowper and Mr. Forster tried to put down the Land League; but I will venture to say that the difficulties will be very much greater if any Government should attempt to put down by force the National League."
  You have gone in for a Coercion Act because you think it is the easiest thing to do. Your Purchase Bill will, perhaps, involve you in a very considerable quarrel with the British taxpayer; your Tenants' Bankruptcy Bill has already got you into very considerable trouble with your landlord friends. Measures of that kind test the resources of statesmanship. Anybody can pass a Coercion Bill. But it is not anybody who can undo the mischief which Coercion Bills have often done, and which this Coercion Bill will do more than any of the others. It is because we believe that it will do none of the good which you anticipate, and that it will do enormous and irreparable mischief at a critical moment in the relations between England and Ireland, that we protest against it, and shall continue to protest against it at every point.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 341; Noes 240: Majority 101.

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Ainslie, W. G.

  Beaumont, H. F.

  Allsopp, hon. A.

  Beckett, E. W.

  Allsopp, hon. G.

  Beckett, W.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Bective, Earl of

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Bentinck, Lord H. C.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Bentinck, W. G. C.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Beresford, Lord C. W. de la Poer

  Baden-Powell, G. S.

  Baggallay, E.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Bickford-Smith, W.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Biddulph, M.

  Balfour, G. W.

  Bigwood, J.

  Baring, Viscount

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Barnes, A.

  Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

  Barry, A. H. Smith-

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Bond, G. H.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Boord, T. W.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Borthwick, Sir A.

  299

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Ewart, W.

  Ewing, Sir A. O.

  Bright, right hon. J.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Farquharson, H. R.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Brown, A. H.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Field, Admiral E.

  Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

  Fielden, T.

  Finch, G. H.

  Burghley, Lord

  Finch-Hatton, hon. M. E. G.

  Caldwell, J.

  Campbell, Sir A.

  Finlay, R. B.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Campbell, E. F. F.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Chamberlain, E.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. W.

  Chaplin, right hon. H.

  Charrington, S.

  Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

  Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Folkestone, right hon.Viscount

  Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Coddington, W.

  Fowler, Sir It. N.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

  Fry, L.

  Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

  Fulton, J. F.

  Gardner, R. Richardson-

  Compton, F.

  Cooke, C. W. E.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Corbett, A. C.

  Corbett, J.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Gedge, S.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Cross, H. S.

  Gibson, J. G.

  Crossley, Sir S. B.

  Giles, A.

  Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Godson, A. F.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Goldsmid, Sir J.

  Curzon, hon. G. N.

  Goldsworthy, Major General W. T.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.

  Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

  Gray, C. W.

  Green, Sir E.

  De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

  Greenall, Sir G.

  Greene, E.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Grotrian, F. B.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Grove, Sir T. F.

  Dixon, G.

  Gunter, Colonel R.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Donkin, H. S.

  Hall, A. W.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Hall, C.

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Duncan, Colonel F.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Duncombe, A.

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Hamilton, Lord E.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Hamley, General Sir E. B.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Hankey, F. A.

  Elcho, Lord

  Hardcastle, E.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Elliot, Sir G.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Elliot, G. W.

  Hastings, G. W.

  Ellis, Sir J. W.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Elton, C. I.

  Evelyn, W. J.

  Heaton, J. H.

  300

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Hermon-Holge, E. T.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  M'Calmont, Captain J.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J. M.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Hill, A. S.

  Malcolm, Col. J. W.

  Hoare, S.

  Mallock, R.

  Hobhouse, H.

  Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R.

  Holland, right hon. Sir H. T.

  March, Earl of

  Holmes, rt. hon. H.

  Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

  Houldsworth, W. H.

  Howard, J.

  Matthews, rt. hn. H.

  Howorth, H. H.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Mayne, Admiral E. C.

  Hubbard, rt. hn. J. G.

  Mildmay, F. B.

  Hubbard, E.

  Mills, hon. C. W.

  Hughes, Colonel E.

  Milvain, T.

  Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

  More, R. J.

  Morrison, W.

  Hulse, E. H.

  Mount, W. G.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. P.

  Hunter, Sir W. G.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Mowbray, E. G. C.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Muncaster, Lord

  James, rt. hon. Sir H.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Jarvis, A. W.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Jennings, L. J.

  Newark, Viscount

  Johnston, W.

  Noble, W.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Northcote, hon. H. S.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Norton, R.

  Kenrick, W.

  O'Neill, hon. R. T.

  Kenyon, hon. G. T.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Kenyon - Slaney, Col. W.

  Pearce, W.

  Telly, Sir L.

  Kerans, F. H.

  Penton, Captain F. T.

  Kimber, H.

  Pitt-Lewis, G.

  King, H. S.

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

  Plunkett, hon. J. W.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

  Pomfret, W. P.

  Powell, F. S.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Knowles, L.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Lafone, A.

  Quilter, W. C.

  Lambert, C.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Laurie, Colonel E. P.

  Rankin, J.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

  Reed, H. B.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Richardson, T.

  Lea, T.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.

  Lees, E.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Legh, T. W.

  Robertson, W. T.

  Leighton, S.

  Robinson, B.

  Lewis, Sir C. E.

  Ross, A. H.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Round, J.

  Long, W. H.

  Royden, T. B.

  Low, M.

  Russell, Sir G.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Russell, T. W.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Salt, T.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Selwin - Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.

  Maclean, F. W.

  301

  Selwyn, Captain C. W.

  Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

  Seton-Karr, H.

  Waring, Colonel T.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Watson, J.

  Sidebotham, J. W.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Webster, R. G.

  Sidebottom, W.

  West, Colonel W. C.

  Smith, rt. hn. W. H.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Smith, A.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Spencer, J. E.

  White, J. B.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Whitley, E.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Sutherland, T.

  Wiggin, H.

  Swetenham, E.

  Wilson, Sir S.

  Sykes, C.

  Winn, hon. R.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Taylor, F.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Temple, Sir R.

  Wood, N.

  Theobald, J.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Thorburn, W.

  Wright, H. S.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Wroughton, P.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Yerburgh, R. A.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Townsend, F.

  TELLERS.

  Trotter, H. J.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Verdin, R.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Glam.)

  Condon, T. J.

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  Connolly, L.

  Conway, M.

  Acland, A. H. D.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Allison, R. A.

  Cossham, H.

  Anderson, C. H.

  Cox, J. R.

  Asher, A.

  Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

  Asquith, H. H.

  Craig, J.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Craven, J.

  Austin, J.

  Crawford, D.

  Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

  Crawford, W.

  Barbour, W. B.

  Cremer, W. R.

  Barran, J.

  Crilly, D.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Crossley, E.

  Blake, J. A.

  Deasy, J.

  Blake, T.

  Dillon, J.

  Blane, A.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Dodds, J.

  Bolton, T. D.

  Ellis, J.

  Bradlaugh, C.

  Ellis, J. E.

  Bright, Jacob

  Ellis, T. E.

  Bright, W. L.

  Esslemont, P.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Evershed, S.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Bryce, J.

  Fenwick, C.

  Buxton, S. C.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

  Byrne, G. M.

  Finucane, J.

  Cameron, C.

  Flower, C.

  Cameron, J. M.

  Flynn, J. C.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Foley, P. J.

  Campbell, H.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Campbell - Bannerman, right hon. H.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Forster, Sir W. B.

  Carew, J. L.

  Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.

  Chance, P. A.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Channing, F. A.

  Fry, T.

  Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

  Fuller, G. P.

  Gane, J. L.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Gardner, H.

  Cobb, H. P.

  Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

  Cohen, A.

  Gilhooly, J.

  Coleridge, hon. B.

  Gill, H. J.

  Colman, J. J.

  Gill, T. P.

  Commins, A.

  Gladstone, rt. hn.W. E.

  302

  Gladstone, H. J.

  O'Brien, P.

  Grey, Sir E.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Haldane, R. B.

  O'Connor, A.

  Hanbury-Tracy, hon. F.S. A.

  O'Connor, J. (Kerry)

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W. G.V. V.

  O'Doherty, J. E.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Harrington. E.

  O'Hea, P.

  Harrington, T. C.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Palmer, Sir C. M.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Peacock, R.

  Healy. T. M.

  Pease, Sir J. W.

  Holden, I.

  Pease, A. E.

  Hooper, J.

  Pease, H. F.

  Howell, G.

  Pickard, B.

  Hoyle, I.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Picton, J. A.

  Illingworth, A,

  Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

  Jacoby, J. A.

  James, hon. W. H.

  Plowden, Sir W. C.

  James, C. H.

  Portman, hon. E. B.

  Joicey, J.

  Potter, T. B.

  Jordan, J.

  Powell, W.R. H.

  Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

  Power, P. J.

  Power, R.

  Kennedy, E. J.

  Priestley, B.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Provand, A. D.

  Kenny, J. E.

  Pugh, D.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Kilcoursie, right hon. Viscount

  Quinn, T.

  Rathbone, W.

  Lacaita, C. C.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Lalor, R.

  Reed, Sir E. J.

  Lane, W. J.

  Reid, R. T.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Rendel, S.

  Leahy, J.

  Richard, H.

  Leake, R.

  Roberts, J.

  Lefevre, right. hon. G. J. S.

  Roberts, J. B.

  Robertson, E.

  Lockwood, F.

  Roe, T.

  Lyoll, L.

  Roscoe, Sir H. E.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Rowlands, J.

  MacInnes, M.

  Rowlands, W. B.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Rowntree, J.

  M'Cartan, M.

  Russell, Sir C.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Samuelson, Sir B.

  M'Carthy, J. H.

  Schwann, C. E.

  M'Donald, P.

  Sexton, T.

  M'Donald, Dr. E.

  Shaw, T.

  M'Ewan, W.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Sheehy, D.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Sheil, E.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Shirley, W. S.

  Mahony, P.

  Smith, S.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Stack, J.

  Mappin, Sir F. T.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  Marum, E. M.

  Stansfeld, right hon. J.

  Mason, S.

  Mayne, T.

  Stepney-Cowell, Sir A. K.

  Menzies, R. S.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Stevenson, F. S.

  Montagu, S.

  Stuart, J.

  Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

  Sullivan, D.

  Morgan, O. V.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Morley, rt. hon. J.

  Summers, W.

  Mundella, right hon. A. J.

  Swinburne, Sir J.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Murphy, W. M.

  Tanner, C. K.

  Neville, R.

  Thomas, A.

  Newnes, G.

  Tuite, J.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Vivian, Sir H. H.

  Nolan, J.

  Waddy, S. D.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Wallace, R.

  303

  Wardle, H.

  Winterbotham, A. B.

  Warmington, C. M.

  Woodall, W.

  Watt, H.

  Woodhead, J.

  Wayman, T.

  Wright, C.

  Whitbread, S.

  Yeo, F. A.

  Will, J. S.

  Williams, A. J.

  TELLERS.

  Williamson, J.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  Williamson, S.

  Wilson, G. H.

  Morley, A.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 230.]
  (Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not think the Bill should be read at this hour (1.45 A.M.) without some explanation. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. T. M. Healy,)—put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  BANKRUPTCY OFFICES (SITES) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 243.]
  (Mr. D. R. Plunket, Mr. Jackson.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Exemption from operation of 18 § 19 Viet., c. 122).
  DR. TANNER: Before we dispose of Clause 10 I wish to move that you, Mr. Courtney, do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I think we are going through with the Bill at an inordinate rate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Dr. Tanner.)
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): This Bill is now passing through what I may almost call a formal
  304
  stage. The alterations which are being made are purely formal.
  DR. TANNER: There is no material alteration made in the Bill?
  MR. PLUNKET: No.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We have heard a great deal about the Examiners. Did this Bill go before them?
  MR. PLUNKET: Yes.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Were the notices published?
  MR. PLUNKET: All the important Amendments.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  TRUCK BILL.— [BILL 109.]
  (Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Warmington, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Arthur Williams, Mr. Howard Vincent, Mr. Esslemont.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, the following Amendment made: —
  In page 1, line 5, at end, insert "the Act of the session of the first and second years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter thirty-seven, intituled 'An Act to prohibit the payment in certain trades of wages in goods or otherwise than in the current coin of the realm' (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), may he cited as 'The Truck Act, 1831,' and that Act and this Act may he cited together as the Truck Acts 1831 and 1887, and Shall he construed together as one Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Application of principal Act to workman as defined by Employers and Workmen Act, 1875).
  On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 6, leave out from "the," to "principal" in line 7; and in line 9, after "ten," insert—
  "And the expression 'artificer' in the principal Act shall he construed to include every workman to which the principal Act is extended and applied by this Act."
  On the Motion of Mr. DONALD CRAWFORD, the following Amendment made:—
  In page 1, line 9, after "ten," insert ''except a servant in husbandry."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Workman to be entitled to advance of portion of wages).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 11, leave out from beginning of Clause to "take," in line 17, and insert "the wages of a workman, whether he had paid according to the work done, or according to the time during which he is employed, shall accrue due and be payable as follows (that is to say); —

  (a.) The wages shall accrue due weekly or at such intervals of time less than a week as may be provided by the contract;

  (b.) The wages shall, save as hereinafter mentioned, be payable and paid weekly or within seven days after the end of the week in which they accrue due, or at such intervals of time of less than a week as may be provided by the contract;

  (c.) The contract may provide for the payment at the time at which the wages would otherwise be payable under this section of a part only, not being less than seventy-five per cent of the wages accrued due; and in such case the residue, if any, shall be paid within one week of the ascertaining of such residue, or within such less time as may be provided by the contract;

  (d.) The amount of wages due at the end of any week or other less interval shall be calculated, if the workman is paid according to the work done, in proportion to the work done during that week or interval, and if he is paid according to the time during which he is employed, in proportion to the time during which he has been employed during that week or interval;

  (e.) Where wages which have accrued due, but are not yet payable, are paid in advance, no profit, discount, or interest shall be charged on such advance.

  (2.) The employer shall comply with this section, and shall not."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I would propose that we should pass this Amendment down to the word "contract" in Sub-section "b." The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) wants to propose some alteration, and I pledged myself to him to move to report Progress, so that it would not be necessary to raise the point to-night.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I would ask that the Committee should report Progress now.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I would appeal to the hon. Member to let us take the
  306
  Amendment down to the word "contract." We shall not then touch the point he wants to raise: and I desire to get through as much of this Bill as we can to-night.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I should like to have a further opportunity of considering the clause, which greatly differs from the one in the Bill. It was generally understood that we should not proceed beyond a certain point to-night.
  MR. BEADLAUGH: I think the hon. Gentleman is in error in paying that there is a difference between this clause and that originally drafted. I am grateful to the Government for the redrafting, which. I think, is a great advantage. I would point out to the hon. Member that the question of a payment at a certain period of a percentage of the wages that have accrued due can be raised after we have disposed of Subsection "b."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out that if the Question before the Committee is carried, and the words proposed to be left out are left out, and words are inserted only so far as the word "contract," the clause will not make sense— the words inserted will not run with those that follow. The words must run on to the end.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Then I move, Sir, that you do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Bradlaugh.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Before that is put, Sir, I should like to ask the Government if there is any reason why this Bill should not extend to Ireland? The original Bill did extend to Ireland. I think it was an excellent measure. Before this Bill comes on for consideration again, I think we should have a distinct understanding that it will apply to Ireland.
  MR. C. T. D. ACLAND: I should like to ask the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) whether he intends to press the application of the Bill to the whole of England? because in the Stannaries Acts Amendment Bill there is provision for the continuation of the custom of fortnightly and monthly payments with which this Bill would interfere. As that Bill is going to be considered by a Select

  307
  Committee, I shall be obliged to ask that the hon. Gentleman will agree to an Amendment excepting the Stannaries altogether from the Bill. If it is permissible, I should be glad if the hon. Member will give me an answer on this point.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I ask that Progress may be reported at this point, because it is clear it will be useless to try to pass half the clause, and to try to discuss half of it, as it will not be in Order to do as I at first proposed. I should be glad to extend the Bill to Ireland, but, unfortunately, the original Act does not so extend; and, so far as I am concerned, I am bound by the original Act. As to extending the measure to the whole of England, there is no objection that I can see. There are objectionable practices in Cornwall that I think it is desirable to put a stop to, if possible.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Launceston Division of Cornwall (Mr. C. T. D. Acland) is interested in this matter—as I am myself, having a Bill of my own before the Committee. I desire to give the miners as much as they can wish for, and if they can derive any advantage from this Bill I shall be glad.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): In reference to the question put by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy), I wish to say that the difficulty in the way of applying the Bill to Ireland is as stated by the hon. Member for Northampton. The original Bill extends to Great Britain only; and if legislation of this kind is to apply to Ireland, the Bill will have to be materially added to. Before the measure comes before the Committee again I will consider the question now raised, and see if it will be possible to extend the Bill to Ireland.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: In the original Act there are words which declare that the Act shall only apply to Great Britain. If those were repealed, then everything would be easy.
  MR. HOLMES: It would require more than that.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I desire to say that I propose, in Subsection "b," to strike out the words "or within seven days after the end of
  308
  the week in which they accrue due." If there is any objection to that, or if there are districts where it is desired that wages should be paid other than weekly, we shall be glad to consider it. We have thought it would be well to leave the word "weekly" in the clause, so that the Committee may make what alteration it likes. When we are again in Committee on the Bill I shall move that the words to which I have alluded be struck out.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The insertion of the words "in this Act and the principal Act shall apply to Ireland" would be all the alteration necessary to meet our wishes in this matter. The words of the principal Act are singular—"That this Act shall apply to that part of Great Britain and Ireland called Great Britain."
  MR. C. T. D. ACLAND: There are special circumstances attending the payment of Cornish miners that do not apply to other miners. We intend to bring before the Committee considering the Bill to which I referred the best evidence we can get from the miners themselves.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: It will be a serious thing to abolish fortnightly pays—
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is irrelevant to the Motion before the Committee.
  ME. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that I shall put a Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite as to the proposal to extend the Bill to Ireland before allowing Progress to be made at the next Sitting.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  FISHING IN RIVERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Broadhurst, Bill to declare the Law relating to Fishing in Rivers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Arnold Morley, and Mr. Bernard Coleridge.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 244.]

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary Matthews, Bill to amend the Law relating to Juvenile Offenders, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Matthews and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 245.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Customs Consolidation Act (1876) Amendment* (71); Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle)* (72).
Second Reading—Tithe Rent-charge* (54).
Third Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) * (63), and passed.
Royal Assent—Army (Annual) [50 Vict. C. 2]; County Courts (Expenses) [50 Vict. c. 3]; Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment [50 Vict. c. 4]; Isle of Man (Customs) [50 Vict. c. 5].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Committee—Report Metropolitan Police * (65).
Royal Assent — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Carrick-on-Suir) [50 Vict. c. v].

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION WATER BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a" —(The Earl of Derby.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months, said: My Lords, In pursuance of the Notice I have given, I now move that this Bill be read a third time this day six months; and I may say I have put that Notice on the Paper at the request of several noble Friends of mine who take a deep interest in this question. I should not for one moment have thought of putting such a Notice on the Paper if the Bill had been a Water Bill of the ordinary character; but, so far from that, the Bill comes to us from a Committee of your Lordships' House, recommended, not as a Bill of ordinary character, but recommended to your Lordships' adoption upon grounds of public policy. Now, my Lords, this Bill which is so recommended involves a novel principle, and the public policy which is to be found in this Bill is neither more nor less than this—the substitution of a municipal monopoly in the matter of water supply—the compulsory substitution of a municipal monopoly for private enterprize. Now, my Lords, the Committee do not assert, or in any way say, that the Water Company, which for many years has provided water to Sheffield, has been in any way wanting in its duty. They do not say the Company have been guilty of providing an insufficient supply, or accuse them of overcharges, or of providing impure water. So far from that, in consequence of the way in which this Company has dealt with Sheffield in the matter of its water supply, the Committee of your Lordships' House say that they hope the Company will be

  151
  liberally treated when it comes to a question as to what sum is to be paid to them if this compulsory power is given to the Corporation. Now, my Lords, I think it is possible that an attempt may be made to induce your Lordships to assent to this Bill, which, I venture to say, contains a very novel and, I think, very dangerous and hurtful principle, on the ground that the purchase of works of an existing private enterprize only applied to a locality—that it only applies to Sheffield—and that, therefore, not being a general Bill, your Lordships may agree to pass a measure. Supposing such an argument is used? It is an argument with which your Lordships, by this time, ought to be familiar. It is an old friend with a new face and with a new name; but still it is the old argument of exceptional legislation. Well, my Lords, we know how—when exceptional legislation is passed in favour of any case—the evil grows. Noble Lords who come from other places besides Ireland know how evil principles introduced into legislation under the guise of exceptional circumstances have spread to Scotland; and they are showing themselves in the Metropolis in reference to leaseholds. Therefore, I wish your Lordships to treat this question—as I think it should present itself to your Lordships—as a great question of principle, and to treat it, not in its local, but in its general application. My Lords, I have very much doubt, if this Bill is passed, whether Sheffield will be greatly benefited by its becoming law. It so happens that other Corporations besides Sheffield have dealt with water, as they have with gas, in the United Kingdom for many years; and although these Corporations have prospered in their dealings with gas, yet they have failed and lost money in their dealings with water. For instance—and I believe they themselves admit it—the Manchester Corporation, who took up the water supply of Manchester in the year 1858, have, up to the present time, lost £110.000. The town of Bury—a town with which my noble Friend who was Chairman of this Committee (the Earl of Derby) is connected — that Town Council also took up the supply of water, and it has lost £3,000 in so doing; and your Lordships must remember that these are losses which came upon the rates generally. They are made up by
  152
  extra charges on the borough funds, which applies to people who, in many cases, do not benefit by the water. Therefore, my Lords, it is not always Corporations who are successful in their trading, and although they have succeeded in gas, they have failed in water; and I very much doubt whether the town of Sheffield will, under this Bill, be bettor supplied with water than it has been by the private enterprize of the Water Company, which it is now intended compulsorily to abolish. With reference to the trading by Corporations, I should like to ask why they should be confined to gas and water? Gas is not such a necessity of life as bread or clothing; and, that being so, why should not Corporations—if they are to become traders—deal in clothes, and keep tailors' shops? Why should they not keep bakers' shops and butchers' shops, and. deal in anything which is necessary to life? Why should they not keep a great store like the Army and Navy Stores in London? This Bill is brought before your Lordships as a compulsory Bill. My objection to this Bill is that its compulsory character is now for the first time introduced into this kind of legislation; and I ask, if it is to be applied to gas and water, why should it not apply to all other necessaries of life? Then we shall come to this pass, that no man in the City of London, nor in this free country, will be able to live, move, or have his being without being under some sort of government or local inspection as to his private business. That is what it will come to under this proposed system of legislation. But, my Lords, I will admit, for the sake of argument—I do not admit it otherwise—that this Bill will confer a benefit on the town of Sheffield. Even admitting that, for the sake of argument, I still ask your Lordships, on the very ground upon which this Bill is submitted to your Lordships—namely, on the ground of public policy—on these broad grounds, and on that broad principle, I invite your Lordships not to consent to the third reading of this Bill. My Lords, what will be the effect of passing a compulsory measure of this kind? It will entitle the Corporation of Sheffield to take forcible possession—I do not care whether they pay fair compensation or not—it will entitle them to take forcible possession of works which they have not created, but which were

  153
  created by private enterprize. That necessarily must discourage private enterprize; and what has private enterprize done for this country? Why everything. It is private enterprize that has given us canals; it is private enterprize that has given us railways; it is private enterprize that has given us gas, electric lighting, and the telephone; it is private enterprize that puts, not only part of the country in communication with another by moans of railways and telegraphs, but which by telegraphs put the Empire into connection with the Colonies and our Indian Possessions. All that is the result of private enterprize. At the present moment the greatest engineering work which has ever been undertaken in this age of engineering skill—the Forth Bridge, in which many noble Lords in this House take an interest—that is entirely the result of private enterprize. It was private enterprize which cut the Isthmus of Suez, and which is cutting the Isthmus of Panama; and, above all, do not forget this, that it was private enterprize, and nothing else, which gave us our Indian Empire, and practically our Colonial Empire. Well, my Lords, I say in countries such as ours it is essential that nothing shall be done for the benefit of any local town or for any other reason which can interfere with the great principle of independent and private enter-prize. Macaulay, in the third chapter of his History, referring to the progress that this country had made in the hundred years before he wrote, said it was due mainly to the confidence and security which was afforded to property in this country and that which was created by industry, energy, or by self-denial. Whether that property was created by, and remains the property of, individuals, or whether it is aggregated into the property of Companies, the principle is the same; and I ask your Lordships to take care how you deal with that principle in this House. Above all other Assemblies, your Lordships' House ought to be looked upon as the guardian of the questions involved in this great principle. What is the secret of all this successful private enterprize? It is, as Macaulay says, confidence and security with reference to property. If you take away confidence and security, what hope can there be that there will be private enterprize in the future as there has been in the past?
  154
  If, whenever a Company is prosperous, a municipality may cast its eye—a covetous eye—upon it, and come to Parliament to buy, even though they are not disposed to sell, there will be an end to all confidence. It has been well said by Sir Frederick Bramwell—the most able engineer, and brother of the distinguished Lord who bears the name— that Government trading, whether local or imperial, was fatal to progress and to the national prosperity. If your Lordships wish for an example how unwise State interference is you have it in a Bill which has passed or is passing through your Lordships' House—I mean the Electric Lighting Bill. In 1882, an Electric Lighting Bill was brought in by the Government of the day, which empowered the Government at the end of 14 years to take possession of the property of Electric Lighting Companies without giving compensation on taking the business on as a going concern, but treating it as an old marine store, and simply at the end of 14 years paying for the plant as old iron. The time was extended when that should happen from 14 to 20 years. That Bill was passed in 1882, and what has happened? All enterprize in electric lighting was absolutely and entirely stopped and killed by these compulsory powers which the Government proposed to take. So last year, electric lighting being at a standstill, a Bill was brought in and submitted to a Committee of your Lordships' House, which proposed to extend the 20 years when the Government could come in to 40 years. The Bill which is now passing through your Lordships' House is based on that extended period. That is a most pregnant instance of the evil of compulsory interference with private enterprize, and it is because I feel that it is in the cause of public policy, it is on the ground—the sole ground—of public policy, that I ask your Lordships to refuse to pass this Bill. There is one point which must have struck your Lordships, and to which I have not referred; and that is that it is always right and customary for your Lordships to support the decision of a Committee of your own House. Now, my Lords, that is a general proposition which no sane man in your Lordships' House, and no sane man in the other House of Parliament, would for one moment venture to dispute. While I was a Member of the

  155
  House of Commons, and since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, whenever a decision of a Committee has been attempted to be overthrown, I have always given my vote in favour of the decision of the Committee. I think we ought to be grateful to noble Lords who give their time to these Committees, and it is only under most exceptional and most peculiar circumstances that your Lordships, or the other House, should be asked not to give effect to the views of the Committee. Now, if this had been a simple question between two Private Bills promoted by the Corporation and the Water Company in the ordinary course, with no new principle involved, I should not have ventured to have given this Notice, and I should have been considered extremely foolish if I had done so. But this is entirely a different case. Although there were attempts made to prove before the Committee that there was a precedent for this Bill of the Corporation, if I am rightly informed the Chairman of the Committee did not think much of the precedents adduced, and the promoters were advised to go on to other points and not to attempt to prove their case by precedents. It is well they were so advised, for no precedent exists for their Bill. I say this Bill is novel in principle, wholly unprecedented in character, and, for the first time, it imposes upon a Company the possibility—a certainty in this case—that they would have to part with their property at whatever sum the arbitrators chose to fix. This is a question wholly outside any question which is ordinarily referred to a Committee of your Lordships' House. Indeed, my Lords, I say that it never could have been your Lordships' intention that five Members of this House—no matter how able, no matter what their record of Parliamentary experience may be—should, upon the question of a Private Bill, introduce into legislation a great and novel principle which may strike at the very roots of enterprize and the commercial prosperity of the nation, which lives upon the security of property which has been created by private enterprize. I maintain that a principle such as that ought not to be passed in your Lordships' House on the third reading of a Private Bill, but ought, if required, to be taken up by the Government, and take its place in a general measure
  156
  brought in by the responsible Government. I hope, my Lords, that your Lordships will not pay attention to the arguments about supporting the decisions of Committees, but will support me in my Motion for the rejection of this Bill.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY, in rising to support the Bill, said, that neither he nor any of the noble Lords who considered the Bill in Committee had any sympathy whatever with the Socialistic ideas of which his noble Friend on the Cross Bench (the Earl of Wemyss) was so much afraid. They were not enemies of property or of private enterprize. The Committee in question had devoted 14 days to the consideration of the Bill, and whilst he sympathized to a great extent with the noble Earl, he could not forget that there were many undertakings which could be better managed by public authorities than by private enterprize; and this matter of water supply appeared to be one of them. The state of things at Sheffield was as follows. There were two Bills before the Committee, one promoted by the Corporation and the other by the old Water Company at Sheffield, which had for many years supplied the borough. In 1864 it sustained a great disaster owing to the bursting of the principal reservoir, and it then came to Parliament for relief, and obtained power to levy for 25 years an increased water rate. This power would expire in 1889, and the Company, in the Bill which they recently promoted, sought to make it perpetual. Then came the Bill promoted by the Sheffield Corporation, in which they sought to take the water supply into their own hands. They were supported by the great bulk of the ratepayers, the voting having been something like 21,000 for, and 3,000 against. The Committee, after hearing the arguments pro and con in favour of the higher scale of rates, came to the conclusion that the Sheffield Water Company's request was not a reasonable one, and that it ought to be rejected; and the only alternatives were to allow the Company to go on supplying the water on the old rate or to transfer to the Corporation the powers of supply-

  157
  ing the water. The Committee were influenced in their decision by the fact that the sanitary arrangements of Sheffield were unsatisfactory, and that to be made satisfactory they required to be carried out on a wider scale; and also by the fact that the water supply was in the North of England generally in the hands of the municipal authorities. They therefore resolved to transfer the powers of water supply to the Sheffield Corporation, and made provision upon a very generous basis for the purchase of the Company's undertaking. He had little doubt that the present shareholders in the Sheffield Water Company would in reality be much better oft by the purchase of their property, than they would have been by going on with their undertaking on the reduced scale of rates, which was all they would have been entitled to after 1889.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, what they had to consider was how their decision would be looked at hereafter. The record would be only that in the case of a Company, absolved twice from the charge of negligence, their works should be sold compulsorily, on the ground of public policy. If he were still at the Bar, and were representing a Corporation, he should know what use to make of that record. He learned in 1864 that the Company had reduced their maximum charges in 1853, believing that their prosperity and that of Sheffield would go on increasing. They said that since that time the great calamity of the landslip and flood had come upon them and upon the town, and on application to Parliament they were granted increased rates for 25 years. The Chairman of the Committee, and he (Lord Grimthorpe) himself, thought that by the end of that period things would have come round, and the Company thought so also. They were all wrong; j and the real fact was that the dividends had been continually going down, notwithstanding the additional rates. There was no doubt that if these rates were stopped the Company would have no dividends at all. They could now prophesy after the event, and it was clear that the Company were asking for nothing unreasonable in asking for the rates, which were still below the original ones, for a longer period than 25 years, and there would be no doubt that if the Committee could have seen in 1864 how things
  158
  would turn out, that they would be granted a longer period. In his opinion, the present Committee must have miscarried in their calculations, in supposing they were giving fair and liberal terms. If the Company in 1853 had kept up their old rates instead of decreasing them they would never have had to come to Parliament, and would have been able to pay a dividend notwithstanding the calamity. The Corporation had issued a paper of reasons for the purchase of the undertaking. The paper said that it was a generally admitted axiom that water-works should be in the hands of Corporations, as they were more economically worked. That was not the general result of experience. Mr. Burdett, secretary to the Loan Department of the Stock Exchange, read a paper on municipal finance some two years ago, and showed in it that out of 38 Corporations' books it was evident that upon the whole they lost upon their water-works. They borrowed at 3½ per cent, and did not receive as much in return as they paid in interest. It was absolutely wrong to say that Corporations could manage these undertakings more economically than Companies could. The latter paid dividends, and the former did not make enough, to pay the lowest common rate of interest. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) said the ratepayers by a large majority were in favour of the Bill. They always were, because they did not understand economics. He admitted that when a Corporation and a Company came to Parliament for rival Bills for water-works, it had been the practice to prefer the Corporation. No harm was done to anybody under those circumstances; but the present case was one of buying on very unfair terms. The only case approximating to it was that of Middlesborough. In that case the Company were charged with supplying very bad and insufficient water, being restricted in the quantity they could take from the Tees. The result was that the works passed out of the hands of the Company into the hands of the Corporation, and that Corporation, which had been so sensitive when they got the Bill 11 years ago, had not done a stroke of work yet, or had done it very recently if at all. That was the only case of straightforward compulsory purchase founded on

  159
  the alleged misconduct of a Company. At Birmingham the Company agreed to sell their works to the Corporation in 1851. The Corporation went on for 24 years before they thought of acting upon the agreement, and then Mr. Chamberlain persuaded them to purchase the undertaking. They inserted in the Bill a provision for 20 years' purchase. The Committee declined to pass the clause, and eventually 29 years' purchase was agreed upon. Was that a good thing for the town? It gratified the town, and there was no doubt that the time would come when it would be a good thing for the town if the Company were otherwise to go on raising more capital with a high dividend, which, however, could easily be prevented. The Corporation also said, in the paper of "Reasons in Favour of Third Reading" which they had issued, that it was not a fact, as stated by the opponents of the' Bill, that Parliament had ever refused to sanction the purchase of the works by the Corporation, and they enlarged upon that point. They seemed to have forgotten that in their own Petition against the Company's Bill this year they had said exactly the opposite. They said that they had several times endeavoured to effect such transfer. They tried it in 1864, and the Committee were of opinion that the Corporation had not made out a sufficient case for compulsory purchase. The Corporation said, first of all, that they were going to proceed upon particular local grounds, and not on public policy, and then they issued that paper which, from beginning to end, argued the case upon grounds of public policy. A worse case of issuing misleading statements he had never seen. Nobody would suffer in an ordinary ease of purchase by arbitration. In this case the Company would suffer by being ruined, and every shareholder would feel it. The ratepayers would gain by the transfer, because they would get for nothing these works which cost a million and some odd pounds. As to the assertion about public policy, he had shown that every precedent contradicted it, and so does the only public Act on the subject. It would have been perfectly easy for the framers of the Public Health Act to have provided that it should be lawful for any Corporation to buy the water works on arbitration terms. They were authorized to buy water rights—a totally
  160
  different thing—from the persons possessing them, but they were very carefully excluded from buying water works compulsorily, especially on such terms as these, which practically told the arbitrator to treat the Company as insolvent after 1894. He could not see any grounds for passing the Bill.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, at one time, in consequence of his connection with the Local Government Board, which he represented, he had had Ms attention called to some provisions in the Bill; but those matters were all arranged. Whilst looking into those matters he was brought into contact with the promoters of the Bill, and had an opportunity of learning how matters really stood. The mistake in the paper of reasons as to Parliament having never refused to sanction the transfer of the works had crept in through the death of the late Town Clerk. It was discovered by a gentleman in the office of the agents who circulated the paper, but too late, as the paper had been sent to all the Peers. He was sure his noble Friend did not intend to imply that the Corporation had made wilful mis-statements. It would not have been of any use to have made an attempt to mislead the House, as the Chairman of the Committee was also the Chairman of the Committee which refused to sanction the transfer, and it would not have passed unnoticed. The noble Lord's contradiction of the statement in the paper proved that this was no new question for the people of Sheffield, and that they had had ample time to make up their minds on the question, and the majority which had been quoted by the noble Earl in favour of the purchase was the more significant for that fact. It was the result of no catch vote, but the deliberate vote of the people of the town. He did not think it was just of the noble Lord to say that the Company could be bought for nothing at the end of a certain number of years. He thought the Company was placed in an exceptionally favourable position for going before an arbitrator, and the Select Committee had gone out of its way to say that the terms should be fair and liberal, and that was a most important point on behalf of the Company when they got before the arbitrator, as he hoped they would do if Parliament passed the Bill. A great deal of discussion had gone on about the propriety

  161
  of Local Authorities managing gas and water works. They were not there to discuss the general question any more than the Committee upstairs. They had to decide whether the Bill should be allowed to pass. The noble Lord said that the Corporation would not be able to make a dividend — a Corporation ought not to make enough to pay a dividend—if it did, it showed that the water was not supplied at the lowest possible rate; and so far from that being an argument against Corporations purchasing these undertakings, it was all the other way. He was quite sure that he would carry the House with him if he said that if it had not been for the expressions of the Committee about public policy, they would never have known about the matter at all. There was another point he would like to allude to, and that was that the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Grimthorpe) seemed to imply that Sheffield was a decaying place. He was, however, informed that so far from that being the state of the case, the population of Sheffield had increased since 1864 by 100,000.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, that he pointed out that the receipts from water had considerably decreased, and that he, therefore, supposed such was the case.
  LORD BALFOUR, continuing, said, the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) urged that Sheffield would not benefit by the transfer. He (Lord Balfour) wished to point out that the vote taken in the town resulted in 21,936 being in favour of the change, and only 3,785 against—a very conclusive decision as to the Sheffield feeling in the matter. The noble Earl, again, had complained that local circumstances had not been sufficiently stated for the passing of the Bill. Well, he (Lord Balfour) submitted that if they were to hear all the local circumstances, that would be discussing the question upon its merits, which was undesirable in the House. As to the local circumstances, he thought they might trust a Committee which sat 15 days, and have every confidence that the decision arrived at was a just one. In conclusion, he wished to say that if the noble Earl was so anxious that a Corporation should never be allowed to purchase compulsorily under any circumstances, the right time to have stated that would have been on the occasion of
  162
  the second reading, and not on the third, when the parties had been put to such an amount of expense. If action against the Bill were necessary to be taken now, the proper course would obviously have been to move for its re-committal, and if their Lordships now passed the third reading the Bill would still have to go before the other House, when the objectors to it could again be heard.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he could not quite agree with the noble Lord (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) who had just sat down, when in the earlier part of his speech he said that he should vote for it purely as a Local Bill, and not take the question of public policy into consideration. He thought, on the contrary, that important considerations of public policy were involved in the question, and wished to explain to his noble Friend that in the interest of those general and abstract principles of which he was so powerful an advocate, he hoped that House would not refuse their sanction to read the Bill a third time. One contention was that valuable private property should not be taken by Public Authorities compulsorily to the sacrifice of private interests. He recognized the importance of the principle, and if this Water Company had been a great and thriving concern he should not take the view he did. The speech of his noble Friend opposite, however, proved that the Water Company's position was one which might be practically described as one of bankruptcy. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Grimthorpe) stated that it was not in a position to earn any dividend whatever; and, further, that even under the favourable recommendations of the Committtee, the Company would benefit little or nothing by the compulsory sale. But, at any rate, he relieved their minds from the fear which his hon. Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had sought to instil, which was that they were ex-appropriating a valuable property in Sheffield. The Company, however, unless it obtained new powers, had no valuable property whatever. It came to Parliament and asked for new powers, and surely they had a right to inquire into the matter. They were not bound to give them new powers, and they must look at the whole question as one of public policy as to whether the powers should be granted. That ground of objection

  163
  had been entirely removed. They wore all agreed in one sense or another, and there ought to be some reform in local government in this country. He confessed, however, he was one of those who had been alarmed at the way in which every community was being stimulated to go in for Home Rule. Heaven only knew—or rather "the other place" only knew—what were the powers which leading politicians would not give to local governing bodies. It looked almost as if the power of life and death, and the power of taxation, were to be given over to local governments. He thought that this was a real danger, and that the public mind ought to be disciplined upon the matter. Looking at it in that light, therefore, he considered that it was of the highest importance that Sheffield should not be refused a privilege which she so manifestly asked for. The Company itself was practically nonexistent, and they had to consider the question as that of a great city desiring the management of its own wants. He could conceive nothing more likely to exaggerate that feeling in favour of local government than Parliament refuting to great cities any of the legitimate powers they ought to possess. He agreed that it was an argument in favour of Corporations having control of water works that in their hands they did not pay large dividends. The use of water was now so intimately connected with, sanitary arrangements that it was most important that the water supply should be in the hands of the Local Authority. Many places had taken over the management of their own water supplies; and Glasgow had done the same thing at enormous expense, but with infinite benefit to its inhabitants, and he firmly believed that such matters derived great advantage by being in the hands of municipal government instead of those of private companies.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he felt it his duty to oppose the third reading of this Bill. The case before them—that of a Company with an undertaking—was not like the common case of a portion of land being wanted without which a scheme could not be carried into execution. Everyone would admit that, however reluctant the man might be to have his land taken, it must be acquired on the ground of public policy. This, however, was a very different thing. Here
  164
  the scheme was completed. The Water Works Company were in possession of their water works, which their Act of Parliament gave them power to construct, and it was now proposed to take it from them and to give them compensation. Well, as to that, the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Grimthorpe) stated that the Company would not be better off when their property was taken from them, and they received the compensation. At any rate, they said—"Let us be the judges, and leave us alone." The first consideration, therefore, their Lordships had to look at was—did they think it a desirable thing when persons had embarked their capital in an enterprize of this description that anybody unless for the most urgent reason in the world should have the right to say to them— "Now, we shall put a value on your porperty and take it from you, giving you that value for the possession of it?" Was it desirable that when any scheme was propounded requiring capital that those subscribing should be told—" You go into this speculation subject to this, that it may be taken from you at a certain value?" It was a singular thing, but if it was so beneficial to the Water Company shareholders, they were a most ungrateful and unwise set, for he did not find that the value of the shares had risen in the market since. He was sorry to differ from the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby); but he understood him to say that from the discussion on the Company's Bill, the Committee learned that they could not carry into execution those matters which were necessary for the welfare of the Company at Sheffield, and the noble Duke who had just sat down (the Duke of Argyll) used the expression that they were coming for further powers. They were not coming for further powers, except to raise their revenue for the purpose of augmenting their dividend, which had been a small one; but they did not admit, and it was not proved, that their situation was such that they could not do everything that the people of Sheffield had a right to expect. He was told that was so, and he believed that in the reasons given by the Corporation it was not suggested that the means of the Company were not such as that they could do everything which the Corporation could do if the property was transferred to them. All

  165
  the Company asked was something to enable them to augment their dividend. For these reasons, there was no good cause why their property should be taken from them if they were unwilling to part with it. It was urged that the ratepayers were the best judges of what they wanted, and these were of opinion that the service would be better and cheaper. Well, he did not see how the Corporation could work it more cheaply than the Water Company, and if they paid the Water Company a fair price, it followed that the ratepayers would have as much to pay for their water as they were now doing. It was obvious that if the Corporation could work the affair more cheaply, it would have to pay a fair price, and they must in time charge the ratepayers accordingly. It was said that a great many Corporations had the control of the water supplies. Well, a great many more, on the other hand, had not, and he did not understand that those who had not were worse off than where the power rested in the Corporation; and, he felt perfectly satisfied that it was impossible, in concerns of this sort, that they could be managed as well as by private enterprize. In conclusion, he asked them in a case such as this, where the promoters of an undertaking were unwilling to part with it, whether it was in accordance with public policy to ask Parliament to pass a Bill to compel them to sell that undertaking?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)said, from the position he held in the House as the Chairman of Committees, he desired to say a few words, as questions might arise whether the decision of a Committee of their Lordships' House had been given in accordance with the merits of the case placed before them, or whether considerations had been brought in which were not involved in the case before them. He happened to preside over a Committee in 1864, before which the Sheffield Water Company promoted a Bill, and in which they were authorized to make certain charges for 25 years. The 25 years had nearly expired; but at the time the Bill passed, neither the promoters, nor the Corporation, nor the Committee could foresee changes which in such a time had come over Sheffield, nor the expenses which would come on the Water Company. Now, in the pre-
  166
  sent Session of 1887, two Bills had been promoted and placed before a Committee. That Committee had negatived the Preamble of the Water Company's Bill, the principal point of which was to perpetuate the charges which, in 1864, had been limited to 25 years. The Committee had, on the other hand, passed the Preamble of the Bill promoted by the Corporation for the compulsory purchase of the Water Company's rights. The Committee, in announcing their decision, had placed on record certain reasons which influenced them in that decision, and it was practically only the statement of those reasons which had caused the debate on the question as to whether the Bill should be read a third time. There was no doubt that many who read the decision and the statement of reasons given by the Committee might consider that, bearing in mind the failure to prove improper management on the part of the Company, as stated by the Committee—they might think that the Committee had travelled beyond their province in negativing the Company's Bill upon the question of public policy. There was no doubt that it was of the greatest importance that there should be full confidence in the decisions of the Select Committees appointed to consider Private Bills. That confidence, he believed, existed universally; but occasionally, no doubt, questions might arise, as had arisen that night; and if the decision to be given that night was a final decision, if that was the second House the Bill had been before, instead of the first House, it might have been a question whether it would not be well to recommit both Bills and refer them to another Committee. But in this case it was not a final decision which the House was asked to give that night. If the Bill was read a third time it would be submitted to "another place," and be subjected there to close scrutiny. Before a Committee of the other House both parties, for and against the Bill, could take full advantage of the questions which had been raised before the Committee of their Lordships' House, and the discussion that night in their Lordships' House. The decision of their Lordships' Committee or of their Lordships' House could be reviewed, reversed, or altered in any way which, in the view of the Committee of the other House of

  167
  Parliament, the justice of the case might require. In view of the fact that the decision that night would not be final, and that the Bill—if read a third time— would go down to be carefully investigated elsewhere, he certainly thought their Lordships would do well to read the Bill a third time, and pass it on in the ordinary course for further investigation.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he must confess that when he came to the House, having only seen the reasons which the Committee gave for passing the Bill, he felt very strongly in favour of the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss). The decision of the Committee, as stated in their reasons, appeared to be based entirely on questions of public policy, which it seemed to him should be decided in a general way and not on a Private Bill. But the noble Earl on the Front Bench (the Earl of Derby) had based the defence of their decision entirely upon local and special grounds, which had been ascertained after careful inquiry, and on that ground he should be unwilling to dispute the decision at which the Committee had arrived.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he felt no hesitation in voting against the third reading of this Bill. No blame had ever been cast on the management of the Water Company, which, living near, he would certainly have heard of. The promoters of this Bill promised cheapness and a supply for water-closets; but the Company's Bill would last on to 1890, and, as to cheapness, nothing could be worse than creating sewer-gas by water-closets. The death of the Earl of Chesterfield, at Scarborough, and the dangerous illness of the Prince of Wales were caused by it. Inquiry should be made as to the Chinese system and the Flemish plan of manuring, and as to the Rochdale system, instead of expensive manures being bought to maintain fertility of land without permanently enriching it. He would not pass the Duke of Portland's Bill for artificial manures, as described by The Nottingham Journal, on large farms on Sherwood Forest, on any consideration. He believed over-peopled countries could be fed by our restoring to the earth what we took from it.
  The LORD CHANCELLORwas about to put the Amendment, when—
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he was satisfied with the protest he had made, and would not divide the House, but would ask leave to withdaw the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Original Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a; and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.
  (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  (NO. 54.) SECOND READING.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order).
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, said, that he did so wishing to submit to their Lordships whether the questions which were dealt with in it did not require more information than their Lordships were probably in possession of, and whether important interests which were involved in the changes proposed in this measure did not demand more attention and consideration than could be given in the ordinary course of a Bill in passing through that House. He believed he was not wrong in saying that it was not unusual in such cases to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. This Bill was not one of an ordinary character. In the first place, it involved great and fundamental changes. The principle of tithe, as their Lordships knew, was that it was a charge upon the produce of land, and the same principle was adhered to by the commutation of 1836, when tithe in kind was commuted for a rentcharge depending upon the average prices of corn, wheat, bailey, and oats in the last seven years. But this Bill instead of dealing with the tithe rent-charge as a liability upon the produce of land made the owner of the land personally liable for it, so that he "may be sued for such arrears as for a simple contract debt." This was a fundamental change of very serious importance entirely altering the nature of tithe or tithe rent charge as a tenth of the produce of land, and converting it into a debt for which the landowner was personally liable, instead of the owner of tithe rent-charge having as now the power of distress upon the occupier of land. Instead of this, if this Bill passed,

  169
  he would have power through the Law Courts to seize any personal property of the landowner. Then he would further beg to call their attention to the fact that in this Bill, so far as he could see, there was no provision whatever for a re-adjustment of the tithe rent-charge in consideration of the great fall in the value of agricultural produce since the commutation in 1836. The tithe of an acre of corn land about that time would have been worth probably not less than 40 per cent more than it was at the present time. The commutation of tithe into rent-charge was made upon some such basis. About that time also we were growing in this country about 16,000,000 or 17,000,000 quarters of wheat annually, while according to the reports of the harvest of 1886 the quantity grown was only about 7,000,000 quarters. He could not see in this Bill any recognition whatever of facts such as these. Then they had to consider what would be the effects of this Bill with regard to existing contracts of tenancy. It was true that there was in this Bill a clause (5) dealing with this question, and it might be easy to say, as in this clause, that the "tithe rent-charge shall be added to the rent." But he thought their Lordships would understand that at the present moment of almost unprecedented depression this was more easily said than done, and that while they were, perhaps, relieving the tithe-owner from the difficulty of collecting it they would simply be throwing the burden upon the landowner, whose only remedy would be to increase the rent in proportion, and thus the tenant occupier would be in no way benefited. Then there was the question of redemption. It was true that there was a clause (7) for allowing redemption at 20 years' purchase, but it did not afford any facilities for doing so. He believed that by a well-considered scheme of redemption the value of land would be raised, and the landowner would therefore be better able to make easy arrangements with his tenants until the land, after a term of years, became entirely freed from the rent-charge. He trusted that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) would, by consenting to the appointment of a Select Committee, afford the opportunity of a fuller consideration of the question—which was already one of no little friction and uneasiness—the diffi-
  170
  culties of which, would not, he believed, in any way be removed by the Bill in its present shape or by Amendments in a Committee of the Whole House without further evidence and information.
  Moved, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECERTARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, his impression was—and it had been increased by the speech of the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr)—that this was not a simple Bill. The matters dealt with in this Bill, such as whether the liability for tithe should be placed on the landowner, whether the question of the original valuation of the tithe should again be raised, and other points, involved questions of principle which could best, he thought, be discussed in this House, and if the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, as the noble Earl suggested, there would, he feared, be a danger of that occurring which occurred with regard to the Church Patronage Bill, that was, that when the Bill came back the House might take an entirely different view from the Committee. Some words which his noble Friend dropped seemed to indicate that he intended not a Select Committee in the ordinary sense, but a Select Committee which should receive evidence. This would mean that the Bill could not possibly be proceeded with further this Session. In view of the earnest expressions of desire for the passing of the Bill which he had received from the clergy in various parts of the country, he should be loth to do anything to deprive them of such hope as they could cherish of getting the Bill passed in the present year. He quite admitted that they might not be successful, because Business had not proceeded with great rapidity in the House of Commons. Still, they ought to do all they could; but if they referred the Bill to a Select Committee to take evidence, their chance would be very small. Therefore, so far as his own opinion went, he should not consent to the Bill going to a Select Committee.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he thought the clergy owed the noble Marquess a debt of great gratitude for the care and skill with which he had endeavoured to meet the very great

  171
  difficulties raised by the Bill. He should be glad to see those difficulties minutely examined; but, at the same time, he was most loth to propose anything "which might in the slightest degree impede the progress of the Bill or run counter to the judgment of the noble Marquess as to the best way of discussing it. He had seen it stated that there was great opposition to this Bill on the part of the clergy, but he had no knowledge of such opposition: on the contrary, he had received much favourable criticism upon it, and that very afternoon he had received from an excellent body that gave great attention to matters of this kind —the Church Defence Association—an intimation that they would consider it little short of a disaster if the Bill were hindered or dropped. Though perhaps more suitable for discussion in Committee, he desired to mention two points on which he had received a great number of communications. The first was contained in Clause 2, which provided that an allowance of 5 per cent was to be made to the landowners who paid their tithe punctually within three months. He did not think that would he a fair arrangement. There were many landowners who had always themselves, and not through tenants, paid their tithe in full, and who did not desire that 5 per cent should be handed over to themselves. At present he knew of many more who were already making arrangements to pay their own tithe without any thought of discount. In none of these cases could the simple withdrawal of 5 per cent from its owners be a just act. Again, a large number of the clergy collected their tithe in full without any cost to themselves. The reason assigned for this deduction of 5 per cent by the landowner was that it would compensate him for his risk, trouble, and expense. But the landowner's risk ought to he nothing, and it could not be computed. The trouble was only the trouble of paying his just debts, and the expense would be much less than the expense incurred in its collection by the tithe-owner, since the landowner could collect the tithe with his rents. Nor did he think that such reduction of 5 per cent would be any inducement to unwilling owners to pay their tithe in time. There was a general impression that the number of the tithe-payers was very much greater than the number of the land-
  172
  owners, and that it would therefore be a great saving of trouble to the clergy to collect it from the latter instead of from the former. An investigation had now been held on this point. Two parishes in each of five counties had been taken, and in these ten parishes it was recently found that whereas the tithe-payers numbered 883, the landowners were 704; so that the difference was not nearly so great as had been commonly supposed. He hoped to be excused for dwelling for a moment on this point, as, besides its immediate bearing, it had a general interest. In order to verify the above result, which excited some surprise, six other counties were similarly examined, and with the same results. He might state as a still more general expression of the facts, and in corroboration of the minor inquiries, that for the total amount of tithe rent-charge paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the tithe-payers numbered 58,000 and the landowners 37,000. Of course, in considering the pacific effects of this measure, which he trusted would be very considerable, it must be taken into consideration that a great many of the tithe-payers were also landowners. The second point of difficulty to which he desired to call the attention of the House was the 7th clause, which made it compulsory upon the tithe-owner to surrender his tithe rent-charge to the landowner at 20 years' purchase. It was not well, he thought, to draw this hard-and-fast line, for the value of the tithe rent-charge was determined by variable elements—namely, the corn averages, and also the rating, which in different places varied from 7½ per cent to 25 per cent. These and other circumstances made great differences in the number of years' purchase which would represent the value of different rent-charges; for example, compare Norham, where there is one owner and one payer, with Haxsey, where there are 804 payers, and where there would be 428 payers if owners paid, it is evident that Norham is worth many more years' purchase than Haxey would be. He suggested that the Bill should be amended by the insertion of a proviso that the payment far the tithe should be "not less" than 20 years' purchase. He believed that if it were determined that not less than 20 years' purchase should be given the question of the purchase

  173
  of the tithe by the landowner would in most cases be settled amicably. For land owners and tithe owners who should be unable to agree between themselves simple arbitration ought to be established by reference to the Land Commissioners. But to fix once for all a certain price to be paid to the lithe-owners on all estates in all parts of the country, whether payers were many or few, and without regard to such varying elements as rating and corn charge, would be as fallacious as it would be to fix now the price of Consols 10 years hence.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he did not see any necessity for the Bill being referred to a Select Committee. There were points in the Bill which could be better dealt with by the House than by a Select Committee. The matters to which the most reverend Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had drawn attention would, he hoped, receive careful consideration. The Act of 1836 clearly made tithes a charge upon the landlords, but by contract the tenants in many cases, if not generally, had paid them. It was clear, in point of reason and justice, that the clergy ought not to be prejudiced in their rights in consequence of the contracts between landlords and tenants which had changed the mode of defraying the charge, and that the clergy ought not to be forced into deplorable collisions with their parishioners merely because landlords had made certain arrangements with their tenants and the tenants misunderstood the whole position. The question between the landlord and the tenant was merely one of rent, with which the clergyman ought not to have anything to do; and it was unreasonable that his only remedy for a charge which the law had laid upon the landlord's interest in the laud should be by distress, or for want of a sufficient distress, upon the goods of the tenant. There was one additional point to which he desired to direct attention. The power of distress was taken away by the Bill. That he considered a good thing. But it was necessary to provide some substitute, and he suggested that in cases where the tithe could not be otherwise obtained some simple means should be provided of getting from the County Court an attachment upon the landlord's rent due, or to become due, from the tenant. The tenant would simply be served with
  174
  notice of the landlord's default and directed to pay so much of the rent to the titheowner. This, he contended, would be a simple way of doing justice unaccompanied by any annoying circumstances.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, with reference to the clause providing for the return of 5 per cent to the landlords who made prompt payment, the remedy which the law had given to the tithe-owner was the power to dis-train on the land on which the tithe rent-charge was fixed, and if the landowner was made personally liable, something was given to the Church which it had not before, and something ought to be paid by the Church for the privilege. The tithe-owner ought not to obtain this advantage without paying something for it. He did not attach much importance to the redemption clauses. Tithe had fallen to 85, and many competent judges thought it would fall still lower, to 75 or even 70. Thus the inducement to landowners to redeem was not very great. All turned, it seemed to him, upon a question of policy-—was it or was it not to the advantage of the Church to promote those redemptions? If it were thought to be of advantage to promote those redemptions, unless they offered liberal terms they would have no redemptions. He was inclined to think that there were parts of the country whore redemption would be advantageous to the Church. There were other parts where he was not aware that any difficulty had yet arisen, and therefore the Church might feel easy with regard to the tithes. They had, however, all seen in some parts of the country what seemed to indicate much more serious difficulties hereafter; and, therefore, he thought the Government had done well in putting into the Bill what they thought were the terms of redemption likely to be accepted, though he himself doubted whether those terms were likely to be accepted.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, it should be remembered that if something was to be given to the Church, something was to be taken away from it, because, although they might say the remedy of distraint was of a very odious kind, yet there could be no doubt it was exceedingly effectual, as proved by the rareness with which it had been found necessary to resort to it. As to the remedy against the owner, he might

  175
  be found very difficult of access, whereas there was no difficulty whatever in finding out where to distrain and what to distrain upon. There was a large amount of land charged with tithe in the diocese of London which was rapidly becoming building land, and 25 years' purchase was readily given by the owner for the tithe. In such cases it would not be fair that the incumbents should lose five years' purchase of their tithe. The Bill gave the landlord power to redeem at any time, but no corresponding power was given to the titheowner. Of course the landowner in these circumstances would choose his own time for redemption, while the titheowner had no such choice of time. If there were a power of compulsory redemption, some other mode should be adopted than that of fixing a hard - and - fast rule of 20 years' purchase. Some experienced body, such as the Land Commissioners, should have power to decide.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (the Earl of ONSLOW)said, that it was the intention of the Act of 1836 to make tithe a landowners' question. But the remedy being given by distraint against the tenant, landlords invariably made arrangements with their tenants to pay the tithe. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment (Earl De La Warr) said that the effect of the Bill would be that landlords would have to raise their rents. But with respect to existing contracts the landlord would be entitled to add the tithe to the rent, and no fresh contract would have to be entered into. The landowner ought to be considered as well as the tithe-owner. If this Bill passed, the remedy would be not against the goods on a particular farm, but against all the estate, real and personal, of the landlord, and therefore he thought there should be some quid pro quo given up by the tithe-owner. As a rule the landlords of England were at the present time far too impoverished to be anxious to redeem the tithe rent-charge at 25 years' purchase. Only in rare cases was a landlord in a position to find the money for the purpose of redeeming the tithe rent-charge, and it would be hard to compel him to find with great difficulty a considerable sum of money for the purpose of redemption. He believed this measure would have the effect of smoothing away a very serious difficulty.
  176
  It gave a simpler remedy against a more solvent person, and it removed, at the same time, a great many hardships.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he felt bound to say, in the interest of many of those who were loyal supporters of the Government, and who were as anxious as the noble Marquess to see this Tithe Question settled, that the Bill failed in many respects to meet their wishes. Many of the provisions of the Bill would require very serious consideration in Committee. He contended that in dealing with the question of tithes, they ought to go on the basis of the value of produce, and not on the basis of the value of the land. The views which he wished to put before the House were shared by many who, like himself, were supporters of the Government. They considered that a 5 per cent reduction would not meet the exigencies of the case, and they likewise considered that 20 years' purchase of the average tithe would not in any way render it possible for the redemption to take place. The present net annual value of the tithe was £64, and it was impossible to suppose that any landowner would buy at 20 years' purchase. The only prospect of success for such a measure was that some scheme of gradual purchase should be rendered possible. The agricultural interest would certainly not be satisfied, and it was evident that some modification would be required not only in the interest of the landlord, but also in the interest of the tenant. There was no protection to the tenant that he would not be forced to pay the tithe, in case the landlord defaulted; on the other hand, there was no protection to the landlord that if he paid, he would be able to recover his rent in the case of annual tenants.
  EARL STANHOPE (for Earl DE LA WARR)asked leave to withdraw the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He desired to add two words respecting the Bill. In his opinion, it was most desirable, in the interests of the Church, that tithes should be paid directly by the landlord. Had time allowed of it, he could have pointed out how easily teinds were paid in this way in Scotland, and also under what Acts these payments were regulated. As to the recovery of tithes, he thought that if the remedy of distress were given up, there was no alternative but that of

  177
  giving the tithe-owner a right of personal action. Three years ago, he (Earl Stanhope) had brought forward a Tithe Bill which was founded on this same principle, because there seemed to be no other ready means to promote the object in view. As to redemption, he should prefer an easier means provided by which the principal and interest of the rent-charge might be discharged in a certain number of years. In the 7th section of the Irish Church Act Amendment Act, there was a Proviso to this effect, and he now begged to give Notice that he would move a similar clause when the Bill went into Committee.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONdesired to confirm, to the fullest possible extent, what had been said by the most rev. Prelate as to the view taken by the clergy of this Bill. He had the honour of presiding that day over a representative body of clergy and laity, and a resolution was passed by it unanimously—
  "That the Government Bill now before the House of Lords is recognized as a friendly attempt to meet the difficulties of the present crisis, and while regarding the Bill as capable of improvement in points of detail, it considers it deserving of the support of Churchmen, and earnestly trusts that every effort may he made to pass it without delay."
  With regard to the remission of 5 per cent to landowners, he thought that some better reasons than he had as yet heard should be given for it. A large number of landowners in the North of England now paid the tithe, and he did not see why they should receive a remission of 5 per cent for doing that which the Act of 1836 always contemplated that they would do. This Act had been for many years favourable to the landowner and he must take the rough and the smooth together, and be prepared at the present time to make some sacrifices. He hoped the Government would persevere with the Bill as a fair solution of a difficult question.
  EARL FORTESCUEheartily thanked Her Majesty's Government for bringing in the Bill. It would be a great relief to the clergy to be freed from bickerings connected with the present mode of collecting the tithe.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped their Lordships would be able to come to some agreements in Committee. He was glad to find that the House had generally agreed to accept the measure,
  178
  though several points of detail, no doubt, required to be carefully looked into. The 5 per cent raised a thorny question; but he was not without hope that some adjustment might be found. He should be glad to facilitate advances for tithe redemption, which undoubtedly could not be carried out without some assistance of that kind; but, whether in the present state of the national finances it could be done, he did not know. At all events, he should be glad to facilitate it. With regard to the question raised by the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough), he had a distinct opinion that the landowner had no case whatever. His impression was, that if anyone had to complain it was the tithe-owner. The whole fall had been in the price of grain, and he very much doubted if there had been any fall at all in the price of green crops, or of stocks. That made it all the worse for those who came into the arrangement of 1836. If there was any case at all, it was on behalf of the clergy, and not against them. That, however, was a matter which could not be mixed up with the present Bill. If it was to be dealt with at all it must be by a separate measure.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 13 th of May next.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 63.)
  (The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)
  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." —(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  LORD DENMAN, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months, said: If the creation of more than four Courts became necessary, after the abolition of Chiefs, he hoped that, at least, each Court might have separate entries of causes—to begin at No. 1 in each, only to be transferred to other numbers, when each list might be finished. On Circuit two Chiefs often went together, and took part in the general business. And there was no need to abolish the Courts of Common Pleas and of Exche-

  179
  quer. He (Lord Denman) had been associated by statute — as a man of knightly degree—to the Lord Chief Justice of the Courts of King's Bench and of Queen's Bench, and the days of sitting could not be named till his appointment was known. At first, it took two years to bring a cause into Court—remanets produced an enormous income. The late Marshal and Associate had boxes made for the parchment records, and called them his "corn-bins;" whilst, since then, his successor, from his predecessor's determination to clear off arrears, became so great a loser, that if ever he had a horse which he had improved, he could not keep him or sell him, and was obliged to give him away. The noble Lord on the Woolsack had a horse at livery standing next to his, and both owners gave away their animals. He had not been able to put horses together lately with the noble Lord; but he hoped by August 5, when the Women's Suffrage Bill would come on, to have his continued support.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  On Question that ("now") stand part of the Motion?
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Original Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

NAVY—SHIPS OF WAR—FAILURES OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION—H.M.SS. "WARSPITE," "IMPERIEUSE," AND "COLOSSUS."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether they intend to institute any inquiry respecting the circumstances which have occasioned several of the recently constructed vessels of Her Majesty's Navy to fail in fulfilling the purposes for which they were originally designed? He referred in particular to the Impérieuse and Warspite, declaring that they were incapable of carrying more than enough coal for two days' steaming at full speed, that they had had their masts taken out of them, and that they would not carry the heavy guns it was originally intended to put into them. Those ships were admitted failures; and he desired to know, whe-
  180
  ther the Government would take the same course with regard to them that they had taken in connection with the bent swords and bayonets, and issue a searching inquiry into the matter. He also wished to know; Whether the alterations considered necessary in the steering arrangements of Her Majesty's ships Ajax and Agamemnon had proved satisfactory? The blame for the system which had produced such mischievous and expensive results to the country, so far as he could make out, was due to a most pernicious act on the part of a former First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Childers, who procured an Order in Council, by means of which the decision on the whole question of the construction of ships was taken away from the Board of Admiralty, and vested between the Chief Constructor and the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE (A LORD in WAITING)said, that the Question was put in a different form from that of which the noble Viscount (Viscount Sidmouth) had given him private Notice. The information asked for was of a very technical character, but he was, on behalf of the Admiralty, anxious to give all that he could in answer to Questions which might be put to him. With reference to the Warspite and the Impérieuse, these ships were designed in 1881, but not launched till 1884. Had the original weights been adhered to the ships would have come out as designed, but during the three years occupied in construction several improvements were effected in naval ordnance and many alterations made in the weights originally intended to be carried. Quick-firing guns and the latest designs in machinery were introduced, and the ships' complements increased, all of which added very considerably to the weights. Then, again, the original weight of coal to be carried was 400 tons. Although she has a coal-carrying capacity for 1,130 tons the present Board had decided that they should carry 900 tons. The consumption of coal when the vessel was going at full speed, would, however, lessen the draught by 4in. each day, and the daily consumption of provisions would still further lighten the draught. Of the Admiral class, the Collingwood was the only ship completed, and if the full weights that she was capable of carrying were on board, she would be 7½ inches deeper than was in-

  181
  tended, bringing the top of the armour belt within 1 foot 10½ inches of the water line. In this case also, however, there would be a daily decreace of draught of 4in. The noble Viscount wished for an inquiry—an inquiry into what? Into the reason why the ships in question had failed to fulfil the purpose for which they were originally designed. The reason was well known; it was that different weights were put into the ships over and above the legend weights The alteration in procedure and the new regulations contained in the Appendix of the Statement of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) would prevent the repetition of any of the alleged defects or miscalculations to which allusion had been made. The Government did not therefore propose to institute any inquiry. Then the noble Viscount had called attention to Mr. Childers's Order in Council of 1869, and asked how far that Order implicated the First Lord and the Chief Constructor. The Chief Constructor was answerable to the Controller, to whom it referred. The Controller was to be responsible to the First Lord of the Admiralty for so much of the business as referred to the material of the Navy—that was to say, building, repair of ships, guns, and naval stores. With regard to the Impérieuse and the Warspite, as a matter of fact the general principles of these two ships had been discussed and approved by the entire Board of Admiralty of 1881, but how far the Board have been consulted as to the details of additional weight, &c, he was unable to say. He did not know whether the noble Viscount had read the debate on the Naval Estimates in the other House, but if he had he might have noticed that Lord Charles Beresford, one of the Lords of the Admiralty, speaking on the very subject of that Order in Council, said that it was not in force at the present moment. In the Appendix to the Naval Estimates the noble Viscount would find the following words:—
  "1. Cases having recently been brought to the notice of my Lords in which the immersion of a ship when complete for sea will be seriously and prejudicially affected by reason of introduction during construction of additions and alterations to the hull, machinery, complement, armament, &c, the procedure hereafter defined is to be strictly observed. 2. When a design for a ship is required, the Controller will furnish the
  182
  Board with a general idea of the class of vessel required. 3. The Controller will, after conferring with the First Naval Lord, and obtaining his written approval as to the speed, armament, complement, and sail power, if any, instruct the Director of Naval Construction to prepare a sketch design for consideration, embodying such features as may have been decided upon by the First Naval Lord and the Controller. 4. The Director of Naval Construction, after conferring with and obtaining the opinion in writing of the Director of Naval Ordnance and the Engineer-in-Chief as to the armament and machinery respectively, is to prepare a sketch which shall be submitted to the Controller, who will bring the same before the Board. 5. If the sketch design is generally approved by the Board, orders will be given by the Controller that the design is to be worked out in detail, or modified with a view to its ultimate adoption. (The sketch design will be prepared in accordance with the following Board Minute of September 21,1886, relating to load draught.)6. The Director of Naval Construction will, in consultation with the Director of Naval Ordnance and Engineer-in-Chief, complete the design and submit it with a full and careful description of the expected qualities and capabilities of the ship for the concurrence of the Controller, by whom it will be sent to the secretary for circulation to the several members of the Board, before being considered at a Board meeting. After a design has been approved by the Board, and has received the Board's stamp, not any alteration or addition either in hull, machinery, armament, complement of men, boats or stores, or other details, shall be permitted without the concurrence of the Board. 7. The Controller shall be responsible that not any deviation from the designs approved by the Board shall take place which would in any way affect the immersion of the ship when completed for service.") — Board Minute, February 15, 1887.)
  He thought that he had answered all the Questions put to him by the noble Viscount.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that, as the noble Viscount (Viscount Sidmouth) had alluded to the Board of Admiralty which had been in Office while he (the Earl of Northbrook) was First Lord of the Admiralty, he wished to make a few remarks on what had been said. With regard to what he had said about the Impérieuse and the Warspite, he thought the noble Viscount had been very much misinformed when he described them as failures. The noble Lord (Lord Elphinstone) had explained the facts of the case, and he (the Earl of Northbrook) would refer the noble Viscount to a paper which had been read at the Institution of Naval Architects by Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, going into the whole of the circumstances connected with the alteration of the weights of the Impérieuse

  183
  and Warspite. The subject was of too technical a character to be usefully or profitably discussed in the House; but he challenged the noble Viscount to answer Sir Nathaniel Barnaby's paper. The slight increased immersion of these ships had been caused by alterations made during their progress, and had greatly improved them as fighting ships. These alterations had been in the machinery and in the armament of the ships, the armament being heavier than at first designed, and the machinery having been much improved. He would point out that within the last three or four years great changes had been effected in the construction of marine steam engines; and it was absolutely necessary, if the Admiralty wished to have the most powerful ships that could be put afloat, to utilize all these improvements in machinery. Therefore the Board of Admiralty of that time would not have been fit to hold their posts if, through any technical or pedantic adherence to the original designs, they had failed to take advantage of any improvement that had been made in the last few years. Lord George Hamilton had written in a Report which was upon their Lordships' Table, that, with the exception of being more deeply immersed, the Impérieuse had fully realized the expectations of her designers, and that she was one of the most powerful ironclad cruisers afloat. The statements of the noble Viscount, therefore, were not borne out by those best qualified to speak on the subject. With regard to Sir Nathaniel Barnaby and the Constructing Staff of the Admiralty, it was only due to that distinguished public servant to say publicly, as one under whom Sir Nathaniel Barnaby had served, that he thought that the country was greatly indebted to that gentleman for the ability with which he had designed the more recent types of fighting vessels for Her Majesty's Navy. He believed that those who had paid attention to naval affairs of late years, for the most part, attached as great importance to the element of speed in ironclads as to any other quality which these ships possessed; and if there was one point more than any other on which they might feel satisfaction, it was that all the ships that had recently been designed had on their trials realized a greater speed than was expected. The Impérieuse and Warspite
  184
  had realized 17 knots instead of 16; the same satisfactory result had been shown in the ships of the Admiral class; and in the Sanspareil and Renown, he believed the speed would be at least a knot greater than that calculated in the original designs. For this the greatest credit was due to Mr. James Wright, the chief engineering adviser of the Admiralty, for the sound and practical advice which he had given with respect to contracts made for the machinery of Her Majesty's ships, by which they had been able to take advantage of the great improvements which had been introduced in marine engines during the last five or six years. The noble Viscount had said something about the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. He (the Earl of Northbrook) did not intend to go into that thorny question at that hour of the evening; but he would say that, during the whole time he had been at the Admiralty, there had been the fullest and freest opportunity given to the Naval Lords of the Admiralty to express their views as to the construction of ships, and that it was not the case that he, as a civilian, had in any way endeavoured to push forward his own private opinions upon that technical subject against those of his professional advisers.

  MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL, [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law with respect to weighing cattle in markets and fairs—Was presented by The Earl of Camperdown; read 1a. (No. 72.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.